ANGEL BOOKS -- REVIEWS

---

These books are in St. Paul's Parish Library.

All reviews are by Steven Olderr -- who is notoriously impatient with authors and publisher's who waste the reader's time -- and do not necessarily reflect the views of the rector or anyone else in the parish.  Submissions of other reviews are cheerfully accepted from other parishioners.  We just don't have any at present.
 

Atemose, Charlene What You Should Know about Angels.  Liguori, 1996, 85 p. If the author's credentials as a nun are to be listed on the back cover of this book, the reader is entitled to believe they will be made manifest in the work.  Mostly one is given the author's tepid personal and sentimental speculations about angels.  These are neither inspiring nor authoritative.  She makes occasional biblical references, but does not quote the actual verses, as though chapter and verse alone will cause you to genuflect and cross yourself.  Since the title is What you should know about angels, one can only conclude that the author feels we should know nothing, because  that is what is to be found between the covers.  If you seek some spiritual cheerleading about angels, read Billy Graham’s Angels: God’s secret agents, which despite the hokey subtitle, has some fire and grit.  Forgive this reviewer Sister Joan, but you and your publisher should embarassed for this effort, or lack thereof.  Go forth in peace and waste paper no more. *****

Graham, Billy Angels: God’s Secret Agents.  Guideposts, 1975, 175p. If you subscribe to the notion that, ultimately, Christianity is caught, not taught, then there is something for you in this effort.  The scholarship may be a bit weak, but Graham has a gift for conveying his enthusiasm and love for God and the angels.  Nothing wrong with that, even for Anglicans, also known as God’s Frozen People.  Half the verbiage would have sufficed, but that wouldn't have been enough to publish as a book, or at least garner that sales that they did with this format.  Graham gives biblical quotes so you can relate them to his message, but he quotes from many different translations of the Bible.  This is  playing games with words in translation, and Billy ought to know better.  There can be a profound difference between mere words, and The Word.  Like the Rio Grande, this book is a mile wide and an inch deep.  For all that, it's a fairly good inch in its own particular niche, and Billy's an entertaining preacher. *****

Huber, Georges My Angel Will Go before You.  Christian Classics: Allen, Texas; 1995, 128 p. [Translated from the French]  This slim volume was written by a Roman Catholic for his confreres and is prone to all the faults one associates with that.  Statements such as the Roman Catholic Church being “the reliable interpreter of Revelation,” or “no Catholic with clear ideas would deny that angels exist,” can be offputting to Anglicans who bridle at such bland statements of authority.  Further, this book is written as a “defense,” which can be a tiresome form in the best of hands.  Still, just when you're rolling your eyes and ready to put it down in exasperation, a provocative statement will lift itself off the page and give you cause for profitable reflection.  Did you ever consider communication between guardian angels as an explanation of love at first sight?  That a blessing or consecration by the Church places an object under the protection of a guardian angel?  That angels gather up your prayers and present them up to God?  If you're only going to read one book on angels, read Peter Kreeft’s Angels and demons: What do we really know about them?, which is a good deal more thorough and reasoned. My angel will go before you can provide additional insights, but you should feel free to skim until you come to the good parts.  *****

Kreeft, Peter Angels and Demons: What do We Really Know about Them?  Ignatius, 1995, 154p. If you're only going to read one book on angels, this is the one.  Orderly, tightly reasoned, methodical, and succinct, it quotes the Bible and Church Fathers, and explains the reasoning of theologians for why the Church believes as it does.  It is hard to put down.  But take note, it seems that the popular image of a guardian angel sitting on one shoulder encouraging you to do right, and a devil sitting on the other shoulder tempting you to do wrong is not far off the mark.  Kreeft has a gift for clear convincing exposition, and at times it is easy to see his good angel is guiding his pen.  At other times, the devil grabs him like Turette’s syndrome and makes him blurt out knee-jerk romanisms that will put your Anglican back up.  After winning you over with reason, he may suddenly say that you don't have to buy his argument anyway since the Roman Catholic Church tells you that it is so, and you must accept it if you are to call yourself a [Roman] Catholic.  Puh-leez!  Worse, he sneaks in gratuitous comments about that great Roman Catholic bête noire, abortion.  Under that felicity of expression, that erudition, and that scholarship one gets glimpses of a strident stiff-necked fundamentalist banging on the pulpit and telling you that you'd better damn well believe what he says or you're going straight to hell.  Which Peter Kreeft do you believe?  Dear Reader, avoid the whispered advice of the demon, and hear your guardian angel.  Sort the wheat from the chaff, for there far more of the former than the latter.  ***** A little editing would make it ***** and a classic of angelology.