Title: A Nice Summary, but . . .
Product review: This book is an excellent summary of several of the most important "postliberal" Pauline scholars and theologians. Harink is at his best when he focuses on Hauerwas and Yoder; he proves quite effectively that he understands each better than most critics (and critical readers). Unfortunately, when Harink turns to Wright, his examination falls apart and even turns into a vicous ad hominem attack at several points. Harink does not display a thorough understanding of Wright's work and, as one the previous reviewers on this page has noted, his summary is really a parody of Wright. Sadly, the weaknesses in the chapter on Wright betray further weaknesses in his scholastic aptitude, and his inability to comprehend the most important international "postliberal" Pauline scholar forces the reader to question whether he really has a grip on postliberalism (or Paul) at all.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
