Exploring Christian Ethics, Research Paper Example

Introduction

A specific dichotomy seems to mark a foundation of Christian doctrine, and one apparent in virtually all manifestations of the expansive and varied theology; namely, that an appreciation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as offered for the well-being of humanity reflects an obligation not necessarily evident in a great deal of Christian thinking and behavior.  More exactly, Christ, as is held to be true by Christians, gave his life to atone for the sins of mankind, yet the true impetus of this sacrifice is often neglected because it is too commonly perceived as an act absolving humanity of its own accountability. The love of Christ was so immense, He took on the burden of universal penance, and mankind’s awareness of the offering is essential to Christianity.  It is, however, a limited awareness, for Christians widely fail to comprehend the enormity of the actual meaning and – ironically – by virtue of its magnitude.  As the sacrifice of life is the ultimate act of giving that may be made, it is then ordinary for Christians to honor this act of Christ as such, while ignoring the truth underscoring the extremity of it; that, in plain terms, it is the most drastic means of performing the duty necessary for all Christians, which is the denial of the self for the welfare of others.

This dichotomy is crucial to any real understanding of, not solely the death of Christ, but His teachings.  If there is in most Christians a vivid sense that Christ’s sacrifice is blatant evidence of His love for humanity, it appears that it too often is seen as absolution, which in turn eviscerates personal, Christian responsibility and the quintessential tenets of the doctrine itself.  There is, not unexpectedly, a finality to Christ’s sacrifice which may easily be interpreted by Christians as obviating to some extent their duty.  If they fail in it, there is this ultimate forgiveness as having been provided, and a love so vast human failure is diffused within it.  What is necessary, however, is the more clear understanding of this offering of Christ as only extreme, and as such to emphasize the core of Christianity itself.  Only then may there be a knowledge of the death as presenting a paradigm, and of the most critical kind.   Ultimately, the death of Christ stands as the template for how this most extreme of sacrifices underscores the human imperative to disregard the self for others.

Doctrinal Aspects

The varying ways in which the sacrifice of Christ has meaning, with any such meaning invariably as crucial notwithstanding, go to how there appears to be a human tendency to avoid, or perhaps fail to comprehend, the underlying message of Christ.  This is seen by first noting the ways in which the relationships between God, Christ, and humanity, are believed to exist and as they pertain to the sacrifice.  On one level, Christianity insists on certain measures of human accountability for this most dramatic of acts.[1] In plain terms, God required sacrifice of an unprecedented nature and scope as atonement for humanity’s unrelenting sinfulness, and it would be His son who would offer this atonement.  Christ died for all men and women, and this is as universal a truth as any within Christianity.  At the same time, however, the enormity of the act itself may be seen as indicative of a “fixed” reality.  That is to say, it is entirely possible that, the finality of Christ’s sacrifice aside, it in itself sets in place a permanent – and somewhat convenient – ideology; Christ died for human sin so humanity is sinful, and the finality of the former does not alter the ongoing nature of the latter. It is in fact arguable to assert that, for many Christians, the sacrifice of Christ enables sin to an extent because it is an affirmation of a reality likely implacable and unchanging.

What renders such a view so extraordinary is an immense duality.  Christ’s death “ended” sin, and in the most authoritative fashion conceivable.  This was a human and divine action of incomprehensible proportions[2], in that God Himself intervened on humanity’s behalf, and through His own person.  This is very much accepted as a core of all Christian doctrine, and the magnitude of the event is foundational to the faith.  Inextricably linked to this is what may be termed the inevitability of human causation; it is long held in Christian theology that, as Christ died for the sins of all humanity, humanity is responsible for the crucifixion.[3]  It is important to note that God, as Father and Son, does not ever accept the actual responsibility for human sin save in this relieving humanity of it; there is no divine admission in any way of contrition as demanded by the divine.[4]  In doctrinal terms, this is a crucial element, for it emphatically distinguishes between God and humanity as creator and subjects.  The creator requires that the people accord to His precepts, the people fail, and the creator alone is then empowered – and entitled – to respond.  According to Foucault, this is doctrine ultimately based on a power relationship, and one in which salvation in the afterlife is the prerogative of the creator.[5]  The response comes in the form of the sacrifice of Christ, and it is then irrefutable that humanity is the cause.  God’s love is such that He gives His son to atone, but the crime is wholly human, and this is understood in Christianity.

