Everything Must Change 1.0
Introductory Comments
This set of essays on Brian McClaren's new book, Everything Must Change, is in response to a request from Anne at Thomas Nelson. As I have already said, I am honored, humbled, and affirmed by this request, three things I can surely use. I had heard a little about Brian and the emergent church, not much, and this is the first book I have read by him. So far, the only one. Hence, the scope of this discussion is limited only to the content of EMC.
I also must confess at the outset: I was prepared to not like this book, or to not like it much. Why? Well, for one, I am a fan of field-specialists. Brian (and I feel comfortable, after reading his book, using his first name in this series) is a pastor, and as he notes in his intro, not an expert in any field. Of course, I realize my reservations appear ludicrous for a community college teacher who has written no books himself! Also, there are excellent books by non-specialists all the time. Finally, I was correct in believing Brian was somehow associated with the emergent church, and while I knew very little about that group (which, one would think, should have kept me from forming any judgments about it) I believed emergent to be a breakaway faction concerned with individuation more than unity, the next generation of young Christians reinventing certain perspectives of their faith, focused on terminology and presentation more than substance. I admit all this because I do not want readers to think I came to Brian already a fan of his work or of the emergent project.
What I actually found in this little book, though, was and is a remarkably humane, relevant and thought-provoking Christian vision. There were times I was reading and thought I could sum up my review in one word, "duh." Or in two, "of course." As in, "isn't much of this emphasis on charity and service obvious to any Christian who has read the gospels and bothered to think about his world?" I realize that is a presumptuous position. Considering the amount of controversy Brian has generated in Christian circles, presumptous indeed.
That said, I do have qualifications and critiques, and also important questions.
Some things must be noted at the outset, even if they are obvious: Brian has had a particular experience of protestant, evangelical Christianity, and it is that understanding and experience of protestant orthodoxy that he is emerging from. I realize he is by no means alone, however, in that experience or in his larger dissatisfaction with American Evangelical doctrine and culture. Another thing which is much more signifcant for me is that, in this book anyway, Brian feels the need to read the gospels in a distinct way; primarily, he draws on a particular set of threads in their narratives. They are important threads, but his explication of Jesus' message in EMC is not exhaustive. In my view, he trims a bit more than he needs to in his eschatology; and much of his anti-imperial political interpretation feels frankly modern, though I realize he is drawing on accomplished scholars in these sections, that Jesus does make critical statements about the power plays among the 'gentiles' in the gospels, and also that Brian himself is figuring things out. That said, and this is far from a thorough discussion of these items, it is blatantly clear throughout the book that Brian is all the while driven by the most Christian of motives: loving his global neighbor in active and sacrificial terms. This is a message much of American Evangelicalism needs to hear, tragically. It is a message I personally need to hear again and again! It is also a core tenet of Christ' teaching. This book is meant to correct an imbalance in Protestantism, in Christianity, with which the church and its individuals have always struggled in varying forms. Good. In that sense, it is a prophet's message, and a very old one. I give him kudos for expressing it in such kind and collegial terms. None of the ancient prophets, nor Jesus, was ever so gentle on the same topic! Read the calamitous, apocalyptic parable at the end of Matthew 25 for a chilling refresher.
In summary then, the spirit of this book, its core, its foundational tenet, is mercy. EMC is continually informed by concern for the poor and controlled and suffering, and anger at the wealthy and oppressive and comfortably self-absorbed and the systems which support and prolong these inequities; quite similar themes run deep in the prophets and inform many statements by the Jesus of the gospels. And this is content far too many Christians ignore! The core ideas in EMC are not new; they are at least as old as the prophet Amos and, in varying forms, they can be found in Christian teachers from the first century forward. But Brian presents these ideas in fresh and relevant ways to a contemporary, and sometimes tragically ignorant, American audience.
In closing my introduction, I note once again: I am not a biblical scholar or expert! I have not had time to research or read many of the outside sources Brian relies on (though some I know). Believe me, I want that education! (Whenever I hear an actual NT scholar speak about spending decades thinking about a biblical textual issue, I wince with envy). I am just a human man, an English teacher, struggling day to day, finding meaning in his Christian practice and scriptures and trying to reconcile that with reason and other experience.
On that note, let's begin.
