Why we hate -a book review

The topic of this book is important as we are seeing a rise in all sorts of hatred across many societies. Social media seems not to helping -rather the reverse: fanning the flames. Our global community is increasingly being stressed by climate forcing -related changes which are beginning to push populations into harm's way in terms of forcing people to confront others who are being demonised. And our propensity to emote synergistically with those around us has always been a force for fanning the flames of conflict as we can be induced to hate someone designated 'enemy'. 

I came to this book also with my own questions about how anger and hate interrelate and how our psychology around hate can be manipulated and how that manipulation can be counteracted. 

I thought I'd give this book a try also because I recently became intrigued by this:

Hilge Landweer distinguishes between Verachtung (contempt) and Hass (hate). She argues that contempt fits perfectly into the neoliberal emotional landscape, because it’s a gesture of turning away from, and dehumanising the other person, not taking them seriously. Hate, on the other hand, takes its object very seriously. In a system of class hierarchies, there’s contempt from above and hatred from below. The ruling class don’t have to take the enemy seriously most of the time – unless the working class organises and strikes. But when you’re an oppressed person, you really have to take your oppression seriously, because otherwise you can’t exist. You can’t survive... " https://novaramedia.com/2023/04/17/is-hate-politically-useful/ ...

This was intriguing not least because it recognises the place of power in our emotional responding. And I recognised something in this about where anger and hate might be legitimate and about that adage "love the sinner, hate the sin" -is that sound advice? Or is there more complexity involved? And, as a Christian, is some of Landweer's analysis anywhere near what we might want to bring to reflection on Ephesians 6:1-10?

The book spends a lot of time initially on history and evolutionary  background to violence and discrimination. At this level, it didn't meet with my desire to examine hate as emotion firstly rather than as social attitudes relating to othering. Of course, this does lead me to consider the the relationship between othering, in-group and out-group attitudes on the one hand and detestation or contempt in individual psyches -and indeed the genesis of such hatred as well as the social construction or structuring of such emotions.

One of the things I appreciated was the outlining of good reasons to consider that homo sapiens are fundamentally a co-operative species (which scriptural-theologically I would locate in the narratives of Genesis 1 and 2) though that sociability is capable of being co-opted to ill. And the examination of the move from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural societies with cities helps to justify both dimensions of that thesis.

I felt that the examination of wars and of just war theories was helpful and nuanced. It was also enjoyable that there is a British centre of gravity in the writing, in an era when so much takes a perspective of the other side of the Atlantic.

So, while this was not what I was expecting, it did throw light helpfully on the psychology and anthropology of war and prejudice. I guess the core thesis is that there are traceable factors that become culturally embedded but as it is 'merely' culture and not hardwired biology that does these things (though biology does play a part but not determinedly) , then we can design cultural ways out and around and beyond these hatreds.

I warmed to the authors deft handling and compassionate and fair-minded approach. 

Links

Why We Hate on Bookshop
Michael Ruse’s Website

 #WhyWeHate

Trinitarian Formation

 I think that formation is one of the key issues going forward for the church in relation to climate and environment emergency. This is because some degree of change -no; damage and loss- is baked in and the only question is how bad it will get and where? And following on from that is how will we Christians respond? In response to those challenges, I think we need, NOW, to be discipling each other in ways that will equip us to be good neighbours in climate and environmental emergencies. So it is vital that we re/consider how to disciple well -or to put it otherly: how to do good Christian formation. So my interest in this book is to enable to make sure my own thinking about formation's current agenda is Trinitarian.

One of the things I found helpful in reading this is the interaction with JKA Smith, where the latter's questioning of the Reformed Christian 'cognitive first' approach is affirmed though the replacement with centring desire/love/worship is critiqued because a more plural and interactive approach is argued to be needed (drawing on Frame's insights) -all of head, hand and heart, so to speak. I think that this is right and found myself calling to mind times when I had noticed in myself and other learners times when different ones of the list are to the fore but noting also that it is interactive, complex, feedback sensitive.

