Sometimes I wonder if those who barricade themselves within certain interpretations of ‘Traditional’ or ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative Evangelical’ Christianity are actually doing so because they are desperate to believe in God… but have never actually tangibly experienced God-as-Event (in Badiou’s sense of the word ‘Event’). When ‘Tradition’ is all that you have of God, then it is no wonder that challenges to ‘Tradition’ (or how that ‘Tradition’ is narrated and interpreted by this contingent) appear to be so threatening.
I sometimes wonder this, not because I think that these so-called ‘orthodox’ Christians are more closed to God than the rest of us, but because I spent 7 summers working with teens and young adults who came from Conservative Evangelical families. During those 7 summers, I discovered that, although Conservative Evangelical kids are taught to speak of having a ‘personal relationship with God’ almost all of them have never actually encountered God in any meaningful, transformative or concrete way. I remember when I first awakened to the observation that I was actually an oddity for believing I had actually had such experiences and this so surprised me that my first thought was: “Well, why the heck are you guys Christians then??”
Not surprisingly, it turned out that many of these people only identified as Christians because their parents had trained them to do so. Consequently, when they moved on to independence and to other environments, their Christian faith (sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually) disappeared.
However, others could not face the trauma of walking away from their faith and so, in the absence of a lived encounter with God, went on to immerse themselves in apologetics, and the history and doctrines of various (in this case, Reformed or Evangelical) Christian denominations.
Several of these people have ended up within the walls of the Christian Academy. Consequently, it does not surprise me that Christian academics often end up speaking condescendingly of those who talk of having a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus or, to provide another example, those who speak of the notion of exploring ‘God as a lover’. Thus, those who have never experienced God-as-Event end up building theological systems that downplay the significance of one’s personal encounter with God (i.e. one’s personal experiences are not to be trusted or treated as any sort of authority), and end up overemphasizing the history of Christian doctrine (although it should be noted that this narration of history is almost always fraught with value judgments and acts of exclusion in order to end up confirming previously established views).
However, those who have encountered God-as-Event cannot view this (fictional!) Tradition with the same urgency or authority. Granted, the various streams of Christianity, and the multiple traditions that trace their way throughout the last two thousand years, are an important witness to the activity of the Word of God in history… but one has now been freed from the need to desperately cling to one particular ideological interpretation of that history — in fact, one can even more critically engage with these things because, after the Event, one’s faith in God will remain regardless of what one discovers in the traditions or in Christianity’s many orthodoxies.
Thankfully, this at least was the experience of a minority of the people with whom I worked for those 7 summers. Awakening to the realization that God could be known as Event, these few were lucky enough to look for that experience, and to be found by it. Would that we were all so fortunate!
April 2009
On So-Called 'High' and 'Low' Views of Scripture
When a person crosses ideological boundaries in order to engage in discussions about Jesus, Paul, or any other aspect of biblical theology, it seems as though the more seriously one takes the context of the biblical authors, the ‘lower’ one’s view of Scripture is said to be. Conversely, the more one favours a ‘plain reading’ of the texts at hand, the ‘higher’ one’s view of Scripture is said to be. Not surprisingly, it is usually those who favour this ‘plain reading’ who tend to make this sort of statement.
Imagine, for example, the following discussion.
Party A wishes to suggest that Paul as a human person, is not simply an unbiased conduit of the divine Word of God but is, at times, influenced by other political or cultural factors (after all, what human person is not so influenced?). In order to illustrate this point, Party A points to 1 Cor 11.14-16, wherein Paul argues that ‘nature’ teaches us that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair or for women to have short hair. Surely, Party A says, this is not God’s general and eternal rule for how we wear our hair; rather, in this passage Paul is revealing one of the ways in which he has been influenced by his own historical context. Therefore, Party A concludes that there are times when properly respecting Paul means not applying what he has said to our contemporary context.
At this point Party B objects. No, Party B says, Scripture — whether written by Paul or anybody else — is the divine Word of God and means the same thing for us as it meant at the time it was written. If Paul makes a statement to one of his churches regarding the length of hair worn by men and women, then this statement must apply equally to us today. To do otherwise, Party B asserts, is to diminish the authority of Scripture — as though we can pick and choose which commandments to follow! Therefore, Party B concludes that Party A must have a ‘low view’ of Scripture, whereas Party B holds to a ‘high view’.
