Product Description
An account of how American television handled the 1992 Presidential campaign. ... Read more

Product Description
The Russian media are widely seen to be increasingly controlled by the government. Leaders buy up dissenting television channels and pour money in as fast as it haemorrhages out. As a result, TV news has become narrower in scope and in the range of viewpoints which it reflects: leaders demand assimilation and shut down dissenting stations. Using original and extensive focus group research and new developments in cognitive theory, Ellen Mickiewicz unveils a profound mismatch between the complacent assumption of Russian leaders that the country will absorb their messages, and the viewers on the other side of the screen. This is the first book to reveal what the Russian audience really thinks of its news and the mental strategies they use to process it. The focus on ordinary people, rather than elites, makes a strong contribution to the study of post-communist societies and the individual's relationship to the media. ... Read more

Product Description
This book examines television culture in Russia under the Putin government. It demonstrates how broadcasters have been enlisted in a national identity project to install a latter-day version of imperial pride in Russian military achievements, over which Putins government exerts a form of remote control. ... Read more

Product Description
By critically examining the writings of egalitarians, Grudem shows that, while egalitarian leaders claim to be subject to Scripture in their thinking, what is increasingly evident in their actual scholarship and practice is an effective rejection of the authority of Scripture.Egalitarianism is heading toward an Adam who is neither male nor female, a Jesus whose manhood is not important, and a God who is both Father and Mother, and then maybe only Mother. The common denominator in all of this is a persistent undermining of the authority of Scripture in our lives. Grudem-s conclusion is that we must choose either evangelical feminism or biblical truth. We can-t have it both ways! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (22)

Great book. A must read for Christians.
In the world of Christendom there is a heresy that has become more popular. Some churches are allowing woman to be pastors and allowing them to practice authority over men. This is completely against scripture as Paul says in 1 Timothy 2. This book is one that is helping me better understand the truth of the scripture and shows me the error of those who do confirm woman in the ministry. I would recommend that every Christian read this book it will be sanctifying for you.

Can Egalitarians Remain Evangelical?
Wayne Grudem's Evangelical Feminism is a wake-up call to the evangelical world. Packed with hard-hitting evidence that documents the trajectory from egalitarianism to liberalism and eventually to the normalization of homosexuality, Grudem systematically demolishes the reasoning behind many egalitarian readings of Scripture.

I appreciated Grudem's constant reminders throughout the book that not all egalitarians are by default liberals. He clearly counts many egalitarians as friends and colleagues. But all liberals are egalitarians. And furthermore, as Grudem relentlessly points out time and time again, the treatment of Scripture by many evangelical egalitarians is the same reasoning which eventually nullifies Scriptural teaching on a whole host of issues.

Grudem's extensive research and his long defense of complementarianism make him the perfect person to author this work. Unfortunately, because many in the egalitarian camp have read other works by Grudem, it is likely that many will dismiss this book as another rehashing of previous arguments by Grudem.

However, Evangelical Feminism is different than Grudem's other works, because here, Grudem is not offering evidence for complementarianism. Instead, he is focusing on the nature of the arguments in favor of egalitarianism, and showing through historical and theological research what happens when the same ways of thinking are applied to other issues. Liberalism always follows!

This is a very important book. Egalitarians can disagree with Grudem's conclusions, but they cannot dismiss the evidence outlined in his book. The burden of proof now rests squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to remain egalitarian and evangelical.

A Sobering Warning
Wayne Grudem has produced a timely wake up callto evangelical believers.With grace, but relentless logic, he shows the slip-shod arguments that evangelicals are using to overturn the clear teachings of Scripture in regard to male leadership in the church.I write as one who studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the the mid-80s.I had selected Gordon-Conwell partly because I was very open to egalitarian views.However the weakness of the egalitarian view became clear as I listened to brilliant men, notably Roger Nicole, break basic hermeneutical principles in order to support their chosen view.The Bible simply does not support the egalitarian position.Since returning to my homeland, Australia, and nowhaving ministered for more than a decade in New Zealand, I have seen the slide Dr. Grudem is warning about taking place.New Zealand Christianity was devastated by liberalism in the first half of last century and then again by the charismatic movement in the second half of the century.In that part of the Christian church which remains evangelical feminism is a major force leading believers away from trust in God's Word.There are only small groups of reformed and some fundamentalist believers who continue to teach what is recognizably the gospel of Jesus Christ.Most evangelicals are being entertained to death by leaders, male and female, who have little regard for what Scripture teaches. Dr Grudem writes on the basis of very thorough research and his conclusions are irrefutable.
My prayer is that his writings will be read, taken to heart and that repentance will result in a return to diligent, expository preaching of the whole counsel of God.For countries like New Zealand the hour is very late.Please pray for this needy nation.

A standard against feminism in the church
This book is essential in arming Christians against the march of feminism on the church.Wayne Grudem argues brilliantly from the Bible against the unscriptural view of egalitarianism.Step by step grudem address popular arguements in favor of egalitarianism and then refutes them establishing the Biblical view of complementarianism in the process.This book will help Christians understand what it means to celebrate our gender differences and recognize the different roles God has established for men and women in the home and in the church.