This helped me to become clearer about what the basic model being offered is proposing. I found it helpful too that it was also secured within a Trinitarian theological framework. I hadn't previously come across James Frame's epistempological work and this, for me, was a good way to find out about it.

I think I take away into my further explorations about Christian formation in climate emergency the need to attend to all three dimensions of human learning/formation as well as to consider the ways that they may typically interact and support or reinforce one another. It reinforces my having begun to think about CSF in this sort of multi-pronged fashion and gives me an overview map of the dimensions to consider and how in broad terms they work together. This, I think, should help give me a degree of clarity in assembling and laying out proposals.

Link-Love for this Review

Trinitarian Formation on Amazon
J. Chase Davis’ Website

Tag #TrinitarianFormation

I should mention I received this book for review on the basis that I would review it but I was under no obligation to make the review favourable -or otherwise.

Turning over the Church's year

 I find myself saying from time to time that we should make more of Holy Saturday. I know that the Orthodox have a liturgy about the burial of Christ's body. I think that holding it as a day of lament, a day to consider what it would be like to live, for example, in a meaningless universe without God, a day to remember the finality of death -holding back from anticipating a relativising of that finality. This appears not to be what the Orthodox do -as they think about the harrowing of hell and the 'resting' of Christ -which still seems framed by the hint of resurrection. I think we could do with an exploration of the darkness, maybe.

But then as I think about adjusting our liturgical practice, a flow of other things I'd like to explore about the church's year starts (some of which I've posted before) ...

I think that we should perhaps start the church's year with Creationtide; in September. This would align with the new academic year and draw us much closer to our Jewish roots. I'd suggest that the liturgical colour should be green and that to compensate, we might take another colour for 'ordinary time'. I'd suggest a pale grey or cream -something basically perceived as neutral.

Then in November we've lately begun to have Kingdomtide. How about we have that as the penitential preparation for the Christmas season? -And use purple or deep blue as the season's colour? Maybe during this season we might fast a la Ramadan -not eating during daylight hours.

I'd suggest then we swap the Advent colour for a festal red (and inter-shot with green?) recognising that December is essentially in experiential terms in our society, greater Christmas: let it be and don't fight it -hence penitential prep in November, Kingdomtide which lends itself to the themes of death, judgement, the last things etc.

I think I'd suggest that the liturgical colours for Lent should be brown and/ or sack-cloth should be used. This suggests soil, humility and the basis for new growth. To support this, I'd suggest we use ash and/or soil instead of (or as an optional alternate to) holy water at the entrance to church buildings during this season encouraging people to mark themselves with a streak or two. I'd also suggest exploring a fresh ashing on Good Friday -perhaps as a way to start a Stations of the Cross or similar.

During Holy Week, I reckon black and grey should be the theme palette. This resonates with the way that black is generally conceived in wider society as a colour of sombreness and mourning. Perhaps dark grey during most of the week and black for Good Friday and Holy Saturday -which we should definitely do more with liturgically. A day of lament and consideration of loss -including the death of God, hope etc.

Easter. Yes, gold is a good colour. But how about also using vivid spring greens? -Certainly for the Easter season. I'd strongly discourage any celebration of Easter before sunset of the eve. I'd encourage more careful consideration to strengthen the experience in the liturgy of darkness contrasted by light -which is often lost in the practical enactment of the rites. I've written more about this elsewhere.

I keep wondering whether at Pentecost, we should take an idea from the Holi festival in India (and beyond): "one and all, chase each other around with dry paint or coloured water, in water pistols or balloons!". And perhaps a good colour to use in this season would be sunny yellow or a warm orange to pick up on the fiame imagery of Pentecost.