Now this conclusion is problematical for at least three reasons.
First, comments regarding ‘high’ and ‘low’ views of Scripture tend to actually operate as (veiled?) ad hominum attacks upon the other Party engaging in this discussion. The implication is that those who have a ‘high’ view treat Scripture with more reverence or respect than those accused of having a ‘low’ view. In my own experience, this has never been the case. What is at stake are two differing hermeneutical methodologies and not the reverence or respect with which Scripture is treated. Indeed, one cannot even say that those who claim a ‘high’ view of Scripture allow Scripture to operate with more authority in their lives. Once again, what one finds is that both of the parties are trying to live lives that accord with Scripture — it’s just that the parties differ over which elements of Scripture operate authoritatively. Thus, while members of Party A may not give much contemporary weight to what Paul writes about hair (based upon cultural and contextual grounds), they might give a whole lot more contemporary weight to Jesus’ injunction to the rich young ruler in Mk 10.21. Similarly, while members of Party B might disregard what Jesus says to the rich young ruler (based upon literary and contextual grounds), they might continue to affirm what Paul says about hair. Thus, the question is not who treats Scripture as a greater authority, the question is who treats what parts of Scripture as authoritative and why.
This points to the second problem with the conclusion drawn by Party B — it is fundamentally inconsistent with the way in which members of Party B tend to treat all the texts contained within the Canon. While members of Party B often want to defend a ‘plain’ reading of almost every sentence found within the Pauline and deutero-Pauline epistles, they most certainly do not apply the same rule to every other passage, observation, or injunction found within the Bible. Thus, while a member of Party B may choose to follow Paul’s advice regarding hair, that member likely won’t follow the Deuteronomic command to stone disobedient children (cf. Deut 21.18-21). This is not because the New Testament ever tells us that the command to stone disobedient children has been revoked (which is often the rational used by members of Party B to disregard other passages in the Old Testament — largely those related to food, circumcision, purity, and cultic acts). Rather, it is because members of Party B can see the ways in which the violent patiarchalism of the Ancient Near East (often reflected in the Old Testament) is not something worth applying within our contemporary context.
Or, to take a second example, let us look at Prov 26.4 and Prov 26.5. The first verse tells us not to answer a fool according to that person’s folly lest we become like the fool ourselves. The second verse tells us to answer a fool according to that person’s folly so that the fool does not become wise in his or her own eyes. What are we to do with this glaring contradiction? Well, I suspect that members of both Parties A and B would tell us that Proverbs belong to a certain genre of Wisdom literature wherein general but not universally applicable aphorisms are suggested. Thus, it is up to the person with wisdom to discern which aphorism applies to which context. What is clear (to both Parties, I think) is that both Prov 26.4 and Prov 26.5 cannot be equally applied at the same time in the same way.
Therefore, it actually looks like members of Party A and of Party B hold strikingly similar views of Scripture as a whole, but disagree on how this view is applied to certain passages. Given that this is the case, it seems like a cheap effort to gain power over the opposing Party by claiming a ‘high’ view of Scripture, or by charging the opposing Party with a ‘low’ view. (Or it could simply be a way of avoiding addressing the issue more substantially — i.e. by saying that a person’s view can be rejected, a priori, because that view belongs to a ‘lower’ view of Scripture.)
Third, and finally, claiming a high view Scripture is problematical because it is often a means of masking what is actually a rather disrespectful approach to Scripture. To illustrate this point take the way in which Mary is treated within the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic hierarchy can point to its veneration of Mary in order to suggest that it has a high view of women… and this then becomes one of the ways in which that hierarchy masks the way it oppresses and marginalizes women within the historical Church itself! Similarly, those who claim a ‘high’ view of Scripture often (intentionally or not) end up using this as a way of masking the ways in which they abuse Scripture by disregarding its contexts, its various genres, and so on. Sadly, the rhetoric of a ‘high’ view of Scripture is all too often employed to defend superficial readings that actually abuse the texts at hand. Thus, the language of ‘high’ and ‘low’ views becomes a propaganda tool and a means of deception.
