Postliberal Theology and the Church Catholic

Postliberal Theology and the Church Catholic: Conversations with George Lindbeck, David Burrell, Stanley Hauerwas, edited by John Wright. Baker Academic, 2012. 159 pages. ISBN 978-0-8010-3982-9.

Many of the books I have been reading refers to postliberal theology. It is sometimes referred to as the Yale theology. This is one of the reasons I decided to read this book. For example, James K. A. Smith has a chapter on George Lindbeck in his book, Who's Afraid of Relativism. Postliberal theology and the Church Catholic is centered around interviews with three prominent theologians who are associated with and considered first generation postliberal theologians. Burrell is not associated as much with postliberal theology as Hauerewas and Lindbeck. Another important theme of these three writers is how their theology is in conversation with the Catholic church. All three authors believe we need to work from this tradition even though only one of the authors is Roman Catholic and the editor is Nazarene.

Wright includes an excellent introduction that situates the interviews and the theologians. There are three chapters on individual interviews with each of the theologians. There is also an additional chapter of an interview with the theologians in conversation. Wright includes a closing chapter where he summarizes what has gone before and tries to show the implications for the universal church working towards unity. He asks the question, Is the reformation over? He does not think it is over but is optimistic about relations between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.

The purpose of this book is "to place postliberal theology within the broader stream of the 'Tradition of the Great Church' (4). Wright states that postliberal theology is "radical" liberal because it wants to update the "faith given to the saints" (4). It is "radically conservative" because it wants the faith to return to "the normative historical sources of the faith" (4).

Postliberal Theology is a good introduction to Postliberal theology and three prominent theologians. The theologians represent three different traditions: Roman Catholics, Lutheran, and Methodist. Lindbeck's major contribution is that he has pointed us back to the "normative historical sources of our faith." Hauerwas' contribution has been his emphasis on narrative theology and integrating The Great Christian Tradition of the Church to theology. Burrell's major contribution is dialogues between Christians, Muslims, and Jews. This book is recommended for those interested in living out the ancient faith in today's world.

Reasonable Pleasures

This is the author's version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Shaffett, John E. "Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism." Catholic Library World,  Vol. 84, No. 4 (June 2014): 270.

Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism

By James V. Schall, Ignatius, 2013, 218 pp., ISBN 978-1-58617-787-4, $16.95

Father Schall retired from Georetown University last year. He has written many excellent books on the relationship between faith and reason. In Reasonable Pleasures Schall shows how the mind’s pursuit of truth is pleasurable. He notes, “Aristotle taught that every activity that is normal to us, including thinking, has its own proper pleasure” (12). Pleasure “enhances” the particular activity performed. The subtitle points out how Catholic Christianity, reason, and pleasure are not opposed to each other. Schall in eight chapters demonstrate the reasonable pleasures of knowing the truth of various topics: dogma, humor, sports, hell, temporal existence, “worship,” and “eternal life.”

            In the introductory chapter Schall states three truths: The importance of learning from the past; we are more than minds; and we can know all things through our minds. He believes that truth is knowable and that things exist outside of our minds and knowing reality or the “truth of things” is pleasurable.

            Schall’s first essay is on dogma. He explains what it is and why it is important. He defines dogma as “an accurate statement of what is true” (30). In contrast to modern thinking, he thinks dogma is a good thing. The reason for this is that “a dogma is intended to clarify, to state accurately, to illuminate what can be stated about an experience, an ultimate issue, or something connected to it” (31). This is what Schall attempts to do in these essays. He illuminates the topics of reason, pleasure, faith, learning, and eternal life. For example, the author states that to live correctly we must think correctly. Ideas matter and they have consequences, both good and bad.

 In his essay on eternal life, Schall argues that man’s end is eternal life. One of the problems of modern man is that they try to make earthy, temporal, existence into heaven on earth. Faith not only answers reason, but provides meaning to our temporal life.

            In addition, Schall argues that faith and reason are compatible. They fulfill one another. He asserts that “revelation is a claim to truth,” and “this truth will be coherent with all other truths, including the truths of reason” (39). This affirms Aquinas’s assertion that “grace builds on nature” (39).

            Schall in Reasonable Pleasures shows how faith, reason, and pleasures are coherent in the Catholic faith. He also shows that truth is knowable and reality exists outside of our minds and we can know it. Schall believes that revelation answers reason’s questions. He states, “the truths of revelation, while often not directly able to be proved or understood by human reason, still, when thought about, cause reason to be more, not less, reason” (194). This is vintage Schall and is recommended to all readers who are interested in the “truth of things.”

