Found an awesome book for Lutheran Circe fans

[forty-two]

It's A Case for Character: Towards a Lutheran Virtue Ethics, by Joel Biermann ( http://www.amazon.com/Case-Character-Towards-Lutheran-Virtue/dp/1451477910/ ). His focus is on developing a set of Lutheran virtues (virtue defined as "specific skills, traits, and behaviors that serve to define and guide those on the journey to an agreed-upon telos"), which is so very helpful for those who want to educate for wisdom and virtue through a distinctly Lutheran classical education (I appreciate the focus he puts on the importance of having to have the same goal - "agreed-upon telos" - to even *want* to have the same virtues). And he starts by looking at the history of virtue ethics, including its recent revival in philosophy, and defining terms, which has been amazing. It's bringing so much of the talk about formative education and educating for virtue together for me.

 

Plus it is intersecting with my current focus on sanctification. As I read Circe related articles and threads, I wasn't sure how to educate for virtue without getting into what seemed to me to be works righteousness, as most of the other participants had different ideas about sanctification than I did. Not that there isn't value in looking to the ideas of other traditions, but I realized that I didn't know enough about my *own* tradition to be able to evaluate those ideas, and so I felt unmoored. And what I did know about my tradition was skewed, which I realized when I read the Large Catechism and if it had been from anything but the Confessions I'd have been all, bam! Works righteousness, y'all. Clearly I need to, er, refine my understanding somewhat ;).

 

I don't know if I will agree with Biermann's conclusions, but I am learning *so much* from seeing all the history and competing ideas in developing a set of Lutheran virtues - even if I don't ultimately agree with Biermann, he has opened up a new world of thought for me :). (My Amazon cart is filling up with books he references ;).)

[forty-two]

Bumping this because I found the website for the book, and it has video lectures by Dr. Biermann that hit all the main parts of the book :thumbup:: http://acaseforcharacter.com/

 

Eta: Also, I finished the book today. It was definitely worth the reading and has given me a lot to think over. I'm going back over it to summarize it - I mostly understand his points (I think), but I am not at all sure yet how they fit with everything else in my head ;).

[forty-two]

Bumping this because I think I've found (or more accurately rediscovered - looked at an old book in a new light) a practical follow-up to A Case for Character:

Lutheran Spirituality: Life as God's Child: http://www.amazon.com/Lutheran-Spirituality-Life-Gods-Child/dp/0758627343/

 

As a reviewer said, "Biermann takes the 'towards' part of his title seriously" :lol: - he clears the ground for developing a set of Lutheran virtues but doesn't do much more than hurriedly suggest some traditional Lutheran practices as a starting point before the book ends. I appreciated the idea of incorporating historic Lutheran practices instead of inventing a bunch of new things, but I wasn't really sure *how*.

 

But today I was discussing a parenting book that centers parenting around the chief end of man and the centrality of the Gospel (so basically in line with parenting for virtue, although the author did not think in those terms), and I was both appreciative of the approach yet also critical of the *particular* telos chosen and how the Gospel wasn't central *enough*. I offered up my view of man's telos (playing off the Westminster view of the author - "the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" - I said "the chief end of man is to love our neighbor through serving them in our vocations") and the centrality of the Gospel for both our justification *and* our sanctification.

 

Someone asked for resources on my view of man's telos, and in addition to rec's to Veith's and Wingren's books on vocation, I mentioned that putting vocation in terms of our telos or chief end wasn't actually a very common way of talking for Lutherans (at least it isn't as far as I know, and Biermann's book implied as much). And then I went on to discuss Biermann's book, as the source of *my* putting it in those terms. As I refreshed my memory of Biermann's view of the telos of man - to be fully human, which means to be fully righteous both before God and before man - I realized that I (and the parenting author I was critiquing) had separated the concepts of our righteousness before God and our righteousness before man, and limited our telos to just having to do with our righteousness before man. Sort of the "two poles in constant tension" that Biermann is not a fan of, and in fact a major motivation for A Case for Character was to find a larger framework to fit both kinds of righteousness into so they were in harmony wrt the big picture.

 

Anyway, in considering the greater scope of Biermann's view of the telos of man, I thought it would be helpful for the person asking to be able to see vocation explained within the larger context of Christian life. So I thought of Lutheran Spirituality, which has a chapter on vocation. And as I described the book as addressing both our righteousness before God and our righteousness before man, it hit me - I was describing the book in terms of how it addresses our telos- I was seeing the historic practices of Lutheran piety in virtue ethics terms!

 

And since this thread popped up in my google search on Biermann and a Lutheran telos ;), I thought I'd post it here, too.

[HSmomof2]

Thank you!😀