kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
A few months ago I got an email from Christian George, complimenting me on my blog and asking whether I would be willing to write a review of his book, Godology, as well as do a giveaway of the book. He described the book as "Like J.I. Packer's Knowing God but more up to date."
I have to admit I was flattered. (I suspect now, however, it was a form letter, judging by the number of blogs that have written reviews and done giveaways of this book.) I did tell him that I would need to read the book before I promoted it, so if he wanted to send a copy and the giveaways with that understanding, I would be happy to review it.
While I was in seminary taking a preaching lab, we always knew the professor was getting ready to be highly critical when he began his critique by complimenting the preacher on his clothing. Nothing good followed, "Well, [insert name of poor student here], you are wearing a great looking tie..." The reason the professor did this was because he always wanted to say something positive to the preacher. The funny thing was, he only commented on appearance when there was nothing else good to say.
In the spirit of wanting to say something complimentary, let me say that Christian George has a great vocabulary and he uses it very well. He also is scrupulous about citing sources. As we live in an age in which the Internet has made plagiarism a snap, I appreciate that about him. Having exhausted my positive comments of this stinker of a book, let me turn to its actual content.
Godology is awfully researched.
It is not immediately apparent what Godology is even about (see below), but its shallowness is very apparent. George has 132 citations. Of those, 1 is a remark a classmate made to him, 8 come from addreses or sermons he heard while in seminary, 8 are personal comments, 10 refer to websites, 5 are from magazine articles (almost always Christianity Today), and four from movies or TV shows. That still leaves 101 citations from books, which on the surface seems impressive, at least until you start paying attention. It is then that you realize that of those 101 books, 59% of the citations are from page 100 or less and 36% of them are from page 50 or less! (17% of the quotes are drawn from secondary sources. He did not even bother to look up the original statements in their contexts.)
It is not difficult to imagine George with a massive pile of books around him, sitting at a library table and flipping through a book until he finds a soundbite, then exclaiming, "Ooooo, I like that one," then placing the book down and reaching for the next. It is almost amusing then, that on page 14 he quotes Packer in observing that "Christianity in America is three thousand miles wide and one inch deep." This book is similarly shallow.
Godology is awfully written.
As I noted above, George has a great command of the English language. He writes vividly, but he writes poorly. Firstly, the book is literarily awful. He meanders. While the chapters provide some structure to the book, paragraphs, at times even sentences, have little connection to the others around it. This leaves the reader confused at times, wondering what in the world George is talking about. He also needlessly (and irritatingly) dumbs down theology. On the back cover, Chuck Colson says that George speaks "in a language that young evangelicals will access." Perhaps, but these purported evangelicals should be educated, not accomodated.
George speaks about theology using metaphors and similies, but he uses too much of a good(?) thing. They never stop. The reader quickly grows weary of them and, in my case, irritated by them. You can only take so much "God is like a hot dog." (To be fair, George never uses that particular comparison...though he does devote an entire chapter to the notion that God is like chocolate!)
That leads to the fact that the book is theologically awful (as well as dumbing it down). Beyond becoming annoying, George's endless piling on of similes and metaphors quickly becomes irreverent, unorthodox, and even blasphemous. Consider:
Before cities were constructed or worlds created, God hung out with Himself. He was his own party. (p.18)
Admittedly, this is early on in the book, so my wrath was not yet aroused, but seriously, what is gained by likening the eternal, inter-Trinitarian fellowship to a party, especially when the party in question is the druken observance of Mardi Gras (which gives the first chapter its name)?
Describing the Trinity, he says,
"Like a three-way mirror, each person in the Godhead satellites the other--an eternal reflection."
It hardly overstates the truth that when you say, "God is like," the next words out of your mouth are going to heterodox and probably blasphemous to boot. God is like no one and nothing. That is why God demanded through Isaiah, "To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One." (Isa. 40:25)
But beyond that, what does George mean? A reflection is not the thing being reflected, so is he a modalist? I really want to believe that he is not, but the awful comparisons continue.
"Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)
Sorry, but that is not remotely orthodox. The leaves of a clover are not the clover nor are the states of water, water.
George describes the outpouring of the Spirit as, "a tag team of epic proportion...He is our teleprompter...our energy drink." (p. 21)
Really? You can actually reduce the outpouring of the Spirit to something so banal, something so common?
