pearlie Female. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

By happenstance, I came across the movie trailer for Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper and it caught my interest. I was at the bookstore 2 days ago, saw it on the display counter and got a copy of the book. It took me about 8 hours to finish it.

How do I find it?

I find that the premise was good, the execution a pain, and at the ending, I get a wham!

From the back cover of the book: Sara Fitzgerald's daughter Kate is just two years old when she is diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia. Reeling from with the helpless shock of it, Sara knows she will do anything -- whatever it takes -- to save her child. Then the test results came back time and again to show that no one in their family is a match for Kate. If they are to find a donor for the crucial bone marrow transplant needs, there is only one option: creating another baby, specifically designed to save her sister. For Sara, it seems the ideal situation. Not only does Kate live, she gets a beautiful new daughter, Anna, too. Until the moment Anna hands Sara the papers that will rock the whole world. Because, aged thirteen, Ana has decided that she doesn't want to help Kate live any more. She is suing her parents for the rights to her own body.

Now, doesn't that sound promising for a good read. Sad to say, no. It started well, and I was 4 hours into the book before it started to lose me and from them on, I have begun to speed read as I went along.

Picoult took the story through with each chapter taken from the first person perspective, of the main characters in the story. You have Anna, Sara, Brian (the father), Jesse (the brother), Campbell (the lawyer) and Julia (the woman, as all stories need a woman, and this woman who is the guardian ad litem, is the lawyer's old flame). I would say that it is quite a good approach to a story, if and only if, you have the skill and capability to hold your audience. She did not have that with me. And what's worse, each chapter begins with a different time frame, dislocated from the previous chapter. When I start each chapter, left just afresh from the last one, and about 5 sentences down, I would frown as I try to figure out where in the timeline of the story am I now. As it happened too often, I ended up trudging on and hoping that it will come to me as I read on.

I have never read a book so infuriating, especially when I it started so well. I cannot stand Sara, I am bored with Brian, I could not believe Julia, and Campbell sound quite hollow though I like him, except for his wisecracks about why he has a service dog, the first few was alright but it just went cheesy from there. Only Anna and Jesse were the more believable characters. And the ending was like a "WHAT???"

It is suppose to be a good story. I only wished the story was better told.

And if you need a more emotional but true to my sense of feeling review of this book, read this, I totally agree with him: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1H27OVUNTHLKH/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?ie=UTF8&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest

I read this book under our church's Reading Programme 2009, and I am so glad I picked it. It is an excellent compilation of the main topics of Christian apologetics.

I find it an excellent read, and amongst the sections that stood out for me was this from the chapter on "The Bible: Myth or History?":

"This book is about rational, logical, objective apologetics, not about subjective psychological motivations. But it's important to know what is really going on in the soul of the person to whom apologetic arguments are addressed, and to know the irrational forces behind unbelief ... all arguments against all the doctrines of Christianity are rationally refutable. Having said that, the most important task remains still undone. Arguments destroy ignorance and irrationality, but the real enemy is sin. Sin can be destroyed only by sanctity, prayer, faith, hope, charity, the blood of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit." (p.203)

And I thought this statement so true and creatively constructed:

"God did not design the Bible to be a dark puzzle for bright scholars but to be a bright lamp for travelers through a dark world." (p.213)

If you need a succinct book that tells you all the major points of Christian Apologetics without going too much into the varied details, this book is for you. It will do well as both an introductory level material as well as a handy reference book on Christian Apologetics. Each chapter comes with quite an extensive list of "Questions for Discussion", and this makes it good for use in a group study.

It comes highly recommended -- in fact, a must-have and a must-read for every believer.

This book was an excellent read: one of the most enjoyable books I have read in a long time. Buschart examines 8 main denominations: Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational and Pentecostal.

I like his approach to the presentation of the various traditions. He begins each discussion by telling a story of the denomination, whether about a church he attended, a liturgical act he encountered or an experience he had with them. I find that very interesting as he draws us into his discussions. He introduces us into what the tradition is about.

Then he proceeds to give the context, approach and theology of each of the traditions.

The context is given in their historical and ecclesiastical background. It is very illuminating as he tells the story of how each of them began. It provides us with a footing to begin to understand the denominations, though I wished he had not only concluded on the American side of the history but provide a more a global view of them as well.

