For the next few days my wonderful wife and I are headed to the Ozarks, one of the areas we like to go relax at. Hopefully we can go play @ Beaver Lake (pictured above). So posting will continue to be light this month. After vacation, i have got Jr High Camp & some major papers due this month. I will hopefully get a few posts up this month, but if not, oh well.
In my Theology of Culture class a few predominant issues keep pushing their way into the forefront of my mind. One of these is the fundamental problem of defining what we mean by ”culture.”
One of the reasons this is a major issue is due to the influence of H. Richard Niebuhr’s sweeping definition, in which the term draws a net wide enough to catch every human activity. This “monolithic” definition has been aptly critisized by John Howard Yoder, who believes the term is defined so broadly in part to highlight the inadequacy of certain Niebuhrian types (not coincidentally, the type that Yoder is closest to, the “Christ Against Culture” type) and the superiority of the “Christ Transofrms Culture,” the type that Niebuhr favors. In fact, Yoder believes that this problematic understanding of culture, when set against Niebuhr’s equally polarizing definition of Christ, sets the discussion on an inevitable course towards Niebuhr’s preference. The terms as so defined give Niebuhr rhetorical leverage over the opinions of his readers, leaving any conclusion but his inescapable if his understandings of culture and Christ are correct.
While Yoder’s critique is a powerful one, it seems in most of my research the issue of how to conceptualize culture is a perennially difficult task. The struggle appears to avoid being overly vague, lest the term become vacuous, to simply be filled in with the author’s presuppositions, or to define culture too narrowly, degenerating into sectarianism and ironically falling into the same trap as “monolithic” understandings.
In the face of such complexity, how can an adequate definition be found? To be able to define the term in a way that is anthropologically sensitive while being fundamentally theological is one of my hopes for this course.
Roger H. Crook. An Introduction to Christian Ethics (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006. xi + 308 p.
In this introductory work Robert Crook seeks to write a text that will enable students who are unfamiliar with the discipline to begin to “develop a method of dealing with the thorny moral issues that they face not only as students but also as people involved in the life of the broader community (vii).”
This commitment to practicality is evidenced by the layout of the book. Section I is devoted to exploring the basic definitions, concepts, and approaches to the field. In this area fundamental definitions are given and other religious approaches to ethics are explicated.
Sections II explores Crook’s approach to ethical thinking and decision-making. In this section we see Crook interact with the biblical material and theological issues related to ethics. Finally, section III is a broad exploration of several contemporary issues. Little personal conviction is stated by Crook in the final section, but rather an explication of the salient points of each issue is highlighted. What follows are some general comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the book.
To begin, Crook “recognizes as viable options a number of other” Christians systems, and seeks to present them without evaluation (vii). While Crook admits in the same paragraph that as a text on Christian ethics it must make certain assumptions, throughout the book Crook aims at prescription, not description.
In the first section Crook by and large achieves a level of detachment. This goal of demonstrating a Niebuhrian sense of humility (or pluralism as Yoder critiqued it) becomes a bit awkward when Crook turns more intensely to the biblical and theological issues surrounding ethics. Here Crook for the most part comes down off his perch of detachment and admittedly gives his own method for ethical decision making (cf vii-viii).
This shift in method is made difficult by the overall absence of the abstract theories enumerated in section I of the book. On page 54 Crook admits that at the conclusion of the methodological survey that he emphasizes the responsiblity of the individual to God in Christ, whose character is formed within the Christian community. From this short endorsement one can discern both Crook’s preference for Niebuhrian/Gustafsonian “responsibility ethics” and virtue ethics, at least in as much as it focuses on communal aspects of virtue formation (36-41, 43-45). However no indepth attempt at justifying these preferences are given, and instead Crook merely turns to an examination of the use of biblical, theological, and experiential (mind, conscience, & and the prompting of the Spirit) resources in his own framework.