Where Is Egalitarianism Leading Us?
The focus of this book by Wayne Grudem is his concern that evangelical feminism will prove, over time, to draw people into theological liberalism. By liberalism, Grudem is referring to a system of belief that does not accept the Bible as the supreme authority in the lives of believers, or accept the absolute truthfulness of what is written in it.

Grudem bases this concern of his in many of the arguments made in support of egalitarianism. They are, he says, often exactly the same arguments used first in liberal Protestant denomination--arguments that deny (although sometimes in subtle ways) that the text of scripture is completely error free, and that what we find written there is the final arbitrator of things in a believer's life and in the life of the church.

Grudem's first argument is from history. He makes the case that, generally speaking, denominations that ordain women are also denominations that at least tolerate liberalism. The lists are interesting, and it does seem that the ordination of women and a denial of the inerrancy of scripture (or at least a tolerance of those who deny the inerrancy of scripture) tend to go hand in hand within denominations. I'm ot sure exactly what this proves, but the correlation is worth noting.

The second section of the book is a collection of short chapters (fifteen in all), with each one examining a single argument put forward by evangelical feminists. Each arguments examined is one that Grudem believes undermines the authority of scripture. I won't run through the various arguments, but I will give you one example, and a summary of Grudem's reasoning for his charge that this particular argument undermines scripture.

The first chapter in this section deals with a couple of arguments that put forward the idea that the account of creation given to us in Genesis 1-3 is not exactly accurate. One of the arguments, made by William Webb, is that the priority of Adam's creation, with instructions given by God to Adam alone, is not the way things really happened; but rather, is a literary device, perhaps used to foreshadow the curse, or used by Moses to make things easier for people of his time and culture to understand the story, or used to anticipate life in an agrarian society. The point of denying the historicity of the text that says that Adam was created first is that this makes it possible to argue that when Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:13, where he argues from Adam's creation before Eve that women are not to exercise authority over a man, the argument he uses is merely a cultural one, and not one rooted in the actual events of creation. At the very least, it's an odd way for someone with a high view of scripture to handle the text; but further, it seems a little like toying with the evidence for the purpose of coming to one's desired conclusion. Grudem's point is that this argument iss a step on the road to denying the inerrancy of scripture by denying that the Genesis account represents the historical events of creation.

There are many more troubling arguments in this section. Some, like the example above, deny the authority of scripture by claiming that the text is wrong in some way. Other arguments simply claim that there are certain things that trump the authority of scripture, like experience, or "calling" or individual circumstances.

The next section of Evangelical Feminism deals with arguments that are based on claims that come mostly from conjecture, either about what a certain word really means, or what the particular circumstances surrounding a text really were. These conjectures allow for whole new interpretations of some passages, but the unsubstantiated nature of the claims upon which these interpretations are made make the interpretations themselves speculative at best, and yet the claims are not presented as speculations, but as already proven facts.

There are ten chapters in this section dealing with various unsubstantiated claims. You've heard some of them, I'm sure. There's the claim, for instance, that the women in the church of Corinth were particularly unruly or disruptive. Did you know there is really no evidence, either internal to the text of 1 Corinthians or historical, that this was so? Yet you will hear it repeated--I certainly have--as if it were historical fact/

Have you heard that the women of Ephesus were uneducated, so that's why Paul forbids them to teach? There is no historical evidence that this was the case, and what historical evidence there is points to the existence of educated women there--like Priscilla, for one. Nevertheless, you will hear this unsubstantiated theory bandied about as if there were something more than guess work behind it.

That last section of the book deals with Grudem's prediction of where it is that evangelical feminism is leading: toward the denial of the uniquely masculine (or feminine) except the physical differences; toward a God whom we can address as "our Mother", even though he never describes himself this way; and toward an approval of homosexual practice.

The last chapter is a summary of the argument of this book: that the evangelical feminist arguments persistently undermine the authority of scripture, and ultimately, it is the high view of scripture that is at stake in this debate. Perhaps you are thinking, as I was, that there must be egalitarians who do not use any of these sorts of arguments. Grudem's response is that every egalitarian author that he knows uses at least some of these arguments.

It should be noted that Grudem is not saying that all (or even most) egalitarians are liberals, or moving personally toward liberalism. What he is saying is that, while many egalitarians may affirm the authority of scripture, many of their arguments undermine scripture's authority, so that it is toward liberalism that egalitarianism is likely leading, with each successive generation going further in that direction.

Like all of Grudem's books, there are extensive footnotes that allow you to check out everything he says to see if his claims are really so. I also appreciate his care in presenting the arguments of those whose ideas he is opposing. He seems to go out of his way to get their position exactly right without any exaggeration, and I like that.