I also think that it'd be great to have a festival -a change of colour- somewhere between the end of Pentecost and the start of Creationtide. So, there's midsummer, traditionally associated with the feast of John the Baptiser on 24 June and there's Transfiguration on 6 August.  The latter should be bright white and maybe a week or two of  that. Midsummer might run from 20 -25 June? Gold?

The other thing is to think through the environmental dimensions of many of these seasons and give them greater prominence. This is important because of the times we live in: we need to bring our relation to the non-human creation into a bigger part of our thinking on the way to becoming better climate citizens. So this could involve recognising Lost Species Remembrance day at the end of November -which would fit with All Souls on 2nd and Remembrance day on and around 11th. Transfiguration could have a dimension of the transfiguration of all creation in the Fullness of Time. Easter holds promise for all of creation. Some days hold seasons of the year significances which could be brought out more: spring, midsummer, autumn and midwinter have ecclesiastical near-neighbours which have traditionally been celebrated togther. There or also cross quarter-days of Candlemas, Mayday, Lammas, Hallows'eve which could be opportunities to consider our human relationship to our environment and our Christian discipleship in the natural world in which God has placed us and in which so many of us encounter God. 

I'd suggest that we should be holding days of penitence and lament around Earth Overshoot days. And Rogationtide might gain more prominence as days to consider and pray about our food systems globally as well as locally. Since Rogationtide is tied to the feast of the Ascension, it would serve as a short penitential lead-in to that feast. It might be that we look at the tradition of 'beating the bounds' at Rogationtide, -maybe to take in how our 'bounds' have been breached by pollution and by extraction, globalisation and colonialism. The message would be that, yes, we have to look after and know our own patch but also it is not possible to be simply parochial.

There are probably things I've been thinking about that I've for the moment missed out. I'll add more if/when I recall any.

Loyalty, allegiance and solidarity -metaphors for following Christ

 I found this quote in a Toot today and find it thought-provoking as I have sometimes used 'allegiance' as a way to talk about following Christ. "Take the idea of loyalty. I don’t believe in loyalty, not as such. I believe in solidarity, instead. These are comparable social values, but the difference matters. Loyalty, as I understand it, is about allegiance. Allegiance is about the subordination of one to another. Loyalty happens, by and large, in a hierarchical fashion. Solidarity is performed between equals." (Original context here)   It's an unusual source for the quote for me. However it's a good point and the article is interesting and helpful in pushing us beyond stereotypes. 

Anyway, for me, the quote has me thinking about recasting some of my talking and explaining about Christ -following as "solidarity" rather than loyalty. Not necessarily always: loyalty to Christ is arguably an already subverted loyalty in that 'I am among you as one who serves'. So while 'Jesus is Lord' has an arguably hierarchical basis in the language, in the context of 1st century Palestine and the Roman Empire, it is far more solidary and subversive than some later church history made it.

That said, it would make sense to talk also about solidarity with Christ in the pursuit of the just and gentle rule of God which is the performance of love, justice, mercy, truth, mutual support, serving one anothers' flourishing. Solidarity with Christ who gives us to one another in solidarity to each other and to the flourishing of all including creation. We're making common cause.

A year or so back I made the case that commitments to bishops by ordinands that promise obedience should perhaps be toned down  to giving loyalty -which seemed to me to be less problematic (the context being about churches dealing with abuse by beginning to change how we do things, I was suggesting that these oaths are problematic). I'm now wondering whether the suggestion should be recast in terms of solidarity with Christ and the reign of God.

How to Read the Bible Well -a book review

 Issues of biblical interpretation are a constant theme in ministry among university (and other) students. From those trying to treat scripture as if it's a text book, to those who have little time for an ancient collection of writings filled with patriarchal, genocidal, abusive and ignorant opinions -and many in between who find some inspiration and wisdom while also wrestling with other parts that seem far less so. So, I came to this book wondering whether it might possibly be something I'd put into the hands and consideration of students and those who work with them.

