How do we make sense of this cultural moment?


Dr Philip Jenson offers a review article on Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020).


At the end of 2020 Carl Trueman published a book that tells the story of an inexorable and irreversible cultural shift that shapes modern thinking and discourse. It is a demanding read, so it is helpful that he sums up the argument more succinctly in various places (e.g. here, here, here, and the first chapter is available as a pdf). He has also taken part in various podcasts and interviews (e.g. here, here, and here). I am not sure that I am the best person to review this weighty volume, since my own speciality is the Old Testament. However, precisely because I am immersed in a text that belongs to a very different world, I have had to engage with why those living in the modern world frequently find the biblical world alien and offensive. What follows is a selective account of Trueman’s thesis, and some reflections on its potential relevance.

Basically Trueman seeks to give an account of the revolution in Western thought and culture that has led to the modern idea of the self. The nearest equivalent is the work of Charles Taylor in his two surveys, The Sources of the Self (1989), and A Secular Age (2007). Taylor is a major influence on Trueman, along with Alasdair MacIntyre and someone whom I had not encountered before, Philip Rieff. The presenting issue for him is the sentiment now common in transgender discourse, ‘I am a woman trapped in a man’s body.’ But from the beginning he argues that what matters is not first of all how we understand sex and gender, but how we perceive the self. It is the revolutionary invention and triumph of the modern self that is central to the story that he tells.


The first part of the book sets out the basic issue and ‘the architecture of the revolution’. Here Trueman introduces us to some of the basic concepts that support his analysis. Much of this is drawn from Taylor, though presented in a more accessible way. Thus the social imaginary is a helpful shorthand for the extensive and usually unexamined set of intuitions and practices that guide the assumptions and actions of ordinary people in a particular society. For example, the expectations and customs that young men and women follow as they relate to each other today is hugely different from what would have been customary in Biblical Times, or in a traditional African tribe, or indeed fifty years ago.

The key change that he describes is what Taylor sums up as expressive individualism, MacIntyre as emotivism, and Rieff as psychological man. It is a shift from finding order and meaning and purpose in the external world, to one that is defined by the individual, especially in what he or she feels. Gone is any recognition of a transcendent God who has created an ordered world and provided guidance about how to live in it. Drawing on more Taylorian terminology, Trueman highlights how this transcendent frame has now been replaced by discourse within the immanent frame. This simply means that people today have to talk about life and morality without reference to God or any comprehensive account of the order of things. In the UK we might point to Alastair Campbell’s infamous ‘we don’t do God’ as a paradigmatic illustration of the immanent frame.

From Rieff comes a simplified but helpful contrast between three worlds. The first world is the world of pagan myth, which was then largely replaced in the West by the second world of Christian faith. Both these draw upon conceptions of a sacral order. Christianity emphasizes the source of our knowledge and being in the revealed will and work of the Christian God. But these two worlds are now being replaced by the third world, characterized by psychological man, whose being is defined by the individual self. The third world is incompatible with any idea of divine order, and indeed committed to the revolutionary demolition of the theological and moral order that formed the social imaginary of the second world. But it has no source of meaning and morality beyond the individual, and truth is ultimately reduced to personal preference and the exercise of influence and power. The multiple manifestations of the third world are united mainly by opposition to the second world, often through an appeal to victimhood and oppression. But, in Rieff’s vivid term, its creative deconstructions are deathworks, anticultural artifacts and practices that seek to destroy the inherited structure of faith and behaviour from the second world. Readers of Rieff quickly discern that he is a first-rate pessimist, but the verification of his cultural predictions have enhanced rather than undermined the persuasiveness of his account.


The second part of the book sets out the historical progress of this revolution. I expected Trueman to begin with Descartes, who pronounced the priority of the individual self with lapidary clarity (‘I think therefore I am’). However, Trueman prefers to highlight Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Like Descartes, Rousseau sets out to explore the inner self, but significantly traces the source of evil not to the sinful self (as Augustine does) but to society. True freedom is found in the heart of the free man rather than in external government, hence his invention of the myth of the ‘noble savage’. These ideas are taken up and popularised by romantic poets such as Wordsworth and Shelley. But Shelley in particular carries forward the crusade for freedom through an attack on institutionalized religion and its oppressive external moral codes.

The next key figure is Nietzsche, who declares the death of God and draws out the implications. In the absence of divine order there is no sound foundation for metaphysics and morality. What is left is freedom to create the self without the need for reference to any essential being. Marx and Darwin reinforce this redefinition of human nature in their emphasis on the economic and environmental factors that shape human nature, which is increasingly regarded as malleable and plastic.

The stage is now set for the next act, which is described in the book’s third part: the sexualization of the revolution, especially through the work of Freud. He invents the now controlling myth that sex is the real key to all human existence. True happiness is therefore only to be found in unbounded sexual fulfilment and in the overthrow of oppressive traditional moral constraints. These basic ideas were then taken up and popularised by the New Left, who made the free expression of sexuality (and much else) the focus of political activism. The demise of the key institutions of marriage and the family are indications of the success of this process.


The fourth part sets out some of the consequences of this new revolutionary view of human nature. The triumph of the erotic is evident in the pornification of culture, the public display of sex, and the loss of mystery and modesty. But above almost all segments of society have now surrendered to what Rieff calls the triumph of the therapeutic. What matters is the fulfilment of the desires and happiness of the individual self, whether this be sex, material things, or affirmation (not merely tolerance) by others. Only then do we come to the triumph of the T in the LGBTQ+ alliance. The transgender movement is the ultimate expression of expressive individualism, with the dissociation of gender and identity from any biological or transcendent givens. Intriguingly Trueman points to some of the incompatible assumptions and goals amongst the various parties, such as the recent tensions between feminists and transgender advocates. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently united in their concern to overthrow heterosexual normativity. With the help of technology there is a concerted drive to marginalise biological realities. In sum ‘the individualism, the psychologized view of reality, the therapeutic ideals, the cultural amnesia, and the pansexuality of our present age are closely intertwined’ (p. 380). Thanks to the constant and one-sided presentation on the full range of media the social imaginary has been decisively reshaped by the third world, which becomes ever more intolerant of any criticism from those who seek to maintain the second world.

The book ends with a sober ‘Concluding Unscientific Postscript,’ in which Trueman suggests some ways forward in an era of plastic people and a liquid world. As always his comments are thought-provoking and helpful, but I did find this the most unsatisfactory part of the book. This may be because a response deserves a second book of the same length. So as a tentative contribution towards such a project I offer five reflections that draw out some of the consequences of his account in areas of my interest.

1. It has helped me reflect on the method and content of the recent Church of England report, Living in Love and Faith (LLF). It seems to me that the absence of any engagement with the kind of story that Trueman tells is a serious weakness (its usefulness is summarily dismissed on p. 348). It suggests that LLF’s focus on disputed issues of sexuality is too narrow. The debate needs to put into a larger historical perspective, especially regarding the language that now pervades the discussion. LLF also illustrates the tension between second world reasoning (often present in the discussion of the biblical texts and more traditional positions) and third world discourse (in its emphasis on experience and individual stories). These are often put, unresolved, side by side. A sobering warning by Trueman is that there is no common ground that can mediate between these two worlds. This is consistent with the recognition in LLF that, however well produced (as it is), it is not intended to decide anything. Rather it seeks to help different parties understand each other better, and Trueman’s work should offer a contribution to this worthy cause. While opponents of his argument will point to its conservative conclusions, he has sought to write fairly, and the challenge to those who disagree is to present a more persuasive alternative.

2. How should Christians respond to the culture (or anti-culture) in which we live? Trueman mentions lamentation, but warns that this can become a therapeutic practice. But here I would like to commend a deeper understanding of the biblical Psalms of lament. In these there is the space to be honest in describing our experiences. But in fact the Psalms redefine those experiences through setting them in a world where (however it looks like on the surface) God rules and will judge the world in righteousness. This assertion of the theological grounding of reality is further reinforced by the praise of God that is frequently a concluding element of the lament. Another common feature of the laments is reference to enemies. But they lack historical specificity in the text. They are in fact open metaphors that a reader can apply to anyone or anything that threatens the life of individual or community. It seems to me perfectly fitting to identity the enemy as a third world culture that encourages lawlessness, shamelessness and the satisfaction of our selfish desires. The more general observation is that immersion in Scripture is the most powerful way in which we can learn to live and think in a world where God is the decisive agency.

