I suppose this is the kind of book I’ll have to hide on my bookshelf when guest come over to visit.
Eagleton offers an accessible and interesting introI suppose this is the kind of book I’ll have to hide on my bookshelf when guest come over to visit.
Eagleton offers an accessible and interesting introduction to Marx’s thought. In a world where socialism and Marxism are tossed around as accusations, with little effort to understand what they actually are, this book is a breath of fresh air. It is not just an introduction, but a defense of Marx and a critique of capitalism. For example, against the accusation that Marxism has led to the death of millions, Eagleton shows that capitalism has its own, and currently growing, body count.
If you’re into this sort of book, definitely worth your time. It would just be nice if people took an effort to learn more about these ideas. But that is expecting a lot from the low effort, media that has to keep churning out propaganda that props up the current system....more
The Religious Left is notoriously difficult to define. This is partly because many who appear solidly to fit the description, defy the title. In this The Religious Left is notoriously difficult to define. This is partly because many who appear solidly to fit the description, defy the title. In this book, Jenkins sets out to tell stories of the Religious Left and their impact on politics in the last two decades. When I first saw this book, I thought it was more of a history of the roots of the Religious Left, somewhat similar to Kevin Kruse’s book on the origins of the Religious Right in the 1930s. While Jenkins briefly mentions some of this older history, this is not a history book. Or at least, its a history book of the first 20 years of the 21st century.
This is a helpful, even necessary, book. The Religious Right dominates the religiously informed political discourse in America. “Evangelical” has basically become a synonym for Republican. If you’re actively religious, in the eyes of non-religious people, the assumption is you are conservative and Republican. The reality is that there is a vibrant, energetic, diverse and passionate Religious Left. Unlike the Religious Right, which is overwhelmingly white and Christian, the Religious Left is much more ethnically and religiously diverse.
It reminds me of a conversation I had prior to the last presidential election. An acquaintance of mine, himself a conservative Christian, stated that the majority of Christians will vote for Trump. After I held in my vomit, I pointed out that such a statement is racist, since the truth is while most white evangelical Christians did vote Trump, nearly 90% of black Christians vote Democrat. Apparently, these religiously motivated voters were not even on his radar.
Jenkins’ book helps put such voters on our radar. He writes of Catholic nuns who advocated for the Affordable Care Act and the Obama campaign’s outreach to religious folks. He introduces readers to LGBTQ religious activists as well Native Americans, Jews and Muslims. In the end, we see a wide-ranging and diverse movement.
As someone who grew up in a white conservative evangelical tradition and has since moved to the left, I loved this book. I was familiar with some of these stories and people, but enjoyed learning more. Personally, I hope the Religious Left continues to grow. The way things have continued to deteriorate since the last election, we need the Religious Left.
I suppose the only thing I wish this book had was some sort of index of organizations and ways to get involved. Overall though, great book. ...more
One of the biggest disappointments of my life was seeing so many Christians I admired as a teenager totally betray their principles in supporting TrumOne of the biggest disappointments of my life was seeing so many Christians I admired as a teenager totally betray their principles in supporting Trump in 2016. Those who once said “character matters” when it was Bill Clinton’s sins, turned and said character actually doesn’t matter. The hypocrisy, lust for power and means justifying the ends we’re patently obvious.
Fea, a top notch Christian historian, tells the story of the history of evangelicals in politics. This book is short but covers a lot of ground. It’s a must read for anyone, like me, who wonders how Christians could support Trump.
Note I said “support”, not “vote for.” It’s one thing to hold your nose and reluctantly vote for the lesser of two evils. But this is not what Franklin Graham, Eric Metaxas, Jerry Falwell Jr or others have done. They support and defend Trump. I mean, they got their precious judges (in exchange for any sort of witness to an entire generation) so why not cut their losses and support impeachment, with a bonafide evangelical like Pence waiting in the wings? At this point, they’ve hitched their wagon to Trump, revealing their real gods.
As Fea talks about, the goal is changing the Supreme Court at all costs. We must ask though, what’s the cost? They want to make America great again, which begs the question, when was this past time America was great? 1950s? 1790s?
