Douglas Wilson Books

When I finished this most controversial book, I looked up from its pages and thought, "What's to disagree about? This sounds like what I have always understood to be the reformed faith!" Those that disagree with the book do not understand the high sacramentalism of their own Westminster standards. Wilson says nothing that the Bible, nor the WCF already say. What has happened in the reformed world is this: in the wake of the 2nd Great Awakening, presbyterians lost their high covenant theology for a Zwinglian-Baptistic-pietistic theology that demanded confessions of faith for covenant children and we lost our belief in the efficacy of the sacraments particularly baptism. Wilson's book is sure to charge the pietist mind with loomings of Rome; I would urge those offended to restudy the confession, be converted or go down the street to the local Baptist church and be done with it.

Doug Wilson is a bit of lightening rod. Whether it is the good people of Moscow, ID or his fellow Reformed brethren, Wilson has a tendency to cause people to either love him or hate. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy him - it hasn't always been that way, but I had the opportunity to meet him in person and he exemplified Christian humility. He, in a sense, has a Pauline aspect to him and his writing, "strong in letter", although I wouldn't call him weak in person. With that said, I will get into this review:

First, please read the book and not simply buy into some of the negative reviews. The reviews I have read, for the most part, are great distortions of the contents of this book. For example, two negative reviews here ("Right-Wing Propaganda" and "A Great Defense of R.C. Theology") are completely misguided. So, if someone claims that Wilson believes in "baptismal regeneration" or absolutizes the statement "Christians can fall away" demonstrates that they have not read Wilson charitably, but looking to find fault and responding merely to words rather than the argument. Within the context of this book, his language is clear. Next, this book has nothing to do with "right-wing" anything. Please, please, please read the book.

Second, the contents: In Part I, in order to lay the ground work, Wilson goes through the "Bona Fides" (Calvinistic, Evangelical, Reformation, Tradition & Systematics, & Individualism). Anyone that believes Wilson denies "justification by faith alone", "Calvinism", or thinks he believes in "baptismal regeneration" simply has not read this section closely. He clearly holds to the WCF respecting the sovereignty of God and imputation of Christ's righteousness. Part II delves into the "Covenant, Church, & Sacraments". I wish he would tweak certain things here and there, but as an introduction to the "objectivity of the covenant", this section serves as a suitable helper, especially reintroducing many within the Church to the Reformational view of the sacraments (not sacerdotalism). Part III covers "Apostasy and Assurance". Here he discusses Assurance, Apostasy, Heretics and the Covenant, Sons of Belial, False Brothers, Blessings and Curses. This is an important section, because he helps with many of the practical implications of the "objectivity of the covenant", which "Reformed", as usually set up as simply 5 points, will often break down. The fourth and final section discusses "Faith and Good Works". This section will assure anyone that believes he denies justification by "faith alone", and will cause the Reformed, which are often too influenced by Luther hermeneutic, to rejoice in the Torah of the Lord. He ends the book with a brief critique of the "New Perspective on Paul", which is often accused of being a part of. This should make that point moot, but since enough people have said he is, it has some sticking power.

Third, acquire the book and read it for yourself. The Scriptures, I believe, are opened up more clearly through the lens of the covenant rather than the "five points" proper. For those that want to protest, claiming this is a recent phenomenon must recognize that Dordt was only 400 years ago. The "five points", in light of Church history, is relative newcomer. With that said, there is nothing in this book that denies the essence of the Reformation, but it will help you gain a rich understanding of the Reformation and, more importantly, your Bible.

This is a good book, popularly written, and will allow you to get into the nut and bolts of Wilson's thinking.

Wonderful book! Reading this book has reassured me that there are still some people who are faithful to the historic reformed faith. In times when sacrements are seen as empty signs and covenant is replaced by individualism, a book like this one is very refreshing.

It's difficult to express how saddened I am to read how far from the Reformed message, for which so many Christians were martyred, Douglas Wilson has strayed. One reviewer says all that distinguishes Wilson's theology from Catholicism is its lack of purgatory. To be fair, he also omitted the Pope, but he won't survive long without him; he's on the same course that other ex-Reformed "theologians" like Scott Hahn and Gary Matatics have taken to Rome. Of course, since the real issue isn't the Pope vs. Scripture, but Scripture vs. an infallible interpreter (the Mormon prophet, the board of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, etc. are other competitors for the title), perhaps Wilson will claim the position for himself. The tone of his book, with its inconsistent but dogmatic definitions, suggests he might. [Rome, by the way, cannot appeal to Scripture to defend the Papacy, since it defends Papal authority on grounds that private interpretation of Scripture is unreliable. Any appeal to Scripture, therefore, is circular. The Pope is the authority because Scripture says so; Scripture's testimony is true because the Pope says it is.] Much of Wilson's book is written with the same circular logic, totally ignoring Scripture. Reformed theology has never taught that Infant Baptism makes one a Christian except in a symbolic sense; it is the equivalent of circumcision. All Wilson is doing is making an argument against infant baptism to the delight of those supporting believer's baptism (those who are of the age of reason). So, no, a Muslim cannot objectively identify a Christian; he can only identify someone who CLAIMS to be a Christian. (Writing this sentence simply reminds me of how shallow this book is; did Wilson ever take a course in logic?) Moreover, if one is required to perform works to safeguard one's salvation, when is one ever sure of salvations? (The answer is "never".) As for losing salvation once given by God, let's look at the Scriptural support: John 10:28: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand." John 10:29: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." Phil 1:6: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." And, who can separate us from the love of God? asks Paul. After listing all the great dangers (life, death, famine, tribulation, demons, he adds, "nor anything else in all creation, [and that includes ourselves, my note] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Finally, Paul refers us to the "Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption," (Eph 4:30) a seal being a guarantee, a mark of ownership. And, no wonder, for we are also told "You are not your own; you were bought at a price." (1 Cor 6:19b-20a) Now perhaps Douglas Wilson knows someone stronger than God the Father, or can explain why Paul was wrong, and how the Holy Spirit can fail in His mission as a guarantee of our redemption. As for me, I think I'll put my faith in them rather than him to assure perseverance of the Saints -- not on our strength but on God's. He has totally misunderstood the role of baptism and works. A final note on Wilson's fuzzy thinking: The analogy of the adulterous husband is a false one. Whether a person is a Christian depends on God, not the person. Whether a person is a husband depends on whether he takes marital vows, not what he does with them. That's why John was so emphatic when he wrote in 1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us." To make his point absolutely clear, he adds, "For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their going SHOWED that none of them belonged to us." Please note that these were not merely nominal Christians but prominent members of the early church, well-respected men. Based on the historical context, some scholars believe they were perhaps even church elders who became corrupted. They may have been as prominent as Douglas Wilson himself, their names lost to history only because they were not really of us. Note that John never says they stopped calling themselves Christians. How many corrupt televangelists bring discredit on the Body of Christ by using his name? Can a Muslim know objectively that he is a Christian just because he claims the name? In the current Presidential election, Mitt Romney, the member of a polytheistic faith claims the name Christian. Does that make him one? I'm not questioning his morals, by the way. I was Legislative Director for a Mormon congressman for three years and would put his integrity up against almost anyone in politics today. My point is that Wilson's measurement of a Christian -- someone who calls himself one -- isn't God's standard. This is a layman's review. For a more scholarly one, I recommend Not Reformed at All: Medievalism in "Reformed" Churches (Trinity Paper,)

As a devout Christian, I must say that this is by far the worst book I have ever read about ANYTHING! It does nothing more than chastise those with different beliefs, which is, by far, the must distorted view of the Bible possible. Propaganda for people who do not think for themselves and do not understand the real meaning of the Bible.

