Pointing people to The Experience of God as background reading to ATAFOG was a good move. I doubt I could have made much sense of it if I hadn't read the earlier book at least 10 times. At the same time, I was rather annoyed by another review (I think in Christianity Today?) where the author, who had a PhD in classics, said she found the book hard to understand. Like, at a certain point you just gotta put in the work and move beyond the chump metaphysics on offer in contemporary culture, and if I can figure DBH out without a PhD in classics, what's her excuse?
Great review, Jesse. I appreciate the shout out too (!).
It's especially helpful to see the connections between this book and Roland or Experience of God. Teasing out Bulgakov is especially needed.
Some might question whether a dialogue was the right choice, but I think it was. Not only does it make it more fun to read, but it helps contextualize the arguments. And I like seeing an academic book written with real ambition.
Pointing people to The Experience of God as background reading to ATAFOG was a good move. I doubt I could have made much sense of it if I hadn't read the earlier book at least 10 times. At the same time, I was rather annoyed by another review (I think in Christianity Today?) where the author, who had a PhD in classics, said she found the book hard to understand. Like, at a certain point you just gotta put in the work and move beyond the chump metaphysics on offer in contemporary culture, and if I can figure DBH out without a PhD in classics, what's her excuse?
Great review, Jesse. I appreciate the shout out too (!).
It's especially helpful to see the connections between this book and Roland or Experience of God. Teasing out Bulgakov is especially needed.
Some might question whether a dialogue was the right choice, but I think it was. Not only does it make it more fun to read, but it helps contextualize the arguments. And I like seeing an academic book written with real ambition.
Excellent review!
Thank you. Encouraging to hear.