Comments on: Book Review: The Gospel Interrupting the Ordinary Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:42:13 +0000 hourly 1 By: Aimee Byrd Wed, 09 May 2012 10:21:24 +0000 Thanks for your response, Ted.I agree with you that it is good to have the footnotes to dig farther. I will say that you even had me laughing in some of them. I would much rather have too many than none at all–horror of horrors! Your book will prove to be a great resource to return to over and over again. I didn’t want the size to stop people from buying it, because it really is fantastic. Thanks for the great care you put into it, this is a topic that I am passionate about.

I got a copy for review on my blog for the Kindle–but I could tell it wasn’t a “final” copy. Not all the illustrations were provided, and the pages were a little jumbled.

By: Ted Turnau Wed, 09 May 2012 08:12:44 +0000 By the way, I think you get the honor of “first reviewer.” Your review is dated three days before the official release date. That’s…impressive (and by impressive, I mean inexplicable). Congrats!


By: Ted Turnau Wed, 09 May 2012 06:22:29 +0000 Hi. I’m not sure if I’m allowed to do this or not, but I wanted to thank you for your in-depth and quite fair review of my book. I wanted to respond a bit to some of your critiques:

1. You’re right about the footnotes – they do go a bit overboard. But my idea was to give people more than they asked for. I hate books that throw out provocative ideas and then don’t let me dig farther. And there’s a trend in Christian publishing to do away with them all together. Thankfully, P&R isn’t going that direction.

2. Yeah, the book is kinda thick. It’s sort of my “everything including the kitchen sink” book. But again, that was intentional. I want this book to be a one-stop resource for thinking Christians. And I really liked your advice to skip the second part if you get bogged down. I’ve found that the second part is really helpful to responding to objections that people have about engaging popular culture.

So, on balance, I think you’re critiques were very fair, and it’s obvious that you get it (a great encouragement for a new author). Thanks.

One last question: How in the world did you get it so soon? And did you get it on Kindle? People have been asking me. I thought the Kindle version wouldn’t be out for another week or so (or so my publisher told me).


Ted Turnau

By: Aimee Byrd Fri, 04 May 2012 20:00:09 +0000 Ha! Hopefully you guys will learn something at my expense then.

By: Aimee Byrd Fri, 04 May 2012 19:58:42 +0000 Exactly–well put.

By: Doc B Fri, 04 May 2012 19:21:43 +0000 Much can be learned from watching others embarrass themselves.

So I’m watching.


By: Dana Tuttle Fri, 04 May 2012 16:21:19 +0000 I would love to go on a date with this “Guy” in the romantic paper form one day!

By: Tim Fri, 04 May 2012 16:07:22 +0000 You did great, Aimee (like usual!). That cleared it right up for me. He is providing tools for carrying out and honoring the Bible’s instruction on apologetics, not substituting in his own idea of what apologetics should be.

By: Aimee Byrd Fri, 04 May 2012 16:03:42 +0000 Good question, Tim: Turnau does talk about the importance of 1 Peter 3:15 in apologetics. One thing I like about his handling of it is pointing out some of the shortcomings some of the traditional apologetic methods have. While the propositional facts of our faith are super important, we need to be aware of the presuppositions and worldviews that others are filtering those facts through. So as we are speaking of our own relationship with God and explaining the gospel as the opportunity arises, we need to be sensitive to the context of the hearer. For example, Turnau discusses how when a Christian uses the word “hope,” we are referring to a sure reality of expectation. Yet, our companion will hear it as “wishful thinking.” Here is a quote from that same section preceding the one you are referring:
“The apologetical task at hand, then, is one of translation. We should render our hope in terms that make sense to the one who asks, terms that help the person to see the truthfulness of that hope.
Apologetics, then, has a dual focus: to keep an eye on our hope and remain true to it, and to keep an eye on what speaks to your listener, what connects with him or her at that level of desire (without manipulation)” (Loc 795).
As you can tell, I haven’t included his whole argument in terms of appealing to the desires of the hearers heart as part of the reason (which is good). He gets into the Greek translations for “apologia” and that the word “story” can also be a translation. In this, he is explaining how we need to contextualize our message to the hearer’s own story or worldview.
Hopefully I did his argument some justice there and answered your question. It is a little challenging for me to do in a comment.

By: Tim Fri, 04 May 2012 15:34:44 +0000 Thanks for teh review, Aimee. YOu quote Turnau as writing “the job of apologetics is to build a bridge between hope and the non-Christian”, and I wonder if he engages that proposition with 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be prepared to give an answer [Gr. apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Peter seems to be telling us to speak of our own relationship with God when the opportunity arises, while the Turnau quote looks more like coming up with creating ways to show others what their relationship with God should be. Did I read more into his position than is really there?