Overall, this book helps understand why so many evangelicals flocked to Trump. For many Christians of a certain age, this is a phenomenon that needs explaining. Fea does a good job as any....more
Humans are primarily creatures of love, not merely creatures of thinking. This is one of the primary insights James KA Smith has made throughout his tHumans are primarily creatures of love, not merely creatures of thinking. This is one of the primary insights James KA Smith has made throughout his three books in his Cultural Liturgies series. Drinking deeply from the well of modernity, too many Christians uncritically accepted that we primarily approach the world as thinkers. From this, if you want to change a person the place to start is to change their mind. Smith argues that it is in our liturgy - our practices of worship - that we are truly shaped. Further, life is filled with competing liturgies. No one is handed a textbook as a child that argues them into becoming good consumers or Americans. Instead, it is our experiences at shopping malls, hearing advertisements on tv, being given toys at holidays from our child years, and judging worth based on money that shapes us into consumers. The same goes for being patriotic Americans - fourth of July parades, pledges every morning at school and more shape us from our earliest years. The church offers a competing liturgy from the worship service each week (which Smith emphasizes in Desiring the Kingdom) to the church years, daily office and more.
In this final book, Smith turns to politics. But not politics as we often think about it, focused only on how we vote once a year. Politics encompasses the whole of public life, of Christian being in the world. Throughout the book he leans heavily on Augustine's classic City of God and Oliver O'Donovan's The Desire of the Nations. Smith writes from the Reformed perspective, speaking often of Kuyper, but not uncritically. He also is in conversation with Hauerwas, Milbank, MacIntyre and many others. That said, while this book is not an easy read by any stretch, it serves as a fantastic distillation of the work of these other writers. Smith is writing for pastors and while the typical pastor may not read City of God, she can read Smith.
Overall, this might be my favorite book in the series. I have long wrestled with what it looks like to bring my faith into the public square. Working with college students, discussions on this are a regular thing. What does it mean to be a loyal American and a Christian? Can you be? I tend to put myself in the Anabaptist camp (with some of my favorite writers/pastors being guys like Greg Boyd and Brian Zahnd). At the same time, I have often felt uncomfortable with a sort of retreat from society sectarianism implicit in much Anabaptism. Shouldn't our faith apply to public life in some way? These seems to be some sort of arbitrary line drawn in many cases. Voting, or even advocating, for truth and justice is fine, the Anabaptists tell me, but actually serving in law enforcement or politics is not. But why? And why are Christians in other businesses which are as steeped in injustice (and sin) not held to the same standard as Christians in politics.
Of course, I am even more uncomfortable with what passes for much Christian engagement in America. Progressive Christians often seem to basically look to government alone as savior and to jettison anything distinctly Christian in order to get on the cultural progress bandwagon. Conservative Christians have come out of the closet in recent decades, ultimately selling their souls for a taste of power by endorsing a megalomaniac narcissist in Trump.
Through all this, Smith offers what I think is a pretty tight way forward. He argues that Augustine's City of God has been misread into a sort of two-kingdoms theology where we Christians have different allegiances. This is to take later Christian thought and read it back to Augustine. Our allegiance, Smith argues Augustine is saying, is to God's kingdom. Period. The heavenly city is breaking into this world. The problem is that we substitute geography for time. So we see God's kingdom as over here, but then the earthly city is over there, and we owe allegiance to both in different levels. But the real issue is time - the earthly city exists but is passing away as the heavenly city becomes more a reality.
From this, Smith offers an argument that essentially redeems Christendom. The radical idea underpinning Christendom was that these earthly kingdoms are all subject to something greater - God's kingdom. The Church was meant to function in Christendom as a prophetic voice. We Christians live in these earthly cities, but the ultimate city is God's.
This is one huge place I think many of my Anabaptist friends are sloppy in their analysis. The rhetoric often goes that Christendom was bad. Period. Constantine converted and everything went downhill. The question is, should Constantine not have been allowed to convert? Should he have resigned as emperor? Does faith not have a place in public life? Further, Smith briefly contrasts Eusebius with Augustine. Eusebius is the sort of apologist for Empire that Anabaptists are right to be deeply critical of. But like any historical analysis, things are more complex in the details. In other words, not all Christian political thinkers were Eusebius. There was Ambrose of Milan challenging Emperor Theodosius after the slaughter of Thessalonika. Augustine is more in line with Ambrose then he was with Eusebius. Christendom cannot simply be seen as evil all through. Further, and this is much more of Smith's book than I am mentioning, he argues that the assumptions of our liberal democracy (freedom of speech, representative democracy, etc.) are all rooted in the Christian faith. A large part of Christian political theology is reminding the culture that these ideas at the core of our post-Christian secular societies are not a given but are instead rooted in Christian thought.