In terms of the level at which it's written, I think I'd be reasonably confident that it would work in such hands. It's well-informed but deliberately eschews footnotes -which I mention as a signifier of the approach: intelligent popular, not academic but informed by scholarship.

It's written from a broadly Evangelical background and addresses people formed in that sub-culture. It's also very attentive to the British scene which is a breath of fresh air. Rightly it doesn't ignore the USAmerican scene -after all the size and money of USA evangelicalism means it has tended to drive or heavily influence a lot of British churches in the last 20 or 30 years. However, it is refreshing that a lot of examples and references are to the British scene.

A good chunk of the book addresses the elephant in the room of purportedly biblical Christianities: how to receive some parts of the Hebrew Bible as scripture. I enjoyed the deft way that the inconsistencies of approach are brought out. This is helped by starting with a good introduction to how culture affects interpretation. I enjoyed also the constructive (both critical and appreciative) approach to postmodernism (and the strangely nostalgic use of the term -I hardly hear or read it any longer). In combination this is likely to help a thoughtful general reader to consider better strategies for the reception of the 'difficult' texts in scripture, especially from some of what we often call the Old Testament.

I note that Burnhope wisely holds off from engaging directly with arguments about hot-button topics and focuses very tightly on the interpretive strategies that are being employed in bringing various texts into the debates concerned. This is an important thing to do. And of course, half of the problem in discussing such things at the moment is that fact that we're often trying both to talk about 'the issue' but also having to talk simultaneously about interpretive methods. The result is too often lots of heat but little light. So trying to help us to become wiser readers of texts, as well as savvier Christian readers of before Christ texts, is an important discipline to invite into. I think he does a good job of this.

There is also a big emphasis on the matter of framing in respect of 'the word of God' -rightly we're reminded that it's all very well having something that is the word of God -but if we can't interpret it well or do so badly, what does it profit us? (That is my way of characterising what I took from it).

One of the things I appreciated was that the chapter on culture spends a lot of effort in helping the reader to appreciate the way that our culture is about the "obvious" -the things that seem to us as uncontroversial, straight-forward, common-sense incontrovertibly true -how could it be otherwise? And we are helpfully given to understand that this may not be so -using examples from the biblical literature that shows us how what is "obvious" in one context can be fairly puzzling or even misleading in another.

For my own part, I further reflect that for those of us in a society that has evolved quite strict conventions around citation, quotation, intertextual referencing etc, it can be hard for us to recognise that while those things are part of our interpretation of what counts as 'true', these are in fact recent conventions and that it was not considered untruthful to use a famous name to title ones writing, it was normal to paraphrase as well as to quote (after all, the written texts were expensive and not readily to hand, and one relied often on memory). Many in our society are also hampered in learning to read scripture as part of a conversation between us and God because our paradigm of a book is some kind of textbook and we rarely think about how fiction, or 'faction', symbolic and analogical writing can in fact be truthful and ask whether there are points in the Bible where that might be relevant (it is at least with regard to parables, but maybe  more widely at times too). Returning to How to Read the Bible Well, I was glad to see the author write what I've long thought: that many Evangelical reading strategies are actually well captive to modernity and often what Evangelicals are defending when inveighing against the relativism of post-modernism is actually very much a culturally captive approach deeply indebted to modernism and which could do with attending to the important critiques that postmodernism brings.

It still weighs with me that in the fourth gospel, Jesus speaks of himself, personally, as the Truth. Our take away should be that truth is relational (might we say "relate-ive"?) before it might be propositional, yet it seems to me that so often Evagelicals while speaking of a personal relationship with Jesus, in practice disciple people in a propositional assent system.

Link-Love

How to Read the Bible Well on Amazon
Stephen Burnhope’s Website
Stephen Burnhope on Twitter
Stephen Burnhope on Facebook 

#HowToReadTheBibleWell

I should say that I received this book as a free e-copy for review purposes. I was not obliged to review it in any way but honestly in my opinion. I did need to provide a review within 30 days of receiving it, though!

