I’ve had Os Guinness’ Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It for about 10 years. I think I’ve put off reading it because it sounds smug — like something that would feed an elitist spirit and fan the flame of a ranting condescension toward American culture. I’m not very nice when I rant. Further, in general I think there’s too much ranting, especially in the blogosphere, from people who purport to be concerned Christians. Recently I’ve read “Christian” rants on everything from other bloggers’ choices about what to write about, to politics, to the need for church reform. It always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth — though once the tone starts to degenerate, I rarely finish reading whatever it is. I have a hard time reconciling fashionable anger with the mind of Christ.
It turns out that this was the right time for me to read this book, though. It was on the recommended reading list at the end of Total Truth, and following up my recent reading of that tome with this slimmer volume worked well. This is a far cry from ranting or smugness. I was fortunate enough to hear a series of lectures by Os Guinness at my alma mater back in the mid-90’s, and I was mesmerized by his sophistication, his wit, and his articulateness as a cultural critic. This book was a delight to read for the same reasons.
I just glanced through some of the reviews at Amazon as I was importing the link, and have to scratch my head when they charge Guinness with being superficial or dogmatic. This book is indeed a quick read (150 pages), but its purpose is to sketch out a sharply-focused “big picture” confined to anti-intellectualism in popular culture (not academia). To be sharply-focused when the scope is so broad is to opt against burdening the text with exhaustive detail (read Total Truth for that), but the resulting focus would not be possible for such a broad subject without an extremely discerning perspective, and an ability to render the complex forces at work in American history and thought with refreshing directness.
The book is structured in three sections. The first provides an overview of eight influences over the last 200 years that have contributed to the softening of the Christian mind, sweeping through American intellectual life and leaving a “ghost mind” (as in ghost town) in their wake. The second section traces eight strands of present-day culture that contribute to further atrophy. Last, in a single chapter, Guinness suggests eight first steps to responding. (He likes 8, I guess.) “Our task, as followers of Christ, is not easy but it is clear,” writes Guiness at the start of this last section:
The challenge, in St. Paul’s words, is to “not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Thus the currents are swift and the pressures strong, but a focus on the negative is far from negative. It is the first step to the most glorious positive of all, having the mind of Christ.
Guinness admits at various points that a given subject warrants a whole book in itself, but he returns frequently to the more modest purpose of this book, which is introductory. For someone looking for an overview that provides a structure for organizing future thought, this is a great read.
Some of the things I enjoyed about this book: first, after Pearcey’s longer book, I appreciated this chance to review the history of evangelicalism in a more abbreviated way. I felt like I came away with a clearer sense of the big picture. Second, I enjoyed encountering some familiar figures in Guinness’ many allusions. One, sadly, was Frances Asbury, after whom my undergraduate college was named. He was a Methodist circuit rider who, I discovered in these pages, posed “a choice between the importance of study and the importance of soul-saving that would have been unthinkable to the Puritans.” Fancy that: my college was named after someone guilty of anti-intellectualism. (Sigh.) Another was Frances Schaeffer, cited a few times. And still another was Camille Paglia, two of whose books an academic advisor gave me years ago in order to challenge (or madden) me, but which I’ve never read. Maybe it’s time. Third, as these varied names suggest, Guinness is an astute observer of culture, and his discussion ranges widely from Rush Limbaugh to Madonna, from the frontier to cyberspace, from the Puritans to Camille Paglia. Say what you will about Guinness’s rapid treatment of the subject, he could never be accused of being underinformed or unengaging. Last but not least, he actually made an attempt to distinguish postmodernism from modernism from modernity, and succeeded in bringing some clarity to these confusing terms. In a word, wow. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible.
Reading Guinness’ strong, clean prose is pure pleasure, reflecting as it does polish, wit, liveliness, and a keen mind. For a readable, fast-paced, and provacative discussion of a subject of interest to anyone who’s curious about American history, American Christianity, or cultural trends in the present day, Fit Bodies Fat Minds is worth the investment.
4 responses so far ↓
JW // April 1, 2008 at 8:48 pm
So, why did he say Francis Asbury was an anti-intellectual? Meaning he was against learning or smart people? Or instead he was not smart himself. I guess I always assumed Francis was a pretty bright person, so am not sure what Os is saying here…
I suppose this is another book I need to add to my pile. Will YOU just read all the books for me and tell me what they are about.
Just kidding! THAT is probably an anit-intellectual attitude.
writer2b // April 1, 2008 at 9:25 pm
His criticism of Bishop Asbury is that Asbury said you should choose soul-saving over study. The tough-minded Puritans didn’t divide spiritual life from the life of the mind.
Guinness quotes Asbury as saying, “If you can do but one, let your studies alone. I would throw by all the Libraries in the World rather than be guilty of the Loss of one Soul.”
Easy now, I know you’re a librarian… breathe, breathe… there. That’s it.
JW // April 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Gottcha. hehehehe… That is funny. I may be a librarian, but I respect people’s right to refuse to learn!
I’m still not sure I am convinced - even by this one good quote - that Asbury COMPLETELY eschewed all learning. Certainly he didn’t go around telling others that they should be dumb? Seems to me, that he was just MORE interested in saving souls. Paul says something like this too…. “lay aside every weight”, “whatever I profit, I now consider loss…”, “I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ…” Heb 12:1 & Phil 3:7-8 I think that was all Asbury was saying.
But then again, I never knew this about Asbury to begin with, so what do I know? I do know he was dedicated - so much so that he refused medical care when he was deathly ill, just so that he could be out saving souls. Oh to be so dedicated to saving the lost!
writer2b // April 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I think Guinness would say, why choose? How do you save souls without saving minds? The division between spiritual life and mental equipping may be a false one.
Asbury’s followers took the same line: “It has been our desire to preserve a living rather than a learned ministry.” How do you have one without the other?
I don’t think Paul meant lay aside the life of the mind. Lay aside retreating into intellectualism, sure. But don’t lay aside study and learning. Paul himself took pains to codify a great deal of explanation and teaching that were meant to be studied.
Leave a Comment