W. David Buschart

Book Review: “Worth Doing: Fallenness, Finitude, and Work in the Real World” by W. David Buschart & Ryan Tafilowski

Worth Doing by W. David Buschart and Ryan Tafilowski explores the concept of “work in the real world” through a lens of fallenness and finitude.

The authors first introduce the concepts of finitude and fallenness, noting that their goal is to provide a theology of work for the “real world.” They use a few intriguing examples of how perspective can change attitudes related to workers. One is a comparison of the thoughts of both construction workers and office workers about the other–wishing they had what the other had not.

There are a few things that are notable for their absence. For example, there is little-to-no linkage of the concept of work to the capitalist system, nor are there critiques of unfettered capitalism and the exploitation of the worker. This, despite how neatly such a topic fits into the exploration. What could be more fallen than turning finite workers into mere numbers or cogs in the machine? The subject index, for example, doesn’t even have capitalism as a reference, while far more general terms (economics) or hyper-specific concepts (gig economy) get entries. Is it because there’s an avoidance of what could be a controversial critique of capitalism from a theological standpoint? I don’t know. What I do know is that the whole book seems to have such a topic looming in the background. When questions about how certain theologies of work might lead to the oppression of workers are right there and even being asked, the conspicuous absence of how capitalism can set up such an exploitation is all the more alarming.

The section on the goodness of work is another area where the critique of exploitative systems is notably so subtle as to be absent. Despite commenting on the goodness of work, it does so alongside the insights form Qoheleth (the teacher of Ecclesiastes). Even as discussing how everything is meaningless under the sun, the need for and even goodness of the harvest can be emphasized. Turning to the very end of the book, the authors urge readers to “still make hay while the sun rises” for creation is growning in need of redemption and renewal, but we must “come to terms with the kinds of creatures we are…” and that work, while “constrained… by finitude and haunted as it is by the curse, work is nonetheless a good gift from the good God and therefore worth doing” (195). I appreciate this ending note, though linked as it is with some of the discussion on vocation (see below) and the lack of critique of exploitative systems, it can feel a little empty or trite.

One section (190-193) has a scintillating discussion of the concept of “vocation” and how such a concept could be “easily put to exploitative use” through the notion of “doing what you love” (190). The authors call this a kind of “work mythology” that can use an “agency-dignity-power narrative” that “works well for those whose work is creative and satisfying” but perhaps not so much for those whose work is “degrading or unfulfilling” (190-192). Many scholars are referenced here–but one of the major thinkers on the concept of vocation, Martin Luther, is not. While the authors turn back on the concept of vocation and find some benefits, they do so in an explicitly theological framework that essentially sidelines the concept of work rather than integrating it into the concept of work. Here, Luther’s insights on the topic of vocation feel almost painfully absent. While the authors simply say that people were made for communion and union in Jesus Christ (193) and that “it is this; it is not a job or career or even a vocation” as the one thing we should be passionate about (ibid). Yet closing the discussion of vocation with this, moments after noting the lack of fulfillment that might be found in “degrading or unfulfilling” work reads almost as if the entire foregoing discussion on work and the “mythologies” involved in it is solved by a kind of “thoughts and prayers” response. Well, it’s one thing to have a job that we might feel is degrading; but worry not, our true fulfillment is found in union with Christ! Saying this is one thing; living it is another. And living it requires, ironically (based on the emphasis on “real world” in the subtitle), a more real world approach that has God entering into the world, entering into our suffering, and entering into our vocations.

The concepts of finitude and fallenness work well alongside discussions of work, and Buschart and Tafilowski are to be commended for bringing these insights alongside the concept of work. They do this alongside also finding the goodness of work. It’s a fine balance that the authors mostly navigate well (though, see above). Readers looking to start a theological exploration of work will certainly find plenty of depth to think on here.

Worth Doing is, well, worth reading if you’re interested exploring the intersection of theology and work. Readers of this review will, perhaps, think my thoughts are largely negative. But where I’m offering critique, I’m seeking more. There’s a wealth of information and topics to mine here, I just wish that some of them were turned to more incisive points made against what seems to be invisible problems lurking in the background. The book provoked quite a bit of thinking for me, and I believe it will for other readers, as well.

SDG.

Book Review: “Theology as Retrieval” by W. David Buschart and Kent D. Eilers

Theology as Retrieval is an exploration of how theologians might look to the past to gain applicable insights into today’s challenges. It is more than that, though. There are several specific aspects of theological retrieval that are addressed in the book from a variety of angles.

After a robust introduction that outlines what is meant by retrieval of theology and the different ways this is being brought about, there are individual chapters on various topics around which retrieval is centering. These are scripture, theology (broadly), worship, spirituality, mission(s), and cosmos. Each chapter has a question that is being addressed by many of the projects, examples of how retrieval is taking place in this specific area, and some of the results of retrieval in that field.

For example, the chapter on worship asks the question “Whose House is This?” Then, it traces various responses to the question, whether various Protestant positions or a Roman Catholic perspective. Next, specific examples of how churches went about creating worship spaces alongside their own explorations of Christian thought from the past about the place of worship. Finally, a few concluding remarks are offered about how retrieval is being done in the area of worship.

The layout thus allows for readers to pick and choose sections to read while continuing to gain different insights into how retrieval is being done. I found the chapters on worship and spirituality to be particularly enlightening. Buschart and Eilers offer not only examples of retrieval but also serve these up almost as morsels to whet the appetite for more. Throughout the book, there is a sense that there is a vast wealth of knowledge waiting to be retrieved and that the work is only being begun. I think this is an accurate portrayal of the state of theological recovery.

After the meaty introduction, the authors tend to take a kind of show, don’t tell approach to the activity of theological retrieval. The examples used are often quite robust, but I was left at times wondering whether it would have been more helpful to add another chapter on how exactly readers might go about their own activity of theological retrieval. The basics are provided in the introduction, and the examples also give several ways of how others have done so, but it would have been nice to have a more substantive overview of methodology.

Theology as Retrieval is a good read with plenty of avenues to explore. Readers will likely experience a yearning to enter into conversation with theologies of the past, and the authors provide some avenues to pursue this research. As far as methodology, however, readers will have to develop their own or try to adapt one from the glimpses provided in the book.

The Good

+Uses plenty of examples to highlight areas of retrieval
+Suggests ways to apply the concepts from the book to the church
+Highlights importance of past theologians

The Bad

-Use of examples sometimes extremely brief
-Could have used more conceptual framework

Disclaimer: I was provided with a review copy of the book from the publisher. I was not asked to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Source

W. David Buschart and Kent D. Eilers, Theology as Retrieval (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.