St Austell's "Earth Goddess statue"

It's not often that idolatry becomes a national news outlet topic, but last weekend it did. Though it seems that it's a story that's been rumbling on in more local reporting for a couple of months or more. St Austell has got itself a massive sculpture to commemorate its clay mining heritage. It has attracted comment about both its form and now its name: "Earth Goddess"

Media story templates

Now, I'm a bit cautious about what has gone on in actuality. My experience with newspaper reporters, editors and the BBC leads me to think that they tend to work with story templates in their minds and that they feel they work more efficiently if they can shoehorn events into those templates. In turn this can mean that reports miss or skew things in ways that frustrate those who are insiders to the communities and events being reported on. Religious stories are often victims of this.

For example, it takes a bit of reading between the lines of several of the reports to notice that some of the earliest criticisms of the sculpture seem to be aesthetic rather than religious. This prompts me to wonder whether the religious dimension is the latest iteration of discontent by some local people ... and indeed, whether some local Christians are being triggered deliberately to keep the issue simmering. Unfortunately some rose to the bait.

So I'll try to comment on this with a degree of generality, recognising that the matter seems to go back a while and that there may be details that are missing from what we outsiders can glimpse in the reporting.

Words in a plural society

It looks like there are different dimensions to this. One is to ask from the way the reports read, is whether there is room for a reasonably amicable settlement? At first sight, given some statements reported on both sides, it looks like relabelling the statue "Mother Earth" could help. The artist herself suggested that this is what the statue represented. However, that might not mollify those who find it aesthetically displeasing, but it might take the religious objection out of the picture. 

It would be worth noting that there is some frisson of dislike possible from a number of religious communities, not just Christian. So maybe considering backing off from unnecessary controversy and offence by a judicious relabelling would be a good thing. Personally, I don't like words relating to deity to be used in ways that muddy or cheapen the public discourse, but we live in a belief-plural society and have to recognise that other people don't hear such words the freight of meaning that we do. As Christians we have to learn to work with what is in others' minds and to present our thoughts and reactions in ways that recognise that others have different takes on things. I worry that trying to foment outrage -if that's what is happening- ill serves the good news that we want to bring not least because it makes peacemaking (remember that? -from the Beatitudes?) so much harder. As Christians we should be better than 'that guy' who is easily triggered by biscuit-cutter issues, but often we are, as groups of people, not as intelligent collectively as we are as individuals, somehow*. As churches, we should perhaps get used to recognising that society is not "Christian" in terms of values or default background spiritual outlook. In turn this means that using the Christendom methodologies of social control and influence are likely to backfire -badly.

Theology?

Another dimension is to consider the theology. It does seem to me that the implicit theology of idolatry that comes across from the church leaders in the report might want questioning. I'd suggest that idolatry is more in the mind of the idolater not inherent in an object: it's about perception and use rather than 'mere' existence. And, personally, I'd want to suggest that maybe we as churches have been giving a free pass to, for example, the idolatry of Acquisition for far too long, and that perhaps we address that and its consequences in the climate emergency as much greater a matter of priority. 

If I'd advised those who wrote the letter, I'd perhaps have suggested they start by affirming and appreciating concern for keeping a habitable planet and to mitigate climate crises. Start by recognising the good-faith intents of artist and council. These might well be to encourage people more generally to recognise the beauty of the planet we believe God has set us on and to encourage us in our duty of care for it ("her"). These good faith intentions might also be to build on the positive heritage of the town and to foster employment. 

Then it would be good to proceed with the concern about the use of the term 'Goddess'. That concern could be framed in terms saying that people of many faiths would find the statue's name uncomfortable and asking whether it could be re-labelled as 'Mother Earth" or some-such. Maybe they did do this and it's been misrepresented. Has the reporting been so selective so as to hype up dissent? 