Let me continue, Gentle Reader, with a litany of similar, irreverent and/or nonsensical quotes:
"My generation, 'the pilgrim generation,' is naturally more ecumenical because we have a universal faith at our fingertips." (p. 23)
Funny, I thought there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
"Glory shines, but it also bleeds...glory...had leaky veins." (p. 25)
What in the world does that mean?
"One day Christ...will parade through paradise and we will throw beads before His throne." (p. 26)
I am not sure that the well-known association of throwing Mardi Gras beads and women baring their breasts in public (whether or not it is an official Mardi Gras tradition, it certainly is a common place occurrence) makes for an apt illustration for eternal worship. Why not use the biblical language of casting our crowns before the Throne?
"Jesus Ninja" (chapter 2 title, p. 29)
Ninjas were feudal assassains and sabatouers. Again, is this really a good illustration of the person and work of Christ?
"[God] stretches His hammock from the Statue of Liberty to the Coliseum in Rome." [p. 30]
Admittedly, George is trying to use "hip" language to say things the Bible says, like, "Thus says the LORD: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?'" (Isa. 66:1) But why not just quote the Bible? Why use an image that suggests laziness, as hammocks do?
"[God is] also an anteater." (p. 31)
Uh, no he is not, and the suggestion is horrifying.
"Humans are not tall creatures, but we do worship a tall God. A venti God, if we're ordering at Starbucks." (p. 31)
Another example of trying to be cute, another example of (hopefully) inadvertant blasphemy. God is a spirit. He has no body and therefore no height. He certainly is NOTHING like a cup of coffee.
"Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century..." (p. 31)
Now there is a telling comment. I do not know a conservative theologian worth his salt that would call Barth great. Significant? Yes. Has to be dealt with? Absolutely. Great. I don't think so, Tim.
"And then God spoke...From the same throat came three chords--Father, Son, and Spirit--a holy harmonic." (p. 39)
More apparent modalism.
"Showing Some Skin" (chapter 4 title, p. 51) "...God showed some skin in the person of Jesus Christ." (p. 55)
Here George uses a well-known euphemism for immodesty and nudity as a description of the Incarnation. Is that appropriate? No. No, it isn't.
"Nicea (modern-day Turkey)" (p.52)
Another example of poor research. Nicea is a city, not a country.
"Journaling is a celebration of the incarnation." [sic] (p. 55, he makes a similar remark on page 57)
It is? How? He does not explain these odd remarks.
"A rugged, earthy form of Christianity is spreading through our culture--a new monasticism." (p. 57)
George seems to have a deep love for medieval Catholicism. More on this later.
"God...flickered to earth as a 100 watt Nazareth bulb...God-with-us became God-is-us." (p.65)
So suddenly I find myself questioning his Christology, too. Is he just trying to be cute or is he questioning that Jesus had two natures, united in one person? I cannot tell and he does not say anything to alleviate my worries.
"Holiness...is the lone Kit Kat bar in a bucket of Butterfingers." (p. 66)
What an utter affront to God's holiness.
"Holiness is a gradual process." (p. 66)
Uh, no, Mr. George, sanctification is a process. We are made holy instantly by the holy God who redeemed us. How did you get through seminary with such theologically sloppy language? (Note: His father is president of Beeson Divinity School, the school that awarded George's MDiv. Hmmmmmm.)
"Christianity is a movement of cooperation with Christ. We push; God pulls. This is a strange synergism, but step by step, row by row, we forge our way to holiness." (p. 67)
No, in a strange mystery, we cooperate with God's Spirit in our progressive sanctification. If you really mean holiness, then I suspect you are also not Reformed.
"Refreshment in the monastic traditions." (p.69)
Ok, so a modalistic, Apollinarian, medieval Catholic?
"After Moses listened to God on the summit of Mt. Sinai, the Israelites had to bag his head because his face shined so brightly." (p. 72)
No, he veiled himself because the glory of God on his face was fading. (2 Co.3:13)
"The more [God created], the more He loved." (p. 77)
Suggesting that there is change or development in God?
"There are many taste buds on God's tongue...He doesn't just enjoy American burgers and fries...God eats Indian curry Chinese noodles, and Mexican enchiladas. He's no stranger to Belgian waffles, kung pao chicken, fish and chips, and spaghetti with meatballs. If God's [sic] never had a snowball from New Orleans, I recommend the jumbo Dreamsickle, heavy on the condensed milk." (p. 86)
Utterly, blasphemous drivel. Why can you not speak of God's redeeming people from every nation, language, and tongue? Why must you needlessly anthropomorphize God and then offer him advice? Like he needs any.