The End of Apologetics

Myron Bradley Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. Baker Academic, 2013. 180 pages. ISBN 978-0-8010-3598-2

Penner in his book, The End of Apologetics sates that "this is a book about apologetics. Or, more precisely, it is a book against apologetics" (4). Is this a book of apologetics against apologetics? In some sense, it is a book against apologetics. The author thinks popular apologetics is not relevant to the current postmodern context. The author means by apologetics "the Enlightenment project of attempting to establish rational foundations for Christian belief" (7). The author seems to assume the truth of postmodernism in arguing against popular apologetics as represented by William Lane Craig and the Biola School.

Penner is an Anglican priest in Canada. He previously taught at Prairie College and Graduate School. He is the editor of Christianity and the Postmodern Turn.

Penner argues that Enlightenment apologetics "are taken to be ahistorical, unsituated, abstract, and universal"(17). The author used Kierkegaard as a model for a different type of apologetics that is more fitting to the postmodern context. In the introduction the author declares he does not argue for postmodernism but assumes "postmodernism as a starting point" (14) to show the deficiencies of modern apologetics. Some readers might think his depiction of William Lane Craid, J. P. Moreland, and other are straw men and a little harsh.

In chapter one he describes the apologetics of Craig. He gives much attention to Craig's background and how he does apologetics. He calls Craig's type of apologetics the "objective-universal-neutral complex" (32). This is a typical point made by postmodernists. The idea that there is no netral, objective, universal truth. Everyone sees from a particular perspective. Penner sees that both conservatives and liberals are captivated by the enlightenment view of the intellect.

There are many things to like about this book. It shows the weaknesses of popular apologetics. It shows how apologetics have been used to abuse certain individuals. There is much truth in the idea that truth is not ahistorical, unsituated, abstract, and universal. However, there are particular problems with this view. I might be misreading this view though in these criticisms. How will we decide truth claims if we are all caught in our particular perspectives? Are there no ways to decide between particular differences? Postmodernism has contributed much to discussions on how many Christians are imprisoned to Enlightenment views.

The End of Apologetics is a good book to see problems with popular apologetics. It also shows us what an apologetics would look like that assumed postmodernism. I was able to follow the author's thought for most of the book and agree with much of it or see how the position was a valid alternative. However, I had a problem following and accepting the last chapter, "The Politics of Witness." It is in this chapter that the author connects popular apologetics with violence. I might have taken him to connect the two together where he is arguing there is the possibility. He seems to be using stronger terms than I could accept. In addition, It did not seem called for in certain instances.

One other note, this book won honorable mention in Christianity Today Book awards 2014. It has also received endorsements from Jonathan R. Wilson, Fergus Kerr, John R. Franke, and others. I have mixed feelings about this book, but I do recommend it. I think the author makes some good points that are beneficial. For example, Kierkegaard's distinguishing between a genius and an apostle. Another idea is the faith based on an elite who have the gifts, time, and education to be an apologist like Craig. What about ordinary Christians? Popular apologetics seem overly cerebral.

Who's Afraid of Relativism

Who's Afraid of Relativism?: Community, Contingency, and Creaturehood, by James K. A. Smith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014. 186 pages. ISBN: 978-0-8010-3973-7.

Smith's Who's Afraid of Relativism seems to be a sequel to his earlier book: Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? In that book Smith tried to rehabilitate the teaching of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault and apply it to the Church. In Who's Afraid of Relativism, Smith seeks to rehabilitate the thinking of Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, and Robert Brandom and apply its teaching to the Church. These thinkers basic philosophy is pragmatism. Smith sees himself doing what Saint Augustine spoke of "as looting the Egyptians." In other words, taking the good from secular thought and capturing for the Church.

Smith argues that Christians should be relativists. However, what he defines as relativism does not seem to be the popular idea of relativism. His relativism does not seem to be anything goes. It actually argues against individualism and supports the idea of being shaped by a community.

Smith has a chapter for each of the thinkers.He adds another chapter for what he considers to be a Christian pragmatism: post-liberalism. He asserts that his book can actually stand as a prequel to George Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine. 

Who's Afraid of Relativism seems to dovetail with Smith's other works. He wants us to understand the importance of the body and embodiment. He wants to point out that our lives are limited by contingency, context, and environment.

Sometimes in reading the book I was little confused. Smith seems to be arguing one thing in one part, and then seems to be qualifying it in another part. This book does make you think. Smith seems to be arguing against realist conceptions of truth. Does his arguments refutes all presentations of realism? It does seem to refute some representations of realism, but not all.

In the epilogue Smith states that his argument for relativism is not "arbitrary or subjective or governed only by fleeting whims" (179). He seems to be using special terminology for relativism. He defines relativism as something "related to something or someone, relative to say, a context or a community" (179). I think this gives us an idea that he is implying. We are historical beings. We are not God. We are limited beings constrained by our history, context, and community. We are also dependent beings. He would argue that our practices shape our beliefs instead of saying our beliefs shape our practices. He basically is arguing for ""our creaturehood." This recognition should lead us to a more "catholic stance that begins with an affirmation of tradition, a gracious reception of the gifts we receive from our past" (182). In other words, Smith's use of secular sources point us to the importance of the Christian Tradition.

The Twilight of the American Enlightenment

George M Marsden, The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: the 1950s and the crisis of belief. New York: Basic Books, 2014. 219 pages. ISBN 978-0-465-030101.

George Marsden is one of the leading historians of our day. He has written many prize-winning books including Fundamentalism and American Culture, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, and Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In addition, he has influenced many Christian scholars today. The Twilight of the American Enlightenment is a different type of book for him. In this book, he examines the 1950s and the attempt of secular liberals to create a consensus for American culture and life. He shows through his analysis of this period how this experiment failed. He connects the birth of the Religious Right with the failure of the liberal establishment. He faults liberals for shutting out the voice of religious conservatives. He faults the religious right for creating a mythical Christian nation. His overall goal is to argue for a principled pluralism that allows for the voices of liberals, moderates, and conservatives to be heard in the public arena.

This seems to be a goal worth shooting for. I do not think his analysis of the failed liberal experiment necessarily leads to the argument for pluralism in our day. It is hard to apply the findings of one period of history to another. One might also wonder if we do not have pluralism already and different voices are already evident in this arena. There does seem to be a need for civility in the public arena as argued by Richard Mouw and Os Guinness. It would seem that Christians can play an important role here.

Marsden's analysis of the 1950s is expertly done. He shows he is throughly familiar with the key individuals and events of the time. He does show that the liberal elite had no transcendent(?) belief that could unify the nation. The strange thing here is that many conservatives look back longingly at the fifties as a time of family values. Despite this being a time of legal segregation; this view is based on a myth. We should be thankful for Marsden's help in having a more truthful view of the 1950s.

The Twilight of the Enlightenment includes five chapters. In chapter one Marsden analyzes mass media's affect on American culture. This is the time of television. Many liberals spoke out to its negative characteristics. Marsden notes, "The anxieties over television, mass media, and a culture dominated by mindless anti-intellectualism were all premised on the deeper concern that the world might be witnessing the emergence of a whole new creature, 'mass man' or modern man' (21). There were many intellectuals who spoke against this master culture. Some of there were Eric Fromm in his book Escape from Freedom; David Riseman, in The Lonely Crowd; and the popular novel and film, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. These authors were arguing for freedom against mass conformism. Marsden notes, "Yet, it was not clear what criteria one should use to determine what the positive alternatives were to the shackles either of traditionalism or of modern conformity" (42). In addition, he argues that "the social commentators who identified conformity as a preeminent modern problem could assume that autonomy was the solution because they were taking for granted that there were better values that authentic, self-fulfilled people could draw upon" (43). Marsden argues that this search for some higher goal to based these values were a failure. The building they were building "were without foundations."

One of the leading liberal intellectuals who saw this failure was Walter Lippmann. In his last book, he wrote of this failure. His book was trated with scorn and ridicule. Marsden notes, "His heresy was to say that his liberal colleagues were trying to build a public consensus based on inherited principles, even after they dynamited the foundations on which those principles had first been established. The result was that liberal culture, of which he was a part, had no adequate shared criteria for determining 'the good' (44). " Lippman went on to argue that we must try to renew something like a natural law.

The Twilight of the American Enlightenment is a well-written book. It persuasively argues that the liberal attempt to create a consensus after letting go of the Christian foundation ultimately failed. What we have as a result is the modern culture wars. It does seem that we need to come to some-kind of a consensus or our nation will rip at the seams.


 

The Dangers of Reading Books

The Dangers of Reading Books

James V. Schall, Frederick Wilhelmson, and Leo Strauss warned against the dangers of reading the Great Books. This might seem surprising. Everyone knows that reading the Great Books is what everyone wants to do, but never does. The reason these authors warned against the dangers of reading the Great Books is because the authors of these books disagreed with each other. They thought that reading these books without special guides would lead to relativism. Relativism is the "idea that truth, morality, etc., exist only in relation to other things and are not absolute." In other words, there are no universal standards for morality and truth.

I do think these authors have a point. One could think of what the book of James says: ". . . for the one who doubts is like the wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind (;) . . . he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (James 1:6-7, ESV). Or one thinks of what the apostle Paul wrote: "that we may no longer be children , tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14). What we see pictured hear is that we go whichever way the author leads us. One author leads us one way; another author leads us another way. We are lost at sea.

Schall and the others want to keep us from despairing of the truth. They want us to be properly grounded. This is why they think we need to have expert guides to lead us through this wilderness of relativism. One might say we need a place to stand, so we can distinguish between what is true and untrue. The Christian tradition or a Biblical understanding can be helpful here.

I think there argument can be applied to modern books. If we read books regularly, we will come upon authors who disagree with one another. How do we handle this? Should we refrain from the reading of books because the danger involved. C. S. Lewis Wrote that the atheist cannot be too careful of the books they read. Should the Christian read only Christian books? The problem is that many Christian authors disagree with one another.

I remember when I decided to attend a public university instead of a Christian college. My Associate Pastor and mentor discouraged me from doing this. He thought I would endanger my faith. Many Christians want to read authors that only agree with their beliefs. This is not a solution for me. I have learned many things from authors that disagree with my beliefs. For example, I think there are things we can learn from Sigmund Freud even though he was an atheist. Many time my faith is challenged just as much from certain Christian authors as it is from atheists. For example, One of my favorite contemporary authors is James K. A. Smith. I have read many of his books. Many of his ideas challenge much of what I have been taught in Christian circles. Two books that come especially in mind are Who's Afraid of Post-modernism and Who's Afraid of Relativism. In these books he looks at certain non-Christian authors, even atheists, and argues that they can teach us certain truths that the Church needs to hear. In other words, secularists are donning the robes of prophets.

Reading authors that disagree with one another makes me uncomfortable. Reading authors that disagree with my beliefs makes me examine my beliefs closer. Am I wrong to read these books? The only safe thing to do would be not to read any books at all. Books can be quite dangerous.

Slow Reading in a Hurried Age

David Mikics, Slow Reading in a Hurried Age. Harvard University Press, 2013. 320 pages. ISBN 978-0-674-72472-3.

I remember several years back when speed reading was a craze. There were all kinds of books, workshops, and courses how to increase the reader's speed. We now have several authors telling us to slow down our speed of reading. Which advice is correct? It depends. It depends on what you are reading. Mortimer Adler and Charles Doren's How to Read a Book taught me that the speed of reading depended on the purposes of reading. For example, you would not read a novel for entertainment at the same speed as you would read a non-fiction book analytically.

David Mikics sees a need for readers to slow down too. His major concern is that in the digital age we are developing certain habits that creates poor readers. His book can be divided into three parts. The first two chapters discuss the negative affects of the digital age and how to respond to it. Chapter three describes fourteen rules to make us a better reader. The last five chapters applies these rules to the reading of different genres: short stories, novels, poetry, drama, and essays.

These are the fourteen rules described by Mikics:
1. Be Patient
2. Ask the Right Questions
3. Identify the Voice
4. Get a Sense of Style
5. Notice Beginnings and Endings
6. Identify Signposts
7. Use the Dictionary
8. Track Key Words
9. Find the Author's Basic Thought
10. Be Suspicious
11. Find the Parts
12. Write it Down
13. Explore Different Paths
14. Find Another Book

These rules are helpful in helping the reader to be better readers. The first two chapters does present some dangers to deep reading in the digital age. For example, the author notes, "This book will teach any interested person how to be a good and careful reader, a slow reader, even in the age of the Internet. The Internet fosters light reading: we scan and graze, searching for tidbits" (3). I think there is truth in what Mikics is saying. In some sense, the digital age creates different kinds of readers. Reading a good book is an education in itself. One good book leads to other good books.

I still think Adler and Doren's How to Read a Book is still essential. It is a book I will read again. Two other books I like on reading is by two Christian authors: Lit!:A Christian Guide to Reading Books by Tony Reinke, and How to Read Slowly: Reading for Comprehension by James W. Sire. All three of these books I highly recommend. Adler's book mainly covers reading Non-fiction books. Reinke and Sire cover both fiction and non-fiction. Sire does a good job in teaching the reader how to read poetry.