There's also a bit of concern in the appeal to God's will in what is reported. It's presented as if everyone ought to not only recognise the Christian perspective on idolatry but that they should perform it too. This smacks of expecting others to live by our standards without them sharing in our understandings and commitments. 

Christian fragility

Here I remind readers that I write in a personal capacity and in a blog post like this I'm not representing anyone but myself; thinking 'out loud', so to speak.

What worries me about these sort of reactions -as reported- is Christians seemingly looking out for occasions to be offended and then thinking that somehow a public display of affront is a (good) witness to Christ. I know well the mindset because it was big in a number of churches I've been in and associated with in the past. 

I think it comes from a place of finding that things we Christians think are valuable, lovely and important are largely ignored or seen as irrelevant in wider society. They are eschewed, but not enough for us to be persecuted; it's the indifference that so easily irks. Worse: in a post-Christendom context people in wider society think they know what Christianity is even if they don't really know. These things, taken together, leave some Christians wishing they had a better profile and then latching onto scraps of unsuitable things to make a bit of a noise "for the gospel". The problem is that all to often the desire to act and be seen to act too easily becomes unlovely, hectoring, abusive ... not looking very much like good news at all. Posturing rather than persuading. Unfortunately we seem so easily to forget that if people don't really know what they don't know, and we present to them an angry, pernicketty and unreasoning face, people are going to find it easy to dismiss us -and there's plenty in the media to reinforce that.

I can't help feeling that deeply dwelling with the text and spirit of 1 Corinthians 13 should be the daily exercise of any Christians seeking to speak in public (myself included).

Idolatry and the gospel

I'd ask us to reflect on Paul's response to idolatry at the Areopagus. There's no doubt from his writings, that Paul is not a fan of idolatry and in fact abhors it, like most Jewish people then and now. Yet at the Areopagus (note that this is an idolatrous name -Ares is referenced) he is shown carefully and quietly looking around and taking time to see what's really going on to find a way in that doesn't begin with confrontation and rerunning the, no doubt, tired old expected denunciations of idolatry by Jewish teachers (remember Christians were a Jewish sect at this point). If a contemporary news reporter was there, that's the story template they'd have in mind: "Jewish preacher denounces idols, local anger stoked". I enjoy the way that Paul takes time not to fulfil that story-line.

I think that the analysis of the situation which seems implicit in the response of those churches could do with being questioned and updated. I'm aware that in English idioms, we often find phrases like 'domestic goddess' which has no real implication of idolatry. Breakfast television exercise leader Diana Moran back in the 1980s was nicknamed "the Green Goddess" but I don't think anyone took that to mean it was a call to worship her. Military fire engines were  once also nicknamed 'green goddesses' and similarly, no-one though this meant they should receive votive offerings. So we have plenty of example of a use of 'goddess' in a non-religious way. Perhaps it would be wise to note that this is likely to be the same sort of usage.

The response to idolatry is, surely, to offer something better; re-purpose its drivers; to celebrate true, good and beautiful things or offer something liberating and joyful to displace it; invite people to Life in all its fullness. In the response to the St Austell statue, I wonder whether good news would be to celebrate the good intents for the common good the statue seems intended to represent and inspire and to seek for the hidden pointers to God in Christ: to enlist the "goddess" as a witness to the true God as Paul enlisted the Unknown God in the Areopagus.

But there's also the more 'technical' considerations of idolatry in relation to what is culturally going on. Idolatry is to worship something other than the true God or to give to something other that God what rightly belongs to God. We should recall that 'worship' isn't merely a circumscribed religious activity. If we take Romans 12:1-2 as any indicator, then worship is actually a life of service to God. Idolatry, then, is a life of service to other than God. It's not merely a performance of largely irrelevant honour to a picture or statue.

If people are investing themselves in love, and in the pursuit of Truth and Beauty, then a long line of theological thinking would say that they are, in effect, "not far from the Kingdom of God". Our mission is to draw alongside such people, listen well and begin to help them to narrow the gap so that 'not far from the Kingdom' morphs into 'seeking first the Kingdom...'