***
First Questions
I had many questions on how to organize my review. This is an already published book, so I am not making suggestions for change during the drafting process. And as I've said, EMC covers vast ground! Some areas intrigue me much more than others. And so since this is a project gratis…I am simply going to take particular sections of the book which catch my attention and discuss them one at a time. Perhaps it is my English teacher vocation, but I must begin with a bit of critique and question.
Postmodern. What does this word mean, and does it matter?
In literary theory, if it is even possible to define postmodern literary theory quickly, postmodernism relies on a very pessimistic epistemology, largely as a result of the perceived weaknesses of human language. (For those who would like an infinitely better definition, I recommend Terry Eagleton's book Literary Theory.) Hence, the postmodern or deconstructionist critic will take a traditional reading of, say, the Henry James short story "The Beast in the Jungle," where the author seems to have a clear didactic purpose (as is true in nearly all American realism) and then undermine that apparent meaning by drawing on small pieces of the text. Unravel the center from the inside. A line by one character, a particular descriptive sentence or even a single word. The deconstructionist will use any piece of the narrative she can find which seems to stand in contrast to the central "meaning" of the story, and there make an incision in the (we are now shown) illusory meaning of the text, and the point is proven in fact that the story is an unfocused, though perhaps intricately beautiful, blur of linguistic symbols without an unchallenged center.
Now that may be a bad definition, but it is a start. I have always thought literary postmodernism was the application of existentialism, especially atheistic existentialism, to language and literature (for a first hand experience of the existential crisis, I recommend reading Sartre's Nausea). While the early wave of literary postmodernism has passed, to the genuine relief of quite a few faculty and students in the field, its influence remains clear in later forms of theory, as movement succeeds movement in the push to publish; it is clearly evident in new historicism or revisionist history, where one can no longer say easily, "the Renaissance man thought like this." History has become a much more complex discipline after postmodernism, and I think this has merit. I am no longer involved in current literary theory; in fact, my disillusionment with it was one of the reasons I did not pursue a Ph.D. But I believe what thrives in lit theory now is a mix of postmodernism, feminism and other civil rights concerns, neo-Marxism, and psychoanalysis post-Freud. Those strands, blended different ways, have given birth to post colonialism, for example, where what matters in the text is not so much aesthetic value (none of the above schools are focused on aesthetic value), but the detection of the "colonial gaze," of how colonial metanarrative has influenced a particular piece of literature. By colonial I mean generally what Brian means by colonial, incidentally: the assumptions and presuppositions historically found in aggressively expansive communities of any size, the tenets of empire.
Hence my confusion over what the emergent church means by postmodern! They do not mean what literary critics mean. As an English teacher, I have to get that obvious point out at the start. So, what does Brian mean by the term? As pomo has become something of a badge for the emergent community, what is it?
Brian defines postmodern on pages 34 to about 39 (though he discusses it later also) drawing on a Walter Percy essay I have not read. Still, Brian's definition is startling…for him, postmodern is really a critique and reflection on modern; and for Brian modern means, of all things, a deadly cultural overconfidence (36). And not just any overconfidence, but an overconfidence which led to Nazism, Stalinism, and both World Wars. This is a striking definition! It deserves discussion.
While many sections of Brian's book are well footnoted, this is not one of them. He notes some European and American thinkers came to this conclusion without providing one name! I believe he is telling the truth, but I would certainly like to read them on my own! Who are these "many thinkers" (38) and "certain philosophers" (39). We are not told. He does bring in Descartes; apparently, this "excessive confidence" (38) can be traced back to Descartes' philosophy which is here called foundationalism. The second cause of the destructive overconfidence which led to the disasters of the first half of the 20th century is to be found in metanarratives, or "framing stories" (39). By these, I believe, he means presuppositions and attitudes which permeate any culture.
Here I must interject. I have read Descartes' Meditations and Discourse on Method. I recommend them both as very readable but important philosophical documents (and they can easily be found in one volume). Descartes, of course, was a Christian who spent a fair amount of energy attempting to prove God's existence and a subsequent optimistic world view purely using reason. By this I mean Descartes shut himself up in his room with a stove and thought. His reflections and conclusions are presented in these two short books.