"Why does God get to be jealous and we can't? Because God is at the top of the food chain. Simple as that." (p. 91)
I understand what you are saying, but could you not have said it in a more reverent, less confusing way? God is not a predator, nor does he demand worship because he is stronger than everyone else, as your appeal to the food chain implies. He does so because he alone is God and there is no other.
"As actor Leslie Nielsen said, 'The truth hurts...Oh sure, maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts!'" (p. 95)
Must we be crude, to speak about God?
"Art Hoppe had a point: 'If there's no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?'"(p. 105)
I fail to see what the point is, nor what place it has in this book.
"We sometimes see God as a reclining deity, uninvolved in the course of life. We cloak this concept as God's foreknowledge." (p. 108)
Clearly, someone does not understand the biblical ideal of divine foreknowledge. It has nothing to do with deism.
"It takes a ton of sewage to clog [God's] septic tank." [p. 120]
I cannot even begin to articulate how awful and blasphemous that statement is. Can you not just speak of God's longsuffering?
"God gave us Himself in three way: His Word, His Son, and His Spirit. [editorial comment: I wish he had stopped there!] We can also view it as His lips, His skin, and His heart." (p. 135)
More modalistic language. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this guys is heterodox regarding the Trinity.
"God has a sobering message for America: How high can I lift you before I lose you?" (p. 150)
So, is George suggesting God loses those whom he redeems? So now we have a modalistic, Apollinarian, Arminian, medieval Catholic?
The book concludes with this little gem:
"This book has been my exploration of God, my Jesus mud-wrap. Yet it's far from complete. The deeper I dig into God's attributes, the shallower [sic] I find myself. How can anyone describe the Indescribable?" (p. 160)
Shallow indeed. Keep digging, Mr. George.
Godology is awful in its recommendations.
In the book, George seeks to describe an attribute of God (ahem!) and then discuss a "spiritual discipline" that is supposed to reveal that attribute of God more fully. He seems to have fallen in love with medieval Catholic monasticism. Consider some of the things on list of disciplines:
* Silence
* Solitude
* Labyrinth walking (???)
He makes many approving remarks in the book about monasticism but even some of his more "normal" disciplines are expressed in bizarre ways. Consider his discussion of meditation (a biblical discipline, to be sure):
"Meditation makes the mundane things of life magical. Simple objects become gateways to God. A blade of grass points to God's creativity. A sheet of rock reflects his protection. Even the drippings of a leaky radiator reveal God's ever-flowing love. Meditation focuses our minds on a single subject--a poem, a picture, a leaf, a rusted bicycle wheel--and shows us Christ in the ordinary...Isolate a single object...wrap your mind around it. Engage it, observe it, apply it. Encounter it with your senses...lick it if you have to." (pp. 109-110)
I wonder if Mr. George has been meditating on toads. Maybe not.
When it comes to fasting, Geore approvingly speaks of a "digital fast." (P. 84) That's right, put down your IPod as a way of denying yourself. Deep.
He also suggests walking a labyrinth (like in a Cathedral, but you can make your own), admitting that, "For Protestants, labyrinth walking is a relatively new discipline." (p. 138) Evidently. I never even knew Catholics had done this in the past!
Conspicuously absent in all of his recommendations is the promotion of the God ordained means of grace. Nothing said about the sufficiency of Scripture and our need to immerse ourselves in it. Nothing said about the Sacraments. Very little said about prayer. Nothing said about public and private worship. In the final analysis I am almost forced to wonder what god George is studying in Godology.
Finally, I am astounded that George was able to get J.I. Packer to write the forward to the book. Packer is an accomplished theologian and George...well, George is not. To be fair, I was warned. Packer says,
"[George's] expositions [editorial remark: a VERY generous characterization!] sting and stimulate simultaneously, in the manner of Tobasco sauce. Tobasco, of course, though loved by great numbers is not to everyone's taste...The title Godology gives fair warning of what is to come, and if you are not going to appreciate George's semi-pop idiom, you had best conclude straightaway that this book is not for you."
In conclusion, then, can I recommend this book? Not on your life. It is inane, irreverent, and irrelevant. Still, I reviewed it as promised. I have two copies to give away. If you are interested in one, so you can better educate yourself on how not to do theology, how dumbing down the discussion of God distances people from knowing God, or how to point people away from God by directing to means that he has not appointed, then let me know. I will be happy to send one to you. Otherwise in a week, I willl put them where they belong: in the trash.
