OFF THE SHELF RED LETTERS By Tom Davis David C. Cook Reviewed by Jeff Goins Red Letters: Living a FaithThat Bleeds begins not with startling statistics or an alarming call to action, but with a simple story about a teenager named Kirill who lived on the streets of Moscow. We’ve all been there before, trying to assuage our feelings of guilt by avoiding eye contact or crossing the street, all the while justifying ourselves. Tom Davis did what many of us would have done. He shook off the beggar and kept walking. I can relate to that; it’s the “wise” thing to do. But then Davis did something different—he went back. Davis’ book is about justice, hope, change, and living by the principle that Jesus is to be found in the “least of these” described in Matthew 25. When Davis went back, his faith started to bleed. In the first few chapters, he discusses the problem of global poverty alongside the gospel’s essence—that it is something to be lived and not just discussed. As “little Christs” (a term borrowed from C.S. Lewis), we have a responsibility to do something about suffering and injustice in the world. Davis goes on to discuss the AIDS crisis, the dying continent of Africa (particularly Swaziland, which has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world and whose people will become extinct in 50 years if nothing changes), and his bleeding heart for the forgotten and forsaken. While the statistics might feel overwhelming, Davis asserts that effecting change is not as difficult or costly as we usually suspect; it just requires a will-
Michael Lindsay’s excellent book, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. A sociologist at Rice University, Lindsay draws a telling picture of the social networks of leaders and organizations that, over the last 30 years, have nurtured and sustained evangelical “moral leadership” for the purpose of directing social change in the US. He does this by reporting on well over 300 interviews with evangelical leaders from politics, academia, the film and TV industries, and corporate America. The book reads better than a Who’s Who in America because it is saturated with anecdotes and rich confessions of Protestant and Catholic evangelical leaders for whom faith makes a deliberate difference in their work. Lindsay argues that these overlapping networks have gradually edged evanJeff Goins is an editor at the online maga- gelicals into the power circles of the zine Wrecked for the Ordinary (wrecked American elite. He concludes, however, that the kind of power the evangelical fortheordinary.com). elite exercises is convening power rather than decision-making power. Lindsay found “little evidence,” for instance, that FAITH IN THE HALLS evangelical power has led to changes in OF POWER law. Still, these political, cultural, and business leaders are able to “set agendas,” By D. Michael Lindsay “coordinate activity,”“marshal resources,” Oxford University Press “share information,” and otherwise “create social space for interaction among Reviewed by Bret Kincaid peers where they can discuss ideas that I recall a CIA brief- can then be carried out by the organiing soon after 9/11 at zations they run.” Calling these loosely overlapping netthe end of which one of the two CIA ana- works a “movement,” Lindsay sees it lysts began making an divided between what he calls “populist” off-the-record pitch, and “cosmopolitan” leaders/organizations. enthusiastically ped- Populist leaders are less affluent, more dling a government inclined to label people good or evil, vocation to the large more willing to use high-profile mass audience of evangelical college students mobilization, and more firmly connectbecause “one of us” was now at the helm ed to evangelical subcultures than are in the White House.“This is our chance cosmopolitan leaders. Conversely, the to make a real difference,” he said, refer- latter are more educated and well travring to “us” evangelical Christians. I was eled, less involved in their local church taken aback at the time, but I wouldn’t (with the exception of those who attend have been so surprised had I read D. a megachurch), and more concerned ingness to move towards the pain rather than away from it.The latter chapters call us to action, but unlike many books of this tenor, they don’t abandon us there. Davis provides some potential routes to pursue, inviting us to join his 5for50 Campaign (5for50.com), go on a mission trip, and raise money and awareness. My only disappointment was that there were not more stories. My favorite chapter, “Snapshots of Hope,” tells of African babies rescued from abandonment, Russian orphans turned into leaders, and tales of those who cared for them being radically transformed. Red Letters isn’t about social action. It’s about Jesus—about finding him in the least likely of people/places and about our commitment to meet him there. ■
PRISM 2008
42
about legitimacy than the conversion of one’s opponents (a primary concern of populist evangelicals). Leaders of both groups are equally fervent about their faith, and their political beliefs do not differ. Though Lindsay’s prose is sometimes challenging to follow, his book gives the reader a rich view of the landscape of American evangelical leadership and power. ■ Bret Kincaid is associate professor of political science at Eastern University in St. David’s, Pa.