Douglas Wilson is becoming more and more well known by evangelicals world-wise as a man of deep faith and deep wisdom. His books on atheism in response to atheists Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins are highly praised.

This book is on the church, but it is much more than that. It is nothing less than a manifesto on "How to be Church for the World." He is not afraid to speak truth, even hard truth. As he says in the book, "when Christians call for smooth words, easy words, the result is hard people. When we submit to hard words, we become the tender-hearted of God ... Marriages dissolve, heresies proliferate, parents abandon children, churches split, children heap contempt on their parents ... bitterness, rancor, envy, and malice abound - and all because the people will not abide that loathsome jackhammer, 'Thou shalt not.'" (p. 77).

The book is full of practical advice on things to do with your ministry - for instance, how to start a literature ministry. Wilson's approach to church has led a tenth of people in his town to worship with his church. They got so many people that they had to start another church just to fit everyone who wanted to "do church" they way they do. Our Lord says to judge men by their fruits, and the fruits of Wilson's covenant community in Idaho is certainly indicative of his approach - which is simply to teach and live out the whole covenant gospel, in family, church, and in community. And unlike many of the megachurches, Wilson's approach is not an unchallenging no-nevermind Christianity. The qualifications for being a pastor or elder or decon in the church are stiff, and Wilson lays them out brilliantly. The book also includes a "Questions for Elders and Their Wives" based on the biblical criteria. They're tough, but no more than God's standards for those leading the church.

He covers translation issues (and his analysis is so clear that it alone is nearly worth the price of the book), preaching, the sacraments, the sabbath, the liturgical principles (order of worship), worship music (this is the weakest section of the book), church structure and heirarchy, the character of the minister, and the life of the church, as well as taking a Scriptural approach to issues like abortion, women ministers, youth ministry, the church's place in politics (both local as well as national), marriage licenses, evangelism, and the place of apologetics.

I was surprised by the claims of some of the reviewers here. One claims that Wilson merely proof-texts, but a flip through the book shows that he comments and elucidates on a lot of passages, and cites many more, often including context as well. Some of this is unavoidable since the book is a manifesto covering the bird's eye of a large number of topics. Many references allow the reader to read up in interested areas. And speaking of references, one review also claims that Wilson merely cites himself. I'm not sure why this common practice is such a problem for that reviewer, but in any case a quick thumb through the notes reveals that Wilson only cites himself 9 times (twice for the same book, once simply acknowledging that a subsection appeared elsewhere, bringing the actual total down to 6 times.

Another reviewer noted that they were repulsed by some of the things Wilson said, especially by a quote on abortion. This quote as they give it in the review is thus, "[W]e must take up arms to defend God's covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical."

This is not what the book says. This gives the impression that Wilson encourages violent revolution. Here is the actual quote: "[W]e must take up arms to defend God's covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after our children. We ought not take up arms to overthrow the established authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical." (245). The rest of the quoted material appears in the book, but only the hard words are quoted. Context makes it clear that "God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23), and neither should we. But if they persist in loving death after hearing the truth over the course of decades, then ... let them kill themselves." (245).

Secondly, Wilson grounds his position in original sin, writing "whenever a descendant of Adam dies, he is receiving nothing less than he deserves. In Adam we all die. ... The administration of this death, however, is in the hands of the sovereign God alone . . . We bear the image of God, and whenever anyone is slain outside of the due process of law, the land is defiled in blood," (244). Perhaps we should listen to God rather than to hold Him to standards higher than He commands. Perhaps we should listen to what God says when He judges rebellious cultures and nations in history rather than complain that God's position is too unpleasant for covenant-breakers.

For a breath of fresh air, air that is unafraid to call sin what it is and that God judges it in history, air that says precisely what God says without flinching or embarrassment, pick up this book.

As I sat reading this, I read many statements made by Wilson, and nearly every time, my husband said "He didn't really say that, did he?" Wilson said many bizarre things in this book.

Probably one of the most offensive stances was his commentary on the pro-life movement (Translation: The Reformed should pray that the children of the heathen die as God's enemies and with a "more power to ya" attitude. This is social darwinism at its finest.) GAG!:

Chapter X: "The Life of the Church"


Moving Beyond Pro-Life (sub-title in Chapter X)

Pgs 245 - 246

In the hard providence of God, He sometimes allows His enemies to destroy themselves. When the pagan nations outside Israel sent their children into the fires of Molech, Israel wasn't called to blockade the fire and rescue the babies. And when Israelite kings followed Molech, the people were not commanded to revolt. Israelites were to make sure they didn't kill their own children (Lev 20), but God-haters were left to destroy themselves (Is 57:13; Jer 5:19; 6:19, 21)...

Let them kill themselves, for "God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Rom 1:28), even "murder" (Rom 1:29). This is the wrath of God...

[W]e must take up arms to defend God's covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical.

We must remember the antithesis. Scripture always remembers that deep chasm between those seeking to honor God and those who hate him. But this has not been a part of contemporary pro-life rhetoric.

The unbelievers are destroying themselves in a frenzy of child-murder and fruitless sodomy. Let them go. These are hard words. But Christians must learn to say them. Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are "foul" or "unclean" (I Cor 7:14). We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are "without natural affection" and say - "The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen."

One of Wilson's best. Covers many aspects of theology of the church to starting a literature ministry

Ok I didn't finish the book, I made it through the first few chapters and scanned the rest, it is possible something in here made up for what I waded through but for what its worth. This is a collection of Wilson's idiosyncratic opinions. He presents his own ideas rather than solid theological arguments, proof texts instead of sound exegesis and uses colorful rhetoric rather than logical debate. The footnotes I read pointed to other books published by the author rather than backing up his statements. You may agree with everything Wilson says, for me I found him untrustworthy and outside the mainstream witness of the Reformed and Evangelical faith.

Like the first two readers who reviewed Mother Kirk, I give this book a 5 star rating. Unlike the anonymous reviewer who gave the book only a one star rating after reading just the first few chapters, I believe Mother Kirk provides solid theological arguments built with compelling logic on a foundation of Scripture. In fact, Doug Wilson stands apart from many mainstream evangelical authors because Mr. Wilson bases his arguments on the classic orthodox reasoning of the saints who authored the Westminster Confession and other time-tested creeds and catechisms. Mr. Wilson has drawn on the robust reasoning of great theological minds to address contemporary problems undermining the witness of the church. This book should greatly encourage any reader who knows Scripture, reflects on the book's arguments, and seeks to help Christ's church provide a faithful and loving witness in the modern world. (Would critics of Mother Kirk please recommend better books? Is there a book with a more rigorously reasoned summary of how the church can address its biggest challenges by applying time-tested ecclesiastic doctrines?)

What a fantastic book. It's amazing to think that so much about Jackie Wilson could have been lost had author Tony Douglas not stumbled upon his work of passion assembling this.