I simply cannot believe that the grotesque and widespread violence of the 20th century has anything significant to do with this man or his philosophy. And why? Because what made the 20th century different from any other century in recorded history was more efficient killing, communication and transportation technologies. It is convenient to think that Descartes, a relatively recent figure in history, may have sparked proto modernism which resulted in multi-national catastrophes as it flowered, but this is simply not the case. Humans have always done horrific things to each other, individually and within groups. Why is a question I'd like to consider in another post in this series, but it is clear to see this is true. We can indeed hope that emphasis on individual civil rights, widespread education, and global efforts against disease and poverty may make the post European colonial period different from the post Alexandrian, or post Roman. Metanarratives do matter, and I will have more to say here also. But I simply do not believe the recent modern age was a whit less humane than prior ages. If the Nazis had excessive confidence, what do we attribute to Phillip's son Alexander? Or the Roman generals, like Ceasar, who butchered for career advantage (and in Caesar's case, then took his ambition into Rome itself). Or the English Kings Henry 4 and 5 who promoted an incredibly prolonged conqest of France? The exploitation of nationalism in the service of aggression is an old trick; even the Roman poet Horace speaks out against it! And to what do we attribute slavery in any age, including American slavery, a repugnant, racially based and typically permanent condition which took centuries and a bloody civil war to end? I often have students read Frederick Douglass' Narrative, his personal account of his slavery experience, and I ask them, 'how could individuals and groups who claimed to follow Christianity, the Jesus of the gospels, committed such acts?' If you have not read Douglass, you must. It is provocative to ponder this. I would agree metanarratives, cultural assumptions, in service to other drives are responsible. But the drives behind human aggression and the ease with which we ostracize, dehumanize the 'other' are forces that are always with us. If there is any hope for our future age, our postmodern age...it is learning viable alternatives. Those alternatives, as Brian correctly notes, form a significant portion of the gospels. They are also the focus of his book.
That is enough for now, friends. I finished EMC a month ago, but it has been a busy month as it always seems to be. I enjoy the reflection on Brian's ideas as much as I enjoy the writing! Please be patient, Anne, as I churn these posts out; it may reasonably take me all semester to finish.
And if you have not gotten the book, do! My critiques do not undercut the Christian importance of these ideas. But for now, sincere love to all.
This set of essays on Brian McClaren's new book, Everything Must Change, is in response to a request from Anne at Thomas Nelson. As I have already said, I am honored, humbled, and affirmed by this request, three things I can surely use. I had heard a little about Brian and the emergent church, not much, and this is the first book I have read by him. So far, the only one. Hence, the scope of this discussion is limited only to the content of EMC.
I also must confess at the outset: I was prepared to not like this book, or to not like it much. Why? Well, for one, I am a fan of field-specialists. Brian (and I feel comfortable, after reading his book, using his first name in this series) is a pastor, and as he notes in his intro, not an expert in any field. Of course, I realize my reservations appear ludicrous for a community college teacher who has written no books himself! Also, there are excellent books by non-specialists all the time. Finally, I was correct in believing Brian was somehow associated with the emergent church, and while I knew very little about that group (which, one would think, should have kept me from forming any judgments about it) I believed emergent to be a breakaway faction concerned with individuation more than unity, the next generation of young Christians reinventing certain perspectives of their faith, focused on terminology and presentation more than substance. I admit all this because I do not want readers to think I came to Brian already a fan of his work or of the emergent project.
What I actually found in this little book, though, was and is a remarkably humane, relevant and thought-provoking Christian vision. There were times I was reading and thought I could sum up my review in one word, "duh." Or in two, "of course." As in, "isn't much of this emphasis on charity and service obvious to any Christian who has read the gospels and bothered to think about his world?" I realize that is a presumptuous position. Considering the amount of controversy Brian has generated in Christian circles, presumptous indeed.
That said, I do have qualifications and critiques, and also important questions.