I have to admit I was flattered. (I suspect now, however, it was a form letter, judging by the number of blogs that have written reviews and done giveaways of this book.) I did tell him that I would need to read the book before I promoted it, so if he wanted to send a copy and the giveaways with that understanding, I would be happy to review it.
While I was in seminary taking a preaching lab, we always knew the professor was getting ready to be highly critical when he began his critique by complimenting the preacher on his clothing. Nothing good followed, "Well, [insert name of poor student here], you are wearing a great looking tie..." The reason the professor did this was because he always wanted to say something positive to the preacher. The funny thing was, he only commented on appearance when there was nothing else good to say.
In the spirit of wanting to say something complimentary, let me say that Christian George has a great vocabulary and he uses it very well. He also is scrupulous about citing sources. As we live in an age in which the Internet has made plagiarism a snap, I appreciate that about him. Having exhausted my positive comments of this stinker of a book, let me turn to its actual content.
Godology is awfully researched.
It is not immediately apparent what Godology is even about (see below), but its shallowness is very apparent. George has 132 citations. Of those, 1 is a remark a classmate made to him, 8 come from addreses or sermons he heard while in seminary, 8 are personal comments, 10 refer to websites, 5 are from magazine articles (almost always Christianity Today), and four from movies or TV shows. That still leaves 101 citations from books, which on the surface seems impressive, at least until you start paying attention. It is then that you realize that of those 101 books, 59% of the citations are from page 100 or less and 36% of them are from page 50 or less! (17% of the quotes are drawn from secondary sources. He did not even bother to look up the original statements in their contexts.)
It is not difficult to imagine George with a massive pile of books around him, sitting at a library table and flipping through a book until he finds a soundbite, then exclaiming, "Ooooo, I like that one," then placing the book down and reaching for the next. It is almost amusing then, that on page 14 he quotes Packer in observing that "Christianity in America is three thousand miles wide and one inch deep." This book is similarly shallow.
Godology is awfully written.
As I noted above, George has a great command of the English language. He writes vividly, but he writes poorly. Firstly, the book is literarily awful. He meanders. While the chapters provide some structure to the book, paragraphs, at times even sentences, have little connection to the others around it. This leaves the reader confused at times, wondering what in the world George is talking about. He also needlessly (and irritatingly) dumbs down theology. On the back cover, Chuck Colson says that George speaks "in a language that young evangelicals will access." Perhaps, but these purported evangelicals should be educated, not accomodated.
George speaks about theology using metaphors and similies, but he uses too much of a good(?) thing. They never stop. The reader quickly grows weary of them and, in my case, irritated by them. You can only take so much "God is like a hot dog." (To be fair, George never uses that particular comparison...though he does devote an entire chapter to the notion that God is like chocolate!)
That leads to the fact that the book is theologically awful (as well as dumbing it down). Beyond becoming annoying, George's endless piling on of similes and metaphors quickly becomes irreverent, unorthodox, and even blasphemous. Consider:
Before cities were constructed or worlds created, God hung out with Himself. He was his own party. (p.18)
Admittedly, this is early on in the book, so my wrath was not yet aroused, but seriously, what is gained by likening the eternal, inter-Trinitarian fellowship to a party, especially when the party in question is the druken observance of Mardi Gras (which gives the first chapter its name)?
Describing the Trinity, he says,
"Like a three-way mirror, each person in the Godhead satellites the other--an eternal reflection."
It hardly overstates the truth that when you say, "God is like," the next words out of your mouth are going to heterodox and probably blasphemous to boot. God is like no one and nothing. That is why God demanded through Isaiah, "To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One." (Isa. 40:25)
But beyond that, what does George mean? A reflection is not the thing being reflected, so is he a modalist? I really want to believe that he is not, but the awful comparisons continue.
"Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)
Sorry, but that is not remotely orthodox. The leaves of a clover are not the clover nor are the states of water, water.
George describes the outpouring of the Spirit as, "a tag team of epic proportion...He is our teleprompter...our energy drink." (p. 21)
Really? You can actually reduce the outpouring of the Spirit to something so banal, something so common?
Let me continue, Gentle Reader, with a litany of similar, irreverent and/or nonsensical quotes:
"My generation, 'the pilgrim generation,' is naturally more ecumenical because we have a universal faith at our fingertips." (p. 23)
Funny, I thought there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
"Glory shines, but it also bleeds...glory...had leaky veins." (p. 25)
What in the world does that mean?
