Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I was asked to review this book because of my work in philosophy and reformed theology. First, Jankovic makes a superficial attempt to tear apart existentialist philosophy. She charges it (and particularly John Paul Sartre and his wife Simone de Beauvoir) with being the heart of self improvement. Why someone with no apparent training in philosophy would even attempt this task in a popular writing style to an audience that is likewise not trained in philosophy seems at best disingenuous. Second, Jankovic confuses the philosophical concept of identity (personhood) with the socio-psychological concept of identity (personality, interests, etc). Though this is common for these sorts of books, I would think someone trying to start a philosophical conversation on identity would draw out this necessary distinction. Jankovic does not. Since Jankovic's goal with this book is to discuss a Christian concept of identity, based (allegedly) on a Christian view of philosophy, it's not worth reading since it fails this goal strait out of the gate. Third, Jankovic's theology is also problematic. The problems stem from ongoing disagreements over the role works play in Sanctification. She confuses the gift of faith with the work of "faithfulness." “The fruit of faithfulness” is not in Scripture. Faithfulness is a fruit of the Spirit. Jankovic’s tell is that the entire book is written from the wrong subject/object perspective. Her message is an erroneous view of the “third use of the law,” as though it were “do this and live,” rather than the use of the law in the hand of Christ, “live! and do this.” Whether Jankovic intended this or not, the message of her book is, faith is of your own effort and you may not rest until you’re dead. This is not the message of the Gospel. Whether Jankovic is espousing Federal Vision in particular (and she can plausibly deny it since she doesn’t use that term directly), the ideas Paul objected to are clear in her writing. It’s not only found in Federal Vision, but also in variants derived from the New Perspectives of Paul. So proponents of N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and John Piper also fall under this category. One doctrinal issue at stake here is bicovenantalism vs monocovenatalism. Historic reformed theology is bicovenantal; The variants Jankovic teaches here are monocovental. This may seem like some ethereal debate not relevant to the layman. But there are very real ramifications for believers depending on which teaching they’re sitting under. Whatever benefit others have gleaned from the book, it's of no serious benefit to old school Presbyterians and Calvinists, nor is it of any benefit to those looking for a correct philosophical understanding of identity.