Therefore, in light of these things, I suggest that we abandon this language altogether.
Interview: Abe and the Commonists
[My brother, Abe, recently converted his family home into an intentional Christian community, modeled after the example of some other ‘new monastic’ communities. So far, their community consists of Abe, his wife Melissa, their two boys Ben and Chris, and two of their friends, Alexis and Nate. They are also exploring adding at least one more person to their community. Broadly, they have taken to referring to their community as “The Common Place” and to their house as “The Red House” (as it is made of red brick). This, then, has led them to refer to themselves as ‘Commonists’ — a title I quite like. I decided to interview Abe about this transition because I think there may be others who are interested in pursuing this lifestyle, but wo are unsure of how to proceed. Hopefully the example of Abe and the Commonists will help to inspire and encourage others to explore alternatives ways to love one another and share life together.]
Here is the exchange I had with Abe.
Dan: How has your Christian faith developed in such a way that living in community has become important to you? Were there significant moments or paradigm shifts along the way? Particular voices that you found especially convincing or convicting?
Abe: My Christian faith has gone through much transition over the years, from being raised in an ultra-conservative home, to now pushing on the boundaries of a liberal Christianity. Some of the major experiences that have facilitated this shift include: (a) chatting with [a close mutual friend]; (b) working at a health clinic for homeless persons; (c) taking Master’s and Doctoral studies in Nursing; (d) reading books by authors such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, John Ralston Saul, N. T. Wright, Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and others; and (e) meeting some like-minded people through a bible study connected to my current church. The tipping point was when we watched the video “Ordinary Radicals” and found out about many alternative Christian lifestyles. I joked that we should do this, a friend replied quite seriously that we should. That got the ball rolling.
Dan: What were the practical/actual steps that you took in order to bring this about?
Abe: There were a lot of logistics as we started with myself, my wife, our two young children, and 3 single friends (one who has now graciously stepped out and we are now ‘courting’ 2 other people). My wife and I are financially tied to our house courtesy of a large mortgage and plummeting house prices, and some other debts. So, although we all dreamed of getting a big property in the east end [the poorer part of the city] and setting up a drop-in centre for persons in poverty/curch(/bar?), we realized that we would have to just start where we were at. So, what actually happened is we decided to met on a Saturday following the discusion mentioned in the question above. We just chatted about the idea of intentional community, what we knew, what we dream about. We then gave it a week to think, study, read, pray, ask people like you about it, etc. I spent a lot of time talking to my wife, and researching intentional communities online and in books.
When we came together again the following Saturday we unanimously agreed we wanted to try it, and that we would just start with everyone moving into or (rather modestly sized) house. This has meant some ongoing renovations to add a couple of bedrooms. We have also spent a lot of time refining our mission, vision and principle statements and continuing to study and dialogue with others.
We have also decided to connect this to our local church, and so have been in dialogue with the Board there.
Another thing we did was purge a tone of stuff, we took 3-4 full truck-loads to Goodwill, as well as putting lots of stuff out at the curb.
We have also figured out the money stuff, where we all pay into a common account that pays the house bills, calculated to the reality that at the end of the day my wife and I still own the house. For more on the logistics you can look us up at our blog at http://thecommonplace.blog.ca/.
Dan: So it sounds like this whole process has moved quite quickly for you. How long did it take you to go from your first (joking) discussion of this topic to actually having people move into your house?
Abe: It was only three months, which does seem rather fast. However, we did spend a lot of time together within that three months. Also, it has taken much longer than that to find and work with other people, other than the core four to move in.
Dan: What is it that excites you about life in community?
Abe: Man, tons of stuff. The idea of being forced to be in intimate relationships with a broader community than your own family (we have a 1 year mandatory stay contract for the founders, so no ducking out if relationships get dicey), the idea of being scrutinized and supported by others who inspire you, the idea of living simply and consuming less, the idea of our kids being exposed to more parental figures, the idea of beginning a journey of living an alternative lifestyle to our horrible culture, and honestly, the attention of doing something this outside of the ordinary garners. There’s probably a lot of other things that don’t come to mind immediately. I have been quite elated about the whole process as my wife has mentioned. The idea of finally living the valuse I espouse is soul-soothing.
Dan: What scares you about life in community?
