What do you think?
Rate this book
The Parables of Peanuts
from the jacket flap:
"Sophisticated, yet parable-clear, the 'theology of Peanuts' has earned delighted praise from across the world. Here Charles Schulz's versatile characters are back in over 250 cartoons and with many new things to tell us.
Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, Schroeder, and Linus all help to create new parables to fit our times. In unshelling Peanuts, Robert Short emphasizes the 'basics' of the Christian faith and life. He draws upon a veritable host of witnesses to this end, not only in the Peanuts children and in Snoopy, the small 'peculiar' dog, but also in such friends as Barth, Kierkegaard, and Bonhoeffer."
"Sophisticated, yet parable-clear, the 'theology of Peanuts' has earned delighted praise from across the world. Here Charles Schulz's versatile characters are back in over 250 cartoons and with many new things to tell us.
Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, Schroeder, and Linus all help to create new parables to fit our times. In unshelling Peanuts, Robert Short emphasizes the 'basics' of the Christian faith and life. He draws upon a veritable host of witnesses to this end, not only in the Peanuts children and in Snoopy, the small 'peculiar' dog, but also in such friends as Barth, Kierkegaard, and Bonhoeffer."
328 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
39 people are currently reading
379 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
November 17, 2010
Don't let the cover fool you; this book is very heavy. Robert L. Short dives in to Peanuts throug the lens of Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Luther, and of course, Schultz. I have been reading this book as my metro book for the past couple of months and it has been both amazing and devotional and a total confusion nightmare at the same time.
Throughout the book Short makes the case for a vigorous Christian life and uses the works of a great many theologians to make his points and then uses the Peanuts cartoons to illustrate. While some parts were insightful and interesting and meanigful, others felt bogged down, directionless and circular. It definately made me wish I had retained more from my college religion classes.
Would recomend to theology lovers.
Throughout the book Short makes the case for a vigorous Christian life and uses the works of a great many theologians to make his points and then uses the Peanuts cartoons to illustrate. While some parts were insightful and interesting and meanigful, others felt bogged down, directionless and circular. It definately made me wish I had retained more from my college religion classes.
Would recomend to theology lovers.
May 14, 2014
This is a book that makes perennial theological ideas and conundrums (with available answers, if any) as accessible as it is to open the Sunday funnies. I don't know if I agree with every conclusion, but the author certainly makes a strong case in every regard. This is an immensely enjoyable read that will serve to challenge and edify the character of your faith; I can't ask more from a book that teaches theology, especially with the Peanuts gang in tow.
Read
June 27, 2008Excellent...Charles Schultz is a mastermind and at peace with his spirituality-in a humorous and abstract kind of way..
M
M
September 9, 2018
I found this on my dad's bookshelf, but it's apparent that he never read it. (He generally marked up the books he read, either agreeing or arguing against them.) It's a sequel to "The Gospel According to Peanuts," which I read some time ago, and only remember as vaguely "pleasant."
I think I now know why my dad had so many copies of "The Gospel According to Peanuts," which he never gave away to whomever he'd intended, and only one copy of "The Parables of Peanuts," which he'd never read. I suspect he got disillusioned with the author, Robert Short, but maybe I'm reading too much into the evidence.
This book, like its prequel, is at once whimsical and deep. It's light-hearted in all Schulz's "Peanuts" cartoons, but deep in the way Short applies them to theology, beyond the obvious Christmas special with Linus quoting the Luke passage of Jesus' birth and saying, "That's what Christmas is all about."
Some of Short's musings on "Peanuts" is substantiated with quotes from Charles Schulz, but at other times I wonder if Short is grasping at straws that just aren't there. In his commentary on the comics, Short often quotes various Christian and Jewish philosophers - the Bible as well as Bonhoeffer, Pascal, Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, Luther, Van Gogh, Lewis, Einstein, Melville, Dorothy Sayer are the ones with which I am at least a little familiar, but there are many more which I am not. I almost can't imagine my friends who like comics reading this book because of all the serious philosophy, and I can't imagine my friends who like philosophy taking anything seriously that was based on a cartoon. But it was well-done, and Schulz was trying to write for the common person, not just those of us who have our heads in the clouds from time to time.
There was so much good, and yet Short ended up so far afield in places, that I feel I cannot recommend it. As far as Schulz' beliefs, himself, I find through other sources that he considered himself a Christian, at least when writing most of his comic strip, but I did see one source that said he'd called himself a "secular humanist." I don't know if he meant in the religious sense, in that he was retracting his Christianity, or only in the pragmatic sense (which isn't the true definition of the word) in that he only believed in humans helping humans. And we can't ask him, as he is now deceased. I considered leaving the book unfinished, but I did finish it anyway.
I did see one review of this book, which contrasted it to the more modern Peanuts movie out, and said that Schulz wouldn't have liked it. It made Charlie Brown out to just need a little more self-esteem, and that the comics showed that he needed more than that. He needed a savior.
Ok - which to discuss first? The good or the bad in this book. I'll go with the good, but the bad is probably just as important.
The Good, or the Neutral:
Short makes several parallels in the comics to various Christian themes.
Lucy - "a small demon," arrogance, not to be trusted (as in the scenes when she holds the football for Charlie Brown)
Red Baron - Satan, and Snoopy, like Jesus, is fighting a battle already won. (Snoopy often pretends to be fighting the Red Baron, the WWI flying ace.)
Linus - someone who clings to something other than God. This analogy Schulz said himself.
Charlie Brown - both a sort of "Everyman," as well as Job, the Biblical character who suffers
Pigpen - the church, as messed up as it is
Snoopy - Jesus, with His joy and His love of people, and the way Snoopy sometimes tries to take Linus' blanket
Snoopy's doghouse - also the church, with the spire being Snoopy's nose, pointing at the sky (Really? At this point, it seems as if Short's stretching the comparisons.)
