I owe a great debt to the American Spectator for pointing to me to this story. By itself, it is not worth comment, but it does incarnate a disease of our age: the “brave and compelling book” that is neither brave, important, or much of a book.
Evidently James Frey dares “ignite a firestorm” by publishing a book attacking Jesus. I don’t know what the real James Frey is like and would not judge him if I could. All that is before me is the “James Frey” of the media campaign to sell his self-published book.
That “James Frey” is probably fictive, but there are four things we know about him.
Mr. Frey is a coward. He is a coward, because he has written a book that will offend nobody he likes, but that may offend those he does not. If he loved the “religious right,” and hardly anybody who loves us uses that phrase to describe us, then this might be a brave book. If I wrote it, it would cost me my job. That would be courageous, but the book would still be a bore.
Fictional Mr. Frey is pompous. Fictive Frey assumes most readers on the right are eagerly waiting his next book. Sadly for Frey the writer most of us have never heard of Mr. Frey except for his exposure as a fabulist. Given the stack of books by my bed and backing up on my Kindle, I will probably go on not reading Mr. Frey for some time.
I could spend time understanding Sophist or read Mr. Frey. I might read the Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth sitting in the queue or I could take the time to be “outraged” by Mr. Frey. Lighter reading will include The Help by Kathryn Stockett, a Dr. Thorndyke mystery, and some more P.G. Wodehouse or I could drop all of this and take the time to read a self-published book by Mr. James Frey.
Why would he think religious right readers would have the time?
Mr. Frey is badly read. His messiah figure says, “Faith is what you use to oppress, to justify, to judge in the name of God . . . a means to rationalize more evil in this world than anything in history. If there were a devil, faith would be his greatest invention.”
Hasn’t Frey read any philosophy of religion, novels on religion from the last one hundred years, or serious Evangelical literature?
Evidently fictive Frey will stir outrage, because his attack on institutional Christianity is such a new thing to say, except it isn’t. Christians have dealt with foes from Porphyry to Hitchens saying such things, but evidently now that Mr. Frey says it we will be offended. Having a “messiah” do things the religious establishment does not anticipate is so unoriginal that it is a theme of the actual gospels
Mr. Frey should read the highly regarded (by Evangelicals!) Book of Bebb to see that religious folk can write about unanticipated Christ figures as well. My Wheaton graduate wife is so outraged by such books she gave me the Book of Bebb as my engagement present.
Of course, the entire statement quoted above from Frey’s messiah is self-referentially incoherent. He could be dismissed as the “son of God” on the grounds that no real messiah should sound like a freshman term paper in an Evangelical college.
It is a judgmental statement about religion by a messiah. Is this statement from his messiah judgmental? If so, then how do we know it is not oppressive?
Mr. Frey is a bigot and a rude one.
Fictive Frey is a bigot, because he has no understanding of religious people. He generalizes from media caricatures and nobody calls him on it.
Real religious folk are constantly examining themselves for signs of self-righteousness. I have heard, I think, over one hundred sermons in my lifetime express the idea that many of us “might have missed Jesus when he came,” because he liked to hang out with sinners.
Of course, real Jesus told them to stop ruining themselves. Evidently fictive Frey has created a fictive messiah that does drugs and is promiscuous. How bold! This will surely stamp out the Puritanism rampant in Frey’s social circles. Most of us need to be told in consumerist America to indulge ourselves more! Frey has created a messiah that the Super Bowl ad agencies, with their focus on erotica and consumption, will love.
To the extent that Frey’s messiah forces us to look for God, or love, in unexpected places, he is not outrageous, but aping Jesus. To the degree he behaves as we do, then he will not be able to help us.
Fictive Frey is rude for releasing his tome on Good Friday. Is this neighborly? Assuming we are the simpletons he thinks we are, why go out of the way to offend? Is boorish behavior a necessary part of his makeup? Christians love Jesus, maybe we should not, but we do. Good Friday is a special day for us.
Frey has a right, one the Christian population of America gave him, to publish what he wants when he wants. We have the right to think him rude.
Still all this leaves me with less a sense of outrage than pity. Is there anyone who does not feel for a person trying to regain his standing after his own moral failure (in Frey’s case lying) destroyed his career?
If Mr. Frey can be made happier by attacking the Faith, then it is worth letting him attack us. The Grand Inquisitor said everything he is saying much more pointedly in The Brothers Karamazov, so nobody will lose faith over Frey’s book. In fact, if it were not for the harm success might do to Mr. Frey, one would root for the book as about the most harmless way for him to recover some measure of dignity.
