Notice, I said "an", not "the"... :-) But seriously, this guy is a jerk and does not deserve to be taken seriously by Christians, with comments like this:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/
It's fine to have an opinion about what constitutes "true" Christianity, but to use a media outlet as a pulpit in this way is no different than using it to beg for money or some other - let's be honest here - sinful, corrupt agenda.
Telling people to leave churches on national television, especially when he is not a Christian minister, or even a Christian believer (he's actually a Mormon), is wrong, and deserving of the title "anti-Christ" as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, and don't even get me started on his terribly misguided, inarticulate theology -- though, since he isn't a Christian, I guess that's a moot point with regard to this post.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Bonhoeffer on intercessory prayer...
"A Christian fellowship lives and exists by the intercession of its members for one another, or it collapses. I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face, that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me, is transformed in intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died, the face of a forgiven sinner...
How does this happen? Intercession means no more than to bring our brother into the presence of God, to see him under the Cross of Jesus as a poor human being and sinner in need of grace. Then everything in him that repels us falls away... To make intercession means to grant our brother the same right that we have received, namely, to stand before Christ and share in his mercy."
How does this happen? Intercession means no more than to bring our brother into the presence of God, to see him under the Cross of Jesus as a poor human being and sinner in need of grace. Then everything in him that repels us falls away... To make intercession means to grant our brother the same right that we have received, namely, to stand before Christ and share in his mercy."
Thursday, March 4, 2010
On secular and religious reasoning - what's the difference?
In a recent article in the New York Times, Stanley Fish asks, by way of a book review (Steven Smith's "The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse"), whether there are 'secular reasons' that can stand on their own, independently of any ungrounded presupposition. He writes:
"[T]here are no secular reasons, at least not reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another...
While secular discourse, in the form of statistical analyses, controlled experiments and rational decision-trees, can yield banks of data that can then be subdivided and refined in more ways than we can count, it cannot tell us what that data means or what to do with it...
Once the world is no longer assumed to be informed by some presiding meaning or spirit (associated either with a theology or an undoubted philosophical first principle)... there is no way... to look at it and answer normative questions, questions like 'What are we supposed to do?' and 'At the behest of who or what are we to do it?'
This is the cul-de-sac Enlightenment philosophy traps itself in when it renounces metaphysical foundations in favor of the 'pure' investigation of 'observable facts.' It must somehow bootstrap or engineer itself back up to meaning and the possibility of justified judgment, but it has deliberately jettisoned the resources that would enable it do so."
Quoting Smith, Fish describes the process of 'smuggling' by which secular reasoning establishes its principles:
"...the secular vocabulary within which public discourse is constrained today is insufficient to convey our full set of normative convictions and commitments. We manage to debate normative matters anyway — but only by smuggling in notions that are formally inadmissible, and hence that cannot be openly acknowledged or adverted to."
Fish (and Smith) claim that secular concepts like freedom or justice are, in fact, 'empty abstractions' that mean nothing until we ask to what they are referring. And, the values that guide our notions of equality, freedom, etc. will always be contested. So, it is finally a matter of establishing one guiding set of presuppositions over another, while recognizing that neither set is purely objective or free from bias.
Now, this is not a new argument, and supporters of secularism - often atheists and naturalists - quickly point out that it is a straw man argument: secularists (often synonymous with 'scientists') never claim to be completely objective when it comes to making decisions about how people ought to live. But what they do claim is that scientific research provides the best source of clearly repeatable evidence, and that evidence should be the primary guide for determining our decisions, since it's the best source of common sense we have.
In other words, secular values are supposed to be based on as straightforward a presupposition as possible, and scientific evidence provides a pretty straightforward answer. For example, we know that human beings are sentient and have emotions. Common sense would say that treating other human beings with dignity is a moral good, since it provides for a more stable coexistence between humans, and the possibility of a more productive shared future.
This all seems fairly clear and correct, as far as it goes. And most religious values actually cohere fairly well to secular values, as long as we stay within the realm of shared dignity. (For example, it is a well-known fact that all the major religions include some variation on the teaching, "Treat others as you would like to be treated.")
But now we get to the tricky question: Why do we assume that what is best for the survival of the human species is actually the highest good? To a secularist, such a question would probably sound ludicrous - after all, all we can do is make decisions as human beings, and all beings want to survive, so doing what is best for our species will ensure our continued survival. Pretty simple, right?