The book is a refreshing read, it's both structured in a linear fashion and discombobulated in the randomness of the stories relayed by those who knew Jackie. Some may not like the sort of "stream of consciousness" in the writing, but I think it really lends itself to how the information was gathered, presented, and to a lesser extent, what sort of impact it has upon the author.

There is not much editing or editorialising going on, just an opportunity for the reader to share the experiences of those who knew Jackie and the man who compiled it all into this book. You can tell how the stories were gathered from the notes and memories of those who knew Jackie. It gives a very personal feel to the whole thing.

This is a must-read for any music historian or musician looking to understand the roots of popular music today. It is chillingly relevant.

I was very disapointed with this book. I purchased it with the intention of learning more about the singer for a feature article I am working on. When I did some fact checking with family members, including Harlene, and people whom he recorded and worked with, it became apparent that many facts were omitted. Was the writer's intent merely to sell books rather than tell a story based on a balanced view of facts? I don't know. After doing a little digging myself, this book to me comes off like a tabloid, not a biography.

However, it does give way for a more balanced and factual based story which hopefully someone will tell some day.

Jackie Wilson whose honey-rich falsetto-tenor voice had thrilled millions throughout the world died in January, 1984; aged 49. For the preceding eight years and four months he had been in a vegetable-like state. He never uttered a word since suffering a heart attack while performing at the Latin Casino in Cherry Hill, New Jersey in September, 1975. Yet another indignity awaited Jackie. After a well-publicized funeral attended by around 1,500 relatives, friends and fans he was buried in an unmarked grave in his home city of Detroit. Effectively his burial was that of a pauper. Jackie was born in June, 1934. Using the name Jackie Wilson, he would reach the top of his chosen vocation - as a singer and performer. From humble origins he would grow up to become known around the world for his soaring and impassioned singing style and unequalled stage routine. His USA chart successes amounted to 55 Top 100 and 24 Top 40 hits. He was admired and emulated by many entertainers including Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. Jackie's mother was a powerful influence on him. As Jackie was her only son, she doted on him. School wasn't for Jackie, he was an habitual truant. This was to land him in trouble and, twice, to detention in the Lansing Correctional Institute. There he learned how to box and he was skilled proponent. He even considered becoming a professional boxer. Jackie sang from the age of six and from his adolescent years he would sing both gospel and blues on the street. Even then could sing in perfect key and enriched many a soul with his voice. In his early teens Jackie formed a quartet, the Ever Ready Gospel Singers Group, which became a popular feature of churches in the district. Jackie wasn't religious, he just loved to sing and the cash came in handy for purchasing cheap wine. He also ran with a feared local gang called the Shakers. However, Jackie was more of an icon for the gang and they ensured that he wasn't harmed during his regular amateur performances in "unfriendly" neighborhoods. Jackie became a sweetheart of Freda Hood when he was ten and she was 11. He was good-looking, self confident to the point of being brash, and a favourite with the girls. He expressed to Freda from the earliest age his ambition to be an entertainer. He left school in the ninth grade, in 1950, aged 16. Freda was 17 and Jackie 16 when she became pregnant, so a marriage was hastily arranged in February, 1951. A daughter was born the next month. Jackie had no regular job to support his new family, but from the age of 15 Jackie was a regular performer at a local black nightclub. Being under-age, he had to perform using another's ID, the same ID he used to get married. The appearances brought in some cash, but family life was generally a struggle. At 17 Jackie obtained work at the Ford automobile foundry, close to where he lived with his mother (who had divorced Jack Snr) and her common-in-law husband, John Lee. He lasted only two weeks at the Ford plant. At the time he was practicing singing with a local group, which included Levi Stubbs (later lead singer of the Four Tops). Known then as the Royals they didn't record any songs with Jackie, but evolved as Hank Ballard and the Midnighters. A successful black group at the time was Billy Ward And The Dominoes, with Clyde McPhatter as lead singer. News reached Jackie that Ward was in Detroit and looking to replace a member of the group who had been drafted into the army. A contest was held to formerly choose a successor for the army draftee. 18-year-old Jackie won and became a member of the group, but within months Dominoes lead singer Clyde McPhatter left to form his own group (the Drifters) enabling Jackie to become the new lead. The group worked for many years, especially in Las Vegas, before white audiences. Despite some fabulous record releases featuring Jackie's tenor lead, his only recording success with the Dominoes was in June 1956 with "St Therese of The Roses" which reached #13 on the Pop charts. In 1957 Jackie decided to try a solo career. Al Green, who already managed singers Johnnie Ray, Della Reese and LaVern Baker, took over Jackie's management. Green went to New York and arranged with record executive Bob Theile to sign Jackie to the Decca label. The day before the deal was to be signed, Al Green died. Green's protege was Nat Tarnopol. Tarnopol convinced Jackie to let him become his manager, despite having no management experience. And so it was he who signed Jackie to the Decca stable. Jackie was, for years, the only singer on the subsidiary Brunswick label, so Tarnopol convinced the Decca bosses that he could successfully handle the label and attract more black talent and, as part of the agreement, he was given 50% ownership of the label. Aspiring songwriters Berry Gordy and Roquel "Billy" Davis met Jackie through the Flame Show Bar, a popular Detroit night spot, which Al Green had also managed. They had written numerous tunes, what they needed was a voice to bring the songs to life. In September, 1957, Jackie's first recording, "Reet Petite", was released. It was a Gordy and Davis composition to which Jackie added his own distinctive style. Although it achieved only #62 on the US Pop charts, it did better in the United Kingdom, climbing to #6. Jackie was on his way. In October 1958 Jackie, with another Davis/Gordy composition, "Lonely Teardrops", reached #7 on the Pop charts - his first million seller. The three musicians were now on their way to world recognition. One of Jackie's most important assets was his equal appeal to black and white audiences. Jackie trusted Nat Tarnopol implicitly and foolishly signed over power-of-attorney to him. Tarnopol was keen not to limit Jackie's career by concentrating on rock 'n' roll. He chose veteran band leader and Decca arranger Dick Jacobs to arrange and produce most of Jackie's recordings from 1957 through 1966. Jackie became a major star, often appearing on coast-to-coast television on national TV shows, New York's Copacabana and the Las Vegas nightclub circuit. He toured the country tirelessly before sell-out audiences. As a stage performer he only had to walk on stage to bring the house down, causing hysteria amongst females. He often courted danger by leaping into the audience where his clothes would be ripped to shreds. In the southern states he played to segregated audiences which, naturally, irked him. There were numerous racially based incidents which placed him in danger. During a performance in New Orleans in 1960, Larry Williams was performing and the police had ordered that he not make his traditional leap into the audience. Jackie urged Williams that he should do his normal performance, so things became extremely tense. When a policeman laid hold of Williams, Jackie saw red and knocked him down. Total pandemonium broke out and a riot ensued. Jackie was arrested and was severely beaten by the police before being ordered out of town. If there were still doubts about Jackie's vocal talents, his second million seller "Night" would dispel them. "Night" reached #4 on the Pop charts. Berry Gordy used his royalties on the nine hits he'd co-written for Jackie to establish his Motown recording label, while Davis joined Chess Records as A&R manager, song writer and producer. By 1961 Jackie was involved with Harlean Harris a glamorous Ebony magazine fashion model. Jackie was a womaniser all his life and had also been having a relationship with a young woman, Juanita Jones. Early in the morning of 15 February 1961, Jones waited for Jackie and when he returned with Harlean to his Manhattan apartment; she ambushed him and shot him twice. Despite his wounds, with one bullet lodged near his spine, Jackie made it downstairs to the street, with the revolver he'd snatched still in his