Scott Klusendorf

This is an excellent resource for anybody who wishes to learn more about the pro-life movement and how to engage culture effectively. The arguments are well researched and well thought out. I learned a lot from reading this book and thought that the author wrote it in a way that is very accessible even to those with very little knowledge of the pro-life movement or abortion. This is a read that you will not regret, it is very relevant to current culture and useful for every believer. I definitely recommend this book.… (más)

In Rhetoric We Trust

Let me begin by saying that generally speaking the arguments presented in the book are not bad. Almost all of them seemed reasonable and were generally well articulated. My major issues with the book fall into two categories: 1) tone and presentation and 2) explanation of arguments.

First, I found the tone of the book to be overwhelmingly triumphalist. While I realize that Christians are the target audience, there was a pervasive portrayal of pro-abortion advocates as the enemy. It seemed a concerted effort to draw lines between them and us in a way that I found unloving. Obviously, there are differences and I agree that abortion is murder so I understand the impulse. However, it seemed the author was more focused on teaching the reader how to win an argument rather than how to win a heart. I was reminded of the film Expelled where uncharitable pot shots were taken at Richard Dawkins apparently to the revelry of Christians. Multiple times the author makes random derogatory statements about feminists, political liberals, and pretty much anyone he has a bone to pick with. I find such things unconscionable, and the blanket dismissal of the motivations behind pro-choice advocates was simply wrong. I was especially disturbed by his discussion of those who bring up rape. He is brash and dismissive, arguing that there is simply no way the person might have a legitimate concern for the well-being of a rape victim. Instead, he says it is merely an attempt to use rape victims. The logical individual wonders why trotting out the rape victim is disingenuous while "trotting out the toddler" is not. While I agree that the only logical conclusion is to view the unborn as human beings deserving of rights, it pains me to see the arguments laid out in a framework that encourages the creation of enemies.

Second, the book contains extremely truncated versions of more detailed philosophical arguments. I suspect that most of these arguments are presented in a better fashion in their original sources. Regardless, some of these chapters were extraneous and distracted from the point. His random defense of the feasibility of Christianity was totally unnecessary and a bit of a rush job. The author also displayed considerable philosophical ignorance when he suggests that if one believes in God they must also be a platonic dualist. In fact, there are a number of Christians who fall into the categories of non-reductive physicalist, constitutionist, or biblical monist. Additionally, the author perpetuates the mistaken notion that post-modernism is relativism. This is simply incorrect, relativism is one (errant) expression of post-modern philosophy. A recurrent issue in the book is the wholesale borrowing of examples or citations of other authors. While Klusendorf does properly cite these lifted quotations, it is simply inappropriate in my opinion to regurgitate other people's hard work in this manner. What results is more compilation than original research. By my count, 42 quotes, examples, or citation were lifted from authors who did the hard work of wading through the original sources, and there was often little indication that Klusendorf went back and read the original context.

The book is not terrible, I don't want to give that impression, but it is seriously flawed. I suggest that instead of buying this book, the hopeful reader chooses one of the Beckwith or Plantinga books on the matter.… (más)