Abe: Honestly, the primary fear is telling other people about what we are doing, and worrying about misconceptions or poor opinions. There are still some people (who are quite close to me) who I haven’t told about this because I am afraid of what it will do to our relationship. Another thing that scares me is raising my kids up to either be weird or think we are weird, as this was a painful aspect of my own childhood, both rooted in and contributing to my own low self-esteem. I’m a pretty open person anyway, so the scrutiny of my personal life isn’t disconcerting at all.
Dan: What are some of the “misconceptions or poor opinions” that you anticipate encountering? What would you say in response to those things?
Abe: Actually, the one that we have gotten a lot is, “what about the kids?”, to which I usually reply, “what about the kids?”. People seem concerned somehow that the kids won’t have enough of their own space, or will be not as well raised with other non-relatives around. Our perspective is absolutely opposite to this; we believe that having other loving non-related adults in their lives is very healthy for them. As well, we believe that having our kids see us living out our values is very healthy for them. Lastly, having more people around will allow them to receive the personal attention that I feel sometimes Melissa and I are unable to provide them with.
Anwering this questions has been insightful for me. The more I think about it, the more I can’t see having trouble answering any particular questions. I guess it’s just a general impression that I’m worried about. A lot of my acquaintances admire my achievements and rive, and I’m worried their admiration would decrease if they saw me doing something that might limit my worldly success. I’m also a bit worried about telling the neighbours, who have a bit more of a vested interest in this.
Dan: What are the vision and/or goals y’all have established four yourselves at this point (if any)?
Abe: You can find some of this in our mission/vision and principles statements on our blog [see here], but really at this point we wanted to just dive in there and start living it. We have dreams of connecting with our community, including those in poverty, those who are socially excluded, youth, and our immediate neighbours. We have dreams of being inspirationally different. In the long run, we have dreams of doing this way bigger like the Simple Way community. For now, like I said, we want to get used to living together in such an intentional way.
Dan: So for now will you be focusing on developing relationships amongst those living in the house, or do you already have plans to include others from outside into your activities?
Abe: The main focus is the internal relationships. However, it is quickly becoming clear that we will have a lot of external outreach as well. A large part of this is the number of people we have lined-up to invite over for a meal. These include neighbours, people from our church, friends, people we want to move-in, famil, etc. So, that will be a part of developing relationships — showing others what we are doing and hoping to excite them with our work.
The second one is that through Nate’s work at the church, we are now planning on hosting a weekly meal at a local subsidized housing complex. We are actually starting this Saturday, which should be a great experience. Everything else is pending.
Dan: What suggestions would you give to others who are interested in this sort of lifestyle but are unsure how to progress?
Abe: Honestly, just start where you are. Start in the neighbourhood you’re in, in the building you’re in, with the people you love. It doesn’t have to be as awesome as some of the other communities that are out there, these have taken 10, 15, 20 years to grow to what they are. Do lots of research, there a good books, a good lecture series from Charles Ringma at Regent [see here], lots of resources on the internet, and people you can talk to who are doing this or have done it before. Spend a lot of time discussing with each other to make sure everyone is absolutely on the samepage as much as possible, which includes considering writing up a contract to limit the pain involved in a potential community breakdown.
Dan: Anything else you want to say about all of this?
Abe: That pretty much covers it, though I’m sure that people might have more questions, and I would be happy to keep answering them.
Dan: Thanks for you openness and willingness to engage in this interview, Abe! I’m excited to see how this grows and develops in the life of you and the other Commonists. Much love.
Book Giveaway — Pastoral
Mel, Charles and I are back from our travels and getting settled in, once again, to life in Vancouver. That means I can now return to my ongoing book giveaways (which I’ve initiated as one way of celebrating the birth of wee Charlie). Just to remind everybody of how this works — if you want the books listed below (and you have to want all of them) just leave a comment and I will put your name in a random draw. If I draw your name, I will mail the books to you, free of charge. Simple, right? Here are the books up for grabs this time:
1. Joyful Exiles: Life in Christ on the Dangerous Edge of Things by James M. Houston.
2. The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on the Tough Questions of Faith by Christopher J. H. Wright.
3. Can God Be Trusted? Faith and the Challenge of Evil by John G. Stackhouse Jr.
4. Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Its Cure by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
5. Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve by Lewis B. Smedes.