At the same time, Christendom was not perfect. Smith ends the book with discussing the challenge of Christian failure. If formation happens in a life of liturgy, then how come so many Christians steeped in the rhythms of Christian life, failed miserably. How was it that Christians not only reluctantly went along with the trans-Atlantic slave-trade but endorsed it wholeheartedly? Smith's answer is to remind us we live in a world of competing liturgies. These evils happened when other liturgies (nationalism, racism) twisted authentic Christian liturgy. The solution is not no liturgy because we cannot have no liturgy. This is the point he made earlier in the book, and throughout the series. You cannot escape liturgy. If we think we can enter the political realm as a sort of neutral sphere, we are wrong. Even the political realm and the public place shape us. Sometimes, both present and past, these other liturgies have snuck into the church and shaped us more than the story of Jesus (think of the Christians today who attend church faithfully but spend the other six days immersed in Fox News or CNN and talk radio...which is shaping them more?).
I do wish this is one place Smith had gone a little farther. Smith emphasizes that if we believe the Christian story of who God is and what God has done in Jesus, this is good news for everyone. So we owe it, out of love, to not lay aside our faith as we enter the public sphere but to be driven by our faith. A culture infused with the gospel at all levels is going to lead to flourishing for all people. Yet, the question is, what do we do about those who cannot help but see the spectre of Christians wanting to take over and force their morality on other people? History is littered with the bodies of those who died at the hands of others who thought they knew what was best. Of course, Smith would argue that the Christian story has no place for such destruction. But do Christians today have any standing to convince the watching world we actually want what is best for them?
For example, Smith uses "evangelical" throughout the book. I think to most people today, "evangelical" means "white Christian Republicans". I don't think that is what Smith means. He might respond he is using the word in its proper, scholarly meaning. But the 99% of people who don't read books like this don't think of evangelicals in the proper, historical way. Smith might say that most "evangelicals" in America have been more shaped by the liturgies of Fox News, the Republican party and talk radio (Progressive Christians have their own liturgies corrupting them). But if that is the case, is it a helpful word on a practical level?
Along with that, I wonder about the example Smith gives on p. 156-157. Here he talks about how some have realized that arguing on the terms of "natural law" has failed so why not just argue honestly from their faith. This is a good point. But his example is arguments against the legality of same-sex marriage. Whatever the individual reader personally thinks about same-sex marriage is not the point here; my question is, why that issue? The argument is that a Christian public theology will be good for everyone. But the example is the one issue conservative Christians always focus on. The curious reader may wonder, does such a political theology really want what's best for me? Is a committed same-sex couple that has been married for four decades bad for society? Really? If we think it is, then okay, then say same-sex marriage should be illegal. Logically, a promiscuous straight man is also bad for society. Shouldn't all sex outside marriage be illegal. Perhaps excessive sugar is bad for society as it leads to obesity which leads to healthcare costs and such. What about violent movies? Women showing too much skin? Men showing too much skin? Playing cards?
My point is that even as I agree with 95% of what Smith is saying, there are hints like the one above that make me wonder if a Christian political theology that he endorses has really learned from the errors of Christendom? After all, why the focus on sex and not on violence. My Anabaptist friends would say (and I agree here) that Jesus' teaching is clearly for his followers to not take up the sword. But, as Smith illustrates with a fantastic story of Augustine, a Christian political theology can leave room for military force in some cases, why couldn't a Christian political theology essentially leave same-sex couples alone. Again, my issue is not necessarily with whether or not same-sex relationships per se, it is with singling them out. Maybe I am reading a lot into two pages and one illustration. But, for the curious outsider wondering if a Christian public theology is really good for them, this might make them wonder if legislating Christian morality will lead to the worst of Puritanism.
That aside, this book is excellent. It leaves room for more discussion and thought. Smith helps me see the good in Christendom and reminds us to be humble in our work in the world. May we be truly humble as we both speak truth in love and work for the good of everyone. ...more
This is a short book with lessons on what tyrants do and how to resist. I've been reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and The Gulag ArchipelThis is a short book with lessons on what tyrants do and how to resist. I've been reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and The Gulag Archipelago is on my list, so this seemed like a helpful one to read at the same time. Snyder's lessons come from the Nazi and Communist tyrants. It is amazing that the tyrannies he speaks of was not that long ago, but we arrogantly assume such could never happen again!
The writing of this book was motivated by the election of President Trump and the many things he said during the campaign that echoed tyrants of the past. Though President Trump is clearly the background for this, the lessons are greater than just Trump. I imagine Trump fans might bristle at Trump's place here, but there is value because these lessons apply to any tyrant. If anything, I wish the author had done more to emphasize tyranny could come from both the right or the left. We don't have to look far to find rallies on universities to oppose even the speeches from conservatives, as well as the firing or social-media shamming of those who speak the unaccepted view. "I believe in free speech, but..." is a trope I often hear from those on the left. Shutting down the other side, exchanging dialogue for simply crushing our opponents, is a symptom of both sides of our political and cultural scene in America.