While i appreciate Crook’s concern to not brainwash beginners, the unwillingness to demonstrate the inner logic he sees between ethical theory and his biblical and theological beliefs could just as easily leave the beginner wondering what exactly the point of the first section was. Crook may have given students plenty of fish, but hasn’t shown them how to fish for these interconnections themselves.
At this point it seems reasonable to see if there is a reason for this noticable gap other than simple pedagogical preference. Although this may sound harsh, this unwillingness to connect his theoretical preferences with his biblical and theological convictions is that their connection proves to be rather thin at times.
For example, Crook argues that
for Paul, as for Jesus, the starting point in thinking about human life was the sovereignty of God (87).
When one reads further the nature of this sovereign being is relativized due to our limited human vantage point. Here, where the mention of the revelatory incarnation would be so helpful, we instead find a more generic description of God as person, creator, sovereign, and judge (94-95).
This is not to say that Crook’s rendering of biblical and theological ethics carries nothing of substance, but only that his approach ends up rendering his general guidelines for decision making vague, making the practical value of all his analysis impoverished.
At this point, in only reading one book by Crook, it is hard to tell if this is simple intellectual humility or evidence of a high class intellectual elitism, similar to what Yoder criticized Niebuhr for in his classic Christ & Culture. Yoder criticized Niebuhr for cloaking an arrogance which believed that the ivy-league elite alone could understand the complexity of culture and the lack of a “right answer” within the apparent humility of admitting such difficulties. Thus, only the Yale-taught relativist could understand that there was no right answer, and all who opposed this humble relativism would be met with scathing hostility. Given Crook’s close proximity to Niebuhrian thought & Richard’s disciple Gustafson, Crook’s analysis may hide the same intent. Only further reading can resolve this issue.*
Regardless of the reason for these deficiencies, it should come as little surprise that these ambiguities lead to a 3rd section characterized largely by description, with little conviction given and even less defended by the author.
In sum, Crook’s descriptions are fair, generous, and accessible to beginners from beginning to end. This is the strength of the book. However, if one believes that Christian teaching, if it is to be Christian, must move beyond mere description and into the prescriptive realm, then Crook’s book will have little value outside of providing vital foundation pieces, as lucid and helpful as they are. Thus, this book highlights a deeper problem within the field of Christian ethics an education; the relationship between the church and modern educational models.**
*Much of the critique of section II of Crook’s book is born out of Yoder’s critique of H.R. Niebuhr in the book “Authentic Transformation.”
**This was first made apparent to me, from all places, in the blogosphere! Click here for the simple post that illuminated this point.
From Eugene Peterson’s Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places:
I love to sin; God loves to forgive; The world is admirably arranged.
I have been reading William Dyrness’ book The Earth is God’s, and the further i read the more unsettled i become about the word “creation.” Not so much God’s act per se, but more what we mean when trying to describe what exactly makes up the content of that act of the Triune God. For example, at one point Dyrness writes, in relation to the new heavens and new earth, that
This event is clearly the end toward which creation moves and represents the fulfillment of all God’s purposes with reference to creation (56).
First of all, despite Paul’s use of this type of personifying language about creation, i am a bit dumbfounded in general by describing creation in this way. Surely Paul had a more nuanced idea in mind that was lost in translation. How does creation “move” or “groan?” Obviously Paul is being metaphorical, but this had to be anchored in a more concrete reality or understanding, right? When i read books like Dyrness, i have the intuition that such language is used much more loosely than Paul’s.
My last two criticisms relate to this point: The use of the word seems so broad as to ultimately mean nothing. The good, the bad, and the ugly of nature are often unwittingly lumped into one big term, “creation,” when they obviously have distinct theological significance.
For example, is all of creation is moving toward this end? Natural disasters comprise a part of this march toward a new heaven and a new earth? Seems unlikely; rather, these are radical departures from God’s ideal for creation, the effects of sin.
Related to this, how can we when observing creation say that in light of all the horrors that creation can birth that it is “clearly moving towards” a new heaven and new earth? Obviously revelation is key here, but again such a broad word seems to obsfucate rather than clarify, especially since such horrors are often more difficult to spot than a hurricane hitting a coastline.
I am not trying to unfairly pick on Dyrness here. I can attest that he does affirm the reality of sin in creation (though not as strongly as he should i think). That said, can one really untangle sin from creation to the point where they can confidently affirm, like God did before the fall, what is “good?” I am not sure we always can, and it seems like instead we simply use a generic word, “creation,” for everything, implictly affirming the fallen asepcts as “good” when they are not. My basic concern is that the word “creation” can be too broad, bland, and vague, becoming open to misinterpretation. Further, such a vague category can be intentionally nebulous, allowing a thinker to become (to use John Sanders’ phrase) “a moving target” and thus hard to critique.
So, i guess my question is: can we think of a better word, one that makes better distinctions of the complex realities i mentioned above, and one that doesn’t make for such easy equivocation?
I learned from my professor last night that on Sunday Ray Anderson passed away. A sad day for many; counselors, psychologists, theologians, and pastors will miss his insights. More than that, the grace and love those who knew him attributed to him will be missed.
My professor has posted a great tribute on Ben’s blog.
Tonight i am wrapping up my first paper for my theology of culture class, so nothing profound tonight: just a wonderful performance by Adam Rafferty, who i am just getting aquainted with:
Despite my (relatively) young age, i am not in any sense tech savvy. Luckily, Nick is, and he helpfully lent his expertise in creating the new feature under my calendar to the right, entitled “My Reading Habits.” It is modeled after the widget on his blog. I like it alot, and hope to figure out how to update the html as i keep reading (which i am sure will be quite an adventure). I think i can show my gratitude by encouraging everyone to visit his blog. It is one of my regular clicks, b/c it has good content, a lot of book reviews (which i love), & Nick does all this while not taking himself too seriously. Thanks again Nick!
I have finished Niebuhr’s classic, Christ & Culture. I would like to post some thoughts, maybe a full review, on this book. First, however, i am going to read a chapter on the book written by John Howard Yoder, one of Niebuhr’s fiercest critics. Should be fun. Lastly, in case some want a place to start getting their feet wet in regards to Niebuhr’s work, click here.
I am almost finished with Christ and Culture. I would have to say that so far my favorite chapter has been on “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” Here is another thought-provoking snippet, referring to the ethical complexity that is birthed out of this view:
. . . where he has been entrusted with the care of others, as father or governor, there in obedience to God he must use force to defend his neighbors against force. The greater sin here is to want to be holy or to exercise mercy where mercy is destructive. As God does a ’strange’ work-that is, a work not apparently merciful but wrathful-in natural and historical calamities, so He requires the obedient Christian to do ’strange’ work that hides the mercy of which it is the instrument (178).
Some things really do just get better with age, like the music of Pearl Jam. Here is a video of a song off their upcoming album backspacer. Enjoy!
With the odds heavily stacked against them, my Penguins have recaptured Lord Stanley’s cup. It was an amazing series, and now the youngest captain to ever hoist the cup is the brilliant and polarizing Sidney Crosby. As great as both he and his partner in crime Malkin are, the upset tonight came about primarily because of the play of their goaltender, Marc-Andre Fleury (pictured above). His last second save was a thing of beuaty. I know this Detroit loss hurts some theobloggers, but hopefully they can take solace in the fact that hands down Detroit is still the class of the NHL and that this is likely to be my only playful jab at them.
Between tonight and the recent success of the University of Kansas’ athletics, I am quite the spoiled sports fan right now, and I love it. The best part is, the Pens are pretty young so hopefully this is the start of a special run. Go Pens!
.
On My Desk
Currently Reading
Recently Finished
 | Mark on Time to Go |
 | brainofdtrain on Quaker Sacramentology: A Chris… |
 | Kody Gabriel on Quaker Sacramentology: A Chris… |
 | Nick Norelli on New Blog Feature |
 | WTM on Penguins Win! |