"I preach in these cartoons, and I reserve the same rights to say what I want to say as the minister in the pulpit." - Charles Schulz. At one point, he did, apparently, intend to incorporate all of Ecclesiastes into his comic strip, but eventually abandoned the idea. Still, much of Ecclesiastes remains.
"Humor which does not say anything is worthless humor." - Charles Schulz
"As a comic-strip artist, I feel called upon to be uplifting and decent." - Charles Schulz
"This is why I refuse to go out and speak to groups as a so-called celebrity, because I think that anyone who becomes religious because someone else is religious is already on the wrong track. A person should be converted because he has seen the figure of Jesus and has been inspired by Him." - Charles Schulz
"But for those to whom the secrets have not been given, the only way they can possibly understand is to forfeit the misunderstanding they now have." - Robert Short
"If the critic is to have an influence on life and action, the approach to his task must be overwhelmingly positive, and this is because he himself has been positively overwhelmed." - Short
"The people who are most discouraged and made despondent by the barbarity and stupidity of human behavior ... are those who ... cling to the optimistic belief in the civilizing influence of progress and enlightenment." - Dorothy Sayers
"Christ was not interested in sacrificing truth to win popularity contests." - Short
"There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners who believe themselves righteous." - Blaze Pascal
"Jesus did not instruct His church to trust in men, but rather to 'beware of men.'" - Short
"If the Church refuses to face the stern reality of sin, it will gain no credence when it talks of forgiveness." - Bonhoeffer
"A direct attack only strengthens a person in his illusion, and at the same time, embitters him. There is nothing that requires such gentle handling as an illusion, if one wishes to dispel it." - Kierkegaard
"But when the Church drops its preoccupation with 'sins' or works or morality and begins again to concentrate on its proper concern - sin, man's basic estrangement from God - this state is so upsetting to the state, to secular society, and to the moral, honest man. Why? Because these three have learned to use the Church's moral concerns as a guarantor of their own interests, and now the Church has turned to other matters - matters they have never fully understood anyway." - Short
"To obey God, we must disobey ourselves and it is in this disobeying ourselves, wherein the hardness of obeying God consists." -Herman Melville
"No sooner than we believe that God loves us than there is an impulse to believe that He does so, not because He is love, but because we are intrinsically lovable." - Lewis
"To be a 'Charlie Brown' then, means to hope in the wrong things for the happiness we seek." - Short
"This is why a good Christian sermon will always have something in it to offend everyone - namely, Jesus, the 'stone of offense.' (Is 8:14)" - Short
"I do not believe that the lack of moral and aesthetic values can be counterbalanced by purely intellectual effort." - Albert Einstein
"It is easier to change the nature of plutonium than man's evil spirit." - Albert Einstein
"Charlie Brown's hope is that he will not need to 'change,' or relinquish any false gods, but that 'tomorrow' will change things for him." - Short
"Every man is born a hypocrite," the Christian is simply that rare individual who "has all the hypocrisy knocked out of him by Providence." - Kierkengaard
"The nominal Christian, then, will see Jesus as a name, a representative, a symbol, a personification, a prototype, a figure, a model, an exemplar for something else. The nominal Christian pays homage to something about Jesus rather than worshiping the man Himself. For this reason, nominal Christians will extol the moral teachings of Jesus, the faith of Jesus, the personality of Jesus, the compassion of Jesus, the world-view of Jesus, the self-understanding of Jesus, etc. None of these worships Jesus as the Christ, but only something about Him, something peripheral to the actual flesh and blood man." - Short
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to every one that is striking at the root." - Thoreau
"Jesus does call us to be His followers rather than His admirers." - Short
"The church itself has an equally stubborn tendency to forget the message of the cross; that the cross is the way to Christ, who is the way to God. Consequently, the church turns to a message of cheaper and easier grace, representing Jesus as no more than a helpful, friendly guide in obtaining our real goals. The result of this distortion - a distortion calculated to win more by "lowering the standard" - is just the opposite of what sell-out Christianity intends; its superficial message appeals superficially to only a few and deeply to no one."- Short
The Bad:
The author, Robert Short, is a universalist. Most universalists that I've come across only have wishful thinking, that everyone is saved, without anything concrete to build that thought upon. Or maybe it comes of a sense of egalitarianism, the idea that because all people are created equal spreading to mean that all ideas or all religions are created equal. (All ideas are not; for example, the idea to build something is generally better than the idea to destroy something, but context is important and it matters what is being built or destroyed.)
Most universalists do not try to support their case by using the Bible. I would say that most serious students of the Bible, who actually believe it, do not support universalism. Short does. I would say this of the verses that he tries to use to show his point. Some are taken out of context, and he forgets who the "you" is in these passages, to whom it was spoken or written, and those were Christians or disciples.
In others, Short says that because God loves the whole world, that he would coerce everyone to believe and be saved, in the end. I would say that God shows His love for us by dying for us and giving us the offer of forgiveness, the offer of accepting it. But he does not seem to coerce us.
Finally, Short thinks that every mention of Hell in the Bible is hypothetical, because he thinks that, in the end, everyone will have faith. I think one can't just wish away something like that.
Unlike every other universalist I've seen, Short does think that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that faith is the only way to be saved. (Which is supported in scripture.) This is why Short thinks that, in the end, God coerces everyone to believe.
I find that highly unlikely. It is true, that some dying people will change their beliefs in their last moments, and perhaps, even those who can no longer speak would cry out to Jesus, hoping that He would accept them at the last moment as He did the thief on the cross, but there are those who die suddenly in the midst of committing atrocities, murdering innocents, or committing blasphemies. I don't imagine that they had time or sudden inclination to turn to Jesus. Suicide bombers or someone taken out by police in the midst of committing a mass shooting comes to mind.
