Christian author, speaker, and activist Brian McLaren is one of my favorite Christian authors. He’s provocative, thought-provoking, and he’s an incredibly nice human being, even to those who attack and criticize him. While I don’t agree with Brian on several things, I believe he offers the kind of humble questioning that every faith deserves, especially the Christian faith.
I read Brian’s blog daily, and have frequently emailed him questions that he has answered publicly. Recently he started a series (that was cross-posted on the Sojourners website) called “A Clean Energy Conversation.” His main point is that we need to begin a conversation about the problem of “dirty energy.” While I had some basic economic concerns to his general proposals in Part 1, I wrote a passionate email to Brian the very same day:
I just read your post on Clean Energy Conversion, and honestly it really hit me the wrong way. I don’t disagree with point #1. I’m personally looking into solar energy for my house and I drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. In theory my belief about clean energy is that the sooner, the better. The question is how does this occur?
So what’s my beef? It’s in one two-letter word: “we.” Who is “we”? As you always point out to your critics, their words have so much “loaded” in them that it’s difficult to respond without completely talking past each other. I feel like progressives are beginning to suffer from something I call “we-dolatry.” Instead of placing emphasis on the individual, the emphasis is placed on the collective. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but what happens when the “we” makes the individual subordinate? The philosophy of “we” strips away individuality away without realizing it (because I know that’s not what you intend to do).
So when you say, “we must re-price dirty energy,” there are a few unspoken assumptions that I really struggle with:
1. “we”—whoever that is—know what to re-price it at; this strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst. If we’ve learned anything the past 100 years of modern history, it’s that human beings do not know how to correctly “price” something on a large scale that is beneficial for society. It’s always led to mass poverty and social injustice.
2. “we” means everybody in our society; what is unsaid is the belief that a collective “we” acts, but this cannot be true. At best our elected leaders “act” on our behalf, but what about the untold thousands or millions that are harmed in the process? Humans are not individual automata, they are individuals with subjective preferences. “Love your neighbor” means in part to respect those preferences. If they are immoral, wrong, or dangerous, they ought to be addressed, but I cannot help but laugh at the notion that the right laws will actually make our society better
So the question is, Who is “we”? And how exactly do “we” make decisions? Since we don’t live in a democracy, what constitutes “we”? And even if “we” act, how do we know that’s best for everyone? By what standard do we measure whether or not “we” have made the right decision? With respect to “wisely investing” in the dividends of re-pricing, I must ask, “How do we know that we are wisely investing?” What mechanism is going to tell us? A committee? The government? A group of really concerned citizens? The next election?
I know you will address these in more detail, but it bothers me that the solution is always begun with “we” because it speaks of the assumption that somebody (or a group of somebodies) knows how “we” ought to do things in society. I simply cannot agree with the belief that if we have the right laws, the right regulations, the right amount of taxes, the right [whatever] to orchestrate society in a peaceful way, then all will be well. Why? Because large-scale orchestration of society has never worked. Invoking biblical support sounds great to win over Christians, but it strikes me as aligned with the constitutional approach to the scriptures.
I hope I’m not coming off too strong, but I shed tears over the attitudes of people who arrogantly think they know how to run society, because the people in society without a voice suffer. I don’t think you’re arrogant by any definition, but it appears as if you still are okay advocating for social change in the same way. I’m looking forward to your series. I hope I’m convinced a bit more than my fears outline here. Every time I read stuff like this, I think of Greg Boyd’s statement to Jim Wallis in a debate a few years ago: “I don’t see how our commitment to Christ gives us a unique privileged stance on having an extra wisdom to tell government, ‘Here’s what you should do.’ The hope of the world isn’t found in our tweaking the government the right way.”
I also assume your ability to read the unspoken assumptions in my own questions (a skill I am thankful you have!), so if you respond to my email at all, I’d be happy to be challenged in those assumptions.
Follow Us!