I thought that I might write an update post at the end of July. Then I thought I might post an early-August update when I finished the main body of the book. But here we are; the book is finished and I’ve spent two weeks thinking about what to write. Everything was going to be different about this reading experience, considering it was my first non-reference book. I didn’t expect the process of even approaching a review would be so different or so difficult.
Toolbox Level 1 (Structure): B+
It didn’t take long to come across a book that scored less than an A- is this category. Two main factors stand out to me as explanations. First, this book is translated from German, though I think that may affect the Toolbox Level 2 score more so than this one. Attempting to replicate the author’s original words as closely as possible may explain why the presence and absence of commas in certain places confounded me at times. Second, the original publication is over 100 years old. Language is always changing, so some of the guidelines for commas (and a few curious spellings) may have been different at the time. The answer is probably a combination of the two. It made the reading the slightest bit clunky but not a deal-breaker.
Toolbox Level 2 (Style): B
Rudolf Otto was a theologian, a philosopher, and a professor. In other words, he was a perpetual academic. In my short time on this earth, one of the few universal truths I have developed in my mind is that academics like to write far more than they need to. Whether it’s ego or overthinking ways in which they may be misunderstood, people like Otto get insufferably wordy at times. It is possible that such wordiness was acceptable or even the norm among German academics back in 1917, but yours truly is a big fan of conciseness.
The main problem with Otto’s writing for me is the amount of tangential and subordinate clauses that he pins to the main crux some of the time. One or two tangential or subordinate clauses per sentence is manageable. Otto, however, is fond of cramming multiple of each into the same sentence. The result forced me to re-read many comma-filled labyrinths to make sure I followed his point correctly. I prefer sentences to be 50 words long at the absolute most; Otto pushed many of his sentences past 70 words. A few even topped 90.
Fulfillment of Purpose: B+
Otto’s core thesis is compelling. While the evolutionary science of his day was chipping away at religion by suggesting that mankind created more complicated and sophisticated religious stories as our brains developed the capability to do so, Otto proposes the opposite. He argues that God and holy experiences have always been complicated and sophisticated, and mankind’s understanding of and articulation about God has improved thanks to our highly-evolved brains. Rather than understanding religious experiences as a construct of the human mind, Otto presupposes God in an eloquent way. God has been the same this whole time; mankind has only gotten better at expressing what it’s like to experience Him.
Many chapters are spent laying the foundation for his big idea. He gradually introduces terms like ‘numinous’ (something possessing strong spiritual or religious qualities) and ‘mysterium tremendum’ (an almost overwhelming feeling of awe and mystery when encountering the numinous), adding layers to their meaning in an attempt to describe more fully the sensory overload of a religious experience. Otto adeptly relates it to the chill-inducing qualities of music, art, and architecture that are hard to put into words that, even when adequately done, can’t quite capture the magic of the moment.
It’s all heady, dense stuff, but Otto pulls it off well through the first nine chapters. While the first third of the book introduces the concepts on a general basis, as something common across many religions, Otto shifts gears and spends three chapters talking about how the numinous and mysterium tremendum can be found in Judeo-Christian scripture and in the writings of Martin Luther. This reveals Otto’s bias for Christianity as the best embodiment of his theory of the numinous, and it awkwardly breaks the momentum of his work.
The author spends another six chapters writing about the development of man’s ability to experience and articulate the numinous. These chapters come from a general perspective again, but are then followed by three closing chapters that steer the reader once more toward the suggestion that Christianity is the current apex of numinous articulation, if not the embodiment of it. This highlights that Otto had two purposes for this book. First, he aimed to refute the evolutionary science of the day by establishing a comprehensive presupposition of God. Second, he aimed to sell the reader on Christianity being the best and most accurate realization of man’s evolving ability to comprehend the numinous experience.
This first goal is a home run for me. I recall embracing it when I read portions of this book for a college class, and I embrace it now. The second, more subtle goal sucks some of the air out of the room. I realize that Otto was a Christian theologian, so his bias is for Christianity. I just wish he didn’t wear that bias so nakedly. He takes a few potshots at other religions, Islam in particular, that betray his academic credentials. He studied and wrote on comparative religions, which helped him realize his concept of the numinous, but his focus on Christianity as the best example was disappointing in a way that I can’t articulate. I’m not looking for his theory to stay within the realm of pantheism, but I feel as though he should have kept building the general construct together and saved all the Christian-specific content for the end. It felt disjointed the way it is presented.
Reading Experience: B
Did I mention this book is heady, dense stuff? Between the deep theological substance, the slow ratcheting toward each point, and the wordiness on display in every chapter, I wouldn’t say I love this book. I’ll heap praise upon the main point of Otto’s work to anyone who will hear it, but this book is not for everyone. I don’t say that as a way to portray myself as intellectually superior for having gotten through it. This is a tough book to read. At times, it felt like a chore to me, but the payoff is mostly worth it.
I would shift some of the chapters around, or at least advise a different reading order. It might be easy to suggest that Otto is guilty of over-writing his magnum opus, but I think it is more of a case of the author over-explaining himself. As an academic, he sought understanding more so than we common folk do. Looking back on it, I get the sense that he approached his theory from multiple angles. This leads to repetition of thought via explaining his point two or three times in a row but in slightly different ways each time. I didn’t need that, but others might.
Overall Score: 3.17 out of 4 (solid B)
I told my wife that the world needs a CliffsNotes version of this book. Intellectually stimulating though it may be, it drags in too many places to earn a broad recommendation. The ideas presented are worthy of a small group study but it needs condensing to make it approachable. Perhaps I’ll revisit this book some day and try to turn my notes into an outline that does both the numinous and the mysterium tremendum justice.
This was a very fascinating book to select for my first non-reference read. At the start, I stated that I wanted to use The Idea of the Holy to cultivate a proper mindset for reading the Bible. I think that I was successful in using this book in that way. The Bible is a chronicling of human beings experiencing God in intimate ways. With Otto’s concepts of the numinous and mysterium tremendum, I can impart those concepts on and infer them from the pages of scripture. It will add depth to my next read.
Another outcome of this read was one of personal introspection. Otto talks about the Holy being a balance of the rational and the non-rational, the logical and the mystical. Too much emphasis on one side tips the scale and misses the true, full picture. I had myself pegged as being too far to one end of the scale for years but this book suggests to me that, while I am in many ways entrenched on one side of this spectrum, the core of my beliefs is actually anchored at the other end. It is a balance that baffles me but also gives me hope.