The approach is viewed from each of their theological and hermeneutical method. He closes each discussion with a general feel of their theology, particularly their characteristic beliefs. This is where we can identify what makes the traditions.

Albeit with only an average of 20 pages per denomination, he was able to provide excellent historical and theological summaries of them. I can now say that I am beginning to have a fair understanding of these traditions. While there are limitations, Buschart managed to highlight their main theological tenets that make them what they are.

As I read, I discovered much about each of the traditions.

Lutheran: A Gospel of Grace
I noticed from my reading that in comparison to the other denominations, the Lutherans are very much a confessional and creedal denomination. Buschart summarises them with the gospel of grace being the heart of their belief and practice of tradition. From faith to life, the Christian gospel is a message of grace.

Anabaptist: Faith for Radical Community
I was not familiar with this denomination until I read that the Brethren churches are offshoots of the Anabaptist. They did not accept baptism without a personal commitment and therefore most of them underwent a re-baptism even though they have been through baby baptism under the Catholic tradition. Anabaptist's hermeneutics were the hermeneutics of the church. The read the Bible together, interpreted it together and formulated comprehensive statements of faith. They paid particular attention to the Gospels and New Testament. They followed Christ in service to the world.

Reformed: To the Glory of God and God Alone
To the reformed, God is a sovereign God. God is great, God is good and theology is ultimately and finally about God. All men are to acknowledge and submit to him. He is the great I am. God is the subject of the verb.

Anglican: Spirit of a Via Media
My discovery of the Anglican tradition was what surprised me the most among all the others. I had not realise that I know almost nothing about this denomination. I attended a Anglican kindergarten when I was a kid but only one Anglican service more than 20 years ago. I assumed I knew enough about them. Wesley was a Anglican himself and it never occured to me that I should learn more about them. I discovered that the Anglican is a tradition of the via media, the "middle way". From the time it started until today, they have sought to articulate theological beliefs that strikes a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestanism, not by formulating some sort of theological synthesis or hybrid but by embracing ambiguity and inclusion. And their theology is more of a theology of liturgy.

Baptist: Freedom for Immediacy
Baptists are generally a non-creedal people but they cared about theology. The believer is free to interpret the bible apart from the binding prescriptions of a creed, church and state. They are guided by the Holy Spirit and the bible itself. The local congregation is free to oversee its own affairs.

Wesleyan: Grace-full Holiness and Holy Wholeness
Being a Methodist myself and after attending Methodism lectures some months back, I began to understand why I think the way I think. Buschart summarised it perfectly, "Wesleyan Christians go out into nothing less than the entire world, their 'parish', with nothing less than their practical divinity - a message of grace-full holiness. All people need to be saved, by God's grace all people can be saved, and this salvation can be wholly holy."

Dispensational: Rightly Divinding the Scriptures
This denomination is new to me - I had thought they were a cult, but not so. There are many renowned scholars from this group of people, like Dwight Pentecost, Craig A. Blaising and Darrell Bock. The Dispensationalists according to Herbert Bateman, "is a tradition driven by a desire to be scriptural and a recognition that infallibility is what the text - not its interpreters - possesses." Buschart summarised that "through reverent and methodical study of the Bible, Dispensationalists seek to discern God's plan for the ages as revealed in the Scriptures." The most distinctive characteristic of the denomination is their view on the characters and distinctions between the nation of Israel and the church.

Pentecostal: The Spirit of Continuity
I grew with the Pentecostals - in a sense where while I still attend Methodist services, I am surrounded by the Pentecostals during my school days , where the Holy Spirit must be experienced, evidenced by the speaking of tongues. They firmly believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever and the experiences of the early church, as recorded in the book of Acts, provided patterns for us in all ages.

Buschart rightfully closes the discussion with a look into Christian Hospitality, that is we must come to position where we disagree, we disagree in love and in acceptance - to take on a "both/and" approach to unity and diversity within Christianity. It is ironic that most Christians agree that existentially and experientially, the church is diverse and divided, but will you not agree with me that in this age, the boundaries that separate the division may slowly be disintegrating. Not entirely for sure, there are still areas we could not reconcile, but the boundaries may be blurring in some. And where they are not, we are still one Church, with one Head, Jesus Christ, our Saviour, our King and our Lord.