What he got right and what I'm not sure about

I just finished a book called The Prophetic Imagination, by Walter Brueggemann. One thing I liked about reading the book was that I didn't agree with a lot of what was written in it. I've found that when I read books I tend to agree with the author more often than not. Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that I'm not giving conflicting views enough of a chance because reading a book gives an author a monopoly on your time and thoughts and certain biases might go unrecognized. However, every now and then I read something that I really don't like and at the very least it reminds me that I still know how to think for myself. Since I just finished the book I wanted to write a few things about what I thought Brueggemann got right and what I'm not so sure about.

One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.

One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.

Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.