The Last Jihad by Joel C. Rosenberg
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
What’s good about The Last Jihad (TLJ)? It is fun to read, for it moves along at a good clip. The characters are interesting and not flat. The action is exciting and even a little gory. It has some overtly Christian stuff in it, but isn’t preachy.
What’s not so good about TLJ? Rosenberg’s method of telling a story is scattered. He likes to have little soundbites (even as small as a page or less) on one part of the story, then skip to another soundbite, then again to another. This style is, to me at least, quite irritating and can be confusing. What’s more, this book (though an interesting take on politics in the Mid-East [and the US's involvement in them]) offered me no profound opening into the culture or political attitudes. It focused mostly on the Americans; it might have been far more interesting if more focus was put on the other points of view represented in the book.
So, altogether, I give TLJ three stars. It is fun, but it’s nothing too special nor worthy of the many must-read lists (Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding).
Stop reading this fluff and read The Mote in God’s Eye already!
Bobber, I started it a couple days ago. Proto, Limbaugh and Hannity both blurbed it.
He’s a Dispensationalist. He totally misunderstands the BIble and whenever I’ve heard him on Christian radio….he strikes me as one of these ‘connect-the-dots’ speculation types a la Glenn Beck.
A mix of fact, error, and wild conjecture all within a framework of heretical theology.
Rush Limbaugh recommended Rosenberg?
I wanted to play devil’s advocate here…
Heresy: Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine: “Huss was burned for heresy”.
Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.
So heretical theology would be theology that is contrary to traditional orthodox theology… and although I don’t argue determinism… it is the minority in traditional orthodox Christianity, so one could argue that it is heresy from the traditional orthodox point of view… which is the view that would make heresy… heresy.
Actually I would define heresy as something that compromises the Gospel itself. In terms of historical orthodoxy….beyond some basics like Trinitarianism, it’s pretty hard to pin that down.
Considering that the site is Calvinistic…I felt pretty comfortable using the word with reference to Dispensationalism.
As far as Determinism (as you call it)…. there isn’t really a consensus within either the large scope of Church History or even within Reformed circles. Augustinianism has reared its head on many occasions and within Reformed circles there’s a wide range of beliefs. I believe (and he may disagree) the author of this site to be probably on one end of the Calvinistic spectrum, while I’m so far on the other side that some Calvinists wouldn’t even apply the label to me.
Based off your definition I could also argue craedobaptism being a minority position is a heresy…or even craedocommunion. Historically these have been minority positions.
A majority position within history does not determine heresy and using orthodox the way you are is too broad to be helpful.
But you raise a good point….the terms are not ‘always’ helpful.
And thankfully people are not always consistent. Some Dispensationalists are much better than their theology….and others are in pretty serious error to the point that it’s questionable as to whether or not they’ve even grasped the basics of the Gospel or the Kingdom
LOL… you lost me at craedobaptism and some other big words…
believer’s baptism, believer’s communion (craedo)
Tim, I’d be interested in your impression of Epicenter, Joel Rosenberg’s first nonfiction. (I read it before this novel)