MysteriousFaith

November 2004 Bookshelf

Two great books on the world’s religions, one on the development of religion anthropologically, and an excellent book on FDR and Churchill are all a part of November’s bookshelf.

November 2004 Bookshelf

Fear’s Empire by Benjamin Barber

We need to pay more attention to the work of dissenting voices such as Barber and less to Michael Moore. Moore is the left’s answer to Limbaugh; Barber is the left’s answer to William F. Buckley, Jr.; even if one disagrees with them, you find yourself challenged by their intellectual integrity and the aptitude of their thinking. Barber develops the idea that countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea are used by ideologues as substitutes for the harder to locate and much more problematic to deal with terrorists, who typically function outside of the sanction of sovereign nations. Barber’s treatment of fear is on-par with, but more intellectually challenging than Barry Glassner’s The Culture of Fear. Fear is the one objective terrorists can actually achieve; when fear is used by an administration to manage risk, it becomes a strategy that folds in on itself, ultimately accomplishing exactly that which it set out to defeat.

Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Church by James M. Ault Jr.

Ault’s book is a very gracious treatment of potentially difficult material! Ault spent an extended period of time learning about the fundamentalist Christian movement during the 80’s. My one question is whether or not he explores in detail and is fully candid in evaluating what happens when fundamentalists engage their culture. Armstrong’s The Battle for God and other similar studies of fundamentalism such as Martin Marty’s multi-volume The Fundamentalism Project suggests that fundamentalists have a substantial problem with intolerance. Ault makes the comment that liberals are actually guilty of being as intolerant of fundamentalists as they claim the fundamentalists themselves are. But if we are to take the political, social and cultural statements of the fundamentalists like those Ault engages with at face value, do we not have to address slightly more candidly the anger and in too-many situations the hate that fundamentalists advocate? Would such candor also have to deal with the reality that few fundamentalisms, regardless of whether they are Christian, Islamic or Hindu, allow for any form of democratic let alone religious pluralism? The comment Augustine is credited as having contributed to the lexicon of human’s tenuous grasp of grace that “on the essentials unity, on the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” seems to come apart when you are engaging a culture where everything is an essential - an intrinsic part of fundamentalism. I appreciated the sociological perspective Ault brought and I was deeply and profoundly personally touched by his grace, but I think some greater danger exists within this group than his book presents. In an age where predominant sociologists, political theorists, theologians, social scientists and philosophers fear the clash of religious fundamentalists, does Ault’s analysis go far enough in its analysis? I admire his grace and hold out hope that his attitude will be embraced by more people (myself included); perhaps it is only in such a spirit that we can find some common ground.

Anxious About Empire: Theological Essays on the New Global Realities edited by Wes Avram

This book is written by a number of Christian theologians who are against the current foreign policy of the Bush Administration. The essays are well-written and do present a rarely represented voice within the Christian community - those that disagree with Bush but still claim to be evangelicals. I do not believe the treatment of most of the issues is as good as secular scholars who specialize in the areas the essays focus on; however, for Christians who feel this administration has dubious objectives that Christianity should stand up against and prefer a Christian voice to a secular one, I would recommend this book.

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer

Boyer develops his idea that religion is a man-made construction, essentially an anthropological necessity; however, Boyer goes to extreme lengths to avoid falling into the old arguments against religion and God such as those Voltaire advocated: “if there was no God, man would have invented Him.” Another crasser commentator suggested that he “had no doubt that if cockroaches have any idea about God at all, he had little doubt that their God was the biggest cockroach of all.” Says Boyer, “I do not think that people have religion because they relax their usually strict criteria for evidence and accept extraordinary claims; I think they are led to relax these criteria because some extraordinary claims have become quite plausible to them.” (page 31) The final answer Boyer settles on is that the process of evolution prepared the mind of man for the ideas of religion. In doing this, Boyer takes on the essential idea within Romans that it is God who puts the idea of His Being into our hearts. I found Boyer’s treatment of the subject difficult to understand (especially the first section where he develops his idea about ontological belief); however, I do believe that Boyer’s treatment of how religion develops plays into how you view God either reaching to man, or man reaching to God. If you hold to the latter, you may be able to accommodate significant portions of Boyer’s argument as it allows for the existence of a God, but an evolving response to God.