At the same time, such an understanding may be seen as altering the most fundamental precepts of the faith and due, as noted, to the pragmatic realities of the sacrifice.  That is to say, Christ died once and such an event is not necessarily marked by finality, and in a way removed from the event of the Resurrection.  In the minds and hearts of Christians, then, there is the likelihood of a sense of a living doctrine based upon a single death.  Forgiveness easily becomes a perpetual state offered by a single and momentous act, and this must then eviscerate to some extent ideas of actual contrition itself, or the true nature of sin.  Forgiveness on the largest possible scale has been given, so it is entirely possible that subsequent sin – and, critically, obligations of humanity to refrain from it – become modified or ameliorated issues for Christians.  When the worst has been absolved and God Himself has provided the means for reconciliation, it may be difficult to conceive of sin as requiring further atonement.

This dilemma or perceived contradiction within doctrine is reinforced by long histories and patterns of Christian behavior.  There is invariably in Christian cultures an active awareness of sin, variation of degree and kind notwithstanding, yet personal introspection in this regard is suspect to an extent.  Typically, Christian perspectives tend to assign guilt for sin to a select few seen as truly responsible for the wrongdoing.  Individual responsibility, private penance, and personal motivation are powerful elements within the faith, yet there remains an urgency to separate the sinful from others, an impetus very much going to how social justice is so fundamentally linked to Christian ideology.[6]  It may well be that the idea of sin is so extreme, or extremely repugnant, Christians are impelled to distance themselves from it accordingly.  Howsoever it happens, nonetheless, the gravity of sin, implying a necessary breach with God, appears to be such that Christians are reluctant to admit to it, and this in turn is likely based upon the magnitude of Christ’s sacrifice.  As sin brought about this sacrifice, sin is simultaneously reviled, sought outside of the self, and understood to be as ultimately forgivable, if not already forgiven.

This then reflects Christian ideas of absolution as readily available, which may be seen as an incorrect variation of doctrine and which, as will be seen, weakens Christian thinking in regard to the underlying message of Christ’s sacrifice.  The Rite of Penance, however, is layered and dimensional.  It is an active process in which the penitent experiences both a full awareness of their sin and the need to reconcile with God.[7]  Moreover, even these processes inherently rely upon an understanding of all sin as inevitably defying God’s will, so the doctrinal dilemma becomes more evident.  In formulaic terms, it may be expressed as: the sacrifice of Christ gave absolution to humanity for its sin; humanity accepts the absolution and acknowledges ideas of sin in itself; humanity typically seeks to assign sin apart from the individual self; and humanity neglects in the process to perceive the true nature of all sin as exposing a failure to adhere to God’s will.  This latter component, in which the essence of sin is the inability or unwillingness to follow the teachings of Jesus, is explored in the following.

Theological Aspects of the Meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice

As it is the intent here to affirm that the death of Christ serves as a paradigm for concerns regarding Christian behavior in general, and that the sacrifice is typically misinterpreted or not wholly comprehended, it is necessary to examine more closely the nature of Christ Himself in regard to this idea.  For many Christians, this is self-evident, for Christ – and particularly as enhanced by His surrender of His own life – represents the ultimate expression of love.  His messages, certainly, affirm this, as the Godhead as composed of God and Christ emphasize the divine unity of this love.  In John is perhaps the most well-known statement to this effect: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”.[8]  The historical and cultural impact of this, in fact, is such that God’s love is often perceived by Christians to be unconditional, a perception no doubt reinforced by the sacrifice of His son.  This unconditional quality of God’s love, in fact, is unique to Christianity, as no other major religion reflects so profound and unequivocal commitment on the part of the creator.[9]  In general terms, it is reasonable to assert that this is in fact the predominant Christian view of God, as possessed of a love for humanity defying comprehension.

Studies in fact affirm this as the Christian worldview, and in place on a foundation of God’s love as unquestionable.[10]  Modern Christians, and particularly in the West, essentially modify or adhere to their devotional beliefs based on such an all-encompassing divine acceptance.  God is more relevant because He is perceived as loving no matter the nature of the human, just as those who think of God as controlling or dictatorial tend to maintain ambivalence in their faith.[11]  This is very much a shift in perception over time, as older versions of Christianity do not view God in quite so “loving” a way.  In plain terms, Christ and God in the past were perceived differently, and reflective of different expectations.  That is to say, while the idea of Christ has usually been of a more gentle and loving disposition, God was exacting.  God loved his children, it was believed, but this was very much a conditional love.  The Gospel of Matthew in particular presents a God who is vengeful and who, despite a willingness to forgive, is demanding of absolute compliance.[12]

For a great many Christians, then, fundamental ideas about God and Christ have changed, and this goes to an important aspect of how, in theological terms, the sacrifice of Christ is then perceived.  Generally speaking, and Christ’s willingness to give of his life for humanity aside, there was in the past a more retributive quality to His death, and one associated with the God the Father.  It was punitive in the sense that God accepted the sacrifice of His son as being made on behalf of the sinning humanity, so an emphasis on actual wrongdoing and punishment was in place.  More recently, there is the belief that even this extreme act reflected necessities of a greater love, and it is arguable that God is “humanized” in this perception.  Scholars in fact note that God’s wrath is not separate from from His love, but rather an extension of it, and one generated by disappointment commensurate with the degree of love.[13]  Only the death of His son could expiate, not only the sin, but the inestimable turning away from God represented by the sin, which translates divine rage to divine sorrow.  Consequently, if the extent of His love is inconceivable, it is nonetheless of a distinctly personal nature reflecting the intensity of God’s commitment to humanity and His relationship with humanity, which then renders the sacrifice of His son as the ultimate act of love.

What is important in these varying theological aspects is that, even as Christ’s sacrifice is viewed in different ways, it exists nonetheless as representative of the relationship between God and humanity.  It is in no uncertain terms a defining event, whether it is believed to be punitive or expressive of unconditional love, and this is removed from whatever actually led to the sacrifice.  In the plainest of terms, it is essential to understand why Christ gave His life for there to be any true meaning attached to the event, and/or revealing the divine rationale demanding so drastic a measure.  This in turn goes to the pivotal matter of Christianity itself as a guiding ideology of faith, for it is clear that Christ’s sacrifice may only have been necessary due to a failure on the part of humanity of the magnitude of the modern conviction in the unconditionality of God’s love.  Theology is in fact in its purest form as this is examined, for it brings to light how Christian faith is inextricably linked to Christian life and behavior, both in pragmatic ways and as directed by God.  It is then necessary to investigate how such an enormous breach occurred, how this gave rise to Christ’s death, and, critically, what that death then means for humanity.

Scripture and Underlying Meaning of the Sacrifice

As noted, the key to understanding the import of the crucifixion lies in comprehending the realities going to it as so defining an event in Christianity.  This is best observed by regarding the scriptural – and divinely driven – necessity for humanity to booth adhere to God’s injunctions and follow the ways of Christ.  In no uncertain terms, the death of Christ arose from the abject failure of humanity to obey divine law, even as it was translated for them by the person of Christ Himself.