"One day Christ...will parade through paradise and we will throw beads before His throne." (p. 26)
I am not sure that the well-known association of throwing Mardi Gras beads and women baring their breasts in public (whether or not it is an official Mardi Gras tradition, it certainly is a common place occurrence) makes for an apt illustration for eternal worship. Why not use the biblical language of casting our crowns before the Throne?
"Jesus Ninja" (chapter 2 title, p. 29)
Ninjas were feudal assassains and sabatouers. Again, is this really a good illustration of the person and work of Christ?
"[God] stretches His hammock from the Statue of Liberty to the Coliseum in Rome." [p. 30]
Admittedly, George is trying to use "hip" language to say things the Bible says, like, "Thus says the LORD: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?'" (Isa. 66:1) But why not just quote the Bible? Why use an image that suggests laziness, as hammocks do?
"[God is] also an anteater." (p. 31)
Uh, no he is not, and the suggestion is horrifying.
"Humans are not tall creatures, but we do worship a tall God. A venti God, if we're ordering at Starbucks." (p. 31)
Another example of trying to be cute, another example of (hopefully) inadvertant blasphemy. God is a spirit. He has no body and therefore no height. He certainly is NOTHING like a cup of coffee.
"Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century..." (p. 31)
Now there is a telling comment. I do not know a conservative theologian worth his salt that would call Barth great. Significant? Yes. Has to be dealt with? Absolutely. Great. I don't think so, Tim.
"And then God spoke...From the same throat came three chords--Father, Son, and Spirit--a holy harmonic." (p. 39)
More apparent modalism.
"Showing Some Skin" (chapter 4 title, p. 51) "...God showed some skin in the person of Jesus Christ." (p. 55)
Here George uses a well-known euphemism for immodesty and nudity as a description of the Incarnation. Is that appropriate? No. No, it isn't.
"Nicea (modern-day Turkey)" (p.52)
Another example of poor research. Nicea is a city, not a country.
"Journaling is a celebration of the incarnation." [sic] (p. 55, he makes a similar remark on page 57)
It is? How? He does not explain these odd remarks.
"A rugged, earthy form of Christianity is spreading through our culture--a new monasticism." (p. 57)
George seems to have a deep love for medieval Catholicism. More on this later.
"God...flickered to earth as a 100 watt Nazareth bulb...God-with-us became God-is-us." (p.65)
So suddenly I find myself questioning his Christology, too. Is he just trying to be cute or is he questioning that Jesus had two natures, united in one person? I cannot tell and he does not say anything to alleviate my worries.
"Holiness...is the lone Kit Kat bar in a bucket of Butterfingers." (p. 66)
What an utter affront to God's holiness.
"Holiness is a gradual process." (p. 66)
Uh, no, Mr. George, sanctification is a process. We are made holy instantly by the holy God who redeemed us. How did you get through seminary with such theologically sloppy language? (Note: His father is president of Beeson Divinity School, the school that awarded George's MDiv. Hmmmmmm.)
"Christianity is a movement of cooperation with Christ. We push; God pulls. This is a strange synergism, but step by step, row by row, we forge our way to holiness." (p. 67)
No, in a strange mystery, we cooperate with God's Spirit in our progressive sanctification. If you really mean holiness, then I suspect you are also not Reformed.
"Refreshment in the monastic traditions." (p.69)
Ok, so a modalistic, Apollinarian, medieval Catholic?
"After Moses listened to God on the summit of Mt. Sinai, the Israelites had to bag his head because his face shined so brightly." (p. 72)
No, he veiled himself because the glory of God on his face was fading. (2 Co.3:13)
"The more [God created], the more He loved." (p. 77)
Suggesting that there is change or development in God?
"There are many taste buds on God's tongue...He doesn't just enjoy American burgers and fries...God eats Indian curry Chinese noodles, and Mexican enchiladas. He's no stranger to Belgian waffles, kung pao chicken, fish and chips, and spaghetti with meatballs. If God's [sic] never had a snowball from New Orleans, I recommend the jumbo Dreamsickle, heavy on the condensed milk." (p. 86)
Utterly, blasphemous drivel. Why can you not speak of God's redeeming people from every nation, language, and tongue? Why must you needlessly anthropomorphize God and then offer him advice? Like he needs any.