Some things must be noted at the outset, even if they are obvious: Brian has had a particular experience of protestant, evangelical Christianity, and it is that understanding and experience of protestant orthodoxy that he is emerging from. I realize he is by no means alone, however, in that experience or in his larger dissatisfaction with American Evangelical doctrine and culture. Another thing which is much more signifcant for me is that, in this book anyway, Brian feels the need to read the gospels in a distinct way; primarily, he draws on a particular set of threads in their narratives. They are important threads, but his explication of Jesus' message in EMC is not exhaustive. In my view, he trims a bit more than he needs to in his eschatology; and much of his anti-imperial political interpretation feels frankly modern, though I realize he is drawing on accomplished scholars in these sections, that Jesus does make critical statements about the power plays among the 'gentiles' in the gospels, and also that Brian himself is figuring things out. That said, and this is far from a thorough discussion of these items, it is blatantly clear throughout the book that Brian is all the while driven by the most Christian of motives: loving his global neighbor in active and sacrificial terms. This is a message much of American Evangelicalism needs to hear, tragically. It is a message I personally need to hear again and again! It is also a core tenet of Christ' teaching. This book is meant to correct an imbalance in Protestantism, in Christianity, with which the church and its individuals have always struggled in varying forms. Good. In that sense, it is a prophet's message, and a very old one. I give him kudos for expressing it in such kind and collegial terms. None of the ancient prophets, nor Jesus, was ever so gentle on the same topic! Read the calamitous, apocalyptic parable at the end of Matthew 25 for a chilling refresher.
In summary then, the spirit of this book, its core, its foundational tenet, is mercy. EMC is continually informed by concern for the poor and controlled and suffering, and anger at the wealthy and oppressive and comfortably self-absorbed and the systems which support and prolong these inequities; quite similar themes run deep in the prophets and inform many statements by the Jesus of the gospels. And this is content far too many Christians ignore! The core ideas in EMC are not new; they are at least as old as the prophet Amos and, in varying forms, they can be found in Christian teachers from the first century forward. But Brian presents these ideas in fresh and relevant ways to a contemporary, and sometimes tragically ignorant, American audience.
In closing my introduction, I note once again: I am not a biblical scholar or expert! I have not had time to research or read many of the outside sources Brian relies on (though some I know). Believe me, I want that education! (Whenever I hear an actual NT scholar speak about spending decades thinking about a biblical textual issue, I wince with envy). I am just a human man, an English teacher, struggling day to day, finding meaning in his Christian practice and scriptures and trying to reconcile that with reason and other experience.
On that note, let's begin.
***
First Questions
I had many questions on how to organize my review. This is an already published book, so I am not making suggestions for change during the drafting process. And as I've said, EMC covers vast ground! Some areas intrigue me much more than others. And so since this is a project gratis…I am simply going to take particular sections of the book which catch my attention and discuss them one at a time. Perhaps it is my English teacher vocation, but I must begin with a bit of critique and question.
Postmodern. What does this word mean, and does it matter?
In literary theory, if it is even possible to define postmodern literary theory quickly, postmodernism relies on a very pessimistic epistemology, largely as a result of the perceived weaknesses of human language. (For those who would like an infinitely better definition, I recommend Terry Eagleton's book Literary Theory.) Hence, the postmodern or deconstructionist critic will take a traditional reading of, say, the Henry James short story "The Beast in the Jungle," where the author seems to have a clear didactic purpose (as is true in nearly all American realism) and then undermine that apparent meaning by drawing on small pieces of the text. Unravel the center from the inside. A line by one character, a particular descriptive sentence or even a single word. The deconstructionist will use any piece of the narrative she can find which seems to stand in contrast to the central "meaning" of the story, and there make an incision in the (we are now shown) illusory meaning of the text, and the point is proven in fact that the story is an unfocused, though perhaps intricately beautiful, blur of linguistic symbols without an unchallenged center.
Now that may be a bad definition, but it is a start. I have always thought literary postmodernism was the application of existentialism, especially atheistic existentialism, to language and literature (for a first hand experience of the existential crisis, I recommend reading Sartre's Nausea). While the early wave of literary postmodernism has passed, to the genuine relief of quite a few faculty and students in the field, its influence remains clear in later forms of theory, as movement succeeds movement in the push to publish; it is clearly evident in new historicism or revisionist history, where one can no longer say easily, "the Renaissance man thought like this." History has become a much more complex discipline after postmodernism, and I think this has merit. I am no longer involved in current literary theory; in fact, my disillusionment with it was one of the reasons I did not pursue a Ph.D. But I believe what thrives in lit theory now is a mix of postmodernism, feminism and other civil rights concerns, neo-Marxism, and psychoanalysis post-Freud. Those strands, blended different ways, have given birth to post colonialism, for example, where what matters in the text is not so much aesthetic value (none of the above schools are focused on aesthetic value), but the detection of the "colonial gaze," of how colonial metanarrative has influenced a particular piece of literature. By colonial I mean generally what Brian means by colonial, incidentally: the assumptions and presuppositions historically found in aggressively expansive communities of any size, the tenets of empire.