Most important here and reinforcing the true meaning of the crucifixion is how Christ’s teaching consistently insisted, and insists, upon the abnegation of the self for the well-being of all.  This tenet of Christianity is in fact often neglected, in that God’s love is a service very much demanding willing sacrifice of the self, a reality exemplified by Christ’s own abhorrence of the sin of pride, or self-love.[14]  Christ in essence brought to humanity the Word of the Father, and that the translation was made in human fashion in no way lessens the import of the injunction.

The Bible is of course replete with variations on this expression of divine will.  Time and again, the people are exhorted and commanded to set aside self-interest utterly, for only in this way do they serve God. This is the core of Christ’s teachings and of Christianity itself, as expressed by Christ: “And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”[15] It is, moreover, an imperative all the more reinforced after Christ’s sacrifice: “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”[16]  There is no doubt whatsoever that Christ, in seeking to bring humanity nearer to His Father’s will and presence, consistently emphasized the need to turn away from worldly concerns, which equates to promoting mutual care that utterly eviscerates selfish desires: “Every human being is called to reflect God’s wise and loving stewardship in the world by care for each other and all creation.”[17]

This message cannot be overstated, and it powerfully reflects the essential meaning of the crucifixion.  Human terms notwithstanding, the teachings of Christ went and go to the need for human beings to mirror the Godhead and depart completely from any holding to the self.  If God has ultimate stewardship over humanity, it is one based on the expectation that humanity, understanding the inherent right of dismissing the self, will render that stewardship a source of joy.  There can be no drastic manifestation of this imperative, then, than the willingness of the Son to die for the “others,” even as the others are mortal.  Christ’s death was undergone in order than human sin be expiated, yet all sin, it is reasonable to assert, must stem from a failure to regard others as God so ordains.  The injunction is, again, unequivocal: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”[18]  That mankind did not comply in this generated the sin requiring atonement, so it is seen that the fundamental message of Christ’s sacrifice is that denial of self is paramount among human consideration and affairs.

This divine edict and foundation of the crucifixion is not, of course, entirely lost on humanity.  For most Christians, there is an imperative attached to the faith mandating some level of active concern for others, and research affirms that Christians do indeed tend to acknowledge this as an obligation of service to God.[19]   Societal and individual failures notwithstanding and multiple in evidence, Christians somewhat accept the reality that the divine will demands an abnegation of the self combined with an active interest in the welfare of others.  It is in fact interesting to observe how this theological concept is applied in the typically pragmatic – and non-spiritual – arena of business.  An increasingly adopted model of business leadership is Robert Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership which, as may be inferred, is structured on the leader as being subordinate to the group needs and identities. The leader provides focus and some measure of direction but, when they comprehend the processes of how human achievement best evolves exponentially, they discard ideas of imposing authority and instead exist to assist in the ambitions: “Greenleaf emphasized that the servant leader is a servant first, with the primary imperative to ensure the other’s highest priority needs are being served.”[20] While not overtly Christian in premise, Greenleaf’s model unquestionably reflects the values of Christ, and it is perhaps most interesting that these are perceived as vastly beneficial to pragmatic concerns.  In essence, and with Servant Leadership as reflecting Christian beliefs in business, it appears that, as Christ taught, serving the good of others invariably serves the good of all.

At the same time, it also appears that any consistent acceptance of Christ’s teachings, so important as prompting His sacrifice as neglected,  greatly varies with era and culture.  In essence, and as has always been the case, humanity is not particularly adept at setting aside what serves individual interest.  The idea of discarding the self has evolved over time, as social meaning has been greatly influenced by Christianity, and in exponential ways. That is, tides of social feeling more tend to encourage efforts directed to benefit others, and it is established that the teachings of the Catholic Church have altered over centuries to reflect the shifting ideas of morality within cultures generating the incentives.[21] In a sense, this in itself suggest at least an awareness of the necessity to deny the self as taught by Christ; if societies are more prone to work towards the welfare of others more so than individuals, the reality still exists that the Christian imperative is being met.  Moreover, Christians have increasingly demanded that the Church address ethical issues of great importance to modern life, ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion.[22] War alone stands out as an issue which has triggered immense Christian outrage, and it emphasizes the greater moral urgency when individuals perceive a need to set aside collective interest when others are unjustly harmed.