But, religion asks the question anyway: Why should we accept the secular presupposition? Why assume that the pragmatic decisions we make as human beings, on behalf of the species, using scientific evidence, are the best way to determine values? Of course, this opens up a Pandora's box of value possibilities that secularists are wont to shred with Occam's razor. But that only seems to beg the question. Does the simplest explanation really work when it comes to decision making? The correct answer would seem to be: sometimes yes, sometimes no.
This much is clear... If man is not the measure of all things, we have to look for another way to measure. And that is - to say the least - a very contested topic. And this, I suggest, is the true source of all the contention between the secular and the religious, between 'reason/science' and 'faith/belief.' The secularist wants to limit the realm of action to that which is testable and objectively true across the human spectrum. The religious wants to limit the realm of action to that which results from their particular value system. Clearly, this will always result in conflict.
Perhaps the best way to resolve this impasse is to move beyond the limitations found in any attempt to systematize values based upon presuppositions, and simply restrict ourselves to the realm of shared dignity. But this undoubtedly would feel dishonest to many believers. There is one other option: each person or group might start to take their values seriously, and then let the clash begin. Would all-out battle lead to an outcome more conducive to all parties? Or would one view simply be killed off by another? Which would be more valuable to our species, in the long run?
Addendum: For Christians, who believe that the highest value is self-sacrificial love, does it matter? Aren't we supposed to 'lose our lives,' regardless? Perhaps part of the problem is that we have forgotten what our faith is really about, or we don't really believe it. I think most of us don't fully believe what we claim. After all, in a clash of values, Christians will always be the 'losers', since we are supposed to love our enemies. And that means they will probably gain the upper hand, humanly speaking. But the fact that Christianity is so dead-set against ceding any ground in the 'culture wars' shows that we are far less concerned with loving our enemies than with protecting our status and comfort.
"[T]here are no secular reasons, at least not reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another...
While secular discourse, in the form of statistical analyses, controlled experiments and rational decision-trees, can yield banks of data that can then be subdivided and refined in more ways than we can count, it cannot tell us what that data means or what to do with it...
Once the world is no longer assumed to be informed by some presiding meaning or spirit (associated either with a theology or an undoubted philosophical first principle)... there is no way... to look at it and answer normative questions, questions like 'What are we supposed to do?' and 'At the behest of who or what are we to do it?'
This is the cul-de-sac Enlightenment philosophy traps itself in when it renounces metaphysical foundations in favor of the 'pure' investigation of 'observable facts.' It must somehow bootstrap or engineer itself back up to meaning and the possibility of justified judgment, but it has deliberately jettisoned the resources that would enable it do so."
Quoting Smith, Fish describes the process of 'smuggling' by which secular reasoning establishes its principles:
"...the secular vocabulary within which public discourse is constrained today is insufficient to convey our full set of normative convictions and commitments. We manage to debate normative matters anyway — but only by smuggling in notions that are formally inadmissible, and hence that cannot be openly acknowledged or adverted to."
Fish (and Smith) claim that secular concepts like freedom or justice are, in fact, 'empty abstractions' that mean nothing until we ask to what they are referring. And, the values that guide our notions of equality, freedom, etc. will always be contested. So, it is finally a matter of establishing one guiding set of presuppositions over another, while recognizing that neither set is purely objective or free from bias.
Now, this is not a new argument, and supporters of secularism - often atheists and naturalists - quickly point out that it is a straw man argument: secularists (often synonymous with 'scientists') never claim to be completely objective when it comes to making decisions about how people ought to live. But what they do claim is that scientific research provides the best source of clearly repeatable evidence, and that evidence should be the primary guide for determining our decisions, since it's the best source of common sense we have.
In other words, secular values are supposed to be based on as straightforward a presupposition as possible, and scientific evidence provides a pretty straightforward answer. For example, we know that human beings are sentient and have emotions. Common sense would say that treating other human beings with dignity is a moral good, since it provides for a more stable coexistence between humans, and the possibility of a more productive shared future.
This all seems fairly clear and correct, as far as it goes. And most religious values actually cohere fairly well to secular values, as long as we stay within the realm of shared dignity. (For example, it is a well-known fact that all the major religions include some variation on the teaching, "Treat others as you would like to be treated.")