"Why does God get to be jealous and we can't? Because God is at the top of the food chain. Simple as that." (p. 91)
I understand what you are saying, but could you not have said it in a more reverent, less confusing way? God is not a predator, nor does he demand worship because he is stronger than everyone else, as your appeal to the food chain implies. He does so because he alone is God and there is no other.
"As actor Leslie Nielsen said, 'The truth hurts...Oh sure, maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts!'" (p. 95)
Must we be crude, to speak about God?
"Art Hoppe had a point: 'If there's no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?'"(p. 105)
I fail to see what the point is, nor what place it has in this book.
"We sometimes see God as a reclining deity, uninvolved in the course of life. We cloak this concept as God's foreknowledge." (p. 108)
Clearly, someone does not understand the biblical ideal of divine foreknowledge. It has nothing to do with deism.
"It takes a ton of sewage to clog [God's] septic tank." [p. 120]
I cannot even begin to articulate how awful and blasphemous that statement is. Can you not just speak of God's longsuffering?
"God gave us Himself in three way: His Word, His Son, and His Spirit. [editorial comment: I wish he had stopped there!] We can also view it as His lips, His skin, and His heart." (p. 135)
More modalistic language. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this guys is heterodox regarding the Trinity.
"God has a sobering message for America: How high can I lift you before I lose you?" (p. 150)
So, is George suggesting God loses those whom he redeems? So now we have a modalistic, Apollinarian, Arminian, medieval Catholic?
The book concludes with this little gem:
"This book has been my exploration of God, my Jesus mud-wrap. Yet it's far from complete. The deeper I dig into God's attributes, the shallower [sic] I find myself. How can anyone describe the Indescribable?" (p. 160)
Shallow indeed. Keep digging, Mr. George.
Godology is awful in its recommendations.
In the book, George seeks to describe an attribute of God (ahem!) and then discuss a "spiritual discipline" that is supposed to reveal that attribute of God more fully. He seems to have fallen in love with medieval Catholic monasticism. Consider some of the things on list of disciplines:
* Silence
* Solitude
* Labyrinth walking (???)
He makes many approving remarks in the book about monasticism but even some of his more "normal" disciplines are expressed in bizarre ways. Consider his discussion of meditation (a biblical discipline, to be sure):
"Meditation makes the mundane things of life magical. Simple objects become gateways to God. A blade of grass points to God's creativity. A sheet of rock reflects his protection. Even the drippings of a leaky radiator reveal God's ever-flowing love. Meditation focuses our minds on a single subject--a poem, a picture, a leaf, a rusted bicycle wheel--and shows us Christ in the ordinary...Isolate a single object...wrap your mind around it. Engage it, observe it, apply it. Encounter it with your senses...lick it if you have to." (pp. 109-110)
I wonder if Mr. George has been meditating on toads. Maybe not.
When it comes to fasting, Geore approvingly speaks of a "digital fast." (P. 84) That's right, put down your IPod as a way of denying yourself. Deep.
He also suggests walking a labyrinth (like in a Cathedral, but you can make your own), admitting that, "For Protestants, labyrinth walking is a relatively new discipline." (p. 138) Evidently. I never even knew Catholics had done this in the past!
Conspicuously absent in all of his recommendations is the promotion of the God ordained means of grace. Nothing said about the sufficiency of Scripture and our need to immerse ourselves in it. Nothing said about the Sacraments. Very little said about prayer. Nothing said about public and private worship. In the final analysis I am almost forced to wonder what god George is studying in Godology.
Finally, I am astounded that George was able to get J.I. Packer to write the forward to the book. Packer is an accomplished theologian and George...well, George is not. To be fair, I was warned. Packer says,
"[George's] expositions [editorial remark: a VERY generous characterization!] sting and stimulate simultaneously, in the manner of Tobasco sauce. Tobasco, of course, though loved by great numbers is not to everyone's taste...The title Godology gives fair warning of what is to come, and if you are not going to appreciate George's semi-pop idiom, you had best conclude straightaway that this book is not for you."
In conclusion, then, can I recommend this book? Not on your life. It is inane, irreverent, and irrelevant. Still, I reviewed it as promised. I have two copies to give away. If you are interested in one, so you can better educate yourself on how not to do theology, how dumbing down the discussion of God distances people from knowing God, or how to point people away from God by directing to means that he has not appointed, then let me know. I will be happy to send one to you. Otherwise in a week, I willl put them where they belong: in the trash.