Certainly, that human efforts to reflect Christ’s teachings vary – at best – is explicable. It is, plainly, difficult to set the self aside, as this demands both an unalloyed embracing of the faith and, importantly, a willingness to sacrifice. An acceptance of loss on a personal level is crucial if such service is to be performed as God deems fit: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’”[23]  It is inescapably daunting to adopt so selfless an ideology, the inherent quality of faith as infusing it notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, this is the core message of Christ, and it is a “living legacy” by virtue of His willingness to die for mankind.  The death in fact fully embodies the faith-based precept: “The dialectical relation between Christian love and self-denial is such that the first is not possible without the second.”[24]  Christianity, and theology in general, is typically marked by debate, but this point is implacably in place when there is any real understanding of Christianity at all.  To deny the self is to, not imitate Christ, but embrace the Christian reality that such denial is the outworking of the Holy Spirit, and thus a direct manifestation of God’s will.[25]  This is precisely what Christ offered when He offered His own life, and consequently the meaning of the sacrifice is profoundly clear.  Christ died and in so doing established the perfect paradigm of how the Christian must think, feel, and live, for it is the supreme example of self as perfectly denied for the benefit of others.

Conclusion

The path to comprehending the visceral meaning beneath the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is inevitably circuitous.  To understand the true meaning, it is necessary to accept the varied dimensions within Christianity of mankind’s relation to God, and from both perspectives.  This in turn goes to the former’s ideas of divine identity, with Christ and God frequently a “divided” Godhead; Christ is the consistent believer of humanity, offering love and guidance, whereas God the Father is alternately exacting and inclined to provide unconditional love. This is as well not necessarily a contradiction, for a true understanding equates to knowledge of God’s insistence upon love as reciprocal and whole, which is in turn translated by Christ into the human terms of caring for others and setting aside the self.  It is a knowledge maintained by Christians sporadically at best, but the truth of it remains incontestable.  It is a truth fully exemplified, in fact, in the death of Christ, for His willingness to die for humanity’s sins – which are invariably aspects of self-love – is as perfect an instance of the precept as may be conceived. Ultimately, then, the death of Christ exists as the template for how this most extreme of sacrifices underscores the human imperative to disregard the self for others.

Bibliography

Fedler, Kyle D.  Exploring Christian Ethics: Biblical Foundations for Morality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006

Gauss, James F.  Islam and Christianity: A Revealing Contrast.  Alachua: Bridge Logos Foundation, 2009.

Hieb, Nathan D. Christ Crucified in a Suffering World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 1998.

Livingston, James C. and Francis Fiorenza. Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century, Volume 2.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006

Martinez, German.  Signs of Freedom: Theology of the Christian Sacraments.  Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2003.

Niebuhr, Reinhold.  An Interpretation of Christian Ethics.  Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

Shuger, Debora K.  The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Vol. 29. Univ of California Press, 1998.

Justin Thacker. Postmodernism and the Ethics of Theological Knowledge. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2013

Walsh, Sylvia.  Living Christianly: Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Christian Existence. Philadelphia: Penn State Press, 2008.

Journal Articles  

Curran, Charles.  “Is There a Catholic and/or Christian Ethic?.” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 29 (2012). 125-154.

Death, Jodi. “Identity, forgiveness and power in the management of child sexual abuse by personnel in Christian Institutions.”  International Journal for Crime and Justice 2, no. 1 (2013): 82-97.

Dietrich, Donald. “God and Humanity in Auschwitz.” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America50 (2013). 221-224.

Einholf, Christopher J. “The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language.” Sociology of Religion 72, no. 4 (2011): 435-455.

Freeman, G. T. “Spirituality and Servant Leadership: A conceptual model and research proposal” Emerging Leadership Journeys 4, no. 1 (2011): 120-140.

Garvey, George E.  “The theory of the firm, managerial responsibility, and catholic social teaching.” Journal of Markets & Morality 6, no. 2 (2012). 525-540.

McCormack, Edward.  “The Power and Meaning of the Christian Worldview.” New Theology Review 21, no. 3 (2013). 39-47.

Soenens, Bart, Bart Neyrinck, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Jessie Dezutter, Dirk Hutsebaut, and Bart Duriez. “How do perceptions of God as autonomy supportive or controlling relate to            individuals’ social-cognitive processing of religious contents? The role of motives for religious behavior.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 22, no. 1 (2012): 10-30.

Van Der Merwe, E. Karen, Chrizanne Van Eeden, and Hans JM Van Deventer.  “A psychological perspective on god-belief as a source of well-being and meaning.” HTS Theological Studies 66, no. 1 (2010).

Reference Works

Holy Bible.  New King James Version.  Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Houlden, James Leslie, Ed.  Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1. Santa Clara: ABC-CLIO, 2003.

[1] Kyle D. Fedler, Exploring Christian Ethics: Biblical Foundations for Morality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 136.

[2] Nathan D. Hieb, Christ Crucified in a Suffering World (Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 2013).  124.

[3]  Deborah K. Shuger,  The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Vol. 29. (Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1998), 92.

[4] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 1998), 28.

[5]  Jodi Death., “Identity, forgiveness and power in the management of child sexual abuse by personnel in Christian Institutions.”  International Journal for Crime and Justice 2, no. 1 (2013): 85.

[6] Donald Dietrich, “God and Humanity in Auschwitz.” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 50 (2013).  223.

[7] German Martinez,  Signs of Freedom: Theology of the Christian Sacraments (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2003), 218.

[8] Holy Bible.  New King James Version (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 2005). John 3:16.

[9] James F. Gauss, Islam and Christianity: A Revealing Contrast. (Alachua: Bridge Logos Foundation, 2009). 158.

[10] E. Karen Van Der Merwe, Chrizanne Van Eeden, and Hans JM Van Deventer.  “A psychological  perspective on god-belief as a source of well-being and meaning.” HTS Theological Studies 66, no. 1. (2010).

[11] Bart Soenens, Bart Neyrinck, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Jessie Dezutter, Dirk Hutsebaut, and Bart Duriez. “How do  perceptions of God as autonomy supportive or controlling relate to individuals’ social-cognitive processing of religious contents? The role of motives for religious behavior.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 22, no. 1 (2012): 29.

[12] James Leslie Houlden,  Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (Santa Clara: ABC-CLIO, 2003), 423.

[13] James C. Livingston and Francis Fiorenza, Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century, Volume 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 399.

[14] Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 43.

[15] Holy Bible, Luke 9:23.

[16] Holy Bible, Peter 2:21.

[17] Edward McCormack,, “The Power and Meaning of the Christian Worldview.” New Theology Review 21, 3 (2013). 42.

[18] Holy Bible, Mark 10:45

[19] Christopher J. Einholf, “The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language.” Sociology of Religion 72, no. 4 (2011). 435.

[20] G.T. Freeman, “Spirituality and Servant Leadership: A conceptual model and research proposal” Emerging Leadership Journeys 4, no. 1 (2011). 123.

[21] George E. Garvey, “The theory of the firm, managerial responsibility, and catholic social teaching.” Journal of Markets & Morality 6, no. 2 (2012). 529.

[22]  Charles Curran, “Is There a Catholic and/or Christian Ethic?.” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 29 (2012). 131.

[23] Holy Bible, Matthew 16:24.

[24] Sylvia Walsh, Living Christianly: Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Christian Existence (Philadelphia: Penn State Press, 2008), 79.

[25] Justin Thacker, Postmodernism and the Ethics of Theological Knowledge (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2013), 112.