I have this thing for reading Christian non-fiction. I buy it.
I read it. I underline it. I think and talk about it. I put it on my bookshelves. Most of these books could fit into a category
of recently-written, cultural-commentary, written-to-a-generic-Christian-U.S.-audience,
often-bought-for-five-bucks-at-an-Urbana-conference, “popular” Christian books. Here’s part of my recent reading list:
Culture Making by Andy Crouch
The Reason for Marriage by
Tim & Kathy Keller
Bittersweet by Shauna
Niequist
Kingdom without Borders by
Miriam Adeney
Searching for God Knows What
by Donald Miller
Misreading Scripture with Western
Eyes by Randolph Richards & Brandon O’Brien
You get the idea.
Sometimes, I love these books.
(And let’s be fair, they’re not all the same. Some I love more than others.)
Sometimes, I wonder why I read them.
Then I start to wonder if I’m a book and/or theology snob... and maybe I
am. I think that’s ok, as long as the “snob”
part of it doesn’t invalidate the personhood and dignity of the authors or
those who resonate with their writings.
In general, I start to get into trouble when I think in “us v. them”
categories.
I digress. Back to wondering why
I read seemingly-fluffy books...
A recent example: in one chapter of The
Reason for Marriage, Keller quotes extensively from theologian Stanley
Hauerwas. You may remember a previous blog post that included Hauerwas quotes. I started wondering: If I’ve already read Stanley Hauerwas, then why I am I reading Tim Keller who's telling
me what Hauerwas said?
Granted, Keller makes Hauerwas more accessible. Reading Hauerwas is like drinking from an
intellectual fire hydrant: he never stops.
I wouldn’t have made it through Hauerwas’ book A Community of Character (one of my absolute favorites!) without my
small group of friends who constantly discussed it during our senior year at
Wheaton and Dr. George Kalantzis, a theology professor who lead our book club. I couldn’t read a chapter in one sitting. I usually couldn’t read an entire paragraph
without stopping to re-read a few sentences. It was like learning to read again (“Ok, I
know this word and this word and this word... so, with all of them together,
what does that mean?”). I recently heard
Hauerwas speak in person and laughed when he called himself a “sectarian,
fideistic tribalist.” Yeah, I
should probably go look up all of those words and come back in a few days. Then I’ll have an idea of what you mean. That’s what most Hauerwas sentences feel
like. Of course, he’s not the only one
to write in such a manner. Most academic
texts have similar high-context language that assumes the reader can understand most of the big words to follow the argument.
Anyways, all of that to say, now that I’ve waded through the depths of
Hauerwas, Tim Keller feels like fluff.*
Hauerwas and Keller feel like the difference between a primary
and secondary source.** It can be incredibly
difficult to understand a primary source without secondary sources acting as cultural
brokers, allowing us to see ourselves and the primary source more clearly. However, a steady diet of secondary sources
misses the substance of the meal; it’s like eating carbs without any protein. Makes you feel full, but without protein, it’s
a fullness of bloating rather than satisfaction. Ok, enough with the strange metaphor...
Sometimes, you gotta read primary sources. It’s so good!
Classical literature. Yes,
reading Anna Karenina, not just watching the
movie. Scripture. Yes, reading the book of John, not just
hearing a sermon on it. Poetry. Yes, reading Shakespeare or Wendell Berry,
not just listening to others comment about them. Theology.
Yes, reading Stanley Hauerwas, not just Tim Keller. Heck, even popular fiction. Yes, reading Harry Potter or The Hunger
Games, not just listening to everybody talking about them.***
Primary sources aren’t limited to reading either. The heart of gossip is two secondary sources
discussing the primary, without the primary source being present or
involved. Walking through the woods is a
much different experience than examining a masterful painting of a forest.
Certainly, the secondary source is not bad. I have a picture of my family on my
desktop. I love having their smiling
faces greet me when I turn on my computer.
However, it’s not the same as having their smiling faces greet me in
person. A steady diet of only seeing
their two-dimensional faces would leave me feeling bloated, if I didn’t also
see their three-dimensional selves every now and then.
Go forth, and feast on primary sources.
______________________________________________________________________
*Keller fans, don’t take this analogy too far. I do not think that his writings are watered-down
collections of other people’s ideas. I
think Tim Keller has a gift for identifying, articulating, and often removing
cultural barriers that cloud the beauty of the gospel.
**I use the terms “primary source” and “secondary source” quite
loosely.
***Certainly, not all primary sources are created equal. Reading something merely for the sake of
talking knowledgeably about it does not justify reading (or watching or talking
about) something that chiefly feeds your own pain, greed, lust,
self-orientation, hurt, pride, etc. Much
of the daily experience of a Christian is learning to re-orient one’s self
toward God, moment by moment, and developing habits that allow one to live more
fully into the reality that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and no, “Jesus
Christ is Lord and Savior” isn’t my personal opinion (to borrow a
Hauerwasianism).
No comments:
Post a Comment