Franklin and Winston by Jonathan Meecham

A beautiful book that is essentially a biography of the years during World War II and the relationship between FDR and Churchill that developed during that time. The world was blessed to have these great men who were able to both function politically and achieve meaningful reforms at the same time. The challenges they led their countries through will be seen again; one wonders if we will have similar leaders ready when the next dire challenge comes.

With God on Their Side by Esther Kaplan

Written by Esther Kaplan, this book outlines the mixing of religion and politics that is taking place within the Bush Administration. Kaplan walks a very fine line in her criticisms of faith-based initiatives and people of faith. I found her analysis probing without being mean-spirited or petty. She does not make fun of the beliefs of religious people, she simply suggests that we listen to these organizations’ ultimate objectives which typically are to convert people to a particular faith versus dealing with social issues through public policy. Kaplan’s point, and one that deserves to be listened to, is that if the ultimate objective of the faith-based programs is to convert, they have a right to that part of the public debate and public space; however, it is important to recall separation of church and state and how we accomodate religious pluralism with an increasingly smaller world. I did not agree with all of the positions Kaplan advocates, but find her analysis worth reading as another side of the question as to how, and whether government should entertain partnering with faith-based programs.

Bush on the Couch by Justin A. Frank M.D.

This book is going to struggle to find an audience for several reasons: first, many people still view psychotherapy as a questionable practice (certainly it is not viewed with the same degree of scientific authenticity as general medicine). This suspicion will color all that this book discusses, which is a therapist’s view of Bush and why he does, says, and believes much of what he does. The second reason this book may not connect to people is that the author relies on the reader having sufficient exposure to therapeutic terms and devices as to participate in the analysis Frank leads. Third, many people are going to think it is ridiculous to attempt and diagnosis someone you don’t know and have never had a therapeutic relationship with. There is truth in each of these claims. The book is OK, but it isn’t the best tool for discussing the Bush Administration. More critically, if we worry over the politics of personal destruction, this type of analysis takes things to an entirely new level - allowing what should be a very private tool to become yet another mean-spirited device that can be used to wield political power.

The Collapse of Complex Civilizations by Joseph Tainter

Tainter argues that societies initially form because they realize that through collective effort and some degree of centralization they can achieve greater marginal returns than can be achieved as individuals. As they continue to develop they become increasingly complex, ultimately coming to a point where they no longer produce a positive marginal return. At this point they begin to trade on their accumulated wealth, until such time as they have used up their society’s collateral, and they collapse. Tainter’s thesis deserves time and attention at the highest levels of our government; I fear we are another society going through a similar dis-evolution.

The World’s Religions by Huston Smith

Of all the works I have read dealing with the religions of the world, this book stands out. It can be a bit tedious at times, not so much because of Smith’s writing style, but because some of the ideas and language are so foreign to the average reader that the weight of what he is saying and the truths being illuminated within the various religious traditions can be missed. Smith stops short of talking about ultimate truth and certainly does not weight the value of each religion; in this sense the final product is eminently fair and worth adding to your library.

A Christian Theology of Religions by John Hick

I was first exposed to Hick in one of the Moody Counterpoint Series books on normative pluralism (my review of the book can be found here). Hick is certainly not an evangelical Christian, and readers should be aware of this; however, I found much to think about in his writing. I find Hick very honest and sincere in his basic question which is: if we see the product of salvation within other world religions, are we confident they do not have salvific value? He also deals very honestly with my question of the day which is whether or not we reach up to God or God reaches up to us. It is a critical question that deserves more time and authenticity than evangelical Christianity provides.

previous post: Get SAVED! All the popular kids are doing it!
next post: Why Rumsfeld Matters

• Posted in Bookshelf
• no comments
• Trackback
• December 1, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website