6. A Tale of Three Kings: A Study in Brokenness by Gene Edwards.
Questioning (a few) Christian Truisms
Just a few scattered and questioning thoughts regarding a couple of statements that are treated as truisms within certain contemporary Christian circles.
First truism: ‘God loves everybody equally.’
Is this really true? Doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that this statement is one that is repeated ad nauseum by Christians who are well-situated in places of comfort and privilege within predatory and death-dealing societies?
So, even if this statement is true, shouldn’t we instead be emphasising that God’s love is one that calls the oppressed to liberation and the oppressors to repentance? Isn’t it a little irresponsible and self-serving to neglect to mention that God’s love calls us to particular historical actions and ways of being? Doesn’t this mean that, for those Christians mentioned above, it might be better to say: “God loves you, but God sure as hell hates what you are doing with your life”?
Second truism: “All sins are equal in God’s eyes.”
Is this a true statement? Does it really reflect the way in which God engages sin within the biblical narrative? In actuality doesn’t the biblical story show us that God thinks some actions are far worse than others? After all, to pick just one example, doesn’t God permit drunkenness amongst the poor, while simultaneously condemning the wealthy who spend their money on booze instead on sharing their wealth with others?
Once again, isn’t it a little suspicious that this sort of thinking is popular amongst Western Christians of status and privilege? Given that almost all areas of their lives are saturated with the blood of others, shouldn’t we think twice before we believe them when they tell us that ‘all sins are equal in God’s eyes’?
March Books
Well, I’m just barely keep my head above water with my reading. Here are last month’s books.
1. John and Empire: Initial Explorations by Warren Carter.
In my estimation, Warren Carter is one of the best New Testament scholars writing today. His knowledge of the New Testament, as well as all of the various contextual and intertextual possibilities related to it, is exceptional and makes for fascinating (dare I say ‘required’?) reading.
This is well illustrated in John and Empire, a study of the Gospel of John. Carter takes a Gospel that is generally perceived of as more ‘spiritual’ than ‘historical’, and places it firmly within the context of the Roman Empire in general, and Ephesus in the late first-century more specifically. Thus, the reader comes to understand John’s Gospel as a call to a particular way of negotiating the imperial realities of one’s personal and communal existence. In particular, Carter demonstrates that the author of John’s Gospel is calling the readers to create more distance between themselves and the values, ideologies, and structures of imperial powers (which, of course, has implications for the contemporary Western reader).
I highly recommend this book.
2. The Power of the Poor in History by Gustavo Gutierrez.
This book is a collection of essays written by Gutierrez. They reflect upon the historical development of liberation theology (within Latin America), and upon some of the major themes of that theology — notably, the transformative power of poor people and the importance of solidarity with them.
While reading this book, I was struck by the distance that has grown up between the original Latin American liberation theologians and many of those in the West who have adopted the rhetoric of liberation theology. It seems to me that many Western copies pale in comparison to the original. Specifically, while those like Gutierrez call us to the lived experience of poverty, concrete movement into places of oppression, and solidarity that is expressed in all areas of one’s life, Western voices have taken the language of Gutierrez and used it to support a more bourgeois, liberal democratic focus upon matters related to equality and inclusivity.
Of course, things like equality and inclusivity aren’t bad things, but the way in which these things are pursued tend to be quite superficial in comparison to the depth of the commitments of the Latin American liberation theologians. Nowhere is this more evident than in the means by which these theologies are developed. Latin American liberation theology is developed out of concrete solidarity at ‘the underside of history’ whereas Western appropriations tend to come out of places of privilege and power over history.
Thus, I persist in thinking that liberation theology continues to be an untested thesis in the West. It is not the sort of theory that one can simply engage cerebrally. To truly test the thesis of liberation theology requires the inquirer to engage in an embodied active experiment. Sadly, I know of very few Western theologians who have been willing to do this.
So, I recommend reading Gutierrez, but I even more strongly recommend trying to live in alternative ways, so that one can properly read Gutierrez.