But now we get to the tricky question: Why do we assume that what is best for the survival of the human species is actually the highest good? To a secularist, such a question would probably sound ludicrous - after all, all we can do is make decisions as human beings, and all beings want to survive, so doing what is best for our species will ensure our continued survival. Pretty simple, right?
But, religion asks the question anyway: Why should we accept the secular presupposition? Why assume that the pragmatic decisions we make as human beings, on behalf of the species, using scientific evidence, are the best way to determine values? Of course, this opens up a Pandora's box of value possibilities that secularists are wont to shred with Occam's razor. But that only seems to beg the question. Does the simplest explanation really work when it comes to decision making? The correct answer would seem to be: sometimes yes, sometimes no.
This much is clear... If man is not the measure of all things, we have to look for another way to measure. And that is - to say the least - a very contested topic. And this, I suggest, is the true source of all the contention between the secular and the religious, between 'reason/science' and 'faith/belief.' The secularist wants to limit the realm of action to that which is testable and objectively true across the human spectrum. The religious wants to limit the realm of action to that which results from their particular value system. Clearly, this will always result in conflict.
Perhaps the best way to resolve this impasse is to move beyond the limitations found in any attempt to systematize values based upon presuppositions, and simply restrict ourselves to the realm of shared dignity. But this undoubtedly would feel dishonest to many believers. There is one other option: each person or group might start to take their values seriously, and then let the clash begin. Would all-out battle lead to an outcome more conducive to all parties? Or would one view simply be killed off by another? Which would be more valuable to our species, in the long run?
Addendum: For Christians, who believe that the highest value is self-sacrificial love, does it matter? Aren't we supposed to 'lose our lives,' regardless? Perhaps part of the problem is that we have forgotten what our faith is really about, or we don't really believe it. I think most of us don't fully believe what we claim. After all, in a clash of values, Christians will always be the 'losers', since we are supposed to love our enemies. And that means they will probably gain the upper hand, humanly speaking. But the fact that Christianity is so dead-set against ceding any ground in the 'culture wars' shows that we are far less concerned with loving our enemies than with protecting our status and comfort.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Rebuilding Haiti...
A very thought-provoking article from Christianity Today on rebuilding Haiti, and the responsibility of Christian involvement:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/4.17.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/4.17.html
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thinking about 'I' and 'We' theologically with Gilkey...
In his book "Message and Existence," theologian Langdon Gilkey (who taught at the University of Chicago a couple decades ago) describes two 'poles' of religious belief:
1) Participation in a community that bears objectively given tradition "under a particular symbolic horizon," and 2) "Personal intellectual assent" to that horizon, which involves experiencing and appropriating the tradition in such a way that commitment to it comes from the deepest level of our being, as an autonomous choice.
Leaving aside for now the issue of how such a choice can be made apart from the revelation of God, I think we find in Gilkey's description of belief (which leans heavily on Tillich) a valuable method for understanding the appropriate relationship between the 'I' and the 'We' that are both necessary for authentic Christian faith.
It is a relationship that some proponents of 'postmodern' theology have been attempting to re-capture, under a variety of headings. Perhaps examining Gilkey’s words more closely will provide some beneficial insight into this relationship.
With regard to the 'We,' Gilkey states that all historically formulated social communities contain both definite and indefinite visions of reality that express the ethos of that particular community. The ultimate views of any community will only be expressed symbolically, due to the inability of any member of a community to fully express the complete objective of that community.
Therefore, we use "powerful symbols" to describe the worldview we hold, and although there are "scientific, theorizable, and philosophical elements within such a symbolic structure, the structure as a whole is symbolic rather than theoretical..." (p. 27)
This seems to mirror Westphal's description of Christianity as a 'mega-narrative' instead of a 'meta-narrative,' a clarification which provides a sort of rebuttal to those who claim that any attempt to combine 'relativistic' postmodern theories with the Christian faith are tantamount to heresy. Understanding the Christian faith as a mega-narrative means recognizing that the symbolic structure of our faith places limitations on what we can say about our faith, and the object of our faith, God.
