The Printer and the Preacher - by Randy Petersen
The Printer and the
Preacher: Ben Franklin, George Whitefield, and the Surprising Friendship that Invented America by Randy
Peterson is a book that attempts to
explore the friendship of George Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin and how that
relationship affected the coming united American states. I have read some biographies on Whitefield
(Dallimore's) and knew of Franklin's correspondence with Whitefield, and
thought that the topic of this book looked interesting.
Sadly, this book did
not satisfy my hopes. First, though the
author's writing style is not boring it is too unorganized for my taste. I have read books before where the narrative
goes back and forth through time and I know that this can be done in an
interesting, yet still unconfusing way, but this book does not do it well. On any given page, especially towards the
first half of the book, one can be in Franklin's early life, then his later, or
in Whitefield's early life, or his later life, then again in Whitefield's later
life and then in Franklin's early life… and so on. It felt as though one was in a defective time
machine so that when you put one foot out in 1776 the machine goes crazy and
you actually step out for a momentary glimpse of 1730 but ultimately find yourself experiencing vertigo in 1765. At least in my opinion that was how it
seemed, perhaps others won't mind it, but I would have preferred a more steady
chronological approach.
Sadly, this book did
not satisfy my hopes. First, though the
author's writing style is not boring it is too unorganized for my taste. I have read books before where the narrative
goes back and forth through time and I know that this can be done in an
interesting, yet still unconfusing way, but this book does not do it well. On any given page, especially towards the
first half of the book, one can be in Franklin's early life, then his later, or
in Whitefield's early life, or his later life, then again in Whitefield's later
life and then in Franklin's early life… and so on. It felt as though one was in a defective time
machine so that when you put one foot out in 1776 the machine goes crazy and
you actually step out for a momentary glimpse of 1730 but ultimately find yourself experiencing vertigo in 1765. At least in my opinion that was how it
seemed, perhaps others won't mind it, but I would have preferred a more steady
chronological approach.
And then, I thought
that Petersen wrote a bit too flippantly, especially in regards to Franklin's
wrong beliefs. For a good deal of the
book he seemed to be rather lighthearted about Franklin's rejection of the Gospel
especially when writing about Franklin's perspective of morals and his piecing
together his own form of religion. Peterson does
show his own Christian views at one point, harshly critiquing Franklin's
thought that being saved by faith alone (without works) is not a Christian
doctrine, "But he [Franklin] was still dead wrong. It is certainly a 'Christian doctrine' that
we are saved by faith alone and not by our deeds…" But then he continues his account of their
lives in care-free style that seems to push aside the importance of eternity,
and the seriousness of Franklin's rejection of the Gospel. I'm sure Peterson did not mean to do this,
but that was how it came across to me.
Other things
bothered me as well, such as the author's harping on the emotional responses of
the people towards Whitefield's messages and his emotional delivery of the
truth. The author makes statements like this: "Throughout
his career, George was accused of over-emotionalizing the Gospel. His dramatic antics got people so excited,
they might agree to anything, or so the critics said. But that was the whole point. Whitefield knew that the Gospel broke into
most peoples' lives through their emotions, not their minds…What they lacked,
George felt, was a transformation of the heart - and that would best happen not
through logical argumentation, but through an emotional appeal." I may be wrong, but I don't ever remember
that Whitfield put emotion above words and logical thinking, especially in
regards to the Word of God. And even if
he did believe as the above statements say I would still have to flatly
disagree. The Bible doesn't say that
faith comes from emotion, rather it states that faith comes by hearing the Word
of God (Rom. 10:17). It doesn't say that
emotion is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, rather the
Word of God has those attributes (Heb 4:12). Emotion is an effect but not the
cause of the New Birth.
And then the author
uses other statements, like, "…about the same time the great reformers
were crafting a new faith." New?
"Crafting"? Weren't they returning to the one and only Word of God? And again he says, "Whitfield bought
heavily into the Calvinist theology…"
I wouldn't use the term "bought into"…
So, to put my
opinion simply: Petersen had too flippant a perspective of the history of
these two men who both have eternal souls and whose beliefs about Who, and what
life is really about, really did matter when it comes to where they would spend
eternity.
I received a free review copy of this book from the
Booklook blogger program in exchange for my review which did not have to be
favorable.
Comments
Post a Comment