3. Fugitive Writings by Peter Kropotkin.
Hot-diggity-damn, this is one helluva good book. It is a collection of essays written by Kropotkin on the theme of anarchism (its vision, principles, philosophy, ideals, morality, and relation to the State) and if you are not open to being an anarchist after reading it, then I might be inclined to think that you are also not open to being a Christian! Indeed, it is precisely because I am a Christian that I am drawn to anarchism in general, and to Kropotkin’s expression thereof in particular.
Now, I could rant and rave some more about this collection, but perhaps a few quotes might be more helpful.
From the essay, “Anarchist Morality”:
[T]his principle of treating others as one wishes to be treat oneself, what is it but the very same principle as equality, the fundamental principle of anarchism? And how can one manage to believe himself [sic] an anarchist unless he practices it?
We do not wish to be ruled. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody? We do not wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told nothing but the truth. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits of our labour stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we not declare that we respect the fruit of others’ labour?
By what right indeed can we demand that we should be treat in one fashin, reserving it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different?
…
By proclaiming ourselves anarchists, we proclaim beforehand that we disavow any way of treating others in which we should not like them to treat us; that we will no longer tolerate the inequality that has allowed some among us to use their strength, their cunning or their ability after a fasion in which it would annoy us to have such qualities used against ourselves.
Of course, what makes this so different than so much bourgeois rhetoric is the way in which the anarchists realise that this belief is tied to pratical solidarity (just like the Latin American liberation theologians). Thus, I quote from the essay, “Must we Occupy Ourselves with an Examination of the Ideal of a Future System?”:
The necessary and primary condition of any success whatsoever… is the full renunciation of any signs of nobility, the lowering of one’s material circumstances almost to the level of that milieu where one intends to act. And one must work, do actual work, which each worker and each peasant can understand precisely as work… A person unable to renounce these comforts when he [sic] sees the usefulness of such renunciation, is not capable of presistent, tedious labour, and never will be capable of persistent revolutionary activity. He might be the hero of the moment, but we have no need of heroes; in moments of passion, they appear of themselves, from amongst the most ordinary people. We need people who, once having come to a certain conviction, are for its sake ready to withstand all possible deprivations day in and day out. But activity amongst the peasants and workers demands precisely this rejection of every comfort of life, a lowering of one’s prosperity to a level attainable by the worker.
Of course, many people are unable to hear these words because they are afraid of the word ‘anarchy’ and have confused anarchy with ‘disorder’. Kropotkin addresses some of these fears in the essay, “Anarchist Communinism: It’s Basis and Principles”:
We know well that the word “anarchy” is also used in current phraseology as synonymous with disorder. But that meaning of “anarchy,” being a derived one, implies at least two suppositions. It implies, first, that wherever there is no government there is disorder; and it implies, moreover, that order due to a strong government and a strong police is always beneficial. Both implications, however, are anything but proved. There is plenty of order–we should say, of harmony–in many branches of human activity where the government, happily, does not interfere. As to the beneficial effects of order, the kind of order that reigned at Naples under the Bourbons surely was not preferable to some disorder started by Garibaldi; while the Protestants of this country will probably say that the good deal of disorder made by Luther was preferable, at any rate, to the order which reigned under the Pope.
Yet isn’t the anarchist vision one that is too ‘utopian’ and impossible to work out in real life, due to the fallen nature of humanity? Kropotkin reverses this challenge in “Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal”:
Far from living in a world of visions and imagining men better than they are, we see them as they are; and that is why we affirm that the best of men is made essentially bad by the exercise of authority…
Ah, if men were those superior beings that the utopians of authority like to speak to us of, if we could close our eyes to reality and live like them in a world of dreams and illusions as to the superiority of those who think themselves called to power, perhaps we also should do like them…
All the science of governments, imagined by those who govern, is imbibed with these utopias. But we know men too well to dream such dreams. We have not two measures for the virtues of the governed and those of the governors; we know that we ourselves are not without faults and that the best of us would soon be corrupted by the exercise of power.
Another book I strongly recommend.
4. Oblomov by Ivan Goncharov.
This is Goncharov’s story of Oblomov, a member of the Russian gentry who has good intentions but never seems to get around to doing anything meaningful. Indeed, Oblomov is the superfluous man, and functions as a representative of Goncharov’s generation (as perceived by the author). It’s a decent story and one that should be rewritten for my generation.