hand. Fortunately a policeman raced him to the nearby hospital. Surgery and weeks of medical care saved him, although the bullet remained forever near his spine, being too inaccessible to be removed. He also lost a kidney and was fortunate to survive. Jackie's management and legal advisers decided that the incident would create a scandal. Being a married man having an affair with another woman, it may have also damaged his career. A story was concocted that portrayed Jones as a demented fan who had planned to shoot herself, but Jackie had intervened and, as a result, he was shot. Fortunately for Jones, the story was accepted and she got off scot-free. A month and a half later Jackie was discharged and, apart from a limp and discomfort for a while, he was quickly on the mend. He discovered that, despite being at the peak of success, he was broke. In arrangements that are not entirely apparent, Nat Tarnopol was controlled by a music industry mobster by the name of Gaetano "Tommy" Vastola. Vastola had at least part ownership of Queens Booking Agency, which was Jackie's and most other black artists' booking agency throughout the period. Jackie's touring manager, working under the auspices of Vastola, was a Mob enforcer named Johnny Roberts. Roberts employed a minder to look after Jackie. He was August Sims, a hulk of a black man weighing around 230 pounds. He provided protection as well as ensuring Jackie made his concert dates. In 1963 Jackie had a major hit on his hands with the dance groove, "Baby Workout", which reached #5 on the Pop chart. Around this time the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seized Jackie's Detroit family home. Freda said it was the first they knew of any unpaid taxes, as Tarnopol and his accountant were supposed to take care of such matters. The fact was Jackie was nearly broke. Fortunately Jackie made arrangements with the IRS to make restitution on the unpaid taxes and to re-purchase the family home at auction. However, Freda's patience had finally run out due to Jackie's notorious philandering and she filed for divorce. Jackie didn't contest it and so their thirteen year marriage was annulled in 1965. For the rest of her life Freda regretted seeking the divorce. Jackie continued a grinding regime of road tours, but over the next few years his career ran out of steam. A fortuitous meeting was arranged by Tommy Vastola between Tarnopol and the respected Chicago soul music producer, Carl Davis. The meeting was a catalyst for a brief revival in Jackie's and Brunswick Records' fortunes. So it was that there are two distinct phases to Jackie's career; the Dick Jacob's phase from 1957 to 1966 and the Carl Davis phase from 1966 to 1975. Davis insisted that all of Jackie's recordings now be done in Chicago. One day Jackie was in Davis's office discussing what material they were going to record and a demo of the "Whispers" was on the desk. Jackie kept asking Davis what the song was. Could he listen to it? "No," Davis kept telling Jackie, it wasn't for him. Finally he relented and let Jackie hear it. "I want to do it," he said immediately. Davis agreed and Jackie turned it into #11 Pop hit. Jackie was back on track again and a third million seller followed in 1967 when "Higher and Higher" reached #6 on the Pop charts. However, this was the beginning of a stormy period in Jackie's life. He was drinking heavily, snorting a dangerous amount of cocaine and popping quantities of "uppers" (amphetamines). Paranoia began to dominate Jackie's life. This began in the early 1960s when he accused Freda and his mother of working for the FBI. The drugs were part of the problem, but the realization that he was being robbed and yet was unable to get off the Brunswick label also played a part in Jackie's demise. Frankly, he was scared. It reached the point where Tarnopol didn't want to pay him his record sales royalties and, in turn, Jackie was reluctant to record. Naturally his career suffered, particularly as he was being poorly promoted. In March 1967 Jackie and his friend and drummer were arrested in South Carolina on morals charges. Both were arrested in a motel with two young white women. Lurid details of the case appeared in the newspapers. Tarnopol decided that to restore Jackie's public image, a marriage to long-time girlfriend Harlean had to be held. The civil ceremony was held the next month. Jackie had been going with Harlean from at least 1961 and they'd had a son in 1963. They were only fined a few hundred dollars and the "morals charges" were soon forgotten. Yet Jackie's personal life was in turmoil. Not only was he being shot-changed by his management, but believed that Tarnopol was having an affair with Harlean. In 1969 he obtained a legal separation from her and went to live in a run-down hotel in mid-town Manhattan. Jackie was beginning to lose interest in life and his career. He'd not bother to dress and would remain for weeks in his cheap hotel room, drinking and smoking marijuana. Maintenance payments were not being made for his four children to Freda and she resorted to court orders to force payment. As well, he now had New York court orders, issued on behalf of Harlean, seeking maintenance for their son and herself. Jackie feuded with Tarnopol and it had reached a point where they hated each other intensely. At one point it is claimed Jackie was held out the window of a New York high-rise, just to make the point of who was in control. Jackie wanted to change labels, yet remained bound to the Brunswick label for 18 years. Tragedy struck Jackie again in September 1970 when his eldest son, 16-year-old Jackie Jnr, was shot dead during a confrontation at a neighbours' home. Jackie took it very hard and began to take stock of the alcohol and drugs that were destroying him. Shortly after the death of his son Jackie met Lynn Crochet and lived with her for the next five years. Lynn, who was white, had been head waitress at a nightclub, outside of New Orleans, which was Mob owned. In 1971 a civil marriage ceremony was held, but Jackie must have been aware it would not be legally recognised being still married to Harlean. With firm threats of leaving him Lynn got Jackie into "detox" and, in his later years, Jackie didn't drinking anything stronger than Pepsi. Around 1971, Jackie wanted his management contract with Tarnopol terminated and to do this he needed the help of someone with as much or more influence than Nat. He approached Tommy Vastola, who was already part of Tarnopol's control group. It is not entirely clear how the management was wrested from Tarnopol, but it was. The management contract with Tarnopol was torn up. However, he was still bound to Brunswick. In September, 1975 Jackie was on stage in New Jersey, performing "Lonely Teardrops" and was on his knees when he was stricken by a heart attack. Dick Clark, who headed the Rock 'n' Roll Revue revival tour, recalls him crashing backward and striking his head. An ambulance quickly got him to the nearby hospital where he remained in a coma for over three months. Jackie gradually improved to a semi-comatose state, but obviously he had suffered severe brain damage and, at 41, a tremendous career was ended. Although he never uttered another word, he remained clinging to life for a further eight and a quarter years. In a most tragic irony, his mother came over from Detroit to see him and less than a month after he was stricken, she collapsed into a diabetic coma and died. Jackie finally let go of life on 21 January, 1984 and the voice that had thrilled millions would sing no more. T

There is no doubt that Tony Douglas is a loyal Jackie Wilson fan. He has gone through extraordinary lengths to speak with the majority of the key role players in Jackie Wilson's life. However, the book is sloppily presented and filled with a number of glaring inaccuracies. For example, Elvis signed a picture of himself and Jackie, "You got yourself a friend for life." The picture is actually in the book. Yet, Douglas misquotes what Elvis wrote. There is no excuse for this. It calls into question other questionable passages by the author. In another part of the book, Douglas transcribes, "mark" instead of "mock." From the context, it was evident that the speaker meant and said the latter. In another display of sloppiness, Douglas repeatedly repeats certain passages throughout the book. One gets the impression that he thoroughly researched the topic, but just assembled, somewhat haphazardly, the information in the most convenient manner possible. I noticed that he seemed to take sides in the dispute over the Wilson estate. In all fairness, he should have quoted the other side's position, even if he disagreed with it. On the whole, because I was able to filter out the fiction from the non-fiction. In the interest of good taste and preserving Jackie's dignity, Douglas should have exercised his editorial powers and not included some rather disgusting quotes from those purportedly taking care of the incapacitated Wilson during his final days. In not doing so, Douglas commits an unpardonable crime. Unfortunately, most who read this book are not as well versed on Jackie Wilson's life to perform this task. Consequently, they will walk away with a jaundiced view of the greatest entertainer of the 20th century.