GOD IS NOT GREAT By Christopher Hitchens Twelve Books and
WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY? By Dinesh D’Souza Regnery Publishing Reviewed by Donald Brash
Where may we find a reason for hope? This is the question that most drives the authors of two recent books in the enduring debate over the existence of God. In God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens proposes the oft-repeated twofold challenge to the belief that God exists: The world is both poorly designed and a cruel mess, thus negating the possibility of a
good and intelligent creator; religious people are guilty of great immorality and stupidity, and clearly no good or intelligent God would consent to be represented by such unethical fools. Hitchens’ book has several significant weaknesses. First, his argument relies largely on anecdotes, as if the day could be won for atheism by a sheer landslide of stories. In “Religion’s Corrupt Beginnings” he primarily examines Mormonism and an obscure Pentecostal cult. Since these two Christian movements are rooted in events and in behavior that was irrational at best and deceptive at worse, Hitchens concludes that all religions must be rooted in the irrational and the deceptive. In a later chapter Hitchens cites everything from mass atrocities committed by crusaders and jihadists to the failure of church leaders to condemn particular acts of evil, amassing one example after another of the harm done by religious people to their innocent victims. Hitchens’ second failing is his dependence on ad hominem arguments. Theists are not only mistaken, he claims, but also stupid for believing in God. C. S. Lewis was “dreary and absurd,” he tells us, but nowhere does he seriously engage Lewis’ arguments for the existence of God. On the other hand, people who advance Hitchens’ agenda are honored with titles, and their conclusions are allowed to stand unchallenged by opposing points of view from within the disciplines they represent. Third, Hitchens is unwilling to take seriously the more nuanced views among theists. There are many monotheists, myself included, who affirm the idea that the universe as we know it arrived at its present form by means of some manner of evolution. Theistic evolutionism, at its best, asserts that God created matter out of nothing and has kept his hand in the process ever since.This would not, of course, rescue the belief in a creator God from the charge that God PRISM 2008
43
did not design things very well, but it does show that many of us theists take science seriously. Fourth, Hitchens presumes that he occupies the moral high ground over and against people of faith, without explaining why his version of morality should necessarily govern you, me, or anyone else. Hitchens would have advanced the case for atheism if he had presented a convincing argument for his belief that morality is “independent of faith and cannot be derived from it.” As it is, he simply throws the idea out there without defending it, apparently in the belief that the weight of his own confidence in its self-evident value will cause many to suddenly believe in Hitchens’ unbelief. One of atheism’s more obvious flaws is that it cannot account for humans behaving better than is called for by our own personal (or own herd’s) survival. Hitchens’ guarded solution to the world’s problems is that we should put our confidence in human reason alone. I, too, think there is reason for hope, but history has proven that human reason, like some religious beliefs, can also be used to justify atrocities. In What’s So Great about Christianity? Dinesh D’Souza fleshes out the arguments he used in a live debate with Hitchens at The King’s College, New York City, last October. D’Souza writes to assert the reasonableness and the value of Christianity. Without denying that Christians and other faith-motivated people are responsible for some horrendous incidences of evil and suffering, D’Souza presents a coherent case that Christianity also contributed fundamentally to the political structures and social values that even Hitchens and company cherish. He does this by placing Christianity securely at the social and intellectual foundations of Western civilization’s pivotal moments. Along the way, he corrects the bad historiography of some accounts of the church’s attitude toward science.
