Eats, Shoots & Leaves

I was up early this morning because it snowed again last night. This means, of course, that my neighbors were outside with their snowblowers and shovels, clearing their driveways. I went out to join the party and, after an hour or so, I was ready for a little break. I brewed myself some coffee and sat down to finish a book that I’ve been reading for the past few days. It was a wonderful book, fully deserving of a blog post.

The book I’m speaking of is Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. It is a book about punctuation and it is absolutely amazing. Anyone who has ever used an English style guide to write a paper will probably have a negative reaction to the thought of reading a punctuation book, but let me assure you, this one is different.

Truss is an extremely witty British woman who is attempting to defend punctuation as an art form. Her book has chapters on the apostrophe, the comma, the semicolon and colon, as well as the dash and the hyphen. Each chapter typically starts out with a history of the punctuation mark and then outlines the ways in which people have used (and abused) it. Then, she goes on to show how it is supposed to be used. There is honestly not a dull moment in the entire book.

I consider myself to be a fairly good writer who is generally conscious of proper style. This book showed me that I use commas too often and that I was wrong about the semicolon. I would not say that it has made me neurotic about my writing, but it has made me more cautious.

The book is just over two-hundred pages and can be read in a couple of days. If you’re looking for something to entertain you (as well as improve your writing), then this is a book for you!

Reading in Communion

There are not many books on my shelves that I would refer to as ‘required reading’ for Christians. Granted, there are a few possibilities; Works of Love by Søren Kierkegaard, Fred Craddock’s commentary on Luke, Faith Seeking Understanding by Daniel Migliore, and perhaps The Corinthian Body by Dale Martin. It is not often that I find myself wanting to add to a list such as this, already meager and, dare I say, ‘questionable’ in most eyes. However, today I finished a book that I think should be at the top of any Christian’s list, especially those who are involved in any sort of decision making or are curious about ethics.

Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life is a fascinating read by Stephen E. Fowl and L. Gregory Jones. It addresses many of the issues surrounding contemporary Christian ethics, but it is not just useful for those in the field. On the contrary, this book is useful and powerful for anyone who reads their Bible with any regularity. As well, it is especially apt for those who have stopped reading their Bible because they have become disenchanted with attempting to ‘apply it.’

During my last year or so in seminary, I became introduced to and intrigued with the field of Christian ethics. My first ethics class, taught by Dr. Timothy Jackson, was a truly eye-opening experience. I found myself in agreement with the majority of Dr. Jackson’s conclusions, which were arrived at from his reading of the New Testament’s presentation of agape, or self-giving love. However, while I agreed with his conclusions, as a Biblical Studies guy I did not agree whole heartedly with the way he used the New Testament to reach them. Something about it just seemed to ‘easy’ for comfort. Since that class, I have been searching for a better way and have read close to 20 books claiming to base their ethics off of the New Testament. None of them really satisfied my search, until I found this book by Fowl & Jones.

The main premise of the book is that the reading of scripture should always be done communally. Similar to the point that Stanley Hauerwas makes in his Unleashing the Scriptures, they argue that the text of the Bible can only be rightly interpreted in the context of the community. Pragmatically, of course, this does not mean that one should only read the Bible when there is a group of people around, although they may agree that this is a good place to start.

As well, Fowl and Jones insist that only a properly formed character is central for a responsible interpretation of the text. The character that is required is produced largely by the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as through the practice of witness and conversation. It is incorrect to thing that those will character will always interpret faithfully, and it is possible that someone without a well-formed character will interpret faithfully. Their point is that ‘the character of interpreters and Scriptural interpretation are bound up with one another” (85).

Scripture, they argue, must always be read ‘over against’ the community that is attempting to interpret it. In this way, they consider the Bible to be a sort of outsider that calls our practices into questions and leads us to live and function differently in the world. Hearing and being in conversation with ‘the outsiders’ is absolutely essential to a right understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Their specific example deals with the homosexual community, which has been alienated by the church for some time. The current situation with the homosexual communities is, as they write, a sinful one. “Our desire to see the body of Christ united must lead us to act in ways that will rectify the situation. Only then can a community hope to arrive at a faithful reading and performance of Scripture” (116). In short, the church can not rightly interpret the message of the Gospel if they are characterized by alienation rather than reconciliation.

