Hristianitys Dangerous Idea Alister Mcgrath

BOOK CRITIQUE GRADING RUBRIC
Element Criteria Excellent:
Satisfies criteria with excellent work Good:
Satisfies criteria Average:
Satisfies most criteria Poor:
Does not satisfy criteria Points
Earned Comments from Instructor
Introduction a? There is a clear thesis statement. The topic is identified.
a? The introduction provides a clear overview of the paperas contents. 14a 15 pts. 13 pts. 11a 12 pts. 0a 10 pts.
Structure a? There are clear transitions between paragraphs and sections.
a? There is a table of contents.
a? Proper headings are used.
a? The critique is logically oriented. 14a 15 pts. 13 pts. 11a 12 pts. 0a 10 pts.
Content a? The major questions in the assignment document are addressed.
a? The analysis is thorough. 41a 45 pts. 38a 40 pts. 34a 37 pts. 0a 33 pts.
Conclusion a? The conclusion offers a good summary of issues treated in the paper and offer practical application. 14a 15 pts. 13 pts. 11a 12 pts. 0a 10 pts.
Materials/
Sources a? The bibliography contains at least 2 scholarly sources.
a? Materials are properly cited and quoted.
a? Quotes are relevant to the topic.
a? Current scholarship is used. 28a 30 pts. 25a 27 pts. 23a 24 pts. 0a 22 pts.
Style a? The paper properly uses Turabian.
a? The paper is properly formatted. It has a table of contents.
a? Footnotes and bibliography are properly formatted.
a? The paper reflects a graduate level of vocabulary.
a? The paper is without spelling and grammatical errors. 28a 30 pts. 25a 27 pts. 23a 24 pts. 0a 22 pts.
BOOK CRITIQUE INSTRUCTIONS ANDTEMPLATE

The purpose of a church history critique
In preparing a critique, you are expected to come to a book or other type of resource with a critical eye to thoroughly interact with the authoras theological, biblical and historiographical perspectives. Since you are not considered an authority, it is important that personal references, opinions, attitudes, values, etc. be withheld from this processa except where suggested below.
Formatting guidelines
(cf. Turabian Manual for more details)
Since this is a graduate level course, papers must be written to a near-thesis standard. That is, minimum format standards must be met, as defined below. English grammar, idiom, and spelling must be up to graduate level. Qualities valued include clarity, succinctness, and precision.
Your paper must include the following:
a? Cover page
a? Table of Contents should show a clearly defined outline that will also be visible throughout the paper
a? 1margins top, bottom, and sides
a? Double-space (approximately 3 vertical lines per inch, 27 lines per page)
a? 12-point Times New Roman
a? Indent paragraphs 5 spaces or 0.6 inch (our thesis standard is 5/8 inch)
a? No extra line-feed between paragraphs (Just indent the paragraph as shown above)
a? Underline (or Bold) section headings (should follow Table of Contents)
a? Page numbers
a? Bibliography
Breakdown of a critique

I. Introduction (Half a page maximum)
a? It should be a single but strong paragraph that reveals what you intend to show to the reader. This is your a?thesis statement.a? Your thesis statement needs to be written with what you want to say about the present book under review. In light of the authoras thesis and how he develops it, what do you want to say about it and how do you intend to develop your thesis?
a? It should include a brief review of background data about the book, the author, and (where relevant) the topic under discussion in the book.


II. Brief Summary (a page up to a page and a half: should not be more than 20% of your critique)
a? The idea is NOT to state what every single chapter is all about; instead, you should capture the main idea(s) of the book along with the underlining subtopics and themes.
a? This should be a brief overview of what the book is all about, the issues, themes, and solutions that the author is setting forth.
a? This section gauges your ability to identify the main point of a book and differentiate between central and peripheral ideas.
III. Critical interaction with the authoras work (2 to 4 pages that is, around 70% of your paper)
a? The point is NOT whether the student agrees with the authors point of view, but whether the student recognizes what the author was up to and what theological issues might be at stake.
a? It is important that the student document their assessment of the author throughout. If a judgment is made with respect to the authoras opinion, then there should be an example given along with a footnote to designate where this can be observed.
Your critique must deal with the following questions:
a? Where is the author coming from and what are the theological, biblical, and historiographical perspectives from which he/she approaches the subject?
a? What is the writeras goal?
a? Does he/she prove their point? How? Why? Why not?
a? What are the strengths/weaknesses of the authoras arguments?
a? Are there any published reviews of this work? What are they? Did you observe any relevant issues or questions raised by these reviews? Explain. What important works have been written on this same subject? How does this author compare to others in terms of content, approach, style, etc? The Book Critique should contain at least 2 scholarly sources.i?
a? Finallya and this is where the studentas perspective might be admissiblea how might a person (e.g., pastor, lay reader, scholar) appropriate the ideas conveyed in this work? For example, if the book relates to the doctrines of man or sin, how do the ideas a?fita? with Think in terms of answering the so what question: in light of what has been written, so what? What difference does this information make in my life, the life of ministry, and the life of the church?
IV. Conclusion (Half a page maximum)
a? This is where you bring together all your interactions with the book and wrap up your critique by conveying how well you think the author achieved his/her goals and to what degree the stated purpose was achieved.
If the reviewer comes from a different theological and/or historiographical persuasion, i.e. the author is Calvinist or Arminian, Dispensationalist or Covenantist a¦and the reviewer is not, how does the author conflict with the reviewers preconceptions? Does the book make you think? In what ways? Does the writer leave you with any questions? What are they?