And Short, in reference to universalism, is forgetting passages with ugly truths like
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matthew 7:13-14, NIV
"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:14-15, NIV
"The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' " - Luke 6:22-26, NIV
With quotes from Nicholas Berdyaev, Short tries to show logically that belief in God's grace means that God cannot or will not judge. But Short assumes that belief in judgement and belief in salvation by faith are mutually exclusive. ("Mutually exclusive" means one cannot have both together, just either one without the other, like the proverbial fire and ice.) But that is not true in this case. One can believe in God's coming judgement and still believe in His redemptive grace. What Short does is mistakenly equate the idea of God's judgement with the idea of salvation by works, and then attacks the idea of salvation by works. And that, is easy to do:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:8-10, NIV
But that does nothing to erase or refute the Biblical idea of God's coming judgement, or to show that it was all just an empty threat, a hypothetical.
Short said, "It is by no accident that there is a strong correlation between emotional instability and those men and women who live their lives under the threat of an actual 'hell-fire.'" Says who? There was no reference cited for this, no research done. In any people group there are bound to be those who lack emotional stability. But my experience has shown the exact opposite, that Christians are more likely to have stable homes and emotional stability. In fact, an adult child venturing into college has talked, almost with astonishment, about discovering the same thing - that people are so very broken without God. And anyway, we don't exactly have to "live under a threat," because we can accept Jesus' forgiveness.
Short talks at length against the law being unable to save us because we do not keep it perfectly, which is true, but he forgets that Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf, as well as dying in our place. Short worries about people exalting the moral law over God, but forgets that God Himself gave or inspired that moral law.
Short also says that the Christian faith is not concerned about the details of Jesus' life. But I think that the Holy Spirit inspired the details of scripture for a purpose.
I think I now know why my dad had so many copies of "The Gospel According to Peanuts," which he never gave away to whomever he'd intended, and only one copy of "The Parables of Peanuts," which he'd never read. I suspect he got disillusioned with the author, Robert Short, but maybe I'm reading too much into the evidence.
This book, like its prequel, is at once whimsical and deep. It's light-hearted in all Schulz's "Peanuts" cartoons, but deep in the way Short applies them to theology, beyond the obvious Christmas special with Linus quoting the Luke passage of Jesus' birth and saying, "That's what Christmas is all about."
Some of Short's musings on "Peanuts" is substantiated with quotes from Charles Schulz, but at other times I wonder if Short is grasping at straws that just aren't there. In his commentary on the comics, Short often quotes various Christian and Jewish philosophers - the Bible as well as Bonhoeffer, Pascal, Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, Luther, Van Gogh, Lewis, Einstein, Melville, Dorothy Sayer are the ones with which I am at least a little familiar, but there are many more which I am not. I almost can't imagine my friends who like comics reading this book because of all the serious philosophy, and I can't imagine my friends who like philosophy taking anything seriously that was based on a cartoon. But it was well-done, and Schulz was trying to write for the common person, not just those of us who have our heads in the clouds from time to time.
There was so much good, and yet Short ended up so far afield in places, that I feel I cannot recommend it. As far as Schulz' beliefs, himself, I find through other sources that he considered himself a Christian, at least when writing most of his comic strip, but I did see one source that said he'd called himself a "secular humanist." I don't know if he meant in the religious sense, in that he was retracting his Christianity, or only in the pragmatic sense (which isn't the true definition of the word) in that he only believed in humans helping humans. And we can't ask him, as he is now deceased. I considered leaving the book unfinished, but I did finish it anyway.
I did see one review of this book, which contrasted it to the more modern Peanuts movie out, and said that Schulz wouldn't have liked it. It made Charlie Brown out to just need a little more self-esteem, and that the comics showed that he needed more than that. He needed a savior.
Ok - which to discuss first? The good or the bad in this book. I'll go with the good, but the bad is probably just as important.
The Good, or the Neutral:
Short makes several parallels in the comics to various Christian themes.
Lucy - "a small demon," arrogance, not to be trusted (as in the scenes when she holds the football for Charlie Brown)
Red Baron - Satan, and Snoopy, like Jesus, is fighting a battle already won. (Snoopy often pretends to be fighting the Red Baron, the WWI flying ace.)
Linus - someone who clings to something other than God. This analogy Schulz said himself.
Charlie Brown - both a sort of "Everyman," as well as Job, the Biblical character who suffers
Pigpen - the church, as messed up as it is
Snoopy - Jesus, with His joy and His love of people, and the way Snoopy sometimes tries to take Linus' blanket
Snoopy's doghouse - also the church, with the spire being Snoopy's nose, pointing at the sky (Really? At this point, it seems as if Short's stretching the comparisons.)
"I preach in these cartoons, and I reserve the same rights to say what I want to say as the minister in the pulpit." - Charles Schulz. At one point, he did, apparently, intend to incorporate all of Ecclesiastes into his comic strip, but eventually abandoned the idea. Still, much of Ecclesiastes remains.