3. One of the consequences of this dwelling in Scripture is a growing sensitivity to the distinct language of the second and third worlds. I have long been fascinated by the way in which a whole set of important biblical terms have become endangered species, and replaced by others that cannot be found in a concordance. I enjoy pointing out that in the Old Testament there are no emotions, feelings or experiences. Of course, we cannot do without later concepts in interpreting the Bible, but we have to be alert to how they can co-opt the Bible in the service of another ideology. Terms for states of mind in the Bible are primarily related to the external realities of a situation, not individual interiority (see, for example, this Grove booklet on joy). This is also evident in which common terms, like love and freedom, are redefined in ways that loose them from their biblical framing. Yet other major theological words are become increasingly rare in the speech of ordinary Christians, because they are at odds with modern thought. Examples would be election, covenant, sin, commandment, and judgement. Point of view is also symptomatic. There is a world of difference between the human subject being the dominant starting point, and the priority of God in the Bible and in the doctrine of revelation. For example, the referent-light ‘spiritual’ replaces God-talk, and mindfulness becomes the nearest secular equivalent of prayer.

4. Another practical response might be to develop what I might call a second modesty, echoing Paul Ricoeur’s second naivete. We cannot return to an age of innocence and unawareness of the sexualisation of our culture. But we can refuse to collude with it and ensure we return to the life-giving disciplines of Christian holiness. It is possible to ignore (or even contest) lewd comments, abstain from knowing laughs (even though we are well aware of the allusions), and resist following through the impure thoughts that are unavoidable today. We can take seriously the cautionary categories of temptation, shame, and confession. We can follow the cognitive discipline that Paul commends when he writes to the Philippians that they should think about ‘whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable’ (4:8). This may mean choosing what to watch or read, or at least maintaining a critical distance. So too can we deliberately nurture the language of traditional Christian virtue: purity, chastity, faithfulness, modesty.

5. Finally, I would like to highlight the role of law and order in Trueman’s account. In a striking observation he argues that cultures are ‘defined by that which they forbid, specifically those sexual activities and relationships that they prohibit’ (p. 297). Concepts such as liberation have now been redefined with an emphasis on freedom ‘from’ rather than a freedom ‘for’. This highlights the very different understanding in Exodus, where the goal of liberation from Egyptian bondage is service (though the word is the same as for slavery) to the God of Israel, embodied in a commitment to obeying the commandments. Nor is love the free-flowing liquid love of modernity. Rather it is found in obedience to the commandments that define the community of faith (Deuteronomy 6:4-11; John 15:9-10). I suggest that one vital task is to recover the traditional Jewish appreciation of the gift of the law. Only within the fence of the law is it possible to know the security, peace and freedom of being a member of the people of God (see my Grove booklet on this). Inattention to these guidelines bring terrible consequences that affect not just individuals but also families, communities and the land (Deuteronomy 28). A serious question for our age is how far the modern idea of the self has resulted in the great problems of our age, including rising mental ill-health, the collapse of families and communities, and the consumerism that fuels the exploitation of the earth’s resources. Is there a correlation between the extent of this and how far people now live within a third world social imaginary?


Revd Dr Philip Jenson teaches Old Testament at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. His interest in cultural analysis was sparked by the work of L’Abri, and the challenge of making sense of other cultures was heightened by his scholarly interest in Leviticus. His concern to bridge the world of the Bible and the world of today has led to several Grove booklets on difficult texts.

 


If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

33 thoughts on “How do we make sense of this cultural moment?”

  1. There is an interesting reflection on this subject by Dr Martin Davie on his ‘Reflections of an Anglican Theologian’
    Phil Almond

    Reply
  2. I am sure there is a lot of truth in this, but can’t help being annoyed by the suggestion that feminism is part of the enemy: “…the recent tensions between feminists and transgender advocates. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently united in their concern to overthrow heterosexual normativity.”
    I assume the actual book being reviewed acknowledges at some point the cruelties and oppressions perpetrated by the “first world” culture over the centuries?

    Reply
    • I don’t think this comment is pejorative but descriptive. Trueman is seeking to be fair in his assessment, and I am not clear that it is unfair.

      Part of the dynamic is that different parts of feminism take different approaches to the normative importance of the sexed body.

      Reply
    • I think you have misunderstood the terminology ‘first world’ here. The ‘first world’ referred to is the one of myths and spirits, not the developed world, the terminology that many of us would have been familiar with.

      Reply
    • There are large ways in which feminism is part of the enemy. Or the later more developed manifestations of feminism anyway. (a) Anti family individualism which is antipathetic to the Christian way of self giving and altruism. (b) Track record extremely destructive to family stability – and unnecessarily so given how firmly embedded and workable the previous norm was. (c) Two salary families meaning everyone is stressed out and unable to spend quality time with the children or with each other. (d) Marrying later (if at all) – ditto, less energy to spend time with children , and also a longer period of immaturity which becomes irreversible. (e) There being no viable alternatives to marriage that produce nearly so good average outcomes, especially as vagueness and unplannedness and unstructuredness in a life-pattern are associated with more negative outcomes, whereas the marriage cultures e.g. British Asians do well in health and happiness while not at all losing out in career achievement – quite the reverse. (f) Setting men and women against each other, which is so bad and unnecessary as to be practically demonic. (g) Setting a woman and her unborn child against each other – just as awfully bad as the last. Divisiveness, division – who is it that is the source of that? It is not Christ, so who is it? (h) Association with identity politics (not the recourse of the smart) and with bias to one gender rather than the common good. For one figurehead Harriet Harman it has been documented how little relationship she has to footnotes and research (in other words to the way things really are as opposed to ideology), and it shows, and yet she has attained the highest influence in terms of pulling the levers of power (the equality act has its tentacles everywhere). What’s to like? There are a few important things to like, definitely, but look at (a) to (h).

      Reply
  3. This is fascinating. I think I might well buy this book. Does it mention Sartre, Camus, et al or does it think them irrelevant /uninnovative in themselves, merely continuing (and popularising) what was already set in motion by Nietzsche, Freud (Kierkegaard?) before them?

    Reply
  4. We must be living in two separate worlds as absolutely none of Dr Jensens comments would be given any credence outside a small evangelical cohort of fellow travellers. The same old tropes combine again in a conservative peon to the past. To deconstruct Dr Jensens use of critical biases most likely affirmed in the echo chamber of like minded followers just confirms that without a split the Anglican Church is doomed to ever repeating theological arguments that for the average young person would deem it to irrelevancy if not even the possibility of being seen not only as churlish in its attitude to those outside, but fearfully judgemental.

    Reply
    • It’s a great book. Trueman emphasises that few of us habitually think outside of the ‘social imaginary’ (the unexamined set of intuitions and practices that guide the assumptions and actions of ordinary people in a particular society). Evangelicals tend to assume that they do – especially when talking about sex and relationships.

      Reply
    • It would be interesting to know the criteria you employ, Richie, for your judgement on what is or isn’t of Christian Theological relevance to the average young person and whether the question of relevance is relevant. You must know a lot of these young people.
      And to do so you need to know their views about God (and his relevance) and their source(s) and formation and evaluate from inside and outside their mindset.
      BTW the author of the book, isn’t an Anglican, and it is open to question whether it was written for that particular demographic, but as an upstream counterpoint to the current downstream flow of cultural, political and theological formers and framers of opinion and debate.

      Reply
      • The main issue is that framed within Dr Jensens commentary, is underlying tropes of modern conservatism. The latest being accommodating secular cultures ability to move forward in its thinking on human sexuality. Given the history of institutional resistance to the evolution of new forms of secular tolerance and acceptance of differences in sexual mores, what’s not unusual is that a book could be written within a theological echo chamber that interprets from its own bias gender dysphasia, and brings into the mix a call for purity culture based around its own conservative theology. Dr Jensen then adds his own bucket list of evangelical conservative tropes, mentioning the current debate in UK Anglicanism . The thing is that for those outside the tent it all seems to reflect a growing unease about some Christians ability to be part of a broader secular majority that place individual freedom of thought and tolerance of difference ahead of a fundamentalist evangelical mindset of exclusion.

        Reply
        • The main issue is that framed within Dr Jensens commentary, is underlying tropes of modern conservatism. The latest being accommodating secular cultures ability to move forward in its thinking on human sexuality.

          Is it not fair enough, though, to seek to analyse the origins of that ‘forward motion’? It didn’t simply appear out of nowhere, obviously, and the thesis that it emerged from a privileging of the individual subjective experience, as opposed to something external or objective, as being the locus of life’s meaning seems pretty convincing to me. Do you have an alternative route map for how we got from a world where, say, sexuality was regarded as one way, to how it is regarded now, that doesn’t go through Rousseau, Nietzsche and (especially for sexuality) Freud?

          Then having traced the origins of this modern forward motion we’re surely in a better position to judge whether the ‘forward’ direction it is going in is a good one, and therefore whether we should be accommodating of it, or whether we should rather resist it as we would forward motion towards the edge of a cliff?

          Reply
        • I think you mean “dysphoria”, not dysphasia.
          You sound disappointed that some Christians don’t want to lie down and die yet in the Brave New World of Sexual Discovery. Do you ever wonder why so many transsexuals commit suicide?
          Or why so many teenagers today express sexual identity problems?
          You don’t help mental confusion by calling it a “choice”.

          Reply
          • James, you are speaking much wisdom here.

            There is a lot of confusion regarding the word ‘choice’, some of it cynical.

            First – anything can be a course of action or a path taken. So what? Everyone knows that some of those courses and paths are helpful and some harmful so that gets us nowhere.

            Second – some of those courses and paths are undertaken not through rational choice but through animal instinct or weakness of will or short termism. Big difference.

            Third – one is only in a position to make ‘choices’ when one knows what the available options are. Cynical people will limit these.

          • There is a lot of confusion regarding the word ‘choice’, some of it cynical.

            Some of it absolutely is cynical, but I actually think the worst of it — the post-war existentialist ideas of choice and agency per se being a good, identity being self-constructed through choices, etc etc — is not cynical at all but a genuine, tragically mistaken, belief.

    • The work is built on that of Charles Taylor – a Roman Catholic who blamed, in part, Protestantism for the loss of the sense of the transcendant which is the halmark of the ‘third world’ thinking. This ‘third world’ should not be confused with the ‘third world’ now more correctly termed the majority world. Similarly, Jensen’s reference to purity, holiness, law and judgement is hardly out of tune with much of Christian teaching over much of the last two thousand years. I would also say that Christianity is now dominated by those from the majority world. This world is not so enthralled by the hyper-individualism that is now deeply embedded in the Western world.

      Reply
    • ‘The average young person’: two points.

      (a) Would you say that young people have thought more about things than older, or vice versa? What then is the significance of the appeal to *young* people in particular, rather than to people in general as would make more sense? Is this ageism? If one were to be ageist at all (which one should not be), at least one should be biased towards those with more wisdom not towards those with less! Moreover, the appeal to young people sounds dangerously like an unthought-out cliche. Why exactly do people appeal to young people? What’s the rationale?

      (b) Do you not think that the options that are in the purview of a young person are no more than those limited options that they have been fed by media and education system, which they then recycle or reproduce?

      Reply
      • Yes Christopher,
        In addition, this Cyclops view seems to be a particular Western Culture View, but narrowed down, only so far as it opposes the dominion of youth culture.
        It is so far removed from other cultures that honour elders!
        That said the USA has honoured older generations by recently electing to the office of President, two who are “full of years”, a fulness that the young do not have.
        Not that increase in age automatically brings wisdom.
        If anything, I’d suggest that a common denominator of youth is a substandard sole criterion, likewise any single generational grouping.
        And what came first? Constructionists every time, for deconstructionist *are* reconstructionists, products of earlier, past times, another country as it were, which we only visit with chronological snobbery, a snobbery that is at peak performance in passé deconstructionism which bristles at itself being deconstructed.
        Maybe Carl Trueman’s book can be seen as something of a prolonged deconstruction of present times, which sheds light on the starting point of today’s western colonial aspirations in the furtherance of the Modern Self, a starting point that is the presumed new status quo, or orthodoxy, outside and inside the church.
        It reminds me of the reply of a humorist who was asked directions; if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here!
        But we, human beings, are always “wise in or own eyes”. It was ever thus and never more so than now, in virtual, not veritable reality.

        Reply
  5. A further point (perhaps Trueman discusses it) is the modern dissociation of child bearing and forming a family from sex. One result is the commodification of children as a “project” or personal desire, along with an absolutisation of abortion “rights”, to the point now in the west of institutionalising practical infanticide. The Left led thewayin separating sex from marriage and family life, only to be followed by the secular Right in the following generation. That’s how cultural Marxism works. When you read Marx, what a surprisingly bourgeois person emerges from his work. He could never have anticipated where his disciples would take his ideas – abandoning economics (where they don’t work) and applying the instead to the sex drive.
    It follows that if the acme of freedom is to have complete autonomy over your own body sexually, then not only transgenderism must be your state-funded “right” but also suicide. Which is what we see increasingly in the western world, starting with the “hard cases” of terminal illness but certainly not ending there. State provided suicide for chronic depression will become the norm in the post- Christian world.

    Reply
    • Well, I have the book now and it’s loooong – over 500 pages, but it’s not as if I’ll be going to concerts, restaurants or visiting aging relatives for a while…
      Carl is a good scholar of modern history and ths Reformation, so I look forward to learning a good deal. I remember chats with him years ago at Tyndale Conferences before he crossed the pond and I followed his pieces in Themelios and First Things with interest and profit. It’s interesting that a solid Presbyterian like Carl has had fruitful interactions with Cztholic scholars like Taylor and Catholic clerics like Archbishop Chaput, who has something of a reputation as an evangelist to university culture.
      It is by no means unknown for scholars of sturdy evangelical conviction to have a healthy respect for Great Tradition Catholicism. Three prominent evangelical philosophers/ apologists who died in recent years – Norman Geisler, Ron Nash and R C Sproul – all had very positive things to say about Thomas Aquinas.
      This was a revelation to me because long ago I picked up the Protestant prejudice against Aquinas which I think Karl Barth was largely responsible for at least in the 20th century, in his polemic against natural theology. I came to see instead that natural law and natural theology should really be in the stock in trade of the evangelical because the Bible itself validates them.
      This is all the more true in understanding sexuality. Anglican dogmatic theology of the 20th century was vitiated by its attachment to liberalism and existentialism.

      Reply
    • A local senior school leadership team faced a problem. One pupil had demanded that they be referred to by different pronouns in different subjects. The school refused, but the pupils request had a remorseless logic to it… Because that’s where the whole trend is leading.

      Reply
      • I knew of a twelve year old girl who tried that BS as well.
        The sad madness is in our schools and will not come to a happy end.
        Meanwhile, the new American administration is doing its best go destroy women’s sports at college level, demanding that transsexual males make take part in female sports.
        These sad people have an age da and we will all pay.

        Reply
  6. Thanks, Philip, that was really stimulating.
    The loss of biblical literacy and language is a real concern. If we believe the bible to be the Word of God then this is the mode in which He is communicating to us. We could say that the bible, in a condensed way, reveals the sufficient basic principles which we need to discover holiness in the Kingdom of God. It is against this that we test other ideas and probably also language. If we don’t think biblically in the Romans 12.1 sense then we can be allured by the thinking of the world, especially if we are ignorant of the very texts which would challenge its thinking. How can we test concepts like wellbeing, catharsis or sexuality without the balancing divine input of His Word to us?

    Reply
  7. This is one of the most fascinating discussions I have ever read on this blog. It is the first time I have come across Carl Trueman and he really hits the nail on the head.

    What is missing from his book (and if Carl is reading this) is the projected endpoint of this cultural shift as it seems to me to it contains the seeds of its own destruction. So when it does implode what will come after? Will it be a world conflict where people look to strong leaders to impose order and certainty? A rise of a neo-fascism perhaps? Fragmentation of nation states? Economic and social collapse? Maybe the current pandemic will accelerate this.

    Also, this is mainly a western cultural phenomenon that does nor seems to have affected the oriental and asiatic worlds to the same degree. In the future, will Eastern culture then gain the ascendency?

    And what of the western church? Where can we expect to be then? Will Islam then dominate?

    Great if Carl could speculate on these questions.

    Reply
  8. That is a good review, for two reasons. I understood that the writer understood the book being reviewed and also helped me understand what it was about. Secondly it caused me to look up this bloke Trueman and also the digests of his thoughts so helpfully cited in the review. He seems to be an incisive thinker who can hold several conflicting thoughts in his head and explain where they fit in the jigsaw. If you look him up, elsewhere he attempts to explain the madness of some evangelical Christians in the USA who have hitched the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ to the donkey-cart of President Trump and are now silent on the legitimacy of the election and the storming of Congress.
    Thanks Ian.

    Reply

Leave a comment