If a meta-narrative is primarily a theoretical system that endeavors to provide an explanation for all of reality - including the system itself - then placing Christianity within that realm is surely a mistake, for it seems destined to the type of circular failure that has resulted in the skepticism of both the philosophy of modernism as a whole and the particularly pointed criticisms of today's so-called 'atheistic fundamentalists.'
Existing within the 'We' is, for Christians, a matter of "belief on the deepest level," that is, "a personal participation in the life and ethos of a community and its tradition and an assent to the fundamental symbolic forms of that tradition as true and as normative, that is, as directing or guiding one’s own thoughts, goals, and patterns of behavior." (p. 27)
But just as there can be "no genuinely self-directing individuals without participation in community," neither can there be any real community without these individuals. (p. 34) There is an autonomous act of belief that involves the 'I' having and making use of genuine free choice. Here I would stress yet again that, if God exists, such freedom and autonomy can only find their true meaning as God reveals Godself to us, both individually and communally.
But the point is that there is a paradox: One pole of belief cannot exist without the other. Bonhoeffer made a similar point in his writings, which proclaimed Christ as the center but also held that the Church ceases to exist when its members are not present. Unless both the personal and communal sides of belief are held together, true belief is impossible.
But this is perhaps where the real potential within so-called 'postmodern' theology may be found – the desire to regain a truly meaningful communal element within Christianity is not only a good idea, it is necessary for the Church to exist.
What's interesting is that Gilkey suggests the development of autonomous belief systems throughout the Enlightenment project has been responsible for much of the damage done to belief. However, he still maintains that the individual experience which evokes genuine choice is essential for true belief. So we can see that Gilkey is struggling to find a balance between the two sides of belief... is there a way to resolve the tension found here?
I am starting to think about the way that thinkers like Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer look at individuality and community. Perhaps combining a theory of absolute subjectivity with a theology of "Sanctorum Communio" (communion of saints) can provide assistance. More to come...
1) Participation in a community that bears objectively given tradition "under a particular symbolic horizon," and 2) "Personal intellectual assent" to that horizon, which involves experiencing and appropriating the tradition in such a way that commitment to it comes from the deepest level of our being, as an autonomous choice.
Leaving aside for now the issue of how such a choice can be made apart from the revelation of God, I think we find in Gilkey's description of belief (which leans heavily on Tillich) a valuable method for understanding the appropriate relationship between the 'I' and the 'We' that are both necessary for authentic Christian faith.
It is a relationship that some proponents of 'postmodern' theology have been attempting to re-capture, under a variety of headings. Perhaps examining Gilkey’s words more closely will provide some beneficial insight into this relationship.
With regard to the 'We,' Gilkey states that all historically formulated social communities contain both definite and indefinite visions of reality that express the ethos of that particular community. The ultimate views of any community will only be expressed symbolically, due to the inability of any member of a community to fully express the complete objective of that community.
Therefore, we use "powerful symbols" to describe the worldview we hold, and although there are "scientific, theorizable, and philosophical elements within such a symbolic structure, the structure as a whole is symbolic rather than theoretical..." (p. 27)
This seems to mirror Westphal's description of Christianity as a 'mega-narrative' instead of a 'meta-narrative,' a clarification which provides a sort of rebuttal to those who claim that any attempt to combine 'relativistic' postmodern theories with the Christian faith are tantamount to heresy. Understanding the Christian faith as a mega-narrative means recognizing that the symbolic structure of our faith places limitations on what we can say about our faith, and the object of our faith, God.
If a meta-narrative is primarily a theoretical system that endeavors to provide an explanation for all of reality - including the system itself - then placing Christianity within that realm is surely a mistake, for it seems destined to the type of circular failure that has resulted in the skepticism of both the philosophy of modernism as a whole and the particularly pointed criticisms of today's so-called 'atheistic fundamentalists.'
Existing within the 'We' is, for Christians, a matter of "belief on the deepest level," that is, "a personal participation in the life and ethos of a community and its tradition and an assent to the fundamental symbolic forms of that tradition as true and as normative, that is, as directing or guiding one’s own thoughts, goals, and patterns of behavior." (p. 27)
But just as there can be "no genuinely self-directing individuals without participation in community," neither can there be any real community without these individuals. (p. 34) There is an autonomous act of belief that involves the 'I' having and making use of genuine free choice. Here I would stress yet again that, if God exists, such freedom and autonomy can only find their true meaning as God reveals Godself to us, both individually and communally.
But the point is that there is a paradox: One pole of belief cannot exist without the other. Bonhoeffer made a similar point in his writings, which proclaimed Christ as the center but also held that the Church ceases to exist when its members are not present. Unless both the personal and communal sides of belief are held together, true belief is impossible.
But this is perhaps where the real potential within so-called 'postmodern' theology may be found – the desire to regain a truly meaningful communal element within Christianity is not only a good idea, it is necessary for the Church to exist.
What's interesting is that Gilkey suggests the development of autonomous belief systems throughout the Enlightenment project has been responsible for much of the damage done to belief. However, he still maintains that the individual experience which evokes genuine choice is essential for true belief. So we can see that Gilkey is struggling to find a balance between the two sides of belief... is there a way to resolve the tension found here?
I am starting to think about the way that thinkers like Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer look at individuality and community. Perhaps combining a theory of absolute subjectivity with a theology of "Sanctorum Communio" (communion of saints) can provide assistance. More to come...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Has Our Nation Forgotten God?
Recently I was forwarded a link to an excerpt from a book entitled, "When A Nation Forgets God." I'm not familiar with the author, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, but it's published by Moody Press, if that matters to anyone. I resonated with several of the points made in the section I read, but there was one underlying premise that seemed to be guiding the direction of the book, and that can, I think, be summed up in the following quote:
"When truth is rejected in the public sphere, the state will either turn to some semblance of natural law or more ominously, to lies. Secular values will be imposed on society, and it will be done in the name of 'freedom.'"
(The heading for the section is titled, "When God is Separated from Government, Judgment Follows")
I have a couple of big problems with this view.
Now, first, the author's appeal to Hitler's Germany as his primary example of a secular state hostile to Christianity is unfortunate, because Hitler is dragged out so often as a scare-tactic, I think it's become a bit tired. Yes, we all know Hitler was a terrible leader and under his rule Germany committed horrible atrocities. Yes, we need to make sure America doesn't end up like that. Point taken.
But this approach, as the above quote indicates, implies that we, in the U.S., were actually providing a clear portrayal of truth to begin with. And that is precisely what I think all of us, especially Christians, should question.
What do I mean? Well, first of all, we need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that America has NEVER been free of 'secular values.' In fact, those very values, albeit in a modified form, were the major impetus for our nation's creation nearly 250 years ago. The idea that America was founded as a 'Christian' nation needs to be put to rest as a type of revisionist history - a history that has developed, in my view, to make we Christians feel less responsible for the 'corruption' of our nation's values.
But the simple fact is, America has always been a negotiation between the religious and the secular. We have always been a nation founded upon 'freedom,' and I'm pretty sure the founders did not mean freedom in Christ! The fact that our constitution includes language about both freedom of religion and the separation of church and state is a clear indicator of that dialectic; an attempt to provide all believers - even those who are not Christians - with the opportunity to worship however they choose, while at the same time protecting the people from any one religious view becoming official by gaining government approval.
(And there were/are good reasons for that. If you want to know what they are, read one of the number of books about the religious wars and persecutions in Europe throughout the 16th-18th centuries.)
But, back to my main point: If America has always been a negotiation between so-called 'Christian' and 'secular' values, then the notion that America was, at some point in the past, a nation founded on 'truth' which is now completely eroded by secularism, is a false dichotomy. At best, America has been a nation with a strong religious heritage, a great deal of which stems from the Christianity of its early settlers. But that religious heritage has always been in tension with desire for the necessary 'freedoms' that make for a modern, secular state.
As such, we Christians have to admit a very uncomfortable truth: To a great extent, if the Christian religion is America's primary religious heritage, WE are responsible for the eroding of our own Christian beliefs, and the encroachment of secular beliefs within our society. Why? The answer is simple. If Christians had not been content to initially negotiate with secular values when founding the United States, we would not be seeing the flourishing of those same values in our present day. You don't grow what you don't plant.
Now, it may be that there was simply no way for America to even have a chance at becoming a nation in the absence of the religious-secular dialectic. Perhaps there is no other option. That's fine -- I actually don't mind, because I fear that any sort of theocratic government would end up being at least as corrupt as whatever secular state may instill fear in the hearts of believers today.
