Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media (review)

Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media . By Quentin J. Schultze. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2000; pp. 191. $14.99 paper.

Christian scholarship in Communication since the early twentieth century is a relatively short story. In his most recent book, Quentin J. Schultze proposes a broad-based project of inquiry, inviting both established and emerging students to explore the implications of Communication study from an explicitly Christian standpoint. Schultze announces his project as an issue of stewardship, that is, service to God and fellow human beings toward producing shalom. As employed by Schultze, shalom involves a complex of meanings marked by harmonious personal relationships with God and others, in communities marked by practical justice, peace, and love. For Schultze, both stewardship and shalom are accomplished in and through human communication.

Schultze clearly addresses students and scholars whom C. S. Lewis referred to as "mere" Christians—people who accept the commondoctrines of the historic Christian faith, including the existence of God, Jesus Christ as God's only son, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the basic teaching of the apostles. Shultze's Christian perspective is clear, but Communication majors of any creed, or none, will find the book accessible. Honors students and graduate students will also find starting points from which to begin deeper inquiry. Schultze introduces central questions of interest to a broad spectrum of scholars in the field. The questions—of theory, culture, epistemology, symbolicity, ethics, media, and so forth—are not presented as the exclusive province of Christianity or unique to Christian scholars. And while Schultze does not attempt a comprehensive review of the field, he does move comfortably between multiple areas in the field, including philosophy of communication, mass communication, interpersonal communication, rhetoric, communication in organizations and communities, and communication ethics.

The scope of the book extends well beyond its primary audiences, but whether a wider audience can enter into the conversation probably depends upon the degree to which the book overcomes three basic challenges to Schultze's project: privatization, christianization, and objectification.

The privatization of religion and the secularization of intellectual life in twentieth-century America have been well documented. Therefore, saying that Christians are doing scholarship does not necessarily mean that such scholars are working from Christian presuppositions. A private-religious/public-secular dualism may segregate their religious commitments (considered private) from their intellectual life (considered public). Academia in general and the field rarely object to such dualistic tendencies. Despite a rich intellectual history of scholars who have mindfully contributed to intellectual life from distinctively Christian standpoints, the status-quo embrace of the sacred/secular divide between private and professional life is the first obstacle to implementing the project Schultze suggests.

A superficial christianization of the field also presents a potential threat. Instead of doing original scholarship, some Christian scholars may prefer to "christianize." Christianization can take many forms. One common practice involves applying a Christian overlay to a theory grounded on assumptions at variance with Christianity. Of course, Augustine authorized the time-honored practice of "taking gold from the Egyptians" under the rubric that "all truth is God's truth." But Augustine sought solid gold, not an overlay. Another christianizing practice narrows the focus of inquiry to applied Communication studies that intersect with ecclesiastical matters (homiletics, communication in non-profit organizations, small-group communication, and so forth). Rather than engaging the field, christianization relegates Christian thought to scholarly backwaters, disengaged from conversations central to the growth and direction of the field. The subtlety of difference might be illustrated by the statement that Christians can gain much by studying the work of Plato, David Hume, Freidrich Neitzsche, Kenneth Burke, and Martin Heidegger, versus the statement that Plato, Hume, Neitzsche, Burke, or Heidegger serve as reliable guides for Christian thought.

The status-quo objectification of Christianity within the field presents a third challenge. Communication scholars are accustomed to reading, thinking, and publishing as outside observers...