"Humor which does not say anything is worthless humor." - Charles Schulz
"As a comic-strip artist, I feel called upon to be uplifting and decent." - Charles Schulz
"This is why I refuse to go out and speak to groups as a so-called celebrity, because I think that anyone who becomes religious because someone else is religious is already on the wrong track. A person should be converted because he has seen the figure of Jesus and has been inspired by Him." - Charles Schulz
"But for those to whom the secrets have not been given, the only way they can possibly understand is to forfeit the misunderstanding they now have." - Robert Short
"If the critic is to have an influence on life and action, the approach to his task must be overwhelmingly positive, and this is because he himself has been positively overwhelmed." - Short
"The people who are most discouraged and made despondent by the barbarity and stupidity of human behavior ... are those who ... cling to the optimistic belief in the civilizing influence of progress and enlightenment." - Dorothy Sayers
"Christ was not interested in sacrificing truth to win popularity contests." - Short
"There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners who believe themselves righteous." - Blaze Pascal
"Jesus did not instruct His church to trust in men, but rather to 'beware of men.'" - Short
"If the Church refuses to face the stern reality of sin, it will gain no credence when it talks of forgiveness." - Bonhoeffer
"A direct attack only strengthens a person in his illusion, and at the same time, embitters him. There is nothing that requires such gentle handling as an illusion, if one wishes to dispel it." - Kierkegaard
"But when the Church drops its preoccupation with 'sins' or works or morality and begins again to concentrate on its proper concern - sin, man's basic estrangement from God - this state is so upsetting to the state, to secular society, and to the moral, honest man. Why? Because these three have learned to use the Church's moral concerns as a guarantor of their own interests, and now the Church has turned to other matters - matters they have never fully understood anyway." - Short
"To obey God, we must disobey ourselves and it is in this disobeying ourselves, wherein the hardness of obeying God consists." -Herman Melville
"No sooner than we believe that God loves us than there is an impulse to believe that He does so, not because He is love, but because we are intrinsically lovable." - Lewis
"To be a 'Charlie Brown' then, means to hope in the wrong things for the happiness we seek." - Short
"This is why a good Christian sermon will always have something in it to offend everyone - namely, Jesus, the 'stone of offense.' (Is 8:14)" - Short
"I do not believe that the lack of moral and aesthetic values can be counterbalanced by purely intellectual effort." - Albert Einstein
"It is easier to change the nature of plutonium than man's evil spirit." - Albert Einstein
"Charlie Brown's hope is that he will not need to 'change,' or relinquish any false gods, but that 'tomorrow' will change things for him." - Short
"Every man is born a hypocrite," the Christian is simply that rare individual who "has all the hypocrisy knocked out of him by Providence." - Kierkengaard
"The nominal Christian, then, will see Jesus as a name, a representative, a symbol, a personification, a prototype, a figure, a model, an exemplar for something else. The nominal Christian pays homage to something about Jesus rather than worshiping the man Himself. For this reason, nominal Christians will extol the moral teachings of Jesus, the faith of Jesus, the personality of Jesus, the compassion of Jesus, the world-view of Jesus, the self-understanding of Jesus, etc. None of these worships Jesus as the Christ, but only something about Him, something peripheral to the actual flesh and blood man." - Short
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to every one that is striking at the root." - Thoreau
"Jesus does call us to be His followers rather than His admirers." - Short
"The church itself has an equally stubborn tendency to forget the message of the cross; that the cross is the way to Christ, who is the way to God. Consequently, the church turns to a message of cheaper and easier grace, representing Jesus as no more than a helpful, friendly guide in obtaining our real goals. The result of this distortion - a distortion calculated to win more by "lowering the standard" - is just the opposite of what sell-out Christianity intends; its superficial message appeals superficially to only a few and deeply to no one."- Short
The Bad:
The author, Robert Short, is a universalist. Most universalists that I've come across only have wishful thinking, that everyone is saved, without anything concrete to build that thought upon. Or maybe it comes of a sense of egalitarianism, the idea that because all people are created equal spreading to mean that all ideas or all religions are created equal. (All ideas are not; for example, the idea to build something is generally better than the idea to destroy something, but context is important and it matters what is being built or destroyed.)
Most universalists do not try to support their case by using the Bible. I would say that most serious students of the Bible, who actually believe it, do not support universalism. Short does. I would say this of the verses that he tries to use to show his point. Some are taken out of context, and he forgets who the "you" is in these passages, to whom it was spoken or written, and those were Christians or disciples.
In others, Short says that because God loves the whole world, that he would coerce everyone to believe and be saved, in the end. I would say that God shows His love for us by dying for us and giving us the offer of forgiveness, the offer of accepting it. But he does not seem to coerce us.
Finally, Short thinks that every mention of Hell in the Bible is hypothetical, because he thinks that, in the end, everyone will have faith. I think one can't just wish away something like that.
Unlike every other universalist I've seen, Short does think that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that faith is the only way to be saved. (Which is supported in scripture.) This is why Short thinks that, in the end, God coerces everyone to believe.
I find that highly unlikely. It is true, that some dying people will change their beliefs in their last moments, and perhaps, even those who can no longer speak would cry out to Jesus, hoping that He would accept them at the last moment as He did the thief on the cross, but there are those who die suddenly in the midst of committing atrocities, murdering innocents, or committing blasphemies. I don't imagine that they had time or sudden inclination to turn to Jesus. Suicide bombers or someone taken out by police in the midst of committing a mass shooting comes to mind.
And Short, in reference to universalism, is forgetting passages with ugly truths like
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matthew 7:13-14, NIV
"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:14-15, NIV
"The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' " - Luke 6:22-26, NIV
With quotes from Nicholas Berdyaev, Short tries to show logically that belief in God's grace means that God cannot or will not judge. But Short assumes that belief in judgement and belief in salvation by faith are mutually exclusive. ("Mutually exclusive" means one cannot have both together, just either one without the other, like the proverbial fire and ice.) But that is not true in this case. One can believe in God's coming judgement and still believe in His redemptive grace. What Short does is mistakenly equate the idea of God's judgement with the idea of salvation by works, and then attacks the idea of salvation by works. And that, is easy to do:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:8-10, NIV
But that does nothing to erase or refute the Biblical idea of God's coming judgement, or to show that it was all just an empty threat, a hypothetical.
