C. S. Lewis, on the apologetic value of Christians writing on various topics from Christian presuppositions (rather than writing overt works of apologetics):

I believe that any Christian who is qualified to write a good popular book on any science may do much more by that than by any directly apologetic work…. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects—with their Christianity latent. You can see this most easily if you look at it the other way round. Our Faith is not very likely to be shaken by any book on Hinduism. But if whenever we read an elementary book on Geology, Botany, Politics, or Astronomy, we found that its implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It is not the books written in direct defence of Materialism that make the modern man a materialist; it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian.

I think what Lewis says here is spot on and still holds true in our day. I would, however, like to extend his thought in one direction (and I’m unsure what he would think of it). I’ve been thinking lately about how useful it would be to draw out the latent Christian assumptions in popular books by non-Christians. Some of my favorite popular books over the last few years have been written by non-Christians but, in my view, seem deeply congruent with the biblical imagination. For instance, Four Thousand Weeks—Oliver Burkeman’s anti-productivity book on time management—offers stimulating thoughts on our finitude (creatureliness is really the concept he’s grasping for), the freedom of embracing our insignificance, and the importance of patience. It’s a slightly different angle from Lewis: Demonstrating how the assumptions of these popular books are actually deeply Christian. That, to me, would be a worthwhile endeavor.

I have an essay percolating somewhere in the recesses of my brain about the latently theological anthropology of Matthew Crawford that would fit into this category. And yes, I’m aware that Crawford has recently converted to Christianity. This would not invalidate the approach, since Crawford’s writing to this point has not been expressed in any sort of explicitly theological frame. Though, again, my point is that his working assumptions about humanity seem to resonant with a Christian vision.

Finished reading: The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin J. Vanhoozer 📚

A really good, creative work of theology that moves Lindbeck’s proposal in a better direction. Vanhoozer is always great with words, but it also seemed a bit too wordy. I lost a little bit of momentum by the end.

C. S. Lewis:

Christianity does not simply affirm or simply deny the horror of death; it tells me something quite new about it. Again, it does not, like Nietzsche, simply confirm my desire to be stronger, or cleverer than other people. On the other hand, it does not allow me to say, ‘Oh, Lord, won’t there be a day when everyone will be as good as everyone else?’ In the same way, about vicariousness. It will not, in any way, allow me to be an exploiter, to act as a parasite on other people; yet it will not allow me any dream of living on my own. It will teach me to accept with glad humility the enormous sacrifice that others make for me, as well as to make sacrifices for others.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer:

Gerhard Ebeling famously declared that church history is essentially the history of biblical interpretation. It is true that many of the significant turning points in ecclesiastical history had to do with conflicting interpretations over the meaning of particular texts and over the methods of biblical interpretation. Yet Ebeling’s comment is susceptible of another reading as well. The history of the church is essentially the story of how the church interprets Scripture “bodily,” through the shape of its community life. Church history is thus the history of biblical performance. The church, as a performance of the word in the power of the Spirit, is a living commentary on the gospel. The life of the church just is its theological interpretation of Scripture, an index of its understanding of the theo-drama and of the God who puts it in motion.

James R. Wood, asking in Comment “Can the Church Still Speak?":

Can the Church still speak? Perhaps the better question in our modern world is: Even if it did, would we listen?

It is hard to hear the muffled voice of a divided Church that has been imagined into the margins of opinion and otherworldly concerns. But Christians should reconsider the Church as the given bride of Christ who is also the mother of believers. And we should position ourselves first and foremost to listen to that Church wherever we are. And we should continually pray that ecclesiastical leaders will continue to find ways to make the Church’s voice more audible to the world and that the Spirit would go out and give those with ears the ability to hear.