Reviews, Interviews, News, Commentaries, Excerpts, My Top 5 Books, Wilson's Bookmarks, Book AwardsEverything Hasn't Changed
George Lakoff, a distinguished cognitive scientist trained in linguistics, came to prominence several years ago as an unlikely guru among Democratic Party strategists. In books such as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff highlights the "frames and metaphors" by which Americans organize their perceptions. Why, Lakoff asks, did many conservatives accept President George W. Bush's foreign policy despite abundant evidence that it was badly misconceived? Simple. Conservatives interpreted the Bush Administration's decisions via the "strict father morality" that helps frame their understanding of the world. "Map this onto foreign policy, and it says you cannot give up sovereignty. The United States, being the best and most powerful country in the world—a moral authority—knows the right thing to do. We should not be asking anybody else." In his books, Lakoff systematically contrasts "conservative" frames with "progressive" frames, urging progressives to understand conservatives, and then reframing debates in a way to persuade conservatives to see the light.
In Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope (Thomas Nelson), Brian McLaren—one of the two or three most influential figures in the "emergent" movement—pursues a similar project, though one even more ambitious than Lakoff's. McLaren attempts nothing less than a reframing of what Jesus taught and what it means to follow him on the Way.
McLaren contrasts what he calls "conventional" frames ("frequently defined as 'orthodoxy,'" he writes) with "emerging" frames. So, for example, in the emerging view, "Jesus came to become the Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ...
This article is currently available to CT subscribers only.
To continue reading:
or
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 24 comments
See all comments
Bill Samuel
"This is a impoverished review of a serious book. " I agree. It's not a perfect book, but it is largely sound. It takes on an enormous task, and does a fairly good job with it. I agree that he makes an effective argument for pacifism, and then seems to avoid the conclusion. But what he says would make more sense in the context of Pope Benedict's reflections that the Just War theory could not justify any war in this age. The two theories really can come out in the same place. And we certainly are addicted to war. Look at the huge numbers of wars and the resources devoted thereto. It is a bit ahistorical in that much of what he concludes the Gospel says has been discovered at many times in history by many other Christian leaders. It's what I was raised on. He did a great deal of research into contemporary issues, but apparently not in the history of Christian thought. If you read through to the end, what he's calling for is indeed the Great Commission.
Deb A.
I have to agree with the person who said that McClaren was rather wordy. I found "an insurgency of peace" to be almost humorous. However, I do believe that most American Christians have no concept of how the world suffers while we wallow in our own comfort and affluence. It doesn't even begin to occur to many people that perhaps we're blessed so that we can bless. All the while we have large sections of the church debating the role of women, worrying about elections, etc... totally missing the bigger picture. While I find the book lacking in specifics about how I can personally bring Christ's kingdom to the world here and now, I do appreciate his viewpoints as they get me to think and pray. I also find it interesting (almost humorous) how many people can believe that the church in America/Europe hasn't been off track for years and that our own subculture hasn't clouded our view of what the Bible teaches. debfixesamerica.blogspot.com
Matt W.
John, I will be charitable and say that you have mistakenly misinterpreted Brian's words. You quote Brian as saying that he wants to "call adherents of both positions to a joint consideration of the addictive nature of war, an addiction we may already have but may be in denial about." He didn't call them to a general dialogue, as you suggest in your comments: "Such dialogue, of course, has proceeded fitfully for many centuries. Neither the just-war tradition nor the pacifist tradition has been static. And so—on this point and across the board—the claim of McLaren's title, Everything Must Change, is quite misleading." He is calling them to a specific discussion over the issue of the addictive nature of war. McLaren is not so historically ignorant that he thinks pacifists and just war theorists have never engaged in conversation. Agree with the premise or not, you misrepresent his words.