James K. A. Smith, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Baker Academic, 2013. 198 pages. ISBN: 978-0-8010-3578-4.
Imagining the Kingdom is Smith's long-awaited second volume of the "Cultural Literary series. In the first volume, Desiring the Kingdom, Smith showed the importance of desire or our loves in shaping what we do. In this volume he continues this conversation with an emphasis on the imagination and poetics. In addition, he shows how we are shaped either by secular or religious liturgies.
Smith explains how the series has changed in intention. He originally was writing to scholars and the first volume turned out to be more of a hybrid, written both to scholars and practitioners, or ordinary readers. He decided to keep this focus for the rest of the series. This volume could have been the first volume because of the emphasis on the imagination. This is thinking on a subconscious level. It is our perception on what causes human flourishing.
Smith shows how we are shaped by our worship. We are repeating the story of God in worship. He gives an example of a man who has been shaped by confession and worship in the liturgy. At a particular time his son has departed from the right path. He comes to the father asking for forgiveness. Because of the father experiencing God's forgiveness in worship many times, he forgives his son. Smith says the worship of God is an end in itself. It is also connected to mission or our being sent out to the world.
Smith does a good job in explaining the thought of Merleau-Ponty and Bourdieu. He has mentioned them in other works and I was interested in knowing more about this work. He gives an excellent commentary on their work and how it applies to the emphasis on the body, practices, imagination, and thick, particularized Christianity. They authors argue that we are more shaped by bodily actions. They also emphasize the importance of story.
Smith says that "the focus of this second volume is to home in on these themes, further exploring the shape of liturgical anthropology in order to articulate a Christian philosophy of action that (1) recognizes the nonconscious, pretheoretical 'drivers' of our action and behavior, centered in what I'll call the imagination; (2) accounts for the bodily formation of our habituated orientation to the world; and thus (3) appreciates the centrality of story as rooted in this 'bodily basis of meaning' and as a kind of pretheoretical compass that guides and generates human action. In short, the way to the heart is through the body, and the way into the body is through story" (14). This leads to his last chapter on worship. How intellect and desires are shaped by the bodily actions of worship. He provides good insights on how tradition liturgies shape us into God's image. It is important how we worship. I like this affirmation of Christian liturgy and how it tells a story. We need to be more intentional on how we worship.
The second volume is as good if not better than the first volume. Smith seems to be still working on these ideas. There is much to like about this project. I like how he corrects the over emphasis on the intellect and how we are shaped more by our desires or loves as taught by St. Augustine. I look forward for volume three.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Aquinas, Calvin, & Contemporary Protestant Thought
Arvin Vos, Aquinas, Calvin, & Contemporary Protestant Thought: A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Christian University Press (Eerdmans), 1985. 178 pages. ISBN 0-8028-00602
Have Protestant misinterpreted Thomas Aquinas? Arvin Vos contends that by depending on secondary sources instead of a first-hand reading of Aquinas, Protestants have passed on a flawed view of Aquinas. What are some of these misinterpretations of Aquinas? They have seen Calvin and Aquinas as diametrically opposed on the nature of faith. They have argued that Aquinas' "Five Ways" on proving the existence of God are prerequisite for faith. They have argued that Aquinas has argued for a "two-story" view of knowledge where faith is added to reason.
Vos, a Reformed Protestant, in meticulous detail shows how they views are misguided and shown to be false with a first-hand reading of Aquinas. In this book, Vos believes there is a need for Protestants to re-evaluate Aquinas and commends this effort. Vos was a Professor of Philosophy at Western Kentucky when he wrote this book. His specialty was the philosophy of the Middle Ages, with special interest in Augustine and Aquinas.
Ralph Mcinerny wrote the foreword to this book. Mcinerny, a Roman Catholic, has written many excellent books on Aquinas. Mcinerny notes, "Vos shows, I think convincingly, that some Protestant misgivings about Thomas's conception of faith, as well as his understanding of the relation between nature and grace, are not solidly based in the text and intent of the Angelic Doctor. It is easy to find passages in Thomas that emphasize the very point of doctrine most dear to the Protestant critic. This is not, of course, to say that disagreements among Christians are always misunderstandings, but it does serve to show that there is a far broader base of shared understanding than is typically assumed" (vii).
Mcinerny makes some good points in his comments. There is a danger in basing our beliefs on an author from a second-hand source. All interpreters are fallible and influenced by particular biases. It is important to get our information from the horse's mouth. Another key point is that we must show charity to texts. We must seek to understand as we want to be understood. Another good point is that until we have done this necessary work, the real work of critique cannot be done. Vos has provided an important service to Protestants by showing what Aquinas did say and what he meant by it.
I have been an Evangelical Protestant for over thirty years. I started reading Aquinas about twenty years ago. My life and thought have been enriched by reading Aquinas. I believe Protestants can receive much benefit by reading Aquinas.
Aquinas, Calvin & Contemporary Protestant Thought is divided into six chapters. Chapter one compares Calvin's thought with Aquinas on the nature of faith. Vos notes, "While Calvin and Augustine differ radically in the language they use and the methods of analysis they imply, in substance their views of the nature of faith are similar, if not identical" (20). Both Calvin and Aquinas see faith as knowledge without complete understanding. This points to the Medieval understanding that faith seeks understanding.
In chapter three Vos asks the question, was Aquinas an evidentialist or a fideist? Vos uses definitions given by Nicholas Wolterstorff to define these two terms. Wolterstorff believes Aquinas was an evidentialist based on his definition. Vos disagrees with him and sees Aquinas more of a fideist. Vos thinks Aquinas would define these two terms this way: "He would say that evidentialists are those who rely on reason, who will give assent only in cases which the intelligible object moves the intellect, and he would say that fideists are those who admit cases in which one gives assent in spite of the fact that something is not evident to the natural light of reason" (59). According to this distinction, Vos believes Aquinas is more of a fideist. He believes faith is primary. In addition, he shows how this explains Aquinas' discussion of the will and intellect in believing. Aquinas states that we are to give assent to divine revelation even when it is above reason. Aquinas sees faith and reason as compatible. Vos notes, "Aquinas does insist that reason has a role in faith. One must in some way grasp that which is believed" (60).
Other chapters analyse the "Five Ways" of proving the existence of God or the preambles and its relation to faith, God's existence "as seen and known," and nature and grace. In discussing the meaning of the preambles, Vos shows how Protestants have misinterpreted Aquinas in teaching that "Aquinas holds reason to be a precondition for faith" (67). Vos shows convincingly that Aquinas teaches no such thing. This is what Aquinas says, "The truths about God which St. Paul says we can know by our natural powers of reasoning--that God exists, for example--are not numbered among the articles of faith, but are presupposed to them. For faith presupposes natural knowledge, just as grace does nature and all perfections that which they perfect. However, there is nothing to stop a man accepting on faith some truth which he personally cannot demonstrate, even if that truth in itself is such that demonstration could make it evident" ( 70). This quote shows clearly that Aquinas is not teaching that reason is a precondition to faith.
In the last chapter Vos analyses Aquinas teaching on nature and grace. In this chapter he disputes the Protestant idea that Aquinas taught a two-story universe where faith is built upon nature. It is the idea that natural man is sufficient in himself. Grace is something added on the natural man. This idea came later from certain interpreters of Thomas Aquinas in the 17th century. Vos notes about Aquinas' teaching: "All good acts have their origin in God, for he is the author of nature as well as the gifts of nature says Aquinas. Before the Fall, man was able to do the natural good because his being was well ordered: the gift of original justice gave the soul power to control his desires. But now that nature is wounded, it can attain only part of the good connatural to it. Grace both restores the supernatural gifts and heals the wounded nature, he says, but such healing is completed only in the future life" (147). In other words, Aquinas believes man is fallen and that he requires grace to achieve his final end.
Aquinas, Calvin, & Contemporary Protestant Thought is an important work. It shows how there is much in common in Aquinas and Calvin's thought. It has shown how some Protestants have misinterpreted him by relying on second-hand sources. Vos does a good job in helping us to read Aquinas first-hand. His interpretation resonates with my own reading of Aquinas for the last twenty years. Even Flannery O' Connor said she read from Aquinas daily. I do not go many days without reading from Aquinas. He is my bread and butter.
Have Protestant misinterpreted Thomas Aquinas? Arvin Vos contends that by depending on secondary sources instead of a first-hand reading of Aquinas, Protestants have passed on a flawed view of Aquinas. What are some of these misinterpretations of Aquinas? They have seen Calvin and Aquinas as diametrically opposed on the nature of faith. They have argued that Aquinas' "Five Ways" on proving the existence of God are prerequisite for faith. They have argued that Aquinas has argued for a "two-story" view of knowledge where faith is added to reason.
Vos, a Reformed Protestant, in meticulous detail shows how they views are misguided and shown to be false with a first-hand reading of Aquinas. In this book, Vos believes there is a need for Protestants to re-evaluate Aquinas and commends this effort. Vos was a Professor of Philosophy at Western Kentucky when he wrote this book. His specialty was the philosophy of the Middle Ages, with special interest in Augustine and Aquinas.
Ralph Mcinerny wrote the foreword to this book. Mcinerny, a Roman Catholic, has written many excellent books on Aquinas. Mcinerny notes, "Vos shows, I think convincingly, that some Protestant misgivings about Thomas's conception of faith, as well as his understanding of the relation between nature and grace, are not solidly based in the text and intent of the Angelic Doctor. It is easy to find passages in Thomas that emphasize the very point of doctrine most dear to the Protestant critic. This is not, of course, to say that disagreements among Christians are always misunderstandings, but it does serve to show that there is a far broader base of shared understanding than is typically assumed" (vii).
Mcinerny makes some good points in his comments. There is a danger in basing our beliefs on an author from a second-hand source. All interpreters are fallible and influenced by particular biases. It is important to get our information from the horse's mouth. Another key point is that we must show charity to texts. We must seek to understand as we want to be understood. Another good point is that until we have done this necessary work, the real work of critique cannot be done. Vos has provided an important service to Protestants by showing what Aquinas did say and what he meant by it.
I have been an Evangelical Protestant for over thirty years. I started reading Aquinas about twenty years ago. My life and thought have been enriched by reading Aquinas. I believe Protestants can receive much benefit by reading Aquinas.
Aquinas, Calvin & Contemporary Protestant Thought is divided into six chapters. Chapter one compares Calvin's thought with Aquinas on the nature of faith. Vos notes, "While Calvin and Augustine differ radically in the language they use and the methods of analysis they imply, in substance their views of the nature of faith are similar, if not identical" (20). Both Calvin and Aquinas see faith as knowledge without complete understanding. This points to the Medieval understanding that faith seeks understanding.
In chapter three Vos asks the question, was Aquinas an evidentialist or a fideist? Vos uses definitions given by Nicholas Wolterstorff to define these two terms. Wolterstorff believes Aquinas was an evidentialist based on his definition. Vos disagrees with him and sees Aquinas more of a fideist. Vos thinks Aquinas would define these two terms this way: "He would say that evidentialists are those who rely on reason, who will give assent only in cases which the intelligible object moves the intellect, and he would say that fideists are those who admit cases in which one gives assent in spite of the fact that something is not evident to the natural light of reason" (59). According to this distinction, Vos believes Aquinas is more of a fideist. He believes faith is primary. In addition, he shows how this explains Aquinas' discussion of the will and intellect in believing. Aquinas states that we are to give assent to divine revelation even when it is above reason. Aquinas sees faith and reason as compatible. Vos notes, "Aquinas does insist that reason has a role in faith. One must in some way grasp that which is believed" (60).
Other chapters analyse the "Five Ways" of proving the existence of God or the preambles and its relation to faith, God's existence "as seen and known," and nature and grace. In discussing the meaning of the preambles, Vos shows how Protestants have misinterpreted Aquinas in teaching that "Aquinas holds reason to be a precondition for faith" (67). Vos shows convincingly that Aquinas teaches no such thing. This is what Aquinas says, "The truths about God which St. Paul says we can know by our natural powers of reasoning--that God exists, for example--are not numbered among the articles of faith, but are presupposed to them. For faith presupposes natural knowledge, just as grace does nature and all perfections that which they perfect. However, there is nothing to stop a man accepting on faith some truth which he personally cannot demonstrate, even if that truth in itself is such that demonstration could make it evident" ( 70). This quote shows clearly that Aquinas is not teaching that reason is a precondition to faith.
In the last chapter Vos analyses Aquinas teaching on nature and grace. In this chapter he disputes the Protestant idea that Aquinas taught a two-story universe where faith is built upon nature. It is the idea that natural man is sufficient in himself. Grace is something added on the natural man. This idea came later from certain interpreters of Thomas Aquinas in the 17th century. Vos notes about Aquinas' teaching: "All good acts have their origin in God, for he is the author of nature as well as the gifts of nature says Aquinas. Before the Fall, man was able to do the natural good because his being was well ordered: the gift of original justice gave the soul power to control his desires. But now that nature is wounded, it can attain only part of the good connatural to it. Grace both restores the supernatural gifts and heals the wounded nature, he says, but such healing is completed only in the future life" (147). In other words, Aquinas believes man is fallen and that he requires grace to achieve his final end.
Aquinas, Calvin, & Contemporary Protestant Thought is an important work. It shows how there is much in common in Aquinas and Calvin's thought. It has shown how some Protestants have misinterpreted him by relying on second-hand sources. Vos does a good job in helping us to read Aquinas first-hand. His interpretation resonates with my own reading of Aquinas for the last twenty years. Even Flannery O' Connor said she read from Aquinas daily. I do not go many days without reading from Aquinas. He is my bread and butter.
Monday, July 7, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
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.
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.”
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)