Hence my confusion over what the emergent church means by postmodern! They do not mean what literary critics mean. As an English teacher, I have to get that obvious point out at the start. So, what does Brian mean by the term? As pomo has become something of a badge for the emergent community, what is it?
Brian defines postmodern on pages 34 to about 39 (though he discusses it later also) drawing on a Walter Percy essay I have not read. Still, Brian's definition is startling…for him, postmodern is really a critique and reflection on modern; and for Brian modern means, of all things, a deadly cultural overconfidence (36). And not just any overconfidence, but an overconfidence which led to Nazism, Stalinism, and both World Wars. This is a striking definition! It deserves discussion.
While many sections of Brian's book are well footnoted, this is not one of them. He notes some European and American thinkers came to this conclusion without providing one name! I believe he is telling the truth, but I would certainly like to read them on my own! Who are these "many thinkers" (38) and "certain philosophers" (39). We are not told. He does bring in Descartes; apparently, this "excessive confidence" (38) can be traced back to Descartes' philosophy which is here called foundationalism. The second cause of the destructive overconfidence which led to the disasters of the first half of the 20th century is to be found in metanarratives, or "framing stories" (39). By these, I believe, he means presuppositions and attitudes which permeate any culture.
Here I must interject. I have read Descartes' Meditations and Discourse on Method. I recommend them both as very readable but important philosophical documents (and they can easily be found in one volume). Descartes, of course, was a Christian who spent a fair amount of energy attempting to prove God's existence and a subsequent optimistic world view purely using reason. By this I mean Descartes shut himself up in his room with a stove and thought. His reflections and conclusions are presented in these two short books.
I simply cannot believe that the grotesque and widespread violence of the 20th century has anything significant to do with this man or his philosophy. And why? Because what made the 20th century different from any other century in recorded history was more efficient killing, communication and transportation technologies. It is convenient to think that Descartes, a relatively recent figure in history, may have sparked proto modernism which resulted in multi-national catastrophes as it flowered, but this is simply not the case. Humans have always done horrific things to each other, individually and within groups. Why is a question I'd like to consider in another post in this series, but it is clear to see this is true. We can indeed hope that emphasis on individual civil rights, widespread education, and global efforts against disease and poverty may make the post European colonial period different from the post Alexandrian, or post Roman. Metanarratives do matter, and I will have more to say here also. But I simply do not believe the recent modern age was a whit less humane than prior ages. If the Nazis had excessive confidence, what do we attribute to Phillip's son Alexander? Or the Roman generals, like Ceasar, who butchered for career advantage (and in Caesar's case, then took his ambition into Rome itself). Or the English Kings Henry 4 and 5 who promoted an incredibly prolonged conqest of France? The exploitation of nationalism in the service of aggression is an old trick; even the Roman poet Horace speaks out against it! And to what do we attribute slavery in any age, including American slavery, a repugnant, racially based and typically permanent condition which took centuries and a bloody civil war to end? I often have students read Frederick Douglass' Narrative, his personal account of his slavery experience, and I ask them, 'how could individuals and groups who claimed to follow Christianity, the Jesus of the gospels, committed such acts?' If you have not read Douglass, you must. It is provocative to ponder this. I would agree metanarratives, cultural assumptions, in service to other drives are responsible. But the drives behind human aggression and the ease with which we ostracize, dehumanize the 'other' are forces that are always with us. If there is any hope for our future age, our postmodern age...it is learning viable alternatives. Those alternatives, as Brian correctly notes, form a significant portion of the gospels. They are also the focus of his book.
That is enough for now, friends. I finished EMC a month ago, but it has been a busy month as it always seems to be. I enjoy the reflection on Brian's ideas as much as I enjoy the writing! Please be patient, Anne, as I churn these posts out; it may reasonably take me all semester to finish.
And if you have not gotten the book, do! My critiques do not undercut the Christian importance of these ideas. But for now, sincere love to all.
Comments
http://www.shanebertou.com