Overall though, this is a helpful and must-read book....more
The first volume of Soltzhenitsyn's book was fantastic, this one is so much better. Yes, part 3 (which consists about 597 of the 672 pages) drags Wow.
The first volume of Soltzhenitsyn's book was fantastic, this one is so much better. Yes, part 3 (which consists about 597 of the 672 pages) drags after a while. In it he takes the reader through the Gulag, with chapters on the overseers, the children and pretty much every other aspect of the camps. We know it is vital to never forget the horrors of 20th century totalitarianism, and this book ought to be required reading to help us never forget.
But it is the short part four where the best of the book comes in. Soltzhenitsyn talks about how the camp brought out who people really are. People, he argues, did not become evil in the camp. Rather, they were already evil and this brought it out. This reminds me of Jesus' teachings about those faithful in small things will be given more. Who are really are when you're poor and insignificant will be amplified if given the chance. At the same time, Soltzhenitsyn reminds us that it is not just that some are evil, for that dividing line runs through each of us (fun fact, that is the one quote you may be familiar with, and he says it twice, having said it early in volume 1).
[image]
How does that work? How is it both true that people in the camps who became corrupt already were like that, as opposed to those in the campus who persevered? Soltzhenitsyn speaks about a moral core, a nucleus, and I think that's it. We are all capable of horrific things. If I look at those camp guards, the people who performed horrible acts, and recognize they are part of the same human race, that has to be humbling. I'm just as human as they are. I am just as capable of evil, for that line goes right through me. We need to be honest with who we are and discover that moral nucleus that would enable us to persevere in the worst circumstances.
As our culture leaves some of its traditional foundations for morals behind...its easy to think we're in trouble as a culture. May we not be too quick to leave the wisdom of the past behind. This brings me back to Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, which I read recently. If the Gulag is too intimidating in its length, check that one out first. Then come back here.
So slog through the first 600 pages and read closely the last 80. Its worth it!...more
This book provides a glimpse into the Obama White House by a man who worked on relations with faith groups. Wear shares his story of how he came to evThis book provides a glimpse into the Obama White House by a man who worked on relations with faith groups. Wear shares his story of how he came to evangelical faith and joined the hope filled Obama campaign in 2008. He talks about his work not just on the campaign, but also in the administration. This includes everything from the annual prayer breakfast to the contraception mandate and Obama's "evolution" on same sex marriage. Wear points out both the positives and the negatives of working in government in general and the Obama white house specifically.
The biggest negatives, for Wear, were seen in the shift from a hope-filled bridge-building campaign in 2008 that sought to include all Americans to a defensive, attack-filled campaign in 2012 that seemed to shut people out who did not agree on all the issues. Wear argues that the demand in recent years for everyone to agree on everything within a party is not good for the parties or for America. It leads to a hardening of parties as those who do not agree on everything walk away which in turn puts the two major parties further apart (as only the fringe remains) and contributes to our warring political discourse. In the end he remains hopeful though and the book ends on a hopeful note, a hope driven by his own faith in the God of hope who is working in history (as MLK said, the arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice)....more
This book is an extended critique of capitalism in conversation with the philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze. I enjoy books such as this because I haveThis book is an extended critique of capitalism in conversation with the philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze. I enjoy books such as this because I have always wanted to read and understand philosophy but have never had the time or patience to wade through the likes of such writers. Someone like Bell not only explains aspects of philosophy but applies it to real life. Bell’s argument is that capitalism shapes our desires in numerous ways that we may not even be able to imagine. For example, Mardi Gras may appear to be a revolt against conformity, a step outside the normal day-to-day of capitalist america, but Bell shows how the very beads exchanged on Mardi Gras are a huge business, created in factories far away. Capitalism is at work. What capitalism does is tells us to feed our desire, to become a purchaser. The hope of capitalism would be that even those who are poor producers, such as the ones working in the sweatshop making the beads, could become purchasers.