D’Souza also provides a reasonable and informative assessment of the compatibility between Christianity and the current state of science regarding the origins of the universe and life. He helps his readers see that biblical accounts of creation, when understood in literary and historical context, do not challenge the principle of evolution as such. On the contrary, the work of evolutionists reinforces the potency of the argument for design by making us even more aware of the glorious order in nature. Another of D’Souza’s strengths is his gift for explaining the views of specialists. I refer not only to his summations of the work of physicists but also to his survey and appraisal of the work of Immanuel Kant, which enables D’Souza to distinguish between kinds of knowledge. D’Souza’s well-reasoned defense of theism based on the morally self-transcendent capacities of human beings is exceptional. D’Souza recognizes Christianity’s unique contribution to hope. We are redeemed because God became one of us; it is by the Son’s own suffering, death, and resurrection that all suffering is rendered ultimately meaningful. God has honored us by including us in this redemptive work. A poignant example of this participation is the grace displayed by the parents of the five Amish girls who were killed in 2006.Their commitment to Christ—their religious faith—inspired them to contribute to the redemption of that tragedy by forgiving the assassin and offering love to his family. Their faith inspired all of us who want to make the world a better place. But thankfully D’Souza does not succumb to the temptation to stack the zeal of the righteous on the scales of justice over and against the zeal of the unrighteous. If Jesus really was God, then the scales of justice have been eternally tipped in God’s favor, and ours, too. D’Souza has written a competent response to atheism’s most recent representatives, but his book, too, has weak-
nesses. Like Hitchens, he seems to think the number of experts who agree with him might help him win the argument. Next, he does not adequately address the weakness of apologetic exercises as such, which can have the effect of rendering faith secondary to reason. And lastly, a mere restatement of the gospel in traditional terms, albeit a very eloquent restatement, does not in itself adequately address Hitchens’ criticisms of a God who rules very differently from how we humans think things should be handled. Ultimately all Christian theists must ask ourselves if there are times when our own witnessing fails to persuade because the God we describe is too far from the God to whom Jesus prayed when interceding even for those who were crucifying him. ■
here. But once McLaren has our attention, he presents a message worth hearing. In many ways this work is part of a larger Christian prophetic tradition rooted in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s query, “Who is Jesus Christ for us today?”Without flinching from the significant global crises of our age, McLaren masterfully weaves an analysis of the profound turmoil with the profound hope of Jesus Christ. The author’s practice of framing large issues within small stories makes the work both inviting and accessible. Recounting the testimonies of people he’s met on his journeys—from South Africa to Switzerland, from Canada to Chile— McLaren puts a human face on global crises and responses of hope. Borrowing from Christian thinker Leonard Sweet, McLaren describes the engine behind global crises as “a suicide machine.” This Donald Brash is associate professor of histori- machine, he argues, “is out of control... cal theology at Palmer Theological Seminary and begins to destroy its creators and in Wynnewood, Pa. intended beneficiaries.” According to McLaren, the three systems that make up this machine—equity, prosperity, and EVERYTHING security—need to be informed by new MUST CHANGE narratives that do not threaten to destroy all of creation. By Brian D. McLaren In suggesting that we need to rethink Thomas Nelson our understanding of the gospels (the Jesus story runs counter to the destrucReviewed by Gabriel A. Salguero tive narratives supporting the suicide machine), McLaren offers a postcolonial What do the life and reading of the gospel that is reminiscent teachings of Jesus have of those of Bartolomé De Las Casas, to say about the most Desmond Tutu, Cornel West, Mayra critical global prob- Rivera, C. René Padilla, Fernando lems in our world Segovia, N.T. Wright, Richard Horsley, today? Beginning his and John Dominic Crossan. And in doing latest book with this so he brings to a broader audience ideas substantial query, Brian that have heretofore received only a very McLaren propels his limited reading. McLaren’s comparative readers right into the core of the matter. analysis of the conventional view (Western, It’s heavy matter all right, but have no colonizing, white) and the emerging view fear: The man is on a mission to reveal a (Southern, colonized, colorful) of Jesus revolution of hope. is sure to foster conversations in homes, Everything Must Change undoubt- churches, colleges, and seminaries everyedly has an attention-grabbing title, and where. even the author acknowledges hyperbole I hope that in future conversations PRISM 2008
44
McLaren will engage more diversity within the North American context (US authors often engage issues of global diversity more intentionally and passionately than they do the racial-ethnic conversations at home). Even though his conversations with Latin Americans,Asians, and Africans could be bolstered by more in-depth conversations with what has been called “the Third World in the First World,” this is still a great start. While it is clear that McLaren has traveled and read widely and researched across disciplines, his book is nonetheless friendly to lay readers.The dialogue starters at the end of each chapter make it accessible for small Bible study and discipleship groups as well as conversations with seekers. ■ Gabriel Salguero copastors the Lamb’s Church, a multicultural congregation in Manhattan. He is also a PhD candidate in Christian Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary.