This leads to the second problem: If America was founded as an awkward marriage between the religious and the secular, and if Christians have been at least partially responsible for flirting with the secular, then the idea that placing Christians in positions of political power, or establishing laws founded upon Christian principles, will lead our nation back to the truth, is utterly flawed.
Why? Because Christians (and yes, I'm including myself here) haven't been proper bearers of truth to begin with - why do we assume we will get it right this time? Isn't it more likely that Christians will continue to revel in their flirtatious trysts with secularism, albeit under a new guise? If Christianity has led us to America as it currently stands, why do we think that MORE Christianity will solve the problem?
Now, here I need to provide a critique of my own statements thus far. For there are still two things that have yet to be resolved.
1) What do I/we mean by Christianity? Perhaps the problem is someone has an improper definition of what it means to be a Christian.
2) Am I not simply being cynical? Isn't any attempt to recapture the truth of the Gospel better than letting our nation slide into decay?
To respond quickly: As far as what it means to be a Christian, I believe this is precisely where we, as believers and followers of Christ, need to be having our discussions. Until we are able to determine what it really means for us to follow Christ as the American Church (I'm thinking broadly here - Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, tiny home group and mega-church), our attempts to enact social change that reflects the Gospel will be muddled at best.
Indeed, it seems fairly clear that part of the reason secular values have gained so much momentum is that Christians have been fighting each other (or very specific political battles) for decades and we really don't have much of a compelling, articulate, alternate narrative for people to consider. I would go so far as to say that since great numbers of Christians can't even seem to agree on what it means to follow Christ, Christianity has essentially lost its place in the cultural discussion. Christians are so concerned about being "relevant" but can't even get along with each other. No wonder people don't take us seriously.
As to the second point, I hope I am not being cynical. I do agree very much with one of the main antidotes Dr. Lutzer offers to the situation, which is also, I think, an antidote to cynicism:
"It is time for us to reread the New Testament book of 1 Peter, written specifically to believers living in a hostile, pagan culture. They had no representatives in government to plead their case; they had no power to 'vote the bums out' as we do in America. They did not have courts that would give them a fair hearing. There was just persecution, intimidation, and deprivation. And sometimes death.
To them Peter wrote, 'Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.' (1 Peter 4:12–14 NIV).
When confronted with these challenges we are tempted to do the wrong thing — to react with judgmental anger which will only entrench those who are on the other side in this culture war. We must do the opposite: respond with humility, love, and gracious courage. We will neither win these battles simply with politics (however important that is) nor by argument. Every Christian must regain the high ground with credibility, winsomeness, and yes, with joy. We must stand our ground giving thanks to God, even as it shifts beneath our feet."
To that, I say 'Amen.'
"When truth is rejected in the public sphere, the state will either turn to some semblance of natural law or more ominously, to lies. Secular values will be imposed on society, and it will be done in the name of 'freedom.'"
(The heading for the section is titled, "When God is Separated from Government, Judgment Follows")
I have a couple of big problems with this view.
Now, first, the author's appeal to Hitler's Germany as his primary example of a secular state hostile to Christianity is unfortunate, because Hitler is dragged out so often as a scare-tactic, I think it's become a bit tired. Yes, we all know Hitler was a terrible leader and under his rule Germany committed horrible atrocities. Yes, we need to make sure America doesn't end up like that. Point taken.
But this approach, as the above quote indicates, implies that we, in the U.S., were actually providing a clear portrayal of truth to begin with. And that is precisely what I think all of us, especially Christians, should question.
What do I mean? Well, first of all, we need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that America has NEVER been free of 'secular values.' In fact, those very values, albeit in a modified form, were the major impetus for our nation's creation nearly 250 years ago. The idea that America was founded as a 'Christian' nation needs to be put to rest as a type of revisionist history - a history that has developed, in my view, to make we Christians feel less responsible for the 'corruption' of our nation's values.
But the simple fact is, America has always been a negotiation between the religious and the secular. We have always been a nation founded upon 'freedom,' and I'm pretty sure the founders did not mean freedom in Christ! The fact that our constitution includes language about both freedom of religion and the separation of church and state is a clear indicator of that dialectic; an attempt to provide all believers - even those who are not Christians - with the opportunity to worship however they choose, while at the same time protecting the people from any one religious view becoming official by gaining government approval.