Short said, "It is by no accident that there is a strong correlation between emotional instability and those men and women who live their lives under the threat of an actual 'hell-fire.'" Says who? There was no reference cited for this, no research done. In any people group there are bound to be those who lack emotional stability. But my experience has shown the exact opposite, that Christians are more likely to have stable homes and emotional stability. In fact, an adult child venturing into college has talked, almost with astonishment, about discovering the same thing - that people are so very broken without God. And anyway, we don't exactly have to "live under a threat," because we can accept Jesus' forgiveness.
Short talks at length against the law being unable to save us because we do not keep it perfectly, which is true, but he forgets that Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf, as well as dying in our place. Short worries about people exalting the moral law over God, but forgets that God Himself gave or inspired that moral law.
Short also says that the Christian faith is not concerned about the details of Jesus' life. But I think that the Holy Spirit inspired the details of scripture for a purpose.
November 23, 2012
I read Robert L. Short's companion to this book, "The Gospel According to Peanuts" as a kid some time around my Confirmation. I remember it being a pretty accessible read. Either I was way smarter then or "The Parables of Peanuts" dives deeper into theology than "Gospel" did. This is not an entry-level book on Christianity, (the Gospel of John is suited perfectly to that task!)
In spite of the familiarity and friendliness of the Peanuts cartoons, this book is pretty deep. Rev. Short quotes a lot of weighty theologians and the text is punctuated by "parabolic" comic strips that simply illustrate what Barth or Luther take paragraphs of dense prose to convey. It also makes a good case for Schultz-as-evangelist, a role he took seriously, and the comics still make me laugh out loud even as I ponder deeper truths. Charles Schultz is both as and funny and wise as I remember and more so. I will seek out and re-read "The Gospel According to Peanuts" soon.
In spite of the familiarity and friendliness of the Peanuts cartoons, this book is pretty deep. Rev. Short quotes a lot of weighty theologians and the text is punctuated by "parabolic" comic strips that simply illustrate what Barth or Luther take paragraphs of dense prose to convey. It also makes a good case for Schultz-as-evangelist, a role he took seriously, and the comics still make me laugh out loud even as I ponder deeper truths. Charles Schultz is both as and funny and wise as I remember and more so. I will seek out and re-read "The Gospel According to Peanuts" soon.
December 21, 2013
Re-reading this again. First time was around 8th grade. Totally catching things that I never got as a teen or in college. Makes sense now that I've always leaned toward existentialist theology & philosophy. This book must have been my gateway-drug.
I appreciate Short & his take on Schultz so much more now in middle age. Maybe I never got far as either a cartoonist or writer is that I've always been too blunt & direct. Short's whole point is how Shultz, like Jesus used parables (metaphor, fiction, & humor) to help audiences swallow stronger medicine than they'd ordinarily choose to. Great stuff.
I appreciate Short & his take on Schultz so much more now in middle age. Maybe I never got far as either a cartoonist or writer is that I've always been too blunt & direct. Short's whole point is how Shultz, like Jesus used parables (metaphor, fiction, & humor) to help audiences swallow stronger medicine than they'd ordinarily choose to. Great stuff.
April 6, 2008
i learned much about the state of man from a Christian perspective....and how Charles Schulz conveyed the Gospel through his loveable, sometimes miserable characters.
February 13, 2011
I love Peanuts and seeing the deep and theological implications of Schulz's cartoon. The book is made up of many quotes and has some sense of being an academic paper at points.
October 31, 2018
This is the sequel to Short’s The Gospel According To Peanuts, which explored how Peanuts cartoons reflect the teachings and message of Jesus. This one casts a wider and deeper net, starting with the idea of art as parable, the function of parables in the Bible and how Peanuts serves a similar function, and veers off from there into a theological exploration of what is required to lead a Christian life (which is itself a criticism of the watered-down theology American churches were apparently preaching in the 1960s when he wrote it).
For me, this one is less successful in its mission statement than the first one. What is billed as an exploration on how Peanuts strips double as Biblical parables is really more Short’s theological treatise on Christian living using Peanuts strips to back his point – which might be okay, except that frequently it’s not clear to me what a given strip has to do with what he just wrote. The other big problem is that he also backs his points by quoting his favorite theologians, philosophers and novelists (mostly Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, Dostoyevsky and Albert Camus) at length – so much so that I felt as though if you edited out all the blockquotes, the book would be about half as long.
In any case, the result is a somewhat jumbled argument bogged down by excessive quotations that tries too hard at times to make a connection with Short’s favorite comic strip. (I’m sure some of Short’s more controversial theological beliefs will put some readers off too, though they're not idiosyncratic – I’ve come across them before.) Short does make a few good points here and there, and like the previous volume, at the very least you get a nice collection of classic Peanuts strips for your money, which is fine. But you can get those elsewhere, so I wouldn’t recommend getting a copy just for that.
For me, this one is less successful in its mission statement than the first one. What is billed as an exploration on how Peanuts strips double as Biblical parables is really more Short’s theological treatise on Christian living using Peanuts strips to back his point – which might be okay, except that frequently it’s not clear to me what a given strip has to do with what he just wrote. The other big problem is that he also backs his points by quoting his favorite theologians, philosophers and novelists (mostly Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, Dostoyevsky and Albert Camus) at length – so much so that I felt as though if you edited out all the blockquotes, the book would be about half as long.
In any case, the result is a somewhat jumbled argument bogged down by excessive quotations that tries too hard at times to make a connection with Short’s favorite comic strip. (I’m sure some of Short’s more controversial theological beliefs will put some readers off too, though they're not idiosyncratic – I’ve come across them before.) Short does make a few good points here and there, and like the previous volume, at the very least you get a nice collection of classic Peanuts strips for your money, which is fine. But you can get those elsewhere, so I wouldn’t recommend getting a copy just for that.