Sadly, bigotry harms the soul of the bigot and so though we can forgive him his trespass against us, we cannot forgive his trespass against himself. Even spending time dealing with fictive James Frey runs the risk of placating and soothing the ego of the wounded real James Frey.
My lengthy reaction could convince fictive Frey, that he “still matters.” Sadly, he is just the best example to cross my desk in a very long time of a tendency that corrupts many of us who write as part of our jobs.
Frey has not outraged me, but he has caused me to examine my own heart.
Am I a coward? If I see someone from my team fail, I must not wimp out if it is appropriate for me to respond.
Am I pompous? Do I really think folks need to read all my thoughts on every issue? Pride and love cannot coexist and yet still I am too often motivated by egoism and not charity.
Am I well read enough? I must make time to read more books that challenge my assumptions and worldview.
Am I a bigot? Do I make assumptions about “liberals” or the “other” that are uncharitable and unfounded? Do I love my enemies and pray for them?
Am I rude? Do I attack God’s enemies in a way that leaves room for redemption?
The examined life may be worth living, but it also is painful to acknowledge that I am too often a coward, pompous, narrow, bigoted, and rude. I long to be more brave, humble, broad, tolerant, and kind. Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
If the real James Frey ever reads this piece, and I assume he is too important to do so, he should know that I am praying for him, but I am not outraged by anything other than my own folly and sin. I still will not read his book, but it is because there is too much else to read and discuss in order to become a better man.
March 15th, 2011 | 12:17 pm | #1
This saddens me not only because of its parochial, ignorant argument, but because Frey is actually a good writer. His last novel, Bright Shiny Morning, essentially Los Angeles in a novel, is one of my all-time favorite books. That book definitely has some controversial content, but nothing so insensitive as anything in this excuse for a “modern-day gospel.” I had high hopes for his next novel but, alas, I will be skipping this book. Theorizing about Christ’s return can be an interesting exercise, but there’s certainly nothing rewarding about this book.
“Hasn’t Frey read any philosophy of religion, novels on religion from the last one hundred years, or serious Evangelical literature?”
Simply put, no. James Frey’s conception of faith is more like Bill Maher’s than St. Augustine’s.
“The Grand Inquisitor said everything he is saying much more pointedly in The Brothers Karamazov, so nobody will lose faith over Frey’s book.”
Hear hear. A great section of that book, with an equally thought-provoking and enriching response in the “Russian Monk” section. Likewise, I agree that people probably aren’t going to lose their faith.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but given the flat-out-ridiculous nature of the novel it doesn’t seem I am, Frey thrives on controversy. After he was ousted for faking substantial parts of his so-called “autobiography,” A Million Little Pieces on Oprah Winfrey’s show, he gained a substantial amount of notoriety. It made him both hated and somehow loved all at once, and it looks like he might be trying to replicate that. Unfortunately, if my hypothesis is true, he’s firing a cheap shot to get that notoriety, so in reality he’s the one losing out. Badly.
Like you, I’ll be praying for James Frey. I love literature, even controversial literature, but this is just….well, pick any of the adjectives you used in your post. All of them are true.
March 15th, 2011 | 12:46 pm | #2
While I have no sympathies for Mr. Frey, the ranting style of the post undermines my sympathy for Mr. Reynold’s perspective as well. There seems to be a degree of anxiety and retaliation in the post. Is there some underlying covetousness for intellectually respectable credentials, or the world’s recognition of such?
March 15th, 2011 | 1:10 pm | #3
Mr. Ehrlich,
I am sorry to seem anxious and I don’t know what I would be covetous about . . . in this case. Being rebuked by Oprah?
As for the “world’s recognition” . . . I think I have had my share of it, to the extent I care, but I suppose I might covet more of it. That is a good Lenten reflection.
My hope was the early “ranting style” would be balance the self-reflective ending.
Oh well,
John Mark
March 15th, 2011 | 1:26 pm | #4
Perhaps next time you’ll just delete the less reflective bits. There’s really no need to balance worthy reflections with an equal amount of unreflective and ill-considered discharge.
March 15th, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #5
JMR’s post doesn’t strike me as ill-mannered at all. He’s not calling for protests or boycotts like I imagine many Christians will be. Nor is he arguing that Frey is an innately evil person who represents all that is wrong with the world. Nothing he said is unfounded, and in fact all of it is probably true.
Hopefully, all Christians respond to this situation in love, not in vitriol. While I and probably 99 percent of Christians disagree with Frey’s backwards theology, getting angry and lashing out will only feed his warped argument.
March 15th, 2011 | 1:42 pm | #6
“Nothing he said is unfounded”
O.k., Mr. Volk, what then is the evidence that Mr. Frey’s book “will offend nobody he likes”?
March 15th, 2011 | 2:18 pm | #7
Clearly Frey’s writing for a certain audience. We’ve seen the wave of “new atheism” recently; given Frey’s argument in this book, his sympathies do seem aligned that way (although, of course, this doesn’t prove him an atheist, but he certainly seems to agree with much of their anti-Christian argument). The “new atheists” certainly would be more sympathetic to Frey’s disturbed conception of a savior as opposed to the orthodox Christian conception, which to them is anathema to all of the problems of evil in the world, nature, and other things. Undoubtedly they might find Frey’s humanistic savior “interesting.” Unlikely they’d be offended by this book.
There’s also been arguments, largely in the political sphere, towards Christians on issues like gay marriage, in which Christians are called “intolerant.” Having read some other articles about this book, it’s clear that part of Frey’s pseudo-salvific message is that a “true Messiah” would be tolerant of all peoples, regardless of sexual orientation. Frey clearly joins those people in this argument, thus those people won’t be offended by his book.
He’s obviously not writing for Christians. Since he operates on the definition of faith as a bad thing that just causes people to believe in delusions, then certainly he must realize that his book, however titillating it might be, will do nothing to break us loony Christians from our spiritual opiates.
March 15th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #8
I really don’t see where JMR went wrong. I don’t find any problem pointing out the problems and faults of an author that attacks something that is so dear to so many people. I think it was a good cause and I would hardly call it lashing out. Was there energy in the observations that were made? Yes, but I don’t think it was any energy that was uncalled for.
C. Ehrlich,
On the other hand, if pointing out what you think is wrong with a certain piece, and then making energy filled statements fits your criteria as a rant, than I would hardly see how you can be inclined to say that much of you say isn’t simply a rant against authors on Evangel.
Pointing out what you think is wrong with an author’s piece, and providing no constructive or even uplifting criticism seems to be your thing, and that’s your right to do so. However, if the fashion in which JMR criticized Mr. Frey upsets you, than it would be wise to review your own manner in which you criticize others. I would hardly call accusing JMR of “underlying covetousness for intellectually respectable credentials, or the world’s recognition of such.” as an objective and constructive criticism in which you aim to support others in any way.
“Is there some underlying covetousness for intellectually respectable credentials, or the world’s recognition of such?”
“There’s really no need to balance worthy reflections with an equal amount of unreflective and ill-considered discharge.”
“Perhaps Jim Wallis should be invited to contribute a piece to First Things. The perspectives represented here seem strangely narrow.”
“That’s a broad claim. Why assume that “this redistributionist attitude” assumes this? (Mr. Baker’s strawman strategy seems to have popped up again.)”
I really don’t see the difference between your condescending posts and what you seem to claim are “rants”. It’s not hard to find posts from you that serve only to demean and undermine, never to supplement any intellectual conversation or provide any edifying input or content of your own. It seems that the only opinion you ever offer is that whatever they may say, it is wrong. But you never provide a view of your own. I’m not saying you have to do such a thing, but I am saying this: Even IF what JMR says here can be considered a rant, at least he provides self-reflection and shows a sense of self analysis in which he shows that he wants to better himself and review his own problems, and even admit that he is wrong. This is at least more than you are willing to do, so I would rather er on the side of JMR’s “rant” followed by self-reflection than simply a manner of undermining and debasing others without any recognition of one’s own process of doing such.
March 15th, 2011 | 7:11 pm | #9
Evidently Ehrlich has missed the central point that I do not assume I know anything about the real man. I was attacking the PR “man” he has allowed to be produced. If Ehrlich thinks this fictive man with his associations is the sort that is afraid of alienating the religious right . . .I would like to know why he thinks it.
March 15th, 2011 | 9:09 pm | #10
All I know about John Mark Reynolds is the man portrayed through the writings he has allowed to be published. That man is a bit of a ranter, who tends to rely on the methods of a demogogue to rally his uncritical and like-minded fans.
Employ the same methods, I can portray this John Mark Reynolds still further. He is a man who realizes that, outside of this fan club, no one really respects him as a thinker. “So why not rant?” Mr. Reynolds thinks to himself, “my fans love it and the critically-minded public has already written me off.”
March 15th, 2011 | 10:15 pm | #11
Ehrlich,
JMR has put his thoughts out for review, criticism, what have you. And he’s entitled to rant against this attention-seeking Johnny-come-lately fraud just like anyone else. All you do is show up here primarily to be disagreeable to whoever happens to have written a post for the day. In light of this I’m curious, exactly how many people respect you “as a thinker”?
March 16th, 2011 | 3:04 am | #12
Hi JMR.. why don’t you tell us what you really think? 8^>
I have, of late, taken a more philosophic view of these “drive by” style attacks on Christianity. In a sense they affirm the truth of Christianity because the “faith” (a questionable term in its modern usage) does attract such irrational attacks.
They should be refuted, but it is often better to laugh at the laughable rather than denounce it with “Outrage!”. Mockery has a power which outrage cannot surpass. It also reveals a confidence and good humour which inspires trust. Hence Jesus ability to play mind games with his persecutors – the inside joke of the parables that they lack the capacity to understand – and Herod “that fox…”
These poor ignorant saps collect “rumours and lies and stories they made up” anthologize them intosome literary monstrosity they conceive of as a book, and promote themselves as sophisticates undermining the foundations of “faith” (“faith” which, according to their definition has no foundation to undermine even before they begin digging their “sophisticated” mines)
“Never match wits with the witless.” as my mother would say. If “faith” is “believing something you know ain’t true.” then what the heck is the argument? Obviously our sopisticated author has “faith” in his definition of “faith” or he wouldn’t be trying to prove that Christian “faith” is false.
March 16th, 2011 | 3:11 am | #13
C. Ehrlich,
Once again you provide simply provide a list of ad hominem. Where is your justification for the claim that he isn’t respected as a thinker? This claim seems completely unfounded especially after admitting that you know absolutely nothing about him besides what he writes. I know this may come as a shock to you but your own opinions hardly justify the opinions of others. Because you disagree with him doesn’t mean that “No one really respects him as a thinker”.
Obviously no one respects him as a thinker. That’s why his book was co-edited with J.P. Moreland, what some would consider a leading evangelical thinker of the day. Clearly the critical public has written him off.
And, as expected, you ignore the fact that you fall by your own sword. Constant criticism without any actual content to offer is the same “ranting” and “ill-considered” statements that you accuse JMR of committing. It seems your only goal is to demean anyone who posts, without actually bringing anything to the table.
What is the purpose? Is it a self esteem issue? I am really curious about your motives. Supportive criticism I can understand, but I have yet to see any from your end.
So I’ll say again, I’d rather er on the side of the occasional rant rather than a condescending antagonist of those seeking spiritual growth on an evangelical blog.
March 16th, 2011 | 9:15 am | #14
“I really don’t see the difference between your condescending posts and what you seem to claim are “rants”. It’s not hard to find posts from you that serve only to demean and undermine, never to supplement any intellectual conversation or provide any edifying input or content of your own…”
Ehrlich’s self-moralizing intellectual prognostications fall well below the intellectual poverty line. He needs a handout. Help in some form that he doesn’t know how to find for himself. Either that or a little encouragement to reach down, grab his bootstraps, and pull himself up out of the mire he finds himself in.
March 16th, 2011 | 9:16 am | #15
[...] Is Outrage! [...]
March 16th, 2011 | 9:16 am | #16
[...] Is Outrage! [...]
March 16th, 2011 | 11:06 am | #17
Mr. Reynolds should observe that it is his own fans who evidently miss the supposed “central point” of his original post. They certainly seemed to have missed it in my last reply. Or perhaps he already expected as much. I can only imagine the temptations that must come with having such an audience.
March 16th, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #18
Nice comeback, Mr. Ehrlich. So let’s up the ante a little and see if you can discover the source of your self-moralizing prognostications. You have failed to answer many of us on this blog, weaving and dodging, a zig here, a zag there, mostly using the art of condescension to never answer a direct question about the source of your morality and your justification for it. Should we give you another chance?
March 16th, 2011 | 1:48 pm | #19
Someone should start a thread about “the source of morality” so we can knock Mr. Drake off his hobbyhorse.
March 16th, 2011 | 1:51 pm | #20
All of this is the classic Ehrlichian response to blog posts. He complains about them. I have no idea why he would choose to read a blog of this type unless he is the type of person who enjoys taking offense and writing complaints.
March 16th, 2011 | 1:58 pm | #21
Perhaps everyone would think alike in Mr. Baker’s conservative utopia. I would like to be there if only to voice dissent.
March 16th, 2011 | 2:31 pm | #22
“I would like to be there if only to voice dissent.”
And never to have to answer substantively for that dissent. Weaving and dodging, zigging and zagging. Always there to boost a self-imposed self-importance.
March 16th, 2011 | 3:02 pm | #23
Ehrlich,
This post, and the ensuing comments, had nothing to do with Mr. Reynolds’ vision for the world, whatever that might be. All that he did was call out a wannabe “edgy” writer and showed Frey to be the celebrity-seeking joke that he is (and he was much kinder and more self-deprecating than the secularist author of the referenced AMERICAN SPECTATOR piece I might add). I’m not sure what “dissent” that you think you are providing. You stated that you had no sympathy for Frey. Do you take exception to Reynolds calling him out?
And you still haven’t told us what critical thinking community takes you seriously as a thinker…
March 16th, 2011 | 4:53 pm | #24
Ehrlich,
And what voice of dissent would this be? You haven’t provided any counter opinion or intellectual substance of your own. It seems the only service you provide is to be a shunt of any thoughtful growth whatsoever.
I now see that these responses are simply grooming your own self-obliged ego with which you view yourself as a “voice of dissent” when in reality you are simply a contrarian who appears to be bored. As such, I’m just going to ignore you. Because of your lack of ACTUAL opinion and condescending statements, you have lost all credibility that I would normally give to someone on this blog (which is ample, I assure you) with me, and therefore my respect. I am well aware that this means absolutely nothing to you, but I hope that one day you can emulate JMR and have your own self reflection.
March 16th, 2011 | 6:16 pm | #25
Interesting story. There’s this guy who goes to a diner he doesn’t like. Eats food he hates. And complains after every meal. Asked for a substantive reason he doesn’t like the food, he never puts one forward. Turns out he just likes the attention. True story.
March 16th, 2011 | 7:40 pm | #26
Hunter,
Brilliant!
Cheers,
Adam
March 17th, 2011 | 10:09 am | #27
‘Turns out he just likes the attention. True story.’
I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one, Mr. Baker.
March 17th, 2011 | 1:33 pm | #28
Except why think of this place as if it were a restaurant?! Perhaps it’s more like a badly managed oil rig that’s gushing forth pollution. It’s not exactly a pleasant place to be, but there’s some satisfaction in calling attention to what’s wrong and deleterious about the management.
The groupthink here is really something else.
March 17th, 2011 | 1:46 pm | #29
Weaving and dodging. Zigging and zagging. Ad infinitum.
March 17th, 2011 | 3:41 pm | #30
There is a certain level of agreement here, yes, C. Ehrlich; though you seem not to notice that First Things invites an unusually broad spectrum of Christian thought (Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox…). It is by no means a confining environment.
Anyway, I recall being taught about groupthink in introductory psych, and being expected to agree with the psychology community at large that such a phenomenon exists. In other words, the very concept of groupthink entails that not all group agreement is groupthink.
There is no evidence here of the kind of interdependent, highly-personally-invested social structure that tends to foster groupthink. In fact, studies show that one strong dissenting voice in a group is usually enough to prevent groupthink from forming. It’s clear you have mislabeled and possibly also misunderstood what’s going on here.
March 17th, 2011 | 3:50 pm | #31
You say,
I don’t know about you, but I don’t find that kind of activity satisfying unless it’s an establishment that matters to me, one I care about. Otherwise wisdom leads me to let go and let things be. If that’s what’s on your heart, well, thank you for caring.
March 17th, 2011 | 9:55 pm | #32
Label it whatever you like Tom, the observable fact is when one of the cheerleaders offers an obviously dubious analogy, the fans just jump in to support it, proclaiming it brilliant and incisive. It fits right in with the standard pattern here.
As for diversity, what we primarily have here is a gathering of folks who interpret their faith through the lens of right-wing conservative politics. It may be a motley group in terms of waistlines, body hair, or any number of other accidents–but it’s not anything close to what one could call a thriving marketplace of ideas, or even of conservative Christian ideas. Excessive inbreeding has rendered most of commentary here remarkably inept (but still unanimously considered brilliant, of course).
And one needn’t be invested in the mismanaged oil rig to still care about the world it pollutes.
March 18th, 2011 | 12:32 pm | #33
Ehrlich writes:
“As for diversity, what we primarily have here is a gathering of folks who interpret their faith through the lens of right-wing conservative politics.”
Interesting that you would make that observation in a thread that contains in its subject nary a hint of the political. But I suppose when the only tool you have is the ad hominem hammer….
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact