In my neighborhood people frequently leave boxes of stuff they don’t want out on the sidewalk for any passerby to take, often including books. This morning I passed by such a box and snatched up what look like three pretty good finds: Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit by Elizabeth Johnson; The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould; and A Whale for the Killing by Canadian naturalist and activist Farley Mowat. (I knew nothing about Mowat prior to today; I grabbed the book based solely on the cover and description.)
Category: Books
-
New book on animal rights
Here’s a new book that may be of interest to some readers of this blog: Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Paul Waldau.
From the product description:
Organized around a series of probing questions, this timely resource offers the most complete, even-handed survey of the animal rights movement available. The book covers the full spectrum of issues, beginning with a clear, highly instructive definition of animal rights. Waldau looks at the different concerns surrounding companion animals, wild animals, research animals, work animals, and animals used for food, provides a no-nonsense assessment of the treatment of animals, and addresses the philosophical and legal arguments that form the basis of animal rights. Along the way, readers will gain insight into the history of animal protection-as well as the political and social realities facing animals today-and become familiar with a range of hot-button topics, from animal cognition and autonomy, to attempts to balance animal cruelty versus utility. Chronicled here are many key figures and organizations responsible for moving the animal rights movement forward, as well as legislation and public policy that have been carried out around the world in the name of animal rights and animal protection. The final chapter of this indispensable volume looks ahead to the future of animal rights, and delivers an animal protection mandate for citizens, scientists, governments, and other stakeholders.
There are several good introductions to animal rights out there, but judging by the table of contents, this one provides a lot of up-to-date factual, legal, political, cultural, and scientific information that is in short supply in some of the more philosophical works. Might be worth checking out.
-
Toward reading more fiction
I noted in my earlier reading list post that I wanted to read more fiction in 2011. To that end, I’ve started a pile at home of novels I’ve acquired but never got around to reading. So far I’ve got
– Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale
– Cormac McCartrhy, All the Pretty Horses
– W. Somerset Maugham, The Painted VeilOther suggestions welcome!
-
Early 2011 reading list
New year, new books to read. Here are the ones currently in my to-read pile:
– Michael Lerner, The Left Hand of God (started)
– Herman Melville, Typee (about halfway through this)
– Tomas Halik, Patience with God
– Eric Jay Dolin, Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America
– Martha Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice
– Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk
One of my goals this year is to read more fiction, which this list doesn’t contribute much to. Any suggestions, dear readers, of stuff I should be reading (fiction or not)?
EDIT: Forgot to add Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, which I received as a Christmas gift.
-
Best books of 2010 (the year of the whale)
Here are the best books I read in 2010, most of which weren’t published in 2010.
Herman Melville, Moby-Dick: Probably the greatest novel I’ve ever read. I hope to someday find words to write more adequately about it.
Philip Hoare, The Whale: A social and natural history of man’s dealings with whales. This is the book that convinced me to read Melville.
Andrew Delbanco, Melville: His World and Work: A compulsively readable intellectual and social biography of Melville.
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: I wish I hadn’t waited so long to read James’s classic work. Some amazing first-person accounts of religious experience. And James introduces some of his most important and indispensible concepts here.
Margaret Atwood, Oryx & Crake; The Year of the Flood: The first two books in a projected dystopian trilogy about a world of bioengineering run amok, economic inequality, and environmental degradation. Atwood’s knack for humor and for coining near-futuristic lingo lightens a fairly grim storyline.
Clark Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel: A critique of Christian anti-Judaism and supersessionism and an attempted theological reconstruction.
Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal: Lucidly argues that the causes of (and solutions to) economic inequality in America are rooted in political choices, not the inexorable laws of economics.
Jonathan Safran-Foer, Eating Animals: Deconstruction of factory-farming written with a novelist’s flair.
C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism: Lewis argues that good books are those that allow, invite, or compel good reading.
Robert MacSwain and Michael Ward (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Lewis: A welcome reminder that Lewis is much more interesting and complex than his uncritical admirers or detractors realize.
-
C.S. Lewis as imaginative theologian
In the introduction to the Cambridge Companion to C.S. Lewis, editor Robert MacSwain considers whether a volume on Lewis even belongs in the Cambridge series on religion, rather than, say, literature, which was after all Lewis’s day job and primary area of expertise. Moreover, academic theologians have generally ignored, if not disdained, Lewis and his contributions to theology. MacSwain suggests that what might be needed is an expansion of our concept of theology beyond the familiar academic model:
[I]t may … be the case that Lewis should rightly be considered in this particular series because he has, in fact, expanded the genre of theology to include the imaginative works for which he is so famous. Thus, instead of an amateur, dilettante theologian who cannot possibly be considered in the same league as, for example, Barth, Gutierrez or Moltmann, Lewis might rather be seen (a la Kierkegaard) as a deliberately ‘indirect’ theologian, as one who works by ‘thick description’ or evocative images, operating in multiple voices and genres, through which a single yet surprisingly subtle and complex vision emerges. Yes, of course it is ludicrous to compare Lewis’s Mere Christianity to Barth’s Church Dogmatics–but perhaps it is equally ludicrous to let Barth define the character of all theology. And when Lewis’s entire output is considered as a whole, the comparison might not be so ridiculous after all. Lewis cannot possibly count as a theologian on the Barthian model, but he may nevertheless offer a model of theological expression which needs to be appreciated on its own terms. (pp. 8-9)
The books itself includes essays on all aspects of Lewis’s output (as scholar, thinker, and writer) from top-notch figures in various fields. Theology is represented by Kevin Vanhoozer, Paul Fiddes, and Stanley Hauerwas among others. And the volume as a whole certainly makes a persuasive case for taking Lewis seriously as a thinker (i.e., not someone to be uncritically venerated or dismissed).
-
Is Jesus God?
Last night I finished reading James D. G. Dunn’s Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? Dunn, a professor at the University of Durham in England and noted scholar, looks specifically at the New Testament evidence to determine whether Jesus was worshipped by the early church. The question may seem like a no-brainer, but Dunn finds that the evidence warrants more than a simple yes or no answer.
Dunn considers several strands of evidence. First, he looks at the various Greek words (e.g., proskynein) that can be translated as “worship”–as well as related terms, hymns, benedictions, and doxologies–and whether they are used in reference to Jesus. He also looks as various “cultic” practices associated with religion (sacred space, sacred time, sacrifice, cultic priesthood) and whether these practices were directed toward Jesus. Next, he considers the ways in which Hebrew biblical thought has characterized various “intermediaries” between God and the world (angels, spirit, wisdom, word, and exalted human beings) and how these qualified the Bible’s monotheism without lapsing into polytheism. Finally, Dunn considers Jesus’ own religious beliefs (to the extent they can be identified) and the early church’s confession of him as “Lord.”
The picture that emerges is a nuanced one. Dunn contends that evidence for the direct worship of Jesus in the New Testament is rare (though not nonexistent, e.g., Revelation). Instead, the texts generally indicate that the early Christians experienced Jesus as the one in whom and through whom they were able to worship the one God of Israel. Dunn puts considerable weight on Jesus understood as the embodiment or incarnation of the word or wisdom of God, which, he maintains, is importantly different from simply saying “Jesus is God.” In biblical Judaism (possibly influenced by Hellenism), the word or wisdom of God was understood as the aspect or manifestation of the divine that “faced toward” creation–these terms refer to God’s immanent presence among God’s creatures and as the ordering principle of creation. But God in Godself–the ultimate source and goal of all that is–remains “beyond” and inaccessible.
What emerges consistently … is that the earliest Christians radically reinterpreted the language and imagery by which Israel’s sages and theologians spoke of God’s perceptible activity within human experience by filling it out by reference to Jesus. The creative energy of God, the moral character of the cosmos, the inspiration experienced by prophets, the saving purpose of God for his people all came to fuller/fullest expression in Christ. This did not mean that Jesus should be worshipped in himself, any more than the Word as such, divine Wisdom as such or the Spirit of God as such was or should have been worshipped. But it did mean that as the divine self-revelation, though Spirit, Wisdom and Word, more fully informed and enabled worship of the one God, the same was even more the case with Christ. As early as the first Christians, it was recognized that the one God should be worshipped as the God active in and through Jesus, indeed, in a real sense as Jesus–Jesus as the clearest self-revelation of the one God ever given to humankind. (p. 129)
In Dunn’s view, New Testament Christianity remains a strongly monotheistic faith, but one that recognizes–in line with this tradition of Jewish/Hellenistic reflection–multiple aspects within the godhead that are not best understood as composing an undifferentiated, monistic unity. It is a faith that sees Jesus as the clearest self-revelation of the divine character and the one in whom Christians worship God. Jesus is both “God-with-us” and our heavenly mediator who intercedes for us before the Father. And he is our elder brother, into whose pattern we are conformed by God’s grace. What is distinctive of Christianity is not that it is “less monotheistic” than, say, Judaism or Islam, but that Christian worship of God is enabled by and revealed in and through Jesus (see p. 151).
Christologies are often divided into “functional” (what Jesus does) and “ontic” (what Jesus is) varieties. Dunn sees the New Testament evidence pointing toward a Christology of “divine agency,” which seems to land more on the functional side. Jesus “embodied God’s immanence…he was the visible image of the invisible God..[and] as full an expression of God’s creative and redemptive concern and action as was possible in flesh” (p. 143). But, he concludes, the New Testament (generally) stops short of saying that “Jesus is God” in a straightforward sense.
Dunn seems to suggest that this New Testament view is inconsistent–or at least in tension–with later Christian developments. He mentions, for example, that Christians often risk falling into “Jesus-olatry”–treating Jesus as an idol rather than as an icon through which we “see” God (see pp. 147-8). I would have liked to see him flesh this out a bit more. As it stands, I’m unclear just where (or if) he thinks a sophisticated orthodox trinitarian theology would diverge from the New Testament witness as he has articulated it.
-
On unfinished books
Camassia writes here about books she started but didn’t finish. I’m somewhat compulsive about finishing books–I actually feel guilty if I don’t. But I’ve come to the conclusion that this works to my detriment since you have to assume that there are way more good books in the world than I’ll ever get around to reading. So every minute spent plowing through something I’m just not enjoying is one less minute reading something I might really love. Maybe this is a hangover from school where you learn to force yourself to read things that you wouldn’t if left to your own devices. Is there a kind of “Eat your spinach” effect here? Do we read stuff we don’t like because we think it’s good for us? So, while there may be times when I’m retrospectively glad I finished a book that I didn’t like at the time, maybe I should give myself more “permission” to leave books unfinished.
I will add, though, that I do genuinely regret not finishing Crime and Punishment, not just because it’s a book that I feel like I “should” read, but because I imagine that I really would like it if I finished it. (The Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books.) Maybe someday.
-
Is universal vegetarianism (or veganism) possible?
In his interesting book Beyond Animal Rights, philosopher Tony Milligan considers, among other questions, whether the whole world could be vegetarian (or vegan). If not, this could be considered a strike against these two dietary choices.
The problem, he argues, is that we need to transition to a more ecologically sustainable system of food production, one that relies less on concentrated, industrial methods of farming, extensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, etc. However, universal vegetarianism would seem to require an industrialized food system since there would be no cows or other farmed animals to provide, for example, natural fertilizer.* In other words, animals seem to be a key part of a healthy and organic farming ecosystem (as Michael Pollan and others have argued). And if raising at least some animals on farms is necessary for a sustainable food-production system, then universal vegetarianism doesn’t seem to be a desirable goal.**
Milligan points out, though, that it’s at least conceivable that we could raise animals on farms without killing them for their flesh. A system of, for example, non-intensive dairy farming seems to be compatible, in theory, with the kind of natural agriculture that sustainability-proponents have in mind. So, he concludes, while universal veganism might not be compatible with a system of ecologically sound and sustainable agriculture, a universal vegetarianism might be. A “mixed community” of vegetarians and vegans is, therefore, at least a hypothetically attainable ideal.
I don’t actually know whether vegan organic (“veganic”) farming is a live, large-scale possiblity, or whether animals are strictly necessary to an environmentally sound mode of farming. It’s clear that the widespread frequent meat-consumption that we currently have (much less the greatly expanded amount we’re likely to see as other nations develop economically) is not sustainable. But what exactly the feasible alternatives are isn’t so clear. I’d like to find out more.
———————————————————————–
*Milligan considers another possible response by the vegetarian/vegan: even if such diets require industrialized food production, they would require less land to be devoted to such methods for the familiar reason that it takes far fewer resources to produce plant-based food for direct human consumption than for raising animals who are, in turn, consumed by humans.**Even if that’s true, however, Milligan points out that there may still be good reasons, including ethical ones, for some people to be vegetarians. See this earlier post of mine for a similar point.
-
Lutheranism for beginners
I have a good friend who just joined a Lutheran church. He’s been reading the collection of Luther’s basic theological writings edited by Timothy Lull, et al., but he asked me for some suggestions for further reading on Lutheranism and Lutheran theology. This is the list I sent him, which, while shaped by my own interests and certainly not exhaustive, fairly represents mainstream Lutheranism I think.
Background:
The Book of Concord collects all the official confessions and other documents of the Reformation-era Lutheran church (the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Large and Small catechisms, etc.) that virtually all modern Lutheran bodies subscribe to in some way or another. Fortress Press publishes a nice hardback version.
General introductions to Lutheranism:
Carl E. Braaten, Principles of Lutheran Theology
Gerhard O. Forde, Where God Meets Man: Luther’s Down-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel
Robert Jenson and Eric Gritsch, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and its Confessional Writings
Secondary sources on Luther’s theology:
Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther
Alister McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross
Giants of 20th century Lutheran theology:
Paul Tillich, Shaking of the Foundations
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship and Letters and Papers from Prison
Specialized topics:
Carl Braaten, Justification: The Article by which the Church Stands or Falls
Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel
Bradley Hanson, A Graceful Life: Lutheran Spirituality for Today
Douglas John Hall, The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World
Deanna Thompson, Crossing the Divide: Luther, Feminism, and the Cross (I haven’t read this, but I wanted to include some feminist theology on the list, and this is the only one I really know of.)
Any glaring omissions? Additional suggestions?
A Thinking Reed 