May 30, 2023
This book was a tough read. To be honest, I skimmed the last 3 chapters just to finish this one up. I was so looking forward to this and at first really enjoyed the mix of Peanuts comics with Bible verses and quotes from all kinds of theologians including C.S. Lewis, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky. However, this book firmly espouses universalism and several other views that don't line up theologically with what I believe the Bible teaches so I ended up very disappointed. The 2 stars are for the Peanuts comics that are included throughout.
August 1, 2023
Interesting and sort of fun. A few chapters were hard to follow and seemed a stretch...or maybe I'm not that bright. Whatever. It was well worth reading...finally knocked it off my to read list.
June 28, 2025
I had a hard time settling on a rating for this book (Short’s longest by a significant margin, by the way), since it’s at once so charming and fascinating and yet so parochial and misleading.
For starters, Short’s book is neither an anthology or treasury of Peanuts strips nor even a theological “reading” or interpretation of them. (As a Peanuts lover, I want to make this much clear: the well-curated—if also sparse—selection of strips is the best part of this book.) It is rather an introduction of sorts to a Reformed conception of the Christian gospel—one interlarded with various interesting forays into cultural criticism, all appealing to Schulz’s beloved characters.
In the end, this is not surprising, since Short was a thinker whose major work (really everything before his 2008 book The Parables of Dr. Seuss) was thoroughly steeped in a loosely unified school of thought that was very much of the mid-20th century: namely, what could be dubbed “Reformed Existentialism” (or perhaps “Existential Lutheranism” or “Existential Calvinism,” depending on the confessional allegiance and inheritance of the writer in question). Like other works with the stamp of this school, Short’s endnotes are chock-full of the standard references to Kierkegaard, Camus, Pascal, and Dostoevsky, on the one hand, and to confessionally-oriented theologians like Luther, Barth, and Bonhoeffer, on the other.
Now, I find several of these thinkers (esp. Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer) to be stimulating, salutary, admirable, and even wise. Nonetheless—perhaps because I’m Catholic—I can’t help but be impressed by the limitations of their preoccupations.
I’ll mention just one example. Consider Short’s chapter on sin, “Savior?!—Who Needs a Savior?” Short sketches therein a specifically Lutheran and Reformed conception of “original sin” (a standard term, but one which I’m bookending with quotation marks to indicate that Short uses it in what seems to me to be a somewhat idiosyncratic way). My concern here is that there are major problems with such a conception—not least of which is that it tends to place more of an emphasis on the basic human impulses and dispositions that can and do lead us to sin (i.e., on what theologians used to call “concupiscence,” more or less) than on sins themselves, let alone entrenched vice(s) or heinous crimes. Such a misplaced emphasis is liable to lead to what Jason Peters has called “Jimmy Carter-ing”: namely, believing that Christians are bound to suppose that there is no appreciable moral difference between, say, actual embezzlement and merely fantasizing about embezzlement—that is, embezzlement “in one’s heart,” as it were.
But to show up such an idea, all we need to do is to paraphrase an apt joke of Norm Macdonald’s:
“A friend of mine said to me, ‘The worst thing about Hitler was the hypocrisy!’
So I said, ‘I don’t think that was the *worst* thing…’”
For starters, Short’s book is neither an anthology or treasury of Peanuts strips nor even a theological “reading” or interpretation of them. (As a Peanuts lover, I want to make this much clear: the well-curated—if also sparse—selection of strips is the best part of this book.) It is rather an introduction of sorts to a Reformed conception of the Christian gospel—one interlarded with various interesting forays into cultural criticism, all appealing to Schulz’s beloved characters.
In the end, this is not surprising, since Short was a thinker whose major work (really everything before his 2008 book The Parables of Dr. Seuss) was thoroughly steeped in a loosely unified school of thought that was very much of the mid-20th century: namely, what could be dubbed “Reformed Existentialism” (or perhaps “Existential Lutheranism” or “Existential Calvinism,” depending on the confessional allegiance and inheritance of the writer in question). Like other works with the stamp of this school, Short’s endnotes are chock-full of the standard references to Kierkegaard, Camus, Pascal, and Dostoevsky, on the one hand, and to confessionally-oriented theologians like Luther, Barth, and Bonhoeffer, on the other.
Now, I find several of these thinkers (esp. Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer) to be stimulating, salutary, admirable, and even wise. Nonetheless—perhaps because I’m Catholic—I can’t help but be impressed by the limitations of their preoccupations.
I’ll mention just one example. Consider Short’s chapter on sin, “Savior?!—Who Needs a Savior?” Short sketches therein a specifically Lutheran and Reformed conception of “original sin” (a standard term, but one which I’m bookending with quotation marks to indicate that Short uses it in what seems to me to be a somewhat idiosyncratic way). My concern here is that there are major problems with such a conception—not least of which is that it tends to place more of an emphasis on the basic human impulses and dispositions that can and do lead us to sin (i.e., on what theologians used to call “concupiscence,” more or less) than on sins themselves, let alone entrenched vice(s) or heinous crimes. Such a misplaced emphasis is liable to lead to what Jason Peters has called “Jimmy Carter-ing”: namely, believing that Christians are bound to suppose that there is no appreciable moral difference between, say, actual embezzlement and merely fantasizing about embezzlement—that is, embezzlement “in one’s heart,” as it were.
But to show up such an idea, all we need to do is to paraphrase an apt joke of Norm Macdonald’s:
“A friend of mine said to me, ‘The worst thing about Hitler was the hypocrisy!’
