Five Most Influential Books

I'm currently working on my dissertation proposal, along with a couple of papers for some conferences, and then putting together a course to teach for next semester. But, in the midst of this, I've been doing a little reflecting. Today, while writing, I was thinking about the five books that have been the most influential in my thinking. So, I decided to briefly blog about them. And a quick note on the order - they are in chronological order from when I first read them.

1. Karl Barth The Word of God and the Word of Man
To echo Kant commenting on Hume, Barth woke me from dogmatic slumber. Maybe, to put it better, when I read Barth in college (in an independent study with Dr. Bud Bence) I gave up any notion of a fundamentalist/ conservative evangelical reading of the Scripture. It really woke me up to some of the hermeneutical issues with the Bible and also showed that reading of the Scriptures were about an experience with God.

2. Jean Grondin Philosophical Hermeneutics
This book is more representative of an entire class that was very influential. My first seminary course was an August intensive on Philosophical Hermeneutics. This course set the trajectory for the way I began to develop theologically in seminary. It also set the trajectory for the people I would read and really engage with. This book is a great introduction to the topic, written from the perspective of a philosopher and one that really seeks to give a good overview of the hermeneutical enterprise.

3. John Howard Yoder The Politics of Jesus
Jesus was a pacifist and followers of Jesus should be pacifists. This book was a great read and really opened the doors for me to think theologically about the ethical decisions. I was a pacifist before I read the book, but this text really reaffirmed that while challenging me to do more.

4. St. Augustine De Doctrina Christiana (Teaching Christianity)
I have read this book more than any other (I think). In fact, it figures significantly in my dissertation - an entire chapter will be an interpretation of the text. In it, Augustine articulates the nature of how one should go about interpreting the Scriptures. In doing this, he shows that the goal of all interpetation is about love - love of God and love of neighbor. Any interpretation that does not encourage love needs to be rethought and should not be preached. I love it!

5. Martin Heidegger Being and Time
This text opened me up to phenomenology and the way in which a phenomenologist opens one up to interpreting the world. He now figures prominently into much of my thinking and it is because this text opens so many doors for different ways of thinking. It is also a classic treatise on a turn away from an Englightenment paradigm. It is almost like a rethinking of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, showing instead how it is that we exist instead of how it is we think. This also opens up the entire hermeneutical enterprises of Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Derrida. It is a classic text.

I limited myself to five, but I should really have a whole lot more on the list. Next time, though, I'll add the five most influential thinkers on me. It will be very different.

What?!?

I was just wondering if anybody else saw that President Bush was doing the groundbreaking for the U.S. Institute of Peace? This seems to me to be a little...well...uh...odd. I just found this a little curious.

Continuing the Campaign

A couple of quick thoughts here -- first, I'd like to post more. Just tend to think too much about what I would want to post on. Too many people out there willing to call me on my crap:)

But, the main gist of this post is delegated to politics. First, I'm really tired of people talking about how Michigan and Florida voters were disenfranchised. People were still allowed to go and vote, it was just an illegal vote according to the rules of the people in charge of the election. But, also, as I've said before, your vote doesn't really count. If no one goes to vote, the delegates still get to go cast a vote - not in MI and FL though because they broke the rules. But, in all other states, people may go and cast a vote, but delegates elect people. Sorry. The 2000 election is still a perfect reflection of this.

Now, to talk about real disenfranchisement, go talk to people in China or Cuba or Myanmar, etc. These people do not even get to vote, to voice an opinion or to voice their frustration with the inability to vote. This is disenfranchisement, not what happened in Michigan and Florida. It's time for people to tone down the continuing empty rhetoric.

Second, I'm pretty stoked about this Scott McClellan book that is coming out. It does not seem to present any new information per se. It seems that most of we already knew from previous books and articles. However, it comes from a guy who was there and really believed that Bush could unite the country, a guy who was with Bush in Texas. If anything, we see that this Texas neo-con group is incredibly loyal and for an inside member to break ranks is fantastic.

The McClellan book also excites me because it critiques the liberal media (really, it should critique all media as many stout conservatives were/are as upset with the war as liberals). The liberal media has obviously said that it did its due diligence and was misled by the administration. And this is true. But, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! did a documentary on how the entire media, in the run up to the war, completely ignored anyone who said that the war was a mistake. Of the six major news bureaus on TV (Fox, NBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, and CNN), less than one percent of all the experts put on the air regarding the war were opposed to it. That means over 99% of people talking about the war were people promoting it. Even the New York Times and Washington Post were complicit. (One person I appreciate though is Chris Matthews because he believes that the media missed the boat and has called them/himself on it).