Review: Robert Jensen's "All My Bones Shake"

Robert Jensen (not to be confused with Robert Jenson) is a journalism professor at the University of Texas in Austin. His most recent book, All My Bones Shake, is a departure from his previous works: it is a book of political theology, whereas most of his previous works have been on more secular topics. He writes now explicitly as a layperson rather than an expert, bringing a fresh perspective to divisive and complicated issues.

Subtitled "Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice", All My Bones Shake presents a new approach to the integration of faith and public life. Jensen has a unique perspective, having been an outsider to the Church for much of his life. The book is very thought-provoking, containing a diversity of valuable insights and intriguing analysis. Much could be discussed in a review of the book, but I want to focus primarily on two aspects: Jensen's unconventional theology, and his fascinating analysis of fundamentalism.

1. The Nature of Jensen's Personal Faith

Jensen is a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. He joined the church after being asked to preach on social justice issues (despite identifying as an atheist at the time). He found the liturgical recitation of the Lord's prayer to be incredibly moving, and he writes that he left the church that day "not with a new set of beliefs but with a new experience" (29). Soon thereafter, he decided to join St. Andrew's. He didn't believe in God, but in a very real sense he believed in the Church and embraced the principles of Christ's message. He no longer describes himself as an atheist, though he still doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense.

On God, Jensen writes: "I believe God is a name we give to the mystery of the world that is beyond our capacity to understand." He writes also that "Christ offered a way into that mystery that still has meaning today" (47). This is clearly a less-than-traditional approach to the divine, and frankly I am not sure what to make of it. The idea of "'God'-as-name-for-mystery" is intriguing, if not convincing, and I pray that for Jensen it reveals God's reality in a way that he can understand and relate to.

I disagree with several major aspects of Jensen's theology: his rejection of the physical Resurrection, his depersonalization of God, and his emphasis on finding the internal strength to struggle rather than falling on God's provision in faith. But I find his willingness to engage the truth of Jesus Christ compelling, even if it has led him to conclusions that I do not share. He seems genuinely to be striving to follow Christ, whether or not he believes all of what others might consider to be the "right ideas" about him. This is admirable.

2. Jensen's Analysis of Fundamentalism

Jensen sees fundamentalism as one of the primary forces for evil in the world. But he doesn't just stop at the traditional analysis of "fundamentalism = religious loony". Instead, Jensen diagnoses four distinct types of fundamentalism: religious, nationalistic, economic, and technological. Recognizing that religious fundamentalism has already been well critiqued and analyzed, Jensen largely passes over it in his discussion.

His treatment of "nationalistic fundamentalism" focuses, as it inevitably must, on America. In Chomskyan style, Jensen strips away the emperor's clothes of benevolent intervention, recognizing the inherent imperialism and oppression that lie beneath much of united states foreign policy. Rightly criticizing the "pathological hyperpatriotism that tends to suppress internal dissent" and that is often obligatory for well-behaved u.s. citizens, Jensen advocates instead that we "celebrate out connections to real people in our lives while also declaring a commitment to universal principles that are not rooted in any particular nation-state" (109-10). A compelling vision indeed, and one that is much needed in America today.

The third variety of fundamentalism criticized is economic or market fundamentalism, wherein "the naturalness of capitalism is now taken to be beyond question" and corporate capitalism is viewed as "the only sane and rational way to organize an economy in the contemporary world" (112). Indeed, the "widening gap between rich and poor" attests to the failure of capitalism to provide prosperity for more than the very few; this has been well-documented in other texts, and is a subject that I have only recently become interested in (and in regards to which my formerly libertarian views have been radically shifting).

The final fundamentalism Jensen addresses is technological fundamentalism. He describes this as the belief that "the increasing use of evermore sophisticated high-energy, advanced technology is always a good thing and that any problems caused by the unintended consequences of such technology eventually can be remedied by more technology" (116). Pointing to widespread ecological degradation of the last century, he argues that faith in technology to solve our problems will inevitably lead to further destruction. This is the section about which I am most uncertain; I have always been of the opinion that technological and scientific advancement eventually bring about widespread benefits. I especially am uncomfortable with his dismissal of the worth of the space program, and his idea that humanity has "no business" exploring "the atom and the cell" (118). Nevertheless, Jensen makes valid and thought-provoking criticism of humanistic hubris and technological arrogance, and his ideas certainly merit further discussion.

Concluding thoughts

Though the book as a whole is organized around an entirely different set of themes, the twin pillars of unique theology and anti-fundamentalism are key to his overall vision. Jensen offers a way of approaching religious concepts that engages them with the goals of truth-seeking and justice-action. These twin purposes must be central to our theological and spiritual lives, even though we may differ on many details (as Jensen and I do).

There is much more to the book than what I have written about. All of it is intriguing; much of it is controversial; none of it is conventional. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is willing to consider his ideas thoughtfully, as challenging to American Christian orthodoxy as they are.

Originally published here.