So I said, ‘I don’t think that was the *worst* thing…’”
May 19, 2011
Fact: You can't go too far wrong with a book whose core is Peanuts cartoons.
Short's theology is drawn from incredibly strong sources. He quotes Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth constantly, along with and in light of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and French existentialists. As a backdrop for Schulz, it's exactly right, even period-appropriate. Why, then, did the value added feel so minimal? Couldn't tell you. If anything, it felt to me like Short was trying too hard. The comics speak for themselves plenty well, and a book like this won't introduce today's readers to Short's sources if they aren't already turned onto them.
Most of all, this is a period piece. In 1968, there was still a large general audience in mainline churches for European systematic theology, one impressed perhaps by Short's showy erudition. Something with the same sources and a lighter touch could still work today, I suspect, but I'm not sure what its readership would be.
Short's theology is drawn from incredibly strong sources. He quotes Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth constantly, along with and in light of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and French existentialists. As a backdrop for Schulz, it's exactly right, even period-appropriate. Why, then, did the value added feel so minimal? Couldn't tell you. If anything, it felt to me like Short was trying too hard. The comics speak for themselves plenty well, and a book like this won't introduce today's readers to Short's sources if they aren't already turned onto them.
Most of all, this is a period piece. In 1968, there was still a large general audience in mainline churches for European systematic theology, one impressed perhaps by Short's showy erudition. Something with the same sources and a lighter touch could still work today, I suspect, but I'm not sure what its readership would be.
September 17, 2016
A profound book in many ways. The book is excellent in its teaching on the deity of Christ, the good news of salvation, God's sovereignty over all things, man's depravity, and having a mature outlook on the happinesses and tragedies that are an inevitable part of everyone's life. The author advocates a form of universal salvation, which is not according to my understanding of Biblical truth, but I think that may be due to the influence of Karl Barth on his theology. Good food for thought throughout, nevertheless. You'll never look at "Peanuts" as just another comic strip again.
February 4, 2015
Good Ole Charlie Brown!
A look at the various topics of life that Charles Schultz used in His peanuts cartoons.
Would make a great discussion book/topics and/or Devotional to those wanting to laugh, cry and go, "Humm!"
A look at the various topics of life that Charles Schultz used in His peanuts cartoons.
Would make a great discussion book/topics and/or Devotional to those wanting to laugh, cry and go, "Humm!"
December 12, 2016
Don't let the cover fool you, but this book's a heavy theology read. I will never look at Peanuts Comics the same way again.
April 24, 2024
I wanted to love this book. The IDEA of this book is awesome: how Peanuts conveys the parables in The Bible. That is accomplished to an extent. However, it is never fully realized. Much of the book is difficult to read as it sounds like a theological essay with lots and lots of educational-sounding jargon. The parts that are the most easy to read are the supports given from The Bible itself. So, I felt that I could have been just reading my Bible. The connection to the Peanuts comics that are interspersed throughout seem to be be just inserted in the "theological essay" and are never fulled explained, although, of course, they are, as always, entertaining. I was very disappointed in this book. Many times, I just had to skim over all the commentary, as it was too difficult to understand and process. The subject matter of the book has potential, but it seems the author never fully reaches it, leaving readers feeling like they just wasted their time. The ending even seems forced and disconnected and it just abruptly "ends." Part of me wants to read the companion The Gospel According to Peanuts, but, since it may be much the same, I think I will pass.
February 19, 2024
Picked up a faded but decent 1968 First Edition copy at a library sale. Have read a chapter here and there, but finally finished the book.
Two stars for mostly clever tie ins to the iconic Peanut’s characters in referencing Biblical verses. The thing is, author Short takes liberty with context. While the book veers from Biblical sound doctrine, it does have some good points about the modern church (remember, in 1968) which is valid, and does drive thought.
Unsure of the very heavy use of quotes from Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Lewis, etc. added to more than Short attending to attempt a deeper thought or showing of an elitist side.
The good thing, it often sent me to my Bible for clarity. For this, though it brought a disagreement with some of Short’s theology, is a very good thing, and earns it’s third star.
Read everything – but be discerning, especially in matters of faith. “Chew the meat, spit out the bones!” You still learn.
Two stars for mostly clever tie ins to the iconic Peanut’s characters in referencing Biblical verses. The thing is, author Short takes liberty with context. While the book veers from Biblical sound doctrine, it does have some good points about the modern church (remember, in 1968) which is valid, and does drive thought.
Unsure of the very heavy use of quotes from Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Lewis, etc. added to more than Short attending to attempt a deeper thought or showing of an elitist side.
The good thing, it often sent me to my Bible for clarity. For this, though it brought a disagreement with some of Short’s theology, is a very good thing, and earns it’s third star.
Read everything – but be discerning, especially in matters of faith. “Chew the meat, spit out the bones!” You still learn.
January 6, 2024
Let us be clear, this book has a very particular theological bent and does not disclose this until you have already read 75% of it. The author is not only Calvinist but likens the fight over our souls as a game of control between God and the devil. Mr. Short implicates that God sometimes loses this game and gives up humans to the devil which is absolutely absurd even by the most squishiest Christian. Additionally, because God is the one that loses the game over one's soul, hell does not exist. He does not back this by scripture, just by an argument that "God would not be that mean." This book has brought fear to me on how bad Schulz's theology may have been. Obviously he still proclaimed God and Jesus which is a miracle if he subscribed to the thoughts espoused by Mr. Short (which he may have since this book is endorsed by the man).
April 18, 2019
If you look closely at how I rate books, five stars are relatively rare for me to give.
This book surprised me, to say the least. I expected a fairly light read considering the cover – it’s Peanuts! – but it was actually a very in-depth theological book.