(And there were/are good reasons for that. If you want to know what they are, read one of the number of books about the religious wars and persecutions in Europe throughout the 16th-18th centuries.)
But, back to my main point: If America has always been a negotiation between so-called 'Christian' and 'secular' values, then the notion that America was, at some point in the past, a nation founded on 'truth' which is now completely eroded by secularism, is a false dichotomy. At best, America has been a nation with a strong religious heritage, a great deal of which stems from the Christianity of its early settlers. But that religious heritage has always been in tension with desire for the necessary 'freedoms' that make for a modern, secular state.
As such, we Christians have to admit a very uncomfortable truth: To a great extent, if the Christian religion is America's primary religious heritage, WE are responsible for the eroding of our own Christian beliefs, and the encroachment of secular beliefs within our society. Why? The answer is simple. If Christians had not been content to initially negotiate with secular values when founding the United States, we would not be seeing the flourishing of those same values in our present day. You don't grow what you don't plant.
Now, it may be that there was simply no way for America to even have a chance at becoming a nation in the absence of the religious-secular dialectic. Perhaps there is no other option. That's fine -- I actually don't mind, because I fear that any sort of theocratic government would end up being at least as corrupt as whatever secular state may instill fear in the hearts of believers today.
This leads to the second problem: If America was founded as an awkward marriage between the religious and the secular, and if Christians have been at least partially responsible for flirting with the secular, then the idea that placing Christians in positions of political power, or establishing laws founded upon Christian principles, will lead our nation back to the truth, is utterly flawed.
Why? Because Christians (and yes, I'm including myself here) haven't been proper bearers of truth to begin with - why do we assume we will get it right this time? Isn't it more likely that Christians will continue to revel in their flirtatious trysts with secularism, albeit under a new guise? If Christianity has led us to America as it currently stands, why do we think that MORE Christianity will solve the problem?
Now, here I need to provide a critique of my own statements thus far. For there are still two things that have yet to be resolved.
1) What do I/we mean by Christianity? Perhaps the problem is someone has an improper definition of what it means to be a Christian.
2) Am I not simply being cynical? Isn't any attempt to recapture the truth of the Gospel better than letting our nation slide into decay?
To respond quickly: As far as what it means to be a Christian, I believe this is precisely where we, as believers and followers of Christ, need to be having our discussions. Until we are able to determine what it really means for us to follow Christ as the American Church (I'm thinking broadly here - Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, tiny home group and mega-church), our attempts to enact social change that reflects the Gospel will be muddled at best.
Indeed, it seems fairly clear that part of the reason secular values have gained so much momentum is that Christians have been fighting each other (or very specific political battles) for decades and we really don't have much of a compelling, articulate, alternate narrative for people to consider. I would go so far as to say that since great numbers of Christians can't even seem to agree on what it means to follow Christ, Christianity has essentially lost its place in the cultural discussion. Christians are so concerned about being "relevant" but can't even get along with each other. No wonder people don't take us seriously.
As to the second point, I hope I am not being cynical. I do agree very much with one of the main antidotes Dr. Lutzer offers to the situation, which is also, I think, an antidote to cynicism:
"It is time for us to reread the New Testament book of 1 Peter, written specifically to believers living in a hostile, pagan culture. They had no representatives in government to plead their case; they had no power to 'vote the bums out' as we do in America. They did not have courts that would give them a fair hearing. There was just persecution, intimidation, and deprivation. And sometimes death.
To them Peter wrote, 'Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.' (1 Peter 4:12–14 NIV).
When confronted with these challenges we are tempted to do the wrong thing — to react with judgmental anger which will only entrench those who are on the other side in this culture war. We must do the opposite: respond with humility, love, and gracious courage. We will neither win these battles simply with politics (however important that is) nor by argument. Every Christian must regain the high ground with credibility, winsomeness, and yes, with joy. We must stand our ground giving thanks to God, even as it shifts beneath our feet."
To that, I say 'Amen.'
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Praying with the Haitian earthquake victims...
Here is an excellent essay from The Other Journal, written by Nate Kerr, on how to pray with the victims of the Haitian earthquake:
http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=934
http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=934
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)