NOBODIES By John Bowe Random House Reviewed by Christian R. Ahlin Enduring Tolstoy’s monologues on the philosophy of history was part of the price I paid while reading War and Peace. But the story more than compensated for the time spent plodding through the author’s pet theories. Journalist John Bowe’s recent Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy also contains some great storytelling, but I found the interspersed economic analysis less
profitable than Tolstoy’s speeches. The book’s main content is three stories in as many locations (southern Florida; Tulsa, Okla.; the Pacific island of Saipan), each examining a case of labor abuse or slavery. Bowe expertly conveys the various settings and key characters (employees, employers, lawyer, labor activist, local resident, etc.) and creates an absorbing narrative. His even-handedness in eliciting and telling multiple points of view is remarkable, as is his tolerance of ambiguity. Beyond being rivetingly told, the stories also have in common the Old Testament theme of upholding the rights of the poor. Bowe’s stories pinpoint egregious loss of rights in the United States by some of the world’s poorest, and he deserves credit for taking the risk to tell them. The book also delves into analysis and policy prescription, mainly in the introduction and conclusion, where the results are more mixed. Bowe states that everything in his book is a simple and patent metaphor for the “dark potential” of globalization. But why is slavery an appropriate metaphor for globalization and not, say, for government corruption? It is not hard to argue that more globalization would have made at least two of the book’s three tragic stories less likely: one where the workers’ illegal immigrant (non)status was instrumental and one where the industry involved sprang up precisely because of the existence of trade barriers elsewhere. It is also easy to imagine globalization reducing the worldwide quantity of slavery—much of which occurs purely domestically in some of the poorest countries—by spurring economic growth and thus reducing poverty. Indeed, the most dramatic poverty reductions of the past few decades have come in East Asia, in countries that have most embraced globalization. Perhaps what Bowe wants to stress is simply that when wealthy and poor people meet, we must beware the theft of PRISM 2008
45
the rights of the poor. He is absolutely right to urge caution, but the question is how to respond to the inherent dangers. In my view, the focus would be better placed on the enforcement of basic rights —making sure that parties abide by their contracts and that all transactions are made voluntarily.Vigilance in these areas is warranted, as Bowe’s stories suggest. But Bowe’s prescriptions are quite different: namely, worldwide regulation of labor, health, and the environment, including a worldwide minimum wage. I wonder, however, whether more stringent laws are the answer when existing laws cover virtually all the abuses in the book. Bowe also does not address the potential counter-productiveness of wellintended labor laws. A recent study, for example, compared areas in India that adopted labor-friendly industrial dispute regulations in the mid-1900s with areas that adopted more neutral or employerfriendly stances. The labor-friendly areas had lower growth and productivity in manufacturing and ended up with higher urban poverty. Effects of supposedly pro-worker laws are sometimes effectively anti-worker. Our current path of globalization deserves scrutiny, some of which Bowe admirably provides. It would be a mistake, however, to overstretch his metaphor for globalization or to do more harm than good with well-intentioned but counterproductive labor regulation. ■ Christian R. Ahlin, PhD, is assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University, where his research focuses on economic development in poorer countries, particularly micro-credit and causes/effects of corruption.
Do you find our reviews helpful? What kind of books would you like to see on these pages? Send your feedback to kristyn@esa-online.org.