It's great you are bringing this topic again to the forefront. I haven't picked up Rauch's book, but I can only assume you've given an excellent account of it.
As you know, I am very much aligned with the idea that the collapse of religious behavior into political affiliation or political expression is not only bad, but is a good reason to advocate for some kind of religious revival in our culture, separate from our politics. “Religion should reclaim its true cultural prerogatives” is the true to antidote to fascism in a liberal society. What doesn’t make sense to me is this: why does such a revival have to be *Christian*?
I have always felt that Christianity is completely alien to my experience, not because I haven’t been exposed to it from a young age, but because it doesn’t resonate with my experience of the world, and it never has. I don’t reject the religion’s values or wisdom, necessarily, but one can accept these things to the extent that they are meaningful in some cultural context, without accepting Christian mythology and metaphysics and eschatology and so forth. When I see the hollowing of Christian practice into political movements or political aesthetics, and the attrition of church attendance, to me, this is a testament to Christianity’s fundamental irrelevance in a fully industrialized civilization.
The apologia for Christianity that I hear in response to these trends and to atheist critiques are mostly that it’s very hard to change longstanding cultural constructs in a large society. This is true. We shouldn’t take this problem lightly. However, as a defense of Christian theology and everything that comes with it, this seems like exactly the complacency that Rauch (and you) critique. For accidental historical reasons, there were these religious practices of European settlers when they came to the Americas; but there's nothing inherent in these practices, beliefs, etc. themselves which necessitate that Americans have to keep doing the same things many centuries hence. If we’re going to make an effort to revive a more spiritual orientation to the world in ritual practice, there’s no particular reason that it has to be done under Christian auspices. Maybe it makes sense, but maybe it doesn’t. For those who would affirm the value of religion in a general sense, the arguments usually bandied about would mock those who would imagine anything else. There needs to be a more substantive debate that takes ALL of the alternatives seriously.
For this reason, I wish I could find a Christian apology that makes a positive case for the religion and actually engages with the kinds of arguments and possibilities that I’m suggesting here, and have hinted at in the essays I’ve written for ARC. I’d be happy to hear your reading recommendations, if you have any. Or, better yet, I’d love to read your version of a Christian apology; that would be a welcome contribution to the public discourse in this critical moment.
There exists a library of the mind in which prominent books reside eternally unchallenged. I have one of those libraries. Jonathan Rauch's "The Constitution of Knowledge" features prominently in my library. Thank you for bringing to my attention Rauch's latest publication. I will read it "faithfully".
I find much of the writing on this subject mushy and actionless. What's being *proposed* here? How does the author (of the book or article) suggest we contend with the prevalence not just of disinterest but of genuine non-belief? The churches are ineffective-to-harmful and have been ineffective-to-harmful for a while. What should *happen*?
For me Protestantism began with the DEMYSTIFICATION of Christianity through an attack on the Sacraments (mysteries) and the prioritization of the Scriptural texts over Tradition and Reason. This leads to the DEMYTHOLIZATION of Scripture as scholars began to analyze the historical, linguistic and cultural "truth" of what Scripture meant and who the "historical" Jesus really was.
Inevitably then this leads to the DECONSTRUCTION of Protestantism because Scripture has a plurality of readings. None can be said to be objectively authoritative. Here the churches retreat into pietism and focus everything on "praxis."
This is what I see today.
All that is left of Protestant Christianity is the "Cheap Grace' that Dietrich Bonhoeffer critiqued in his seminal work "The Cost of Discipleship."
Without the State the Church Corporations no longer have a monopoly and the Free-Market Christianity of the "Non-denominational Denomination" has flooded the market capturing an ever larger portion of the market and the disposable income of their members.
Old Mainline Protestantism is dying of anorexia while New Mainline Protestantism is feasting at the banquet of life. I don't see a restoration and recovery for the former or a willingness to surrender the prosperity Gospel of the latter. And that Gospel is firmly attached to social, economic and therefore political priorities antithetical to New Testament Christianity.
I embrace my Cultural Christianity with gusto. I am a Spinozist/Unitarian who sees that religion, directly or indirectly, is important especially in controlling the the irrational passions of people. I believe that republican "virtues" are Christian (but not exclusively so) virtues filtered through the lens of the Free Masonry and the enlightenment values of the Founders.
All of the Mormons I know personally are kind and caring with non-believers, have moral integrity and seem to have many of the personal qualities I admire in people. If I had to choose between being governed by them and being governed by MAGA Christian Nationalists I know which ones I would choose!
I would say that MAGA Christianity is very Christian, if one compares this country to the Roman Republic turned empire, then current "Christianity" is not so much the early Christians' underground religion as the later warrior cult of the state.
Thanks for this helpful review Berny.
Berny—
It's great you are bringing this topic again to the forefront. I haven't picked up Rauch's book, but I can only assume you've given an excellent account of it.