Even though I've written reviews of a couple of books on the subject of egalitarianism, this is not a subject I am naturally interested in. I'm a complementarian, and I know why I believe what I believe, but I've not been fascinated by the ins and outs of all the arguments. But I do think it's an important subject, perhaps more important than I understood previously, and Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? is an important book on the subject, and one that is easily read and understood by a non-expert reader like me. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Shanto Iyengar- Is Anyone Responsible
In his book Is Anyone Responsible? (1991), Shanto Iyengar evaluates the framing effects of television news on political issues. The book explores the agenda-setting role of television news. When he refers to the term framing the concept given refers to "subtle alterations in the statement or presentation of judgement and choice problems, and the term "framing effect" refer to changes in decision outcomes resulting from these alternations."Shanto Iyengar, professor of political science and communication studies at UCLA, has pioneered the research in the framing effects of news coverage on public opinion and political choice. He explains that viewers are "sensitive to contextual cues when they reason about national affairs. Their explanations of issues like terrorism or poverty are critically dependent upon the particular reference points furnished in media presentations." The frames for a given story are seldom conscientiously chosen but represent instead the effort of the journalist or sponsor to convey a story in a direct and meaningful way. As such, news frames are frequently drawn from, and reflective of, shared cultural narratives and myths and resonate with the larger social themes to which journalists tend to be acutely sensitive.

Through a series of laboratory experiments (reports of which constitute the core of the book), he finds that the framing of issues by television news shapes the way the public understands the causes of and the solutions to central political problems. The research reported in Is Anyone Responsible? examines two ways in which television news frames issues, these issues being episodic and thematic. Episodic framing depicts concrete events that illustrate issues, while thematic framing present's collective advice or general advice. Television news is routinely reported in the form of specific events or particular cases - Iyengar calls this "episodic" news framing - which is counterpoised to "thematic" coverage which places political issues and events in some general context. "Episodic framing depicts concrete events that illustrate issues, while thematic framing presents collective or general evidence."Iyengar found that subjects shown episodic reports were less likely to consider society responsible for the event, and subjects shown thematic reports were less likely to consider individuals responsible. In one of the clearest demonstrations of this phenomenon, subjects who viewed stories about poverty that featured homeless or unemployed people (episodic framing) were much more likely to blame poverty on individual failings, such as laziness or low education, than were those who instead watched stories about high national rates of unemployment or poverty (thematic framing). Viewers of the thematic frames were more likely to attribute the causes and solutions to governmental policies and other factors beyond the victim's control. The episodic frame is the more prevalent one. It ordinarily takes the form of a report based on an event. An example of this would be the depiction of the terrorism issue in the context of an Irish Republican Army bombing in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the thematic frame provides a broader perspective; it reports the issue in the context of "collective outcomes, public policy debates, or historical trends" . An example would be a news story that discusses the terrorism issue against the backdrop of the historical bitterness between Northern Ireland's Protestants and Catholics. Yet the news media systematically filter the issues and defect blame from the establishment by framing the news as "only a passing parade of specific events, a `context of no context.'Iyengar found that subjects shown episodic reports were less likely to consider individuals responsible. Viewers of thematic frames on the otherhand were more likely to attribute the causes and solutions to governmental policies and other factors beyond the victim's control.On the basis of experimental research, Iyengar concludes that the episodic framing on television encourages viewers to assign the blame for society's problems to individuals, rather than to social and political institutions, such as political parties. Because television news emphasises episodic framing, says Iyengar, it deflects the blame for problems from government, resulting in a weakening of political accountability- hence the title of the book.

Iyengar says that television focuses "on concrete acts and breaking events" , this form of reporting did not originate from television. This model of journalism, which dates back to the 1830s, is the dominant form of newspaper reporting and has been taught in schools of Journalism since the early 1900s. in fact, newspaper journalists depend even more heavily on episodic reports than do television journalists.Compared with the newspapers' inverted pyramids, television emphasises the interpretative news report due to its need for tightly structured stories. If stories are to be readily understood by a listening audience, they cannot be allowed to trail off as a newspaper story may. Accordingly, television news stories tend to be built around inferential sentences, often an unattributed nature. Iyengar's experimental methods offer a precision of measurement that the media effects research seldom attains. I believe, moreover, that Iyengar's notion of framing effects is one of the truly important theoretical concepts to appear in recent years. Iyengar's challenge is to balance his noteworthy methods and concepts with an equally measures accounting of the substance of American politics and journalism.According to the arguments set forth by Iyengar, the breakdown of public confidence in media reportage is a result of the way campaigns are framed. "Nowhere is the debilitating influence of episodic framing on political accountability more apparent than in presidential election campaigns . . . [which] guarantee that coverage of the issues and the candidates' policy proposals will receive minimal attention."The significance of media sources becomes immediately apparent in the context of media framing. As Iyengar writes in the American Political Science Review (September 1987), "the invoking of different reference points triggers completely different strategies of choice or judgement." Merely altering the description of the alternatives can profoundly alter choices between risky prospects. Framing the prospects in terms of possible losses, for example, induces risk-seeking behaviour while describing the identical prospects in terms of potential gains makes people risk averse. ... Read more