Alan Hirsch Responds to Critics

Earlier this year (2012) my friend Alan Hirsch released a book called The Permanent Revolution.

Like any book that challenges the conventional wisdom, Alan and his-coauthor Tim Catchim received a fair bit of criticism on their book. Among other things, Hirsch was accused of “vilifying people in the clergy” and far worse accusations.

As I’ve often said, criticizing a work on its own merit is one thing. Like me, Alan Hirsch welcomes constructive criticism. Neither of us claims immaculate perception and we’re both learning and growing . . . as are all Christians.

However, setting up a straw-man and then lighting a torch to it is another thing altogether.

As I’ve demonstrated in past posts (below), misrepresenting someone’s work is a tactic that some will pick up to dismiss an important contribution. But “we have not so learned Jesus Christ” to wield such tools (to quote Paul).

So You Think You Disagree?

Hearing One Side of a Story

The Art of Being a Jerk Online


A Word to All Authors – Aspiring or Actual

Anywho, Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim wrote an interesting response to one critic who misrepresented their book. With Alan’s permission, I’m republishing it here.

Every reader and every author would be wise to read Hirsch’s response as it highlights the typical hand-waving tactics that are used to try and discredit someone’s work.

Point: every dubious critique has the same anatomy. Hirsch’s response, therefore, applies perfectly to all works – written or spoken – which have been misrepresented by others (such as N.T. Wright, who regularly gets distorted by his detractors).

Here it is . . .

Clearly when authors write books, especially ones that seriously challenge cherished notions of the church and its mission, they should expect responses both critical and appreciative.

Therefore our policy is not to respond to critiques of our book. If our proposal has merit, and if it is properly rooted in the theological codes of the church, then it can be said to stand on its own without anxious defensiveness on our part.

Let great ideas do their work.

However, in the case of one particular critique, we choose to break protocol because we believe it is so biased it seriously prejudices the important ideas that we wish to convey.

Given word limitations, we have had to limit our response to general concerns about the nature of the article itself and simply point the reader to the (some say “overly”) weighty book itself for the positive statement of our proposal. These are:

It is a somewhat loaded and tendentious piece of writing: A visitor to the critic’s blog will readily notice that he appears to be on something of a crusade—and we believe largely on justifiable grounds—against the so-called New Apostolic Reformation movement associated with C. Peter Wagner and others.

But because of this particular bent, our critic does not offer a neutral or objective review of the ideas presented in our book, but rather offers a tendentious and polemical essay used in furtherance of his greater perceived cause. The polemics skew the article against the distinctively missional significance of our material. We do not share the NAR ideology and agenda at all.

It’s a smokescreen: By focusing his objections on some particulars of history rather than on the broader, overarching proposal (missional ministry for a missional church), our critic ends up simply defending an outworn status quo.

He articulates his perspective well, but his focus is way too narrow and in so doing he completely misses the point of our book—straining at gnats he swallows the camel. The very weight of our proposal lies in the total argument of the book and its strategic significance in our time. This is no time for the scholastic obfuscation!

It is unacceptably ad hominem: Our critic seems to indicate that he is “playing the man” and not the ideas of the book in that he only mentions Tim’s name once and yet the name “Hirsch” appears 62 times!

Mike Breen, an active collaborator in the book, doesn’t even get a mention! How can one account for this? What is worse, by going on to associate Alan’s name with that of Wagner, Haggard, and others (with whom there are no formal or informal connections at all; relational, organizational, theological, or otherwise) the reviewer (inadvertently or not?) engages in an injurious attempt of guilt by association. This is unacceptable.

It sets up a straw man: One of the more disturbing aspects of the article is that our critic’s “Hirsch” is not even recognizable to the actual Hirsch who writes the book. But neither of us feels that we are adequately represented in his essay. Not at all.

The focus is mainly comprised of reactions to some concepts drawn largely from two chapters of the book. He completely ignores the other eleven chapters and the critical augmentation of arguments therein. Straw men are always easier to knock down.

It is reactionary and close-minded: “Reactionary” is defined as a person, organization, or ideology that opposes political or social liberalization or reform. This article is predictably traditionalist and takes a stand for the status quo, whereas we are calling readers to reassess the viability of the inherited ecclesiology in light of Scripture as well as the challenges presented by the 21st century.

Yes, we do see the current system of ministry as a disastrous reduction of what Jesus intended for his church, and yes, we do seek to bring about paradigmatic change and repentance. But we try to base our proposals squarely on the phenomenon apparent in biblical ecclesiology itself—especially Ephesians and Acts.

We suggest that at this critical juncture in history, it is to Scripture, and not just some particulars of Christendom’s history, that we must turn if we are find our way back to a genuinely New Testament ministry.

Sadly, at best our critic’s essay merely seems to validate Epictetus’ perceptive observation, that it is indeed very difficult to teach a man what he thinks he already knows. Serious attempts at reform are always resisted by those with vested interests in keeping things the way they are.

But it is in the spirit of the reforming principle itself (that the church reformed ought always to be reforming according to the Scriptures) that we present the proposals in The Permanent Revolution. Reformation is indeed needed.

Alan Hirsch
Los Angeles, California

Tim Catchim
Clarksville, Tenn.

See also Jesus and Paul Under Fire



  1. Greg Thomas says

    Just found this on Facebook so I’m a little late. Don’t you love when someone starts to misrepresent someone and they start out with “this isn’t an attack.” Yea right. Distortions of other people’s views are usually attacks. Why are people so gullible? Thanks Alan for a great response. You tell it like it is.

  2. Chris Van Brunt says

    I feel pretty bad right now. I read the critique Alan is referring to and I believed it because it was written by another believer. I’m sorry for swallowing the bait without going to the authors themselves, I follow Alan on Twitter and never thought to ask him for his response. Thanks for posting this Frank. Apologies to Alan and Tim.

    • George says

      I like to read comments and this is really good to see. I was reading a critique of N.T. Wright’s new book where the author was arguing that Wright believed such and such and denied such and such. I read the book myself so I knew that the guy’s critique was totally skewed.

      Reading the other people’s comments on the critique was interesting. No one asked the guy, “Give me the exact quote in its full context where Wright says these things you’re accusing him of.” It’s a no brainer question. Challenge the critic to give you exact quotes and page numbers. Then go to the author themself to ask if they are being misunderstood or taken out of context.

      Thanks Alan for doing such a good job with this.

  3. Tim says

    I haven’t read any books by Hirsch but I could relate to everything he said in this response. I’ve written things myself and have had some people totally spin what I wrote. These were fellow Christians who I think were working from some ugly motive. I’d say that most people aren’t so gullible and can see through critiques that are unfair and slanted. Something they say or don’t say gives it away. I loved your interview with N.T. Wright. Hearing him answer objections was good to see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *