Blogging has slowed down recently as I’ve returned to England for my granddad’s funeral (if you have e-mailed me, I will respond when I return to Germany in a few days). And while the reason for my return is a gloomy one, it is at least good to be see my corner of the UK again. Earlier today, I took my nephew to the local park to play on the swings. The area stands opposite my old secondary school (The Beacon) which was a sight that stirred many dubious memories.
But before I try to get poetic about my comings and goings in Ol’ Blighty, a bit of self-realisation: I popped in to a local Christian bookshop in the afternoon, and, as is my custom, piled up some ‘potential buy’ books before filtering them down to the one I eventually purchased (a half price copy of Celebrating Common Prayer).
Now apart from the fact that many of the books being sold in the shop caused me some consternation, as I whittled my books down I noticed something else rather alarming, namely I noticed how influenced I was by who was recommending the books with the blurb on the back cover. If Bauckham had his name on it, for example, I took notice. Or, if it was a scholar I generally disagree with, yet is more liberal, I kept the book for a second look - hungry to find out more. But if other big scholarly names were on the back, the book hardly stood a chance. More significantly, if the ‘big names’ were of the conservative variety, I really struggled to consider the book at all - even if I was attracted to the book itself. Why do I react like this, I wonder, especially as I am pretty conservative in some ways? One name in particular, one I think almost all my readers will know ... well he tends to just get me irritated, even though his work is of the highest academic quality. Yet I just can’t read his stuff anymore with wincing (go on, guess the name if you can!). Ergo, put his name on the back: bye-bye book. Cranky revisionist and foaming mouthed blathering Liberal mash I don't always agree with, I get. Conservative stuff I may have more in common with in terms of conclusions, wind me up. Figure that!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I share your experience - if my previous self had looked at my reading, he would think - "liberal" on the one hand (e.g. soteriology and creation science); and "conservative" on the other (e.g. ecclesiology, creedal theology).
I can't say that i can guess your turn off authors - but mine would be Don Carson and any text that wants to tell me why someone else is a heretic.
You've just put your finger on a phenomenon that I experience regularly and like Shane, it has to be DA Carson; a guy I like and respect in person but in print can't stand.
surely jim west hasn't written that many books?
I have the exact same issue. I actually am somewhat conservative but conservative endorsements on the back of books often put me off because so much consrvative schoalrship seems to be very myopic and unconcerned with all the relevant scholarship outside of conservative circles (which is most of the time more important I think).
I'm with zoomtard. I know Carson is a very good scholar but he just puts me off and if I see him recommending something I'm likely to not bother with it. I'd guess that is who you are talking about. You should drop some hints : )
Chris,
I have a very similar reaction to certain authors of the reformed-ilk. Since I grew up in their church, I've heard all the same arguments rehashed so many times that it just makes me tired. I think that's why I don't bother with their books: I typically know exactly what they're going to say and very nearly how they're going to say it.
Chris,
I too find myself practicing virtually the same thing, maybe it is because liberals (of which I may be one) are actually trying to say new things, push the envelop, offer arguments worthy of reflection and critique, whereas most conservative literature is eerily predictable in virtually every subset category in theology. Further, I agree with "brian l"'s statement above, conservatives are rather "myopic."
It's the tubby Tom Dubya who makes you wince isn't it! I'm glad you've finally seen the light...:-)
Aww, come on Chris: tell us which bookshop it was! Anyway, whoever it is you're talking about, I'm sure you mean you "just can’t read his stuff anymore without wincing". My guess is Max Turner...
Hope the funeral goes OK and look forward to seeing you here at LST soon when you come to claim your discount... :-)
You are looking for something fresh, whether you will agree with it or not and there's nothing wrong with that at all. I think it's probably the norm among people that read a lot.
I think part of the problem is that conservative authors are may advance older arguments further, but for the most part the very definition of 'conservative' implies that the arguments are at least built on older foundations. There's nothing wrong with that either as long as they are doing fine scholastic work (i.e. Bauckham as you mention above). They do good research, but it's nothing fresh.
The problem with the "liberal mash" as you call it is that whenever it's truly innovative or really on the edges, it's usually mainly rubbish with one or two good points. In these situations they are simply trying to be fresh or innovative for the sake of being fresh and innovative. In the end I often wonder why I read it at all.
Both types of books and authors have their finer points and both have their wasted words.
The thing is that even after you went through the process of elimination you ended up buying what was undoubtably the most conservative book in your stack: "Celebrating Common Prayer." It's a good one to own though.
A related issue is the credibility of a blurb by someone who you know is a very good friend of the author (e.g., consider all the blurbs that Hays wrote for books by Wright). Does such a blurb possess any critical value whatsoever?
I share much of the tendency. Reading someone I agree with just puts me to sleep. Reading a bloody heretic with faulty logic and a serious ego problem, however, gets my blood boiling, the fangs start growing, the hair on my back sticks up straight, and it is a wonderful high. Thus, I much prefer to read someone with whom I disagree.
"Celebrating Common Prayer" is a great book -- the community I lived in used it for our daily prayers for about a year and a half (i.e. until the community disbanded), and my wife and I continue to use it. One of my profs also used it to structure the liturgy of the 'intentional Christian community' he lived in, so it comes highly recommended (also, I forget if it mentions it in the book or not, but this is the liturgy book for an Anglican Monastic Order).
It quite honsetly cheers my heart that so many are feeling exactly the same way! I am way too holy today to give away who the unnamed scholar is .... but it isn't Max Turner, Phil!!
Thanks Dan, I'm really enjoying it so far - much more down to earth and simpler than the Common Worship Daily Prayer.
Hmmm this IS a weird phenomenon... I don't mind blurbs/endorsements by conservative authors, but on the other hand, I realise that I am very hesitant to quote authors who are well-known as conservative in my research, even though I consider myself quite conservative - I am very sparing with my affirmation of the views of scholars like Carson or Schnabel... there's just something cool and badass about liberal scholars...
so it is N.T.W!
(because his method winds you up it's so bad - although you agree with his conclusions):-)
Thanks for your posting Chris. I have the same porblem. Its usually names like Carson and Piper which put me off. Yet that is more my reaction against conservative ideology that their exegesis/interpretation in itself.
Aswell as lookinf at the authors I look at the publishers. And usually i look to see the author blurb and look at where he recieved hsi/her education.
I am still looking for a book on the rapture published by banner of truth with the author recieving his Phd with Barth Ehrman as supervisor. Any reccomendations?
Post a Comment