The book concludes with a chapter on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who was arrested and executed by the Nazis for helping the Jews and for plotting to kill Hitler. Bonhoeffer, they claim, was a living example of what it meant to live and embody the message of Scripture. He continually struggled with his pacifistic beliefs as well as what he thought was his Christian responsibility, a responsibility that was calling him to the possibility of violence against evil. Up until the time of his hanging, he was deeply involved in a dialogue with the Biblical texts, and was constantly open to new interpretations and ‘readings’ of himself. Bonhoeffer, as he himself wrote of someone else in an unfinished novel, ‘paid for the Word of God with his life and taught it with his death.’

Abandoning a Book

When I moved to Milwaukee, I made the scandalous decision to start reading books I actually enjoyed, alongside those that were required for class. While I was at Emory, I focused all of my energy on my class material and, although I had some free time, I convinced myself that reading for fun was somehow irresponsible. So, I’ve started reading fiction again, which has proven to be quite enjoyable.

About a week ago, I started reading The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. It was published in the late eighties and caused quite a stir in the Muslim world, to the point that the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Rushdie. Basically, any Muslim who finds Rushdie has the responsibility, as a good Muslim, to kill him or to have him killed. Not surprisingly, this sent him into hiding for quite some time.

So anyway, I started reading this book primarily because I wanted to see what all of the fuss was about. Could it really be that bad? Well, it was that bad, but not for religious/political reasons. It was bad because I had no idea what was going on throughout the entire first portion. I got to the end of the 100th page, and I still had no idea what was going on. I consulted online resources to guide me through it, and I still had no idea what was going on. So, I’ve put it back on my shelf and will return to it another time. I’m not claiming that it is a bad book, I just don’t think I’m in a place where I can sort through the nonsense.

I’ve met quite a few people in the past who view books as ‘good friends.’ When they pick up a book, it is almost as if they have invited someone into their house and consequently they feel as if they owe something to the book. As a result, they will suffer through what even they consider to be a painful experience, driven only by a sense of obligation. I find myself in complete disagreement with regard to ‘owing it to the book.’ With the exception of books for class (which you should finish) and those few books that you know you need to read, like them or not, I refuse to be bound to a book that I don’t like. If the author has not made any sense or has failed to impress me in the first 100 pages, I’m giving up on them, at least temporarily. Thus, I have begun a new section at the bottom of the ‘books’ page entitled ‘abandoned.’

Niebuhr

I just finished Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebuhr, who has been one of my favorite theologians for quite some time. I have read this work before, and every time I finish it, I think two things. First, I wonder if things really are as bleak as he paints them. Second, I wonder why anyone, including myself, continues to read him.

Niebuhr’s argument throughout the book is that persons are capable of being moral which, for Niebuhr, involves the seeking of social justice. Although they are capable of such an action, they will shy away from it, overshadowed by their selfishness. Nations, in effect, are created in this same spirit of selfishness and thus serve only to amplify it. Through introspection, which religion provides, individuals may return to a point where they are willing and able to seek social justice, but they can only accomplish it on a small scale, within their own communities.

Niebuhr also claims that, if any real change is to occur, the working classes may have to resort to violent coercion against the “privileged classes.” This is where Niebuhr and I part ways, because I believe violence to be contrary to the Gospel of Christ, which also demands that we strive for social justice. Now, Niebuhr is not necessarily endorsing violence as a means to an end, but he is acknowledging it as an option.

So again, I ask myself, why do I continue to read him and why do I consider him one of my favorite Christian thinkers. Well, for starters, I see Niebuhr as a Christian ethicist who is actually trying to be practical. So often, Christian ethics operates apart from society, taking place exclusively as dialogue in the ivory towers of academia. While this has its place, Christendom is in dire need of an ethics that will actually speak to our social situation, rather than just talk around it or impose upon it a set of requirements that it can’t possibly fulfill. Niebuhr is not optimistic about the future of society, namely because he feels that we, as individuals, are too corrupted by selfishness to ever bring about a just society. But, he does feel that social justice can be accomplished on a small scale, within Christian communities, and it is with this point that I definitely agree.

I would also take Niebuhr a step further by arguing that the larger society may very well be influenced, albeit slowly, by a true quest for social justice that takes place within smaller communities. Of course, this cannot happen overnight, but very few things can. As well, it requires action from persons across the social spectrum, from the lowest point to the highest. It can’t and won’t happen passively.