This blog does not deal with the specific subject matter of The Cost of Discipleship, but instead engages the work by dealing with questions of its effectiveness and profundity.
Why is it that the works which are talked of as being so profound, to me at least, do not seem to quite live up to their name? So many people in class loved Augustine, so many people love Bonhoeffer, but the subject matter, while dealing with important matters of faith, seems to be evident from the scriptures alone. Maybe this is simply because the doctrine which the authors are presenting is such a part of our church culture today that it seems to be obvious and self-evident just from familiarity.
This would make sense because when I read authors like Emerson, his views do not seem to be so self-evident to me, a Nazarene –raised American who until recently has not been exposed to transcendental ideals.
But is this simply it? Is it familiarity alone seems to suck profundity out of these works? Maybe. But then could the scriptures eventually lose their profoundness with more familiarity?
….. maybe this is the wrong track, let’s try something else….
Could it be that since works, such as Bonhoeffer’s section on costly grace, are written in a reactionary manner, his arguments do not seem so profound to those who are not in the same state as the intended audience? This seems to make sense, for if in my society everyone is practicing costly grace, a work on the importance of practicing it would seem unnecessary, almost detached.
Is there some other immensely important factor which I am leaving out?
I am just seeking to know why it is that one work seems more profound than another. I am not saying that I understand all of the intricacies of costly grace, etc. I just want to find an answer to a really out there question.
I commented on Hunter's THE WORST
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.