Bell contrasts this with Christian faith. While capitalism calls on us to feed our desire, Christianity calls on us to reform our desires. What capitalism sees as normal, Christianity sees as sin. Bell brings both scripture and the Christian tradition to this, emphasizing that Christianity seeks the common good and human flourishing, things that capitalism has little place for. Bell shows this by much reference to the originators of capitalism (Adam Smith) and its Christian defenders today. Yet if you fear that Bell, in criticizing capitalism, is embracing some sort of leftist socialism, have no fear. He resists writing as if our choice is two worldly systems, calling on Christians to recognize a bigger and better system. For that reason, this is a message Christians need to hear. Too many have so wedded their faith and culture that to challenge something like capitalism may be to challenge Christianity itself. Bell shows the problems in capitalism and even provides a way forward for how Christians can live in a better economy....more
This book is a good study of how America has come to disproportionately rely on military prowess throughout the globe for our safety and comfort. I prThis book is a good study of how America has come to disproportionately rely on military prowess throughout the globe for our safety and comfort. I previously read Bacevich's The Limits of Power (2008) which has a broader focus. This book, written in 2005, focuses exclusively on the military. Where others blame George W. Bush for the direction the American military took after 9/11, Bacevich shows that America was already on this path decades prior to Bush. Rather than starting something new, Bush simply took the next step. Bacevich looks at this from many sides with chapters on the rise of neo-conservatives and the influence of evangelical Christians for example.
If you are tired of people exclusively blaming one political party or the other for whatever problems there are in the world, Bacevich is an author you would like because he demonstrates that many of our deepest problems have been caused by both Republicans and Democrats. He closes with a chapter filled with recommendations on how to move forward.
Bacevich writes, "Several decades after Vietnam, in the aftermath of a century filled to overflowing with evidence pointing to the limited utility of armed force and the dangers inherent in relying exclusively on military power, the American people have persuaded themselves that their best prospect for safety and salvation lies with the sword. Told that despite all of their past martial exertions, treasure expended, and lives sacrificed, the world they inhabit is today more dangerous than ever and that they must redouble those exertions, they dutifully assent. Much as dumping raw sewage into American lakes and streams was once deemed unremarkable, so today 'global power projection' - a phrase whose sharp edges we have worn down through casual use, but which implies military activism without apparent limit - has become standard practice, a normal condition, one to which no plausible alternatives seem to exist" (208).
He suggests we heed the intentions of the Founders who appreciated the need for military power while respecting its dangers, never intending the US to employ military power to remake the world in its image or police the entire globe. He also implores us to remember the separation of powers, realizing the Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibility in deciding when the US goes to war. Other suggestions are to view force as a last resort and thus to renounce preventive war, to enhance US self-sufficiency by taking steps to limit US dependence on foreign resources, to organize the military explicitly for defense by bringing troops home in places they are not needed (such as places that are more than capable of defending themselves) and to reduce defense spending in light of the fact that even a reduction in the tens of billions would still put us far ahead of the combined spending of many countries behind us. He offers other suggestions too, all very practical.
Overall, Bacevich writes well and cogently and provides a voice of reason and sanity. ...more
Bacevich argues that the impulses which have led America to wars that seem to have no exit and no deadline have come from within our country, from ourBacevich argues that the impulses which have led America to wars that seem to have no exit and no deadline have come from within our country, from our own "domestic ambitions, urges and fears" (5). The problem is that we Americans expect the rest of the world to accommodate our way of life, a way of life rooted in consumption. We want "more"! This has led us to a point, as individuals and a country, when we are unable to live within our means. When a president (Carter) dared say we try to live with less, he was destroyed in the next election as Reagan told Americans they could have more. I found interesting how Bacevich showed that previous wars (WWII) required sacrifice by those still at home, while our current wars have come with politicians telling us to live as if nothing is different (keep shopping!).
Along with this economic crisis, there is a political and military crisis. The political crisis is seen in terms of both parties really being just one party that wants to keep the status quo, perhaps disagree on small things, but agree on big things (such as Americans always being able to get more). Also, an imperial presidency that increasingly is free from the confines of other parts of government and able to pretty much do whatever he wants in foreign policy. The military crisis is seen in the surprising difficulty (to those in power) America has had of ending/winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bacevich argues that America is not learning the lessons it needs to learn from these wars. The lessons we should learn are that war is always uncertain, that armies can only do so much, that preventive war is folly and that tight strategy is a lost art.
I found this book very interesting. As a Christian I was intrigued that Bacevich quoted Reinhold Niebuhr throughout, clearly Niebuhr's thought is central to Bacevich's diagnosis. I am not sure if Bacevich is a Christian, but this book does echo biblical critiques of empire. It is thought provoking, providing a lot of fodder to enable us to critique the country in which we live. If anything, this book may be too negative in that any and all nations are imperfect, not just America. Yet we cannot fault Bacevich for limiting his scope to America, after all, that's pretty much the point of the book. Self-criticism is always the hardest, and Bacevich does an admirable job of helping us in this....more
Loading...