In fact, I think this book is great as a book for theological introduction. It explains the heavy concepts in a very easy manner, which is helped by the fact Short uses actual comics from Schulz.
If there’s anything I did not enjoy, it’s the fact that Lucy is not as virtuous as I once thought she was, but instead is actually quite prideful. But I still love Lucy, thank you very much. And Charlie Brown, who could hate good ol’ Charlie Brown?
This book surprised me, to say the least. I expected a fairly light read considering the cover – it’s Peanuts! – but it was actually a very in-depth theological book.
In fact, I think this book is great as a book for theological introduction. It explains the heavy concepts in a very easy manner, which is helped by the fact Short uses actual comics from Schulz.
If there’s anything I did not enjoy, it’s the fact that Lucy is not as virtuous as I once thought she was, but instead is actually quite prideful. But I still love Lucy, thank you very much. And Charlie Brown, who could hate good ol’ Charlie Brown?
April 22, 2019
I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE my Peanuts characters and I started out LOVING this book. That changed once the author went off on a tangent about the absence of an eternal hell. The sound theology I had been reading and enjoying got flipped on its head. Short talks about universal salvation and the Bible just doesn't teach that kind of salvation, where everyone ends up saved whether they choose to or not. Therefore, I can't in good faith, give this book a high rating.
November 19, 2021
The Peanuts cartoons were the best part of the book, which warrant a star, but the author quotes Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Kierkegaard ad nauseam. Also, the author believes in Universalism, which won’t bode well with many evangelical readers. I hate to rate books this low, but don’t want to encourage others to read it. If you take out the quotes mentioned above, the book would be about half as long.
November 25, 2024
DNF. I really wanted to like this book--after all, it's about one of my favorite comics, and it's about the Bible. But, similar to the Booker tome on the seven basic plots, I found Short to misuse both Peanuts AND the Bible, in his premises, threatening not only to confuse believers, but also to ruin the enjoyment of a great comic strip. Glad I didn't spend more time in this bummer.
July 20, 2020
Not what I expected. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the pictures. Most of the comics brought scripture to mind although not necessarily associated with the author's points in his context. For that reason, I'll keep the book on my shelf for future "flipping through" inspirational pleasure.
May 15, 2017
I tried reading this and stopped halfway through. I think in this book he goes way beyond what Schulz ever intended.
Read
September 18, 2019A must read for any Peanuts fan and any serious student of theology, because one can be both
April 15, 2022
Another continuation of Gospel and Peanuts cartoons.
March 16, 2024
Book 20 - Robert L. Short - The Parable of Peanuts - acknowledgment to Charles Schulz
I love Charlie Brown, just saying, I felt a lot like him when younger, hmmm... maybe too much sharing
Anyway, this book uses the amazing cartoons of Charles Schulz and takes a look at some of them under a Christian microscope.
It is heavy going in places - quoting Bonhoeffer, Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis, Ingmar Bergman and more - but it made me think...it made me chuckle...it made me look at the world of a cartoon comic strip in new wonder.
With chapters as deep as -
- Where your blanket is, there will your heart be also
- Slip-ups, doghouses and free psychiatric help
Take a load off and to quote from the book that quotes from the Book...
Lamentations 3:14 and 17
14
I have become the laughingstock of all peoples,
the object of their taunts all day long.
17
my soul is bereft of peace;
I have forgotten what happiness is
Let Charlie Brown and the gang remind you what happiness is
I love Charlie Brown, just saying, I felt a lot like him when younger, hmmm... maybe too much sharing
Anyway, this book uses the amazing cartoons of Charles Schulz and takes a look at some of them under a Christian microscope.
It is heavy going in places - quoting Bonhoeffer, Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis, Ingmar Bergman and more - but it made me think...it made me chuckle...it made me look at the world of a cartoon comic strip in new wonder.
With chapters as deep as -
- Where your blanket is, there will your heart be also
- Slip-ups, doghouses and free psychiatric help
Take a load off and to quote from the book that quotes from the Book...
Lamentations 3:14 and 17
14
I have become the laughingstock of all peoples,
the object of their taunts all day long.
17
my soul is bereft of peace;
I have forgotten what happiness is
Let Charlie Brown and the gang remind you what happiness is
January 25, 2017
According to Charles M. Schulz’s widow, Jean Schulz, “…it’s disturbing when someone tries to use Peanuts as a tool to push an agenda. The first example of that was The Gospel According to Peanuts. The plain fact is that Sparky [Charles Schulz] never advocated a particular view, religious or otherwise” (The Complete Peanuts, Vol. 26: 1950 to 2000 Comics and Stories, 2016). Nevertheless, he allowed author Robert L. Short to publish this sequel, The Parables of Peanuts, which uses numerous Peanuts strips to advocate a Sola fide Christian theology. In addition to the comics, Short also brings many quotes from Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, and other into the discussion.
January 7, 2020
It seems that very few people in this country have heard about this book.
There is no doubt that Charles Schulz in his personal life was a very devout Christian.
I'm sure it would seem amazing to a lot of people but I think this is one of the best popular books on Christianity that has been written in this country.
The author relates Peanuts cartoons to various biblical verses and also to well known Christian philiosphers like Bonhoeffer.
I loved this book when I read it when I was younger.
Even people who are not interested in Christianity but who are interested in Peanuts or cartoons in general would really like this book.
There is no doubt that Charles Schulz in his personal life was a very devout Christian.
I'm sure it would seem amazing to a lot of people but I think this is one of the best popular books on Christianity that has been written in this country.
The author relates Peanuts cartoons to various biblical verses and also to well known Christian philiosphers like Bonhoeffer.
I loved this book when I read it when I was younger.
Even people who are not interested in Christianity but who are interested in Peanuts or cartoons in general would really like this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews