Thanks for your insightful and somewhat sympathetic critique of the book. I found myself, though, resonating with your generous descriptions of Kingsnorth's perspectives than with your conclusion. There are large parts of the Machine, isn't there, that are not necessarily redeemable. Your use of Paul's statement to Timothy: "every creature of God is good" doesn't mean the machine is good. God didn't exactly make the machine, did He?
Interesting to me that you would cite Augustine. While I was reading "ATM" I couldn't help thinking of "City of God". What most surprised me most about Kingsnorth's book was how little his views seem shaped by Scripture. This might explain why he opens the book up describing how God will ultimately allow humans to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “The humans…will be ready to eat this fruit one day and when they do, they will gain its knowledge…” (on the first page of the book). Where does he get that? I am aware of no orthodox interpretation that would support that.
While not on the same scale, his hostility to cities seems odd. Has he ever considered the scale of "the Holy City" (Revelation 21)?
On the other hand, it is suspected by some scholars of Augustine, that he may have memorized nearly the entire Bible. If you try and read “City of God” without a Bible close by you will miss a lot. You make a wonderful point on identifying Kingsnorth as a historicist. That’s helpful. While Augustine’s Christian faith was central to his analysis, Kingsnorth’s seems incidental.
If Kingsnorth was trying to come up with a Christian critique of our current cultural moment, I was deeply unsatisfied. In that sense, I found “Biblical Critical Theory” by Christopher Watkin much more helpful.
Really well said.
Thanks, bro.
I appreciate your urging that we sanctify the machine: how we can direct the machine towards the glory of God.
Thanks, Ralph!
Thanks for your insightful and somewhat sympathetic critique of the book. I found myself, though, resonating with your generous descriptions of Kingsnorth's perspectives than with your conclusion. There are large parts of the Machine, isn't there, that are not necessarily redeemable. Your use of Paul's statement to Timothy: "every creature of God is good" doesn't mean the machine is good. God didn't exactly make the machine, did He?
Interesting to me that you would cite Augustine. While I was reading "ATM" I couldn't help thinking of "City of God". What most surprised me most about Kingsnorth's book was how little his views seem shaped by Scripture. This might explain why he opens the book up describing how God will ultimately allow humans to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “The humans…will be ready to eat this fruit one day and when they do, they will gain its knowledge…” (on the first page of the book). Where does he get that? I am aware of no orthodox interpretation that would support that.
While not on the same scale, his hostility to cities seems odd. Has he ever considered the scale of "the Holy City" (Revelation 21)?
On the other hand, it is suspected by some scholars of Augustine, that he may have memorized nearly the entire Bible. If you try and read “City of God” without a Bible close by you will miss a lot. You make a wonderful point on identifying Kingsnorth as a historicist. That’s helpful. While Augustine’s Christian faith was central to his analysis, Kingsnorth’s seems incidental.
If Kingsnorth was trying to come up with a Christian critique of our current cultural moment, I was deeply unsatisfied. In that sense, I found “Biblical Critical Theory” by Christopher Watkin much more helpful.