Strawn's book is certainly... interesting. It both disappoints and exceeds my initial expectations of what he might accomplish. Strawn utilizes a strong linguistic analogy: the Old Testament is compared to a language, and the church today (as well as its critics) is, in large part, forgetting how to speak it, thus risking language death. In this, he is undoubtedly correct, but there are three problems here.
First, his evidence for the condition of Old Testament 'language' in today's church is largely drawn from four sources: (1) an assessment of how poorly all religious groups scored on the 2010 US Religious Knowledge Survey; (2) the infrequency of OT-centric messages in several twentieth-century series titled Best Sermons, which were all but exclusively mainline in origin (with some Roman Catholic and Jewish contributions); (3) the way the psalms are handled in mainline hymnody; and (4) the manner in which the Old Testament plays second fiddle in the Revised Common Lectionary. This is the evidence he brings to bear for the current state of the Old Testament within Christian circles, but glaringly, these are overwhelmingly concerned with Mainline Protestantism. That's not to say that low-church or evangelical circles are immune from the phenomena Strawn detects; but would it really have killed him to actually provide some evidence pertinent to it - say, by a random sampling of sermons from churches belonging to denominations affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals, to complement the way Strawn utilizes the *Best Sermons* series?
A second concern here is - well, as a general rule, one has a right to be leery of linguistic analogies pressed too far when it comes to matters of religion, because there have been far too many thinkers (and I suppose I'm using the term a bit loosely there) who apply it in such a way as to ignore the truth-claims of any religious system - it reduces any given religion to mere functionality, a way of talking about the world, but a way no more 'apt' or 'inapt,' much less 'true' or 'false,' than any other. Strawn does not explicitly take it in this direction, but neither does he caution against this use of the analogy - yet early on, he approvingly quotes from Marcus Borg, who (if I recall correctly) is among those who make just such use of linguistic analogies. A better author than Strawn would have, at the very least, included some caveats. (I'll add, while I'm criticizing Strawn's reliance on other authors, that he is apparently more of a Brueggemann fanboy than is altogether healthy.)
Third, within the first couple chapters, it becomes painfully obvious that Strawn takes his analogy far too seriously, to the point of numbing most readers' minds with extensive discourses about language growth, language change, language contact, language death, and all manner of minutiae regarding linguistics.
And yet, I have to admit, a fair deal of this - while certainly still overdone - yields plenty of payout later. For in the second major section of the book, Strawn takes these tools and brings them to bear on three "signs of morbidity": the New Atheists (exemplified here by Dawkins), "Marcionites Old and New" (exemplified first by the original Marcion and secondarily by Adolph von Harnack), and "Happiologists" (exemplified by Joel Osteen). Strawn is still overly generous to all three (especially Dawkins), and yet some of his critiques are quite incisive. In the end, he concludes that both the New Atheists and the New Marcionites are speaking a mere pidgin - or, as Strawn says it elsewhere in the book, they are conversant in 'Old Testament' only to the point of baby talk, stringing together a certain subset of OT lexemes ('Holy war'! 'Violence'! 'Jealousy'!) in ways seldom more sophisticated than 'Cow go moo' (and, I'd add, often in ways about as accurate as 'Car go baa'). But even more dire is the plight of the Happiologists a la Osteen, for they offer no mere pidgin but a creole - the emergence of a new language in which the original OT 'language' is a minor substrate - and this, Strawn notes, is a far more difficult matter to remedy. Strawn scores many striking points in all three of these chapters (even if, as I said, he still goes more gently than he ought).
The third section is again more of a mixed bag - but mixed between excellence and banality. Here Strawn attempts to set forth a path to recovery, through two key lenses: the only arguable case of reversing language death (i.e., the restoration of Hebrew as a functional vernacular) and the lessons Deuteronomy offers, combined with known studies on second-language acquisition.
He brings this largely to bear well, and yet what he offers ends up being somewhat mundane: the importance of catechesis, of preachers and songwriters returning to the Old Testament (and here I would pause and observe that Strawn sounded a blaringly sour note when he urged preachers not to connect Christ with the Old Testament - Strawn, having just gotten through a chapter engaging critically with Marcionism Old and New, ought be too well aware of the structures of Christian theology to make such a jejune blunder as he does here!), and especially the central role of children learning the language.
Nothing particularly spectacular or novel here, and not necessarily confidence-inspiring. But perhaps that is in large part because of a glaring absence: Strawn nowhere sketches a portrait of what a person or community fluently speaking 'Old Testament' (and, of course, 'New Testament' - Strawn urges us to be bilingual there) would actually look like! He hints at some of the practices that would lead in that direction, but nowhere gives a picture of a healthy OT-speaking believer or church. Without a sense of what a generation fluent in 'Old Testament' might be like, how can we be sufficiently inspired to strive toward it? Or how can we properly assess Strawn's entire "diagnosis and recommended treatment" without knowing more about his vision for our healthy life? Here, then, is the final failure that makes Strawn's book speak more in whimpering stutters than in confident enunciation.
But one final kudos, as a review postscript: Just looking at the pleasing style, format, and thoroughness of his bibliography is enough to induce a happy sigh of contentment. He almost gets a bonus star to his rating just for that - it's really quite lovely. Nice font, too, for what that's worth.