Mission for Green Christians

For Green Christians, I think that this looks like being full and valuable members of environmentally concerned groups, investing our time and efforts in understanding the love, truth and beauty they are seeking, and finding ways to speak about how those things connect us to God in our own lives. We don't need to be pushy or denunciatory: the aroma of Christ will be unstoppered as we serve, and the Spirit is at work drawing people to God.

In this way we tie together at least 3 of the 5 marks of mission -creation care, serving others, and proclaiming Christ.

A bit more detail about the story here: BBC News article. Also at the Guardian.

*The book 'The Wisdom of Crowds' explores how this happens and how to help it not to happen.

Such a Mind as This

 Despite a lot of time spent trying to get people to recognise that our rational and cognitive life is only a part of what makes us who we are and -vitally- only a (often small) part of what we mobilise to inform our decisions and attitudes, it is nevertheless important to give it proper attention and make sure it is a (but not always 'the') central part in our outlook and action in the world. Hence, a book such as this is important to take notice of.

The writing makes use of many good sources which are deftly deployed having been well understood. So it seems a bit jarring that the exposition of the early chapters of Genesis reads as if the author is taking it as literal history. That's merely a minor irritant though as the theological points are often not dependent on this (and it may just be an artefact of taking the text as given in the way they write or assume closer-to-original hearer/readers would have understood it). I was also interested that the Augustinian interpretation of fall was taken as given and not given a more rigorous interrogation. I wondered how to recast the argument if one didn't treat the text as if it teaches a quasi physical change in the created order at the end of the Genesis 3 story. Is the argument still going to hold if one takes billions of years of development of the earth as fact? 

It was good to see an engagement with intertextuality and I found the exploration of the Abel/hebel 'pun' when reflecting on Qoheleth to be quite helpful -a way of reading the Abel-Cain story which brought insight. That said, I'm not sure how convinced I came away about the overall proposition at that point about a dependency or strong intertextuality between Genesis 3 and Ecclesiastes.

Personally, I found some of the discussion about Proverbs and Isaiah and Jeremiah quite hard going. There was a lot of detail abut text and vocabulary and it began to feel quite hard to understand where the individual points fitted in an overall argument.

There did seem to be a tendency to lean heavily on the binaries of wisdom and foolishness and their related terms in a way that appeared to serve a Chistian insider versus a non-Christian outsider. To the point where I was left with the impression that the message of Ecclesiastes \Qoheleth is meant to be understood as unwisdom and I wondered whether it would have been helpful to consider the question of what the book is doing in the canon of scripture -how does it function in context? Why would the rabbis at Yavneh towards the end of the year 70 uprising have included it as scripture and the Jewish and Christian communities have accepted it so? There are some really important questions about reading scripture that lurk around that matter.

I found myself reflecting, in the first half of the book, that it really is not as easy as that. The unwisdom of a lot of popular Christian output can contrast with the wisdom of some outside of the formal boundaries of Christian faith despite the former being avowedly rooted in 'the fear of the Lord' which is the 'beginning of wisdom'. What do we do about the tranches of God-fearing and Christ centred unwisdom all to easy to find today?

At this point I'm still reading it as it's not short. I will add to this review or post a part 2 once I've been able to read the second moiety of it.

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book in exchange for reviewing it. There was and remains no pressure to review it favourably or otherwise.

Links Such a Mind as This on Amazon Richard L. Smith’s Website Tag #SuchAMindAsThis

About the Author Richard L. Smith received a Masters of Arts in Religion from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1992 and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology in 1996. From 1995 to 2001, he ministered in Prague, Czech Republic, with Global Scholars. Since 2010, Richard has lived and ministered in Buenos Aires, Argentina. and serves as a Senior Advisor for the Society of Christian Scholars . He manages a website and blog, Cosmovisión Bíblica (Biblical Worldview).