I didn't like this book. There was far too much speculation and heresay. The sources are vague and inconsistent. It seems like any time the author came close to making a point, every source was either a second or thrid hand perriferal person and leaves us with very little true knowledge of Jackie WIlson's career. However, it was very sad to learn that after Jackie fell ill in the mid seventies, Lynn Guidry (the woman who CLAIMS she was his last wife) vanished for 2 years with whatever money jewels,furs and cars that Jackie owned. It leaves the reader curious in what may have been her involement in Jackie's demise. This becomes particularly intruiging when one considers her method of coaxing Jackie to take her on the road while she was married to another man, with the lie that she was dying of cancer.

It's no wonder to me anymore why this book could not find a publisher. The Author neither paid much attention to his grammer or the facts of Jackie Wilson's life. It seems that Tony Douglas relied mainly on the testimony of the drunks, drug addicts, groupies and other parasites that made a living from hanging around Jackie Wilson. I don't think anyone can tell the true story of Jackie Wilson without an interveiw with his widow "Harlene Wilson". I wish I could get my money back.

Tony Douglas wrote this book because he found out there was not one biography of Jackie Wilson. He took it upon himself to go to America and interview pretty much all the persons who played a part in Wilson's life and therefore it is well researched and thurough. It is also not a hagiography like many other music-biographies are, he definitely pays attention to the womanizing side and addictiveness of Wilson.

The stories about him in the end of his life as a vegetable but also the death of many of his children are harrowing. But also the early beginning are well covered.

It is however hard to follow sometimes, the chronology sometimes doesnt make sense or is badly constructed, making you sometimes flipping back to see where you are. Another thing is that more years, months and dates could have been used to have a better view of where he was in life.

His friendships with other soul singers are interesting and some things are mentioned that I hadn't read in other books, about Sam Cooke for example. The discography in the back is adequate.

There are not that many biographis on Jackie Wilson so therefore it's worth the read, but maybe someone should take it upon himself to write another wne that can equal Daniel Woolf's 'You Send Me' about Sam Cooke.

The book is a very difficult read. It is hard to follow who saids what. There is too much detail given about too many people. The added details makes it difficult to decipher the confusion behind the life of Jackie Wilson. However, there is some good information pertaining to this great star that any fan would find enlightening. I'm glad it was written, we need more books about Jackie Wilson, but I wish it would have stayed focus on the man himself instead of giving us so much detail of the lives of the people surrounding him.

I came across this book while surfing Amazon's site. I thought that the then 4 star rating Amazon gave it made for a good read. After barely making it all the way through I came back to this site and found that 3 or 4 of the reviews were fromthe author himself who of course gave it five stars each time he posted. Probablly he had his friends write the other reviews that were positive as I find that many others have now come forward with their objective remarks which embody my feelings about the book:

Inconsistent, contradictory, speculative, and a total let down.

Where was Harleen Wilson's side of things? Why did Douglas give so much attention to a virtual gorupie's version of Jackie's life. It's very dissapointing and makes me wonder if Douglas tried to pull the wool over our eyes when he realized he could not get more reliable sources to talk about Jackie's life. As a fan of Wilson's I know quite a bit more about his life than it seems the author does. I hope someday someone has the gutts to tell the REAL story about this amazing entertainer's life

This book is so effective at decimating the speculative,
conjectural,unbiblical Open Theory of Bible interpretation that it elicits responses and reviews like the 'consistent non-evangelical' who can't handle Biblical Truth.

The essays of this book examine Open Theory from many different
angles and find them all woefully deficient in properly
understanding the Bible. One only has to check out Open Theorist
Clark Pinnock's 'Most Moved Mover'(see separate review) and the
quasi-mormon view postulated to see where Open Theory logically
and 'consistently' leads.

As has been well said, what good is it to be sympathetic to a
belief system that may seem superficially more consistent and
so-called logical only to find it is abysmally erroneous as a
whole and unable to account for maximum Biblical texts in a fair and plenary way? Such is the fatal flaw with Open Theory which
this book does a great job in thoroughly, almost embarrassingly,
exposing.

Open Theory is a 'consistent' house of cards which collapses in
one breath of fresh air from correct biblical interpretation
and a bit of deeper thought applied to Who God is and What He can
know and When He can know it and how God's Unconditional
Sovereignty is compatible/complementary with mortal agency.

The reactions from liberal,uninformed,biblically deficient
critics who crave 'consistency' over correctness,cogency and
conformity to Scripture are in desperate need of reading
'Exegetical Fallacies' by D.A.Carson. In fact, Carson should come out with Volume II using Open Theory exclusively as how NOT to do Biblical Interpretation!

See Norm Geisler's 'Battle For God' and John Frame's 'No Other
God' for excellent elaboration of many points found in this book.
Bruce Ware's 'God's Lesser Glory' is also a powerful antidote
to the craving of 'new over true' of the Open Theory movement.

This book is only worth one star, or even half. While the authors make a few thought-provoking arguments, these are obscured by the book's snide tone, sarcasm, and name-calling. How seriously can you take what it says, when, for example, one essay likens openness theologians to drag queens? This book is only fit for those who are convinced that the rightness of their doctrine exempts them from the command to love. Any Christian who is trying to make a serious assesment of open theism's claims would be well-advised to look elsewhere.

Classical evangelicalism is to be congratulated for stepping up to the plate to answer the threat of open theism. In the last 7 years or so, nearly a dozen major books and many more journal articles and debates have been produced critiquing the open theist perspective. The result has been a growing awareness on the part of the larger body of Christ that open theism, while appealing to us in our humanness, is a fatally flawed theology of inconsistency that results in a different god and a different view of the world from the one articulated in Scripture.

This particular book is one of the books that have attempted to demonstrate the inadequacy of open theism. As I will mention below, there are several very good aspects of this book, and I believe that the parts of this book that are good are good enough to recommend the book. But on balance, and particularly in comparison to other evangelical books on this subject, it comes up short to a degree that a 3 star rating is called for.

Like other books critiquing open theism, this is a collaborative effort where specific authors are asked to write about specific topics related to open theism. As I will mention below, this approach comes back to haunt this book. But one of things about this that is good is that there are specific chapters written by specific authors that stand on their own as being outstanding and are fairly untainted by the other less than superb chapters written by others.

Of the 12 chapters of the book, about half of them deserve commendation. I found Jones' chapter on metaphor to be the most engaging and scholarly. In this chapter, he demonstrates quite effectively that the hermeneutic of open theism is unbiblical in its selective denial of the legitimacy of metaphor, and that this denial at its core, is the worst kind of illogic since it regularly results in the views of open theists being rampantly self defeating. A number of other books have tackled this foundational weakness of open theism, but in many ways, Jones' contribution here might be the best succinct critique available.

In addition, Frame provides a very good chapter on foreknowledge, although the reader should take Frame to heart when he comments in some of his footnotes that his 'Doctrine of God' book is really the place to go to get a more comprehensive and scholarly critique of the foreknowledge debate. MacArthur's chapter on the atonement was solid, though it could have stood for improvement. Johnson's chapter on impassibility is another very good chapter that attempts to take on what is perhaps the biggest area of theology where open theists believe they hold the best cards. Wilson's chapter on theological knowledge is also good and to some degree, makes up for his rather bad chapter on the loveliness of orthodoxy and the epilogue. Lastly, Ascol provides a good pastoral critique of open theism. These chapters, and particularly the chapters by Johnson and Jones, make the book worthy of purchase.

Given what I've said above, I was most dismayed that the quality of those chapters were comingled with other chapters that were as weak as they are. In many of the remaining chapters, the authors routinely set up strawmen to tear down (Sproul Jr. in particular was guilty of this), played a game of what I call 'scholarly demonization' where they attempted to lump open theists into other groups of thinkers that Christians more easily recognize as threats. And in the end, this fundamentally undermines the integrity of the book. One of the stated goals is that open theism is nothing new, but is merely the latest reincarnation of socinian and enlightenment thinking. A number of chapters are dedicated to attempting to prove this link. Those efforts are only partially successful in large part because other authors undermine this assertion by saying that open theism is actually a product of postmodern, feel-good thinking, which is antithetical to enlightenment modernism. The discerning reader might well conclude that the authors are not only unsure of exactly what they're trying to prove, but actively employ an 'any stick will do' approach to go after open theism, even if such an approach results in assertions flatly contradicting each other from chapter to chapter. I have respect for Douglas Wilson, who is the editor of this book. But he fails rather badly in his role here, and allows the book to become an inconsistent and emotionalistic rant at times, which is quite dubious since in many ways, this ends up only immitating many of the 'scholarly' works put out by open theists.

So overall, a mixed bag. A number of quality contributions that definitely deserve reading and contemplation are unfortunately mixed in with several chapters that frankly never should have made it to print. As a result, I recommend this book with the urgent caveat of separating the wheat from the chaff.

The fervor over Open Theism is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Until those opposed to O.T can agree among themselves their attempted refutations will hold little punch.

It is laughable to see the likes of Erickson, Sproul, McArthur,and Norman Geisler all gang up on Open Theism when they cannot even agree among themselves.

This latest attack on O.T. shows just how much hypocrisy, politics and inconsistency exists among Evangelicals. Watch out Gregory Boyd the inquisitors are coming! Only this time they wear the banner of Evangelicalism.

The introduction to "Bound only Once" is filled with the sort of banter and silliness one finds among children arguing for attention.

It is indeed a sad day when Evangelicals have to resort to this sort of theological arrogance and anecdotal fanaticism in order to defend the theological status quo.

These evangelicals fail time and again to make logical sense of their adherence to the contradictory notions of free will and determinism.

I read Erickson's middle of the road position before. His "Christian Theology" is a good example of the confusion created when one picks and chooses among the petals of the TULIP. Once again we have rationalist apologist Norman Giesler wanting it both ways opting for the silly idea that we are "Chosen but free."

I could go on. Suffice to say that Wilson's book is another sad tribute to Evangelicalism's confused state of affairs. A state of affairs were myopic ego centered personalities battle for theological supremacy while claiming to hold forth THE Biblical view of a God they cannot even agree upon.

A book should succeed in its premise: John Armstrong, in the introduction makes the following statement: "Bound Only Once" is a useful, original, and helpful entry into this growing debate."
Sadly, I have never read words that were more off the mark.
Bound Only Once is basically a book that allows Calvinists to feel proud of how right they are and to cast judgment on the "fools" who would dare challenge their view of the Christian God. The true ironic thing is that as one reads it, one feels the fear behind the words. Calvinists recognize the hard truth that open theism is not going to go away and that it has true biblical support.
The authors of this book wade back and forth, covering so much unrelated ground sometimes you wonder if they understand that they are suppose to be talking about open theism, not what they want it to be (or think it is). Only John Frame actually takes a shot at relevant scripture, yet the points he makes are over shadowed by his and his fellow author's assumption of rightness.
And that is definitely the problem: the authors assume their position is right and when their position is unintelligble, well, hey, that's God and we just have to believe in him that way because that's what God has revealed (such a position would work better if one made an attempt at proving your position, something none of these authors even attempt). Such is the view thoroughout the book.
Finally, there is nothing but sadness surrounding this book. Sadness at opportunity missed at truly wanting to engage open theists, at opportunity lost that someone who isn't a Christian might pick up this book and mistakenly believe that all Christians treat others like this when they disagree with them. There is truly not an ounce of Christian love in this book. Definitely a book that one should read to see how not to treat others.
A final note: I apologize for not citing specific references to support my thoughts, but that would require quoting the entire work.

The auther of this book invetigate only one side of the story.We should keep in mind that always there are good and bad things in any country in this world. I believe the author need to be more objective. For example Saudi Arabia a developed country, therefore, there are large number of expatriate employment. There are more than 4 milion expatriate working in Saudi today, hence, I believe that there will some problems. But I can not say that Saudi citizen treated the expatriate worker as a slave.In the other hand, the author talk about what happend to some of the expatriate worker in Saudi Arabia, but he did not talk about what they did and still doing such as drugs,and crime. Thank you

Naif Alromi Email- nha102@psu.edu

This obviously self-published booklet -- a) No legitimate publisher would touch it with so much as a ten-foot pole, b)the telling price: $99 for a "booklet" -- at least serves the function of sucking one hundred dollars from the pockets of ill-educated bigots. Money that might have gone to fertilizer bombs, or racist, homophobic tele-evangelists with bad toupees, or Tom DeLay. Please folks, instead use the $100 wisely: toward wheels on the trailer, so you can drive to any library for actual free histories of the period written by historians who do actual and legititmate research, instead of making it all up in their crazy heads, like the above.

Conservative Protestant Christians (led by William Wilberforce and John Wesley of England) were founders of the abolitionist movement in the Western world. Throughout the entire history of the world, slavery was permitted until evangelical efforts prevailed. To the extent that worldwide slavery is illegal, credit the evangelicals. Secularists (such as Thomas Jefferson) were no friends to the slaves and were often the most racist of the slave owners. Before the discussion of Wilson's pamphlet continues these facts should be clear and understood.

I have not read this work so I can't speak to its contents. But I have read much of Douglas Wilson's other works. I do not believe he is a racist; he is very thoughtful and usually quite brilliant. He has a great blog and is editor of Credenda Agenda magazine (which I highly recommend). Wilson's strength is that he does not shy from controversy; I believe that this work (although I have not read it) is probably one controversy he should have avoided.

From the book description, Wilson makes clear that racism and abuse are unacceptable.

If the question is whether or not it is possible for a Christian society to permit racism, the question becomes more complicated. Slavery is wrong because it leads to abuse. In the case of American Southern Slavery, it was particularly pernicious because of the widespread racism that accompanied. But if the question asked is "Is Slavery in which racism and abuse do not exist necessarily opposed to the Christian religion?", I do not know that a negative answer is called for.

I am not sure if this is the focus of Wilson's book but if I had $100 to blow I might find out. Nice price Wilson, we can see you are not a marketing expert.

Overall the book brings out a variety of emotions, not all of them pleasant. There is a script presented regarding the evolution of human servitude and religious subjection. However this isn't brought to fruition through a series of pratfalls and humorous epithets but through stone cold extremes of fictional illustrada. The glaring focus placed on Millenarian Finis Dake is sometimes considered unfortunate, by those other that yours truely.

Suppose you are a son of the South, you consider yourself to be a good Christian, and (like most of us) would like to consider the deeds of your ancestors in the best light possible. In that case, you are probably at the mercy of conflicting impulses, since the sine qua non of the Confederate States of America was the preservation of slavery, and virtually all mainstream Christians today are in agreement that slavery as practiced in the United States was an evil institution. One cannot honor one's heritage without compromising one's heartfelt religious principals, and vice versa. What is one to do?

Well, the more prevelant route is that taken by most devotees of the Lost Cause mythos, which is that secession and the CSA was never about slavery, but rather "states' rights," whatever the hell that might mean. If one argues that rationale, all your opponent has to do is bring up either the Dred Scott decision or the Fugitive Slave Act, both of which utterly trample the notion of states' rights into the dust. In short, the states' rights argument raises as many paradoxical questions as it hopes to answer.

Another route is that taken by authors Wilson & Wilkins, who argue that 1) slavery was not contrary to godliness, and in fact it was the abolitionist movement which was contrary to the will of God; and 2) in any case, the slaves by and large were well-treated, well-fed and content with their existence. Oh yes, and it was the fault of the Northern slave trade that slavery continued in the South in any case, so if there is an original sin of slavery, it is to be found somewhere near Boston --- gosh, we haven't heard this argument before, have we?

The scholarship here, simply put, sucks. However, that puts these clowns in good company as the pseudohistorians that are Holocaust deniers or (ironically) Afro-Centrists like GGM James or JA Rogers. This work is heavily dependent on just a few sources, such as the writings of RL Dabney (not exactly a neutral source) or massively flawed statistical works like Engerman & Fogel's "Time on the Cross." The authors cherry-pick through the historical data, selecting only that data which fits into their pre-fabricated thesis. When they aren't cherry-picking, they are engaged in wholesale distortion, such as the argument that the leadership of the North had fallen under the pernicious and bible-hating influence of New England Unitarianism, which the authors rank only slightly above devil-worship, apparently.

Hmmmmmmmm. I didn't realize that Springfield, Illinois was a hotbed of Unitarianism --- my mistake. Also, I know my own family's history, and all of those ancestors from Ohio, Indiana & Illinois that joined the Republican party in the 1850's --- the last time I checked, almost all of them were Methodists, not Unitarians. Where do you think Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists got their start anyway, because of disagreements over the tarriff? Also, where do the Quakers, who really were the backbone of both the abolitionist and sufferage movements anyway, fit into the authors' simplistic scenario.

Of course, one has to accept the notion that the authors' narrow definition of "orthodox" evangelical Christianity is the One True Faith, otherwise their thesis tends to fall apart in a hurry. Regarding this, it might be in order to point out that these guys have ties to the Christian Reconstruction movement, a movement that frightens your more garden-variety right-wing Christians like Ralph Reed, for example. Their extemism is pretty much off the charts (among other things, this movement envisions the recreation of the South as a separate, lily-white Christian republic where public stonings might be acceptable), so if your Southern Pride tendencies are more conventional, you might want to keep this in mind.

All of this might seem pretty silly, but consider the relative success of the Holocaust Denial movement. For a generation now, the Holocaust deniers have been patiently peddling their wares, and now one sees a growing number of Americans (the numbers still vary considerably, depending on which poll you read) who now have doubts about the specifics of the Holocaust. Because Americans by and large tend to be pretty uncritical of that which they see in print, this pseudohistory can have a lasting effect. It remains to be seen if Wilson & Wilkins will succeed in their pushing their agenda.

I have met read and listened to both authors on differing occasions and have been impressed with the intellect of each, including talks concerning the issues presented in this book. When did rational discussion become taboo? When someone mentions preprogrammed words (Terrorist) do you check your mind at the door? There was a time when Americans were free thinkers. Do you believe that THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND AMERICANS died to protect the right of their rich neighbors to keep slaves? I would encourage all to seek the truth concerning this presuppositional argument which turned America from what we were given as Greece, and Rome, and what we have become, everything else. Deo Vindice

I'm usually on the music side of Amazon (some of you will probably tell me to stay there :) at any rate. Many of the reviews here are just representative of persons who have not developed mature critical thinking skills. RC Metcalf's book is great! As is Harris' original script. Together they are terrific, and I recommend they be read that way. Some have stated, incorrectly I'll add, that Metcalf tries to refute facts as stated by Harris. That's such a load of crap! How can you refute fact? You Can't! What Metcalf does do is point out how Harris massaged the facts, misappropriated the facts, and selectively gleaned only the portions of data useful... very much like one M. Moore.

Anyway, both books are good... better together. Remember all you critical thinkers, be careful to not let your concluding argument end at your original bias. These would be very useful and a fun exercise for a teen / young adult class, or discussion group.

Yes, Dr. Metcalf, as a matter of fact I do see American Chrisians at war with other faiths... every time something comes out of their mouths. They (you) hate other religions and believe that anyone who does not believe what they (you) believe is going to burn in hell. If that's not being at war with people, I don't know what is...

Read this work only for amusement, and to remind yourself once again of the raw irrationality of True Believers of any ilk. Religions necessarily must be based on irrationality (aka "faith"). It is simply insane for committed irrationalists to attempt to use rationality to bolster their "faith". And anyway, GODS-WILL-KNOW-IT-ALL has direct knowledge from the gods that christians are, and always have been, wrong. End-o-story!

I mean Amazon, not the book or the debate.
After reading both Harris books, Dawkins and Hithcens I do not think that beleivers of any persuasion can possibly have anyting to say. I find it amusing how they still try.
The reason for my comment is to praise Amazon and its evolving system.
Reading the reviews here are truly enabling me to make the best decisions about any book I may consider buying.
Especially in the case of highly polarized reviews such is this one.
Very often just the quality of the reviews can make me decide either way. In this particular case however the most usefull tool was "Search inside" No negative review can be as convincing as reading the text itself. The few pages presented are already more than what I can take. The arguments - if you can call them that - are beyond pathetic.
They do not represent counterpoints, just reformulation of arguments already demolished by Harris and Dawkins. I could not find a single paragraph without fundamental errors in logic, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of common terms.
I would also think that the new feature (the author's blog), although a great feature, will not help this particular author.
What I found here convinced me that buying and reading this book would be a waste of my money and time.

I was very impressed with Sam Harris' "Letter To A Christian Nation." I am an atheist having abandoned my Catholic roots in early adulthood. However, I seek to be intellectually honest in the sense that I do try to examine all sides of an issue before making up my mind. Thus, I was very eager to read RC Metcalf's counter-point to Sam Harris. I was sorely disappointed in what I read.

While Mr. Metcalf claims to be a scientist, his book reads more like the ramblings of Jerry Fallwell rather than the lucid reasoning of an objective, rational intellectual that Metcalf purports himself to be. He is clearly preaching to the choir, doing his best to reassure the flock of sheep that Harris is dead wrong and that everything is OK with the Christian religion.

How does he do this? By anegdotal evidence, multiple fallacies of selective observation, special pleadings, ad hoc, etc... Finally when confronted with an insurmountable logical obstacle, he always falls back on Scripture as a safety net. When all else fails, Scripture and faith always triumph over reason and science in Metcalf's world.

One cannot call oneself a reasonable person and much less a scientist if one abandons all reason and relies on faith when faced with facts and logic that completely obliterate one's long held beliefs. R.C. Metcalf is no scientist. He is an apologetic at best. And a fundamentalist at worst.

I highly recommend reading his book though. It is a great example of the mental gymnastics a person of faith is forced to do in order to stay true to his dogma.

The basic premise of this book is that the husband is the "federal," or "covenant," head of his wife, and that the husband is therefore responsible for the state of the marriage. Given that the author builds his entire thesis around this premise, he ought to have spent more time in firmly establishing the Scriptural foundation for it. On the other hand, his presentation of his thesis is adequate to establish a logical, if bare-bones case for his assertion. A Christian new to Covenant theology will probably want to study the concept of federal headship in more depth than Wilson presents it here, however. (And even a person familiar with the concept may not find Wilson's reasoning persuasive, and may disagree with his conclusion that the sins of the marriage must be laid solely on the husband's shoulders.)

This book is a bit disappointing if you are looking for something focused specifically on advice for husbands. While it does present some good principles for husbands in areas such being a leader, providing for a family, and biblically loving your wife, overall the book's content is unfocused. The author cobbles together subjects only tangentially related to being a good husband: women in combat, masculinity in dress, and societal attitudes toward pregancy. While these are no doubt worthy topics, they have little direct bearing on the responsbilities of a husband and would be better addressed in a different book.

In short, the book tries to address too many subjects for its brief span of 110 pages, and succeeds in treating none of them adequately.

"Federal Husband" is full of unsubstantiated (though sometimes hilarious) claims and sweeping generalizations, inviting its readers to play a game of logical leapfrog. It presents very little solid reasoning that is helpful to someone seeking a better understanding of Biblical teaching on husbandry and marital headship.

A few critics have already said what needed to be said. So I won't comment on the sad lack of substantiation of his comments on the modern movements, nor will I speak of the glaring logical flaws that beg the question or that develop a conclusion from a false premise, or rant about his bad approach to hermeneutics where he pulls passages or verses out of their contexts. What scares me is all the postive reviews on this book. I guess it shows the state of the church where good, solid Bible teaching and thinking is rare so that people will take this stuff hook, line, and sinker.

He doesn't adequately prove that the husband must take the blame if his wife fails and sins. She is a sinner and a saint in her own right to do that. Federal headship in the marriage relationship doesn't mean that I become a "priest" taking on everyone's sins. Certainly, the husband in called to be the head of the home, but that means he is to set the pace for the spiritual condition of the family. His view also seems to say that the wife is to not think or do without her federal head's permission. This is done under the guise of love and protection under the covenant's role. But is it loving to insult her by saying that she can't think or do anything without his permission? Is it really biblical to insist that all information be disseminated to the wife only through her federal husband.

I read this book because I've been around those who hold to Wilson's view and saw how this plays out in the church. Often the women do not go to church if the husband is not there with them. Even in taking communion, the husband takes the bread and then gives a piece of it to his wife. This is just dangerous as it takes away her position as a Christian in her own right as it also circumvents the Christ-ordained leadership of the church. The Bible says that all are to obey the leaders of the church, but Wilsom seems to suggest that women are exempt from this because they are to obey and submit only to their husbands. The views of this book are not spiritually healthy because they do not acurately reflect the teaching of the Bible.

However, Wilson does give us some good advice (at least concerning the book). He tells the husband that his wife ought not read the book. I totally agree with that! My only advice is to say that no one should read if if you are serious about being a Scripturally informed husband.

In this book, my longheld belief that the husband and father is not only the federal head of the home, but also the one who bears the responsibility for what happens in the home, was affirmed. Biblically. We are responsible for leading ourselves, our wives, and our children to truth, and not provoking them to the eternal wrath of God. We do this in various ways, beginning with the most basic. Teaching them in the Word of God, feeding them, clothing and housing them, and for the wife, providing sexual relations.

Aside from addressing this enormous topic of a covenantal relationship between a man and woman as representative of God's covenantal relationship between Himself and Israel and between Himself and mankind, Douglas also addresses everything from pregnancy to piercings, the wielding of the sword to the wedding ceremony, and inheritances, occupations, discipline, punishment, women in combat, widows and countless other issues that arise out of or outside of the covenantal family relationship.

A beautiful, well written book that I'm not quite sure how he accomplished within only 110 pages.

You would be remiss to neglect a careful reading.

In my review for Nancy Wilson's book "The Fruit of her Hands", I mentioned how Ms. Wilson seemed constantly nervous about displeasing her husband. Now I know why; her husband is nothing short of sexist and controlling, not only of his wife but apparently of his entire church. His statement that the women in his church aren't allowed to read this book should be the first clue, but that's just one of several extremely offensive statements. There's hardly a thing in this entire book regarding women or marriage that I found helpful or even Biblical. Wilson indicated that we should question everything the modern woman does, even going to college! Does he really expect us to pull women out of college in the name of Christianity? But then, if he thinks women are made simply to get married and bear children, I guess it's not surprising that he doesn't think we should have educations. Here's a little shocker, Wilson: women are meant to do far more than marry. This is proved by the fact that Eve was given a brain as well as Adam.

One of the main things that angered me about this book was that Wilson shamelessly ripped Bible passages out of context in order to support his ridiculously sexist views. As an example, he listed a passage in which God, while furiously addressing men in a certain village, said "Women rule over you and children oppress you." You get the sarcasm there? He was obviously accusing those men of being utterly spineless and saying they needed to stand up for themselves. Wilson, however, took his angry and very sarcastic words to mean that God doesn't want women to be leaders, ever. Um, WHERE did he get that? That particular Bible passage was addressing a certain group of weak men, NOT all mankind. The passage didn't even really have anything to do with women, so to rip that out of context and interpret it as God's words for all mankind is simply nonsense; only a man with an agenda could find such ridiculous meaning behind something like that.

Calling female leadership a curse is one of the most lame things you could possibly do considering all the leading females in the Bible, including Deborah, who helped lead a battle, counseled men and operated as a judge, and had a song made in her honor. This book, unlike the Bible, is chock-full of images of spineless women. Before all the feminists get mad, though, let me assure you that Wilson gives plenty of bad advice for men too, even saying that the husband's solely responsible for any problem in the marriage and the household. Wil