BOOK REVIEW: The Last Eyewitness

[I recently received a review copy of the first book in Chris Seay’s collaborative project, The Voice.]

I have struggled now for several weeks trying to devise a narrative structure upon which to arrange the thoughts and reactions produced by my encounter with Chris Seay’s book, The Last Eyewitness: The Final Week (Voice). I’m convinced that there is no adequate way to do this. But in order to “close the loop” (for the GTD inclined), I have to write something. Therefore, I have decided to respond to Seay’s book as if I were talking to a friend at a coffee shop about a movie I just saw.

The Last Eyewitness: The Final Week (Voice)

Technorati Tags: ChrisSeay, The+Voice, TheLastEyeWitness

The logic behind this approach is twofold. First, I don’t think Chris wants me to write an academic book review of The Last Eyewitness. The book combines so many elements (Biblical paraphrase, creative expansion of the Biblical text, art, quasi-commentary) that to apply the critical categories of a general book review would prove disastrous. Second, I don’t get the feeling that Chris wants this to be reviewed like a book.

Therefore, I will try to reflect on the full experience of this book just as I would try to explain my reactions after viewing a particular film. Please let my purpose here be clear—I’m not simply looking for an informal style, I’m trying to give you reactions in the wake of an “encounter” instead of my praise or critique of a book. What follows is much more my subjective opinion than objective points of fact. I believe this is in step with Seay’s intention for the book (118), and as such, I’m doing the best that I can.

Lest I be accused of holding anything back, I’m going to put all my cards on the table—I absolutely could not stand this book. Had I not felt obligated to write this review, I assure you that I wouldn’t have spent more than 20 minutes with it.

Before you dismiss me and say, “Well, he just doesn’t get it”—let me freely admit that I don’t get it. This book is a project in community art, and I confess that the beauty and significance of art often eludes me. I don’t get it.

In the end, this review may prove nothing more to you than the fact that I’m an uncultured imbecile—and I’m willing to wear that. For the few that read this, I apologize in advance if that is all this shows in the end. But I’ll stick my neck out further and say that I don’t’ think the emperor is wearing any clothes.

Here are a few reasons why:

Visually I don’t find the book appealing. This is clearly subjective, but I think a book that claims to be about beauty should be beautiful. I have never found gold ink appealing, and this book makes liberal use of it. In fact, the only colors you will find on the book’s white pages are black and gold. No disrespect intended toward Ron Pepper, but I found his sketches to be reminiscent of gospel tracts from the 70’s. The epilogue explains that Pepper created these by not looking at the paper. I guess that is supposed to impress me, but personally, I'd rather that he'd looked.

The format of the book is distracting and makes for a bumpy ride. Worse is the fact that I find the arrangement of the biblical paraphrase, the author’s exceptionally imaginative textual expansion, and the “unique insights from (unidentified) scholarly sources” (ix) to blend together in such a way that, if one tries to treat the book in a unified way, it becomes difficult to distinguish between John’s story, Seay’s expansion on it, and some un-named group of scholars.

The book’s epilogue explains how to distinguish between the elements and claims that the “user has all the information necessary to differentiate the Scriptures from the ancillary material” (126). I found this both difficult and annoying to do in practice. Plus, who reads the epilogue before they read the book?

Audience & Language | I was never certain whom the book was written for. At points, Seay gives information that appears to be intended for people unfamiliar with the Biblical story, whereas at other points he uses language of inaugurated eschatology or presumes knowledge that only Christians would possess.

Regardless of audience, I find that some of the words and idioms Seay substitutes for words used across the spectrum of biblical translations were unhelpful to the point of being ridiculous. For example, I don’t understand how Seay thinks words like “immerser” are a better, clearer, or a more beautiful substitute for the word “Baptist.” “John the Immerser” just doesn’t do much for me—neither does the “energy of life” instead of the life (John 3.16), or destroying the personal nature of the Trinity in referring to the Holy Spirit as an impersonal “it” (32). In fact, I found the overly nuanced and inconsistent rendering of language confusing.

CONCLUSION
I would like to go beyond simply saying that I didn’t like The Last Eyewitness and say that I don’t think it’s worth you time. Permit me to offer three reasons:

First, Seay claims that the “goal of The Voice is to promote the public reading of longer sections of Scripture—followed by thoughtful engagement with the biblical narrative in its richness and fullness and dramatic flow” (123). I couldn’t agree more—and therefore I would ask you to avoid this book and read the Scripture. Just as I think Shakespeare is more beautiful than “Cotton Patch Shakespeare” (or Monarch Notes on Shakespeare)—so also do I think that John’s Gospel is much more beautiful and powerful than Seay’s mash-up of it.

Second, though he claims that his goal is to move away from “irrefutable fact statements” and instead move toward an approach to Scripture “that celebrates beauty and truth” (119), I don’t feel like he’s being entirely honest here. That is, I think that much of his “narrative” is simply the cloaking of a different set of “fact statements.” For example, placing the culpability of the death of Christ in the hands of the Chief priests and Jewish leaders seems to be less about John’s story and more about modern scholars’ alternate and politically correct spin on it. The point of the narrative is that the masses are culpable for the death of Christ. As we encounter the narrative, we should see ourselves in the crowds. In Seay’s re-telling, this is impossible

Finally, Seay claims that his complaint with modern Protestantism is that preaching has been reduced to truth statements rather than the telling of stories (118). I think that "proposition vs. narrative" is a false dichotomy that borders on absurdity, but I will concede it for the sake of discussion. However, if Seay’s problem is with preaching, then why does he respond with a book?

Why not create a visual and theatrical presentation and take it on the road? In doing so, Seay could have included dramatic readings, the music of The Voice (which I actually enjoy), and the public reading of extended portions of Scripture. Seay appears to me to have serious problems with our modern conception of “words.” Consequently, the subtitle of his first chapter is “In the beginning…there was no written word,” and he resists translating logos as word (preferring alternatives like voice and message).

Forgive me if I’m dense, but I have to ask…Why not a beautiful web site? Why not an interactive DVD? Why not something theatric? Why a book? What’s more, why an entire series of them? I agree that the stories of Scripture need to be retold—I don’t think they need to be re-written. Furthermore, I’m of the conviction that we need fewer books, not more.

In the end, I think Seay has aspired to greatness and landed far short. I think his project is ambitious. Had the book done for me what Seay intended it to do, I might have been impressed. Unfortunately, I think Seay and company have done poorly what Eugene Peterson has done well in The Message.

Perhaps I just find myself in a different situation than most people these days. Living out of the country, and dreading the thought of carrying heavy boxes when we move back, I find myself evaluating the worth of a book by a ratio of it's lasting significance / weight. This isn't a heavy book, but it won't be making the move with me.

Like I said in the beginning, maybe I just don't get it...

(For more information about Seay's project, his video blog, and speaking schedule, visit hearthevoice.com)

Comments

[bill streger]

Great thoughts, Kevin. I got a copy in the mail awhile back, with a letter that begin "Dear Fellow Storyteller..." Strike one.

Count me in the club of people who just don't get it on this one.

[Joel]

I was given a copy of this book by someone who received it in the mail along with a letter that began, "Dear Fellow Storyteller"...
(see above)

I only spent the 20 minutes that you wish you did, and I still have a sour taste in my mouth.

I love Chris, and we go way back to when I was first called to be a pastor and a missionary, but I'm not really crazy about any of his books. Least of all, this one.

[jonathan ramey]

Very simply like you said earlier:

You just don't get it!! Maybe if Piper of Driscoll or someone else from your side of the aisle was behind the exact same project you would be praising it.

Have you even read the Message? I thought it wasn't even close to the Message.

[Kevin Cawley]

Jonathan. I'm bummed that you tried to make this a partisan thing. If you'll give even a cursory glance to my review of Driscoll's recent book, I think you'll find that your attempt to dodge my criticism and make it a partisan issue is rather silly. Actually, it's extremely silly.

I agree with you that this project isn't anything close to the Message. That was my effort to be kind. I don't think that this book was even close to the Bible in many places.

But I guess it was just a partisan thing?

[Chase]

Thanks for taking the time, Kevin. I am going to link to this, that me and me 4 readers might save time as well.

[blake w]

Thanks bro. I was thinking about getting the one on Acts, but you saved me 12 bucks.