Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren

In Everything Must Change, Brian McLaren develops the themes introduced in The Secret Message of Jesus to show how Jesus' radical new "framing story" is the solution to the global crises of our day. This book is by far the best by McLaren and is one of the best books I have read all year.

McLaren sees three crises in our world--the security crisis (the growing hostility between the developed nations and the poor, i.e. U.S. vs Al-Qaeda), the prosperity crisis (the unsustainability of free market "theo-capitalism" on our environment), and the equity crisis (the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer). I think McLaren is spot on in each of these crises, and I especially appreciated his analysis of the U.S. Al-Qaeda conflict. He calls the current dominating "framing story" (metanarrative) a suicide machine, meaning that if we keep operating the way we have been, we will destroy ourselves.

McLaren's solution to the global crises is the "revolution of hope"--substituting Jesus' message of the kingdom of God for the suicide machine. McLaren doesn't think that the phrase "kingdom of God" is appropriate for our day, so he substitutes titles like "God's sacred ecosystem" and "God's unterror movement." By convincing people to stop believing the dominant metanarratives and start believing Jesus' metanarrative, we will fuel the fire of the "revolution of hope" and turn around the suicide machine.

All of McLaren's thoughts (in this book) are good.

However, I think McLaren's one-sided view of the kingdom of God will torpedo any success he hopes to accomplish with this needed message. I completely agree that the world has adopted a metanarrative that is self-destructive. I also agree that Jesus' message of the kingdom of God is the message that is needed to turn everything around. However, notably absent in this book is any mention of the church or the Holy Spirit.

When McLaren speaks of "the Gospel," he refers to God's good news that He is redeeming the world. This is half true. McLaren has an axe to grind against most evangelicals that just want to preach substitutionary atonement and self-help sermons. His writings to this point have been a needed wake-up call to social justice. However, in reacting against Reformed theology, McLaren has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. He doesn't address the fact that deep down, people have a spiritual problem. They will read his book, think "That's nice," and then go back to the suicide machine. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, no one will set aside the suicide machine to live the kingdom of God. We can't do that on our own because we are infected with the disease called sin. Therefore, we can't throw out preaching of the cross. The Holy Spirit works through that Gospel to regenerate people so that they can live the life McLaren is calling them to live.

If it weren't for the significant disagreements that I have with Brian McLaren about Jesus' message, I would say Everything Must Change is the best book I have read all year. But I do disagree with him on some major points, so I will just say that the book is very good.

Psalm 4

Today I reflected on Psalm 4. From what I gather, Israel was going through some kind of famine or otherwise trying time, and they were starting to doubt the Lord's faithfulness and the psalmist's ability to lead. Verses 4–6 imply that some of them were grumbling against Yahweh/the king and were even turning to other gods for prosperity. On the one hand, the psalmist expresses confidence that the Lord will protect his righteous ones, so that he can sleep more peacefully at night than the others can even when their storehouses overflow with grain and their vats with wine. On the other hand, he acknowledges the hard times and cries out to God to deliver him.

Again, a lot of this language is foreign to me because the "tough times" I have seen are nothing compared to the impact of a famine on an agrarian culture. I can't imagine praying to idols to turn around the American economy. But then again, maybe that American economic machine is the "delusion" and the "false god" of our day. Why do we get so worked up when the value of the dollar decreases, when the stock market starts to slide, or when the housing market slumps? Do we doubt God's ability to take care of us? These things seem kind of trivial when I reflect on the poverty of many people outside of the U.S. Yet, I worry about them all the same.

"Father, I still wrestle with the discomfort of my personal prosperity. I feel uneasy about being a part of an economic system that promotes global inequality. Perhaps that is conviction. Perhaps it is false guilt. I can't help that I was born in America. I can't help that there are certain realities to living in America. Yet, Father, I feel that the American system saps my need for you. The times that You have felt most "close" or "real" have been the times of personal tragedy. Am I robbing my spirit by feeding by bank account and belly?

Lord, I don't know the answer to my uneasiness. I do know that I want to be a part of the solution. I pray that You would continue to work in me. That You would convict me of greed, of selfishness, of pride. I pray that You would make me more conscious of the needs of the people around me and of the people around the world. I pray that You would make our nation a more compassionate one, and that You would start with Your church here. Amen."

How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor by Erik S. Reinert

Wow.

Erik Reinert's book, How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor, is one of the best I have read in a long time. (I know I said the same thing about Erwin McManus' Soul Cravings, but it is possible to read two great books at thew same time. McManus' book is great, Reinert's is GREAT.) I have no formal training in economics, so the only thing keeping me from raving about this book to everyone I know is that it is fairly technical and I lack the necessary skills to evaluate his arguments.

Reinert's thesis is that the unconditional free trade that the World Bank and Washington consensus is forcing on the Third World is what is making them poor, and that unconditional free trade is not what made wealthy nations like the U.S. rich. Instead, he argues, unconditional free trade widens the gap between the haves and the have nots because poor countries end up specializing in being poor and rich countries specialize in being rich.

The Washington consensus argues that each country should open its markets and specialize in goods in which it offers a "comparative advantage." So, countries in South American that grow the world's best coffee beans should focus on selling coffee beans to the world, and countries that develop the world's best computer software should focus on selling computer software to the world. By doing so, the Washington consensus argues, each nation would be doing what they do best and would be generating wealth most efficiently.

The problem, according to Reinert, is that the world's best coffee bean picker will always make less than the world's worst software engineer because computer software is comparatively more valuable. Until the coffee bean pickers learn how to make software, they will always be poor.

Reinert says that America did not get rich by opening its markets to the world. We imposed tarriffs on foreign steel so that the American steel industry could thrive. Now, we enforce patents on the software that we produce so that other countries can't duplicate it. In everything we do, we practice "unfair" competition ("unfair" in the sense that the government protects local innovators from foreign competition). Reinert says that true wealth comes through innovation, protection of this innovation, and then free trade once a nation has industrialized and caught up to the rest of the advanced nations.

What would happen if the South American nations developed their own coffee brewing companies with retail stores all over the world and said, "We are no longer selling our beans to Starbucks. They are on their own"? That would be a great thing for South America. It would generate true wealth for many countries down there beyond the meagre wages they get for harvesting the beans. If I am not misreading Reinert, that is the kind of thing that he thinks we should be doing for Third World countries--encouraging them to industrialize, not just focus on raw materials. But there is no way that America would encourage such a move because it would screw us over. We like the tax money we get from Starbucks.

Reinert's book is technical, but written in a way that a novice (like me) can understand. Unless an economist shows me how Reinert's thinking is flawed, I think this book is a must read for all Americans as we approach the ethical issue of equal distribution of wealth resources.