Do you ever find it funny when an author comments on another author for"not having adequately dealt" with some particular subject?
What I mean is, the writer being scrutinized sometimes has not "adequately dealt" with some subject because it was never a subject that needed or was intended to be dealt with. For example, one could commonly beg the question from Luther, whether he adequately showed what motivates a believer to live a holy life if he is covered by divine grace.
But this question is like so many others demanding 'effective treatment' of this or that; it reveals a mind captive to a smaller way of thinking- a mind that has never really engaged with the subject. And all at once, the book loses the greatest of all credits: demonstrable inward looking wisdom.
Sometimes, declaring that more explanation must be given is comical and self defeating; it is like asking a prisoner how in the world he will make a living if he loses his iron shackles.
Dealing with the literature is important; but dealing with oneself in relation to it is indispensable.
No comments:
Post a Comment