The Book of Proverbs and a Wisdomless Culture

It's fair to say that the book of Proverbs is little used today. Rarely is it studied or preached from. In contrast, my grandmother's small Gideon Bible has only the New Testament and Proverbs (along with the Psalms) – indicative of how important these texts were. One might think a small Bible would include Exodus (with Moses and the Law), or one of the prophets, but in prior decades the Proverbs and Psalms were chosen as especially important for Christian study. There was also a tendency in former generations to quote a Biblical proverb at an apt teaching moment.

In our current culture, narcissism and materialism dominate, while wisdom and virtue are mostly ignored. David Ford has mounted a push to restore Christian wisdom to theology and the church, but his is a lone voice. As Alasdair MacIntyre and then the Radical Orthodoxy theologians have argued, we are losing our language (and thus appetite) for the virtues and for a shared moral vision. We are left with various opinions, caucuses, entertainment, and consumerism, where we can get what we want when we want. Universities are becoming resort-ified, akin to nice resorts with terrific facilities and spas, and plagiarism is common. And yet, we are left to bowl alone.

In opposition to our larger culture is the book of Proverbs and its attempt to shrewd, wise, and virtuous. Wealth and success are worthy of pursuit and honor, but they are worthless in comparison with the life lived well. So, is there connection that we don't read Proverbs anymore, and we live in such a materialistic, narcissistic, and quick-to-cheat culture?

The Influence of Karl Barth on Christian Ethics

I was interested to read how Karl Barth is considered the father of the current turn in Christian ethics to "ecclesial ethics," meaning the work of Yoder, Hauerwas, O'Donovan, and MIlbank. I've always thought of Barth as the Great Dogmatician, and yes there is ethical thought throughout the Church Dogmatics, but I had not thought of him as an important ethicist in his own right.

According to Introducing Christian Ethics, by Samuel Wells & Ben Quash, he was the primary catalyst for this renewed interest in Christian ethics in moving beyond a rationalistic, Western, philosophical, and universal conception of ethics, and a return to a more ecclesial, church-centered approach--which makes sense, as it is the Church Dogmatics, after all. Yet I had not really thought of Barth as an ethicist in his own right, but primarily as a systematic theologian. This insight shows not only the interconnectedness of theology and ethics (and especially a theological ethics, naturally), but the huge influence of Barth on current theological thought.

Quash and Wells helpfully demarcate three approaches for Christian ethics: universal (the most common approach in ethical thought, rooted in philosophical thought, Kant, and the Enlightenment), subversive (the more recent concerns of Marxism, liberation theology, and feminism to restore context and culture to ethical thought), and then ecclesial. Ecclesial is a return to an emphasis on the church as the church; like subversive ethics, it is concerned with context and history, in contrast to the rationalistic and prescinded approach of universal ethics (where the concern is solely for any rational moral agent).

Ecclesial ethics is an attempt to remove Christian ethical thought from the university and the philosophers, and restore it to Christians and theologians actively pursuing lives of faith and action. It has certainly enlivened the study of Christian ethics.