Currently reading:
Denis Edwards, How God Acts. See my posts on this here, here, and here. The second half of the book, which I may or may not blog about in more detail, is less concerned directly with the question of divine action, but offers Edwards’ take on redemption, the atonement, and the salvation of animals, among other things. Edwards discussed some of these ideas in a previous essay that I blogged about here. I think his “participatory/incarnational” model of redemption has a lot of promise for thinking about the work of Christ as it applies to the wider, non-human creation.
Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals. I was worried this book on factory farming by novelist Foer would be too precious, or postmodern, or that it would simply cover already well-trodden ground. But it’s actually really good! Full of interesting (and alarming) facts, but written with a novelist’s verve. There’s also a recurring theme about the importance of this in light of his being a new father, which resonates with me for obvious reasons.
Heidi Murkoff, et al., What to Expect the First Year. So, apparently these baby things require a lot of care! Who knew?
A Thinking Reed 
You know what else you might enjoy for “obvious reasons” and for your other interests? – Alison Gopnik’s “The Scientist in the Crib.”
I’ve been really impressed with “Eating Animals.” I haven’t been able to sit down and go cover to cover while I’m hammering out my dissertation proposal, but as far as I’ve gotten, I think he’s handling it well.
I just got Gary Steiner’s “Animals and the Moral Community.” You’ll probably have that one read and reviewed before I’ve finished the table of contents…
Thanks for the recommendations–I’ve actually never heard of the Steiner book, but it looks intriguing (if a little pricey). I think I’m going to pick up “The Scientist in the Crib” though.
One thing that is kind of funny about the JSF book is that, so far at least (I’m a little over halfway through), he hasn’t made any references to Peter Singer, Tom Regan, or any of the many other thinkers that have covered this ground. I realize he’s not writing philosophy, but still…
I wonder if that’s a deliberate tactic on his part? He’s perhaps trying to reach further out, into an audience that wouldn’t be reading Singer and Regan, etc. or might even be instantly put off by references to them? I don’t know; I need to get further into it.