The first Andrew commenter (me) was, as it should have been obvious, not the second commenter with the same name–a person who has a problem with postmodern critique and obviously is showing his conservative allegiances.

While my comment about IVP may have been a bit harsh, let's look at the facts. A whole slew of commentaries about to be published by John Stott. A dictionary of the Old Testament about to be published by (the now notorious) Peter Enns. A book on female sexuality by Janelle Hallman that absurdly labels lesbianism a "destructive relational pattern." The widely-known "Knowing God" by the uber-fundamentalist Calvinist J.I. Packer.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Granted, IVP may not be strictly "Calvinist," but they are incredibly friendly (especially in their more academic publications) to its doctrines and the people who vouch for their theological authenticity. Regardless of this, though, their books are, at best, conservative evangelical drivel–whether you want to characterize them as Calvinist or Arminian or "open theist" (which is nothing but a sad attempt at trying to think outside the evangelical box that can't do so, because if it did, it would be the more philosophically oriented "process theology" of John Cobb and philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead).

I realize I'm being a bit bold in some of my characterizations, for sure. But I don't think they're that far off the mark. I have no reason to read evangelical works anymore (especially conservative ones like IVP and Crossway publish) because they are full of ideas that are (to everyone except evangelicals) uninformed and theologically and philosophically bereft of valuable content (i.e., supporting ludicrous "doctrines" like inerrancy or infallibility).

That's what I meant by what I said earlier. Again, I respect the right of you (Julie) to publish with IVP. But personally, if I was presented with the opportunity to do so (which, because of my theology, I most assuredly would not), I would have a hard time writing for people I would disagree with so strongly. My principles would get in the way.

ad – I choose to give my everything to following God with my entire heart and being. That includes being a good mom, but not making an idol of it as so many in the church seem to insist I must do.

oh and by the way? i think your family is lovely and encourage you to give everything up to mother with your entire heart and being.

IVP is in a Calvinist box?

yeah, I was wondering about that accusation too. One of the things I've always appreciated about IVP is their willingness to publish books presenting multiple viewpoints (albeit within the evangelical sphere). I've not noticed any excessively Calvinist bent from them.

First, thanks for expressing your thoughts on the sorts of books you read. Since I am currently writing a book with IVP, I would obviously disagree with your assessment of them.

I would never claim either to offer a christology that is beyond critique. As for how I write my book reviews… I generally am very positive about the books I review. But the last couple have been more critical. I find reviews that just summarize the book rather boring and would rather not write them. So given that this is my personal blog, I give my personal thoughts on the books I read. I disagreed with this book and I gave my reasons why. Sure a book can work within its given thesis, but if I think a thesis is flawed then its hard to honestly comment on the book.