As you know, I am very much aligned with the idea that the collapse of religious behavior into political affiliation or political expression is not only bad, but is a good reason to advocate for some kind of religious revival in our culture, separate from our politics. “Religion should reclaim its true cultural prerogatives” is the true to antidote to fascism in a liberal society. What doesn’t make sense to me is this: why does such a revival have to be *Christian*?
I have always felt that Christianity is completely alien to my experience, not because I haven’t been exposed to it from a young age, but because it doesn’t resonate with my experience of the world, and it never has. I don’t reject the religion’s values or wisdom, necessarily, but one can accept these things to the extent that they are meaningful in some cultural context, without accepting Christian mythology and metaphysics and eschatology and so forth. When I see the hollowing of Christian practice into political movements or political aesthetics, and the attrition of church attendance, to me, this is a testament to Christianity’s fundamental irrelevance in a fully industrialized civilization.
The apologia for Christianity that I hear in response to these trends and to atheist critiques are mostly that it’s very hard to change longstanding cultural constructs in a large society. This is true. We shouldn’t take this problem lightly. However, as a defense of Christian theology and everything that comes with it, this seems like exactly the complacency that Rauch (and you) critique. For accidental historical reasons, there were these religious practices of European settlers when they came to the Americas; but there's nothing inherent in these practices, beliefs, etc. themselves which necessitate that Americans have to keep doing the same things many centuries hence. If we’re going to make an effort to revive a more spiritual orientation to the world in ritual practice, there’s no particular reason that it has to be done under Christian auspices. Maybe it makes sense, but maybe it doesn’t. For those who would affirm the value of religion in a general sense, the arguments usually bandied about would mock those who would imagine anything else. There needs to be a more substantive debate that takes ALL of the alternatives seriously.
For this reason, I wish I could find a Christian apology that makes a positive case for the religion and actually engages with the kinds of arguments and possibilities that I’m suggesting here, and have hinted at in the essays I’ve written for ARC. I’d be happy to hear your reading recommendations, if you have any. Or, better yet, I’d love to read your version of a Christian apology; that would be a welcome contribution to the public discourse in this critical moment.
Thanks.
My "like" button doesn't work on my PC so let me just say I like this very much. So well written and very thoughtful!
There exists a library of the mind in which prominent books reside eternally unchallenged. I have one of those libraries. Jonathan Rauch's "The Constitution of Knowledge" features prominently in my library. Thank you for bringing to my attention Rauch's latest publication. I will read it "faithfully".
A) Christian principles do not in fact suggest any particular politics
B) People are not going to adopt superstitions to serve a politics purpose. Nor should they.
I find much of the writing on this subject mushy and actionless. What's being *proposed* here? How does the author (of the book or article) suggest we contend with the prevalence not just of disinterest but of genuine non-belief? The churches are ineffective-to-harmful and have been ineffective-to-harmful for a while. What should *happen*?
For me Protestantism began with the DEMYSTIFICATION of Christianity through an attack on the Sacraments (mysteries) and the prioritization of the Scriptural texts over Tradition and Reason. This leads to the DEMYTHOLIZATION of Scripture as scholars began to analyze the historical, linguistic and cultural "truth" of what Scripture meant and who the "historical" Jesus really was.
Inevitably then this leads to the DECONSTRUCTION of Protestantism because Scripture has a plurality of readings. None can be said to be objectively authoritative. Here the churches retreat into pietism and focus everything on "praxis."
This is what I see today.
All that is left of Protestant Christianity is the "Cheap Grace' that Dietrich Bonhoeffer critiqued in his seminal work "The Cost of Discipleship."
Without the State the Church Corporations no longer have a monopoly and the Free-Market Christianity of the "Non-denominational Denomination" has flooded the market capturing an ever larger portion of the market and the disposable income of their members.
Old Mainline Protestantism is dying of anorexia while New Mainline Protestantism is feasting at the banquet of life. I don't see a restoration and recovery for the former or a willingness to surrender the prosperity Gospel of the latter. And that Gospel is firmly attached to social, economic and therefore political priorities antithetical to New Testament Christianity.
I embrace my Cultural Christianity with gusto. I am a Spinozist/Unitarian who sees that religion, directly or indirectly, is important especially in controlling the the irrational passions of people. I believe that republican "virtues" are Christian (but not exclusively so) virtues filtered through the lens of the Free Masonry and the enlightenment values of the Founders.
All of the Mormons I know personally are kind and caring with non-believers, have moral integrity and seem to have many of the personal qualities I admire in people. If I had to choose between being governed by them and being governed by MAGA Christian Nationalists I know which ones I would choose!
I would say that MAGA Christianity is very Christian, if one compares this country to the Roman Republic turned empire, then current "Christianity" is not so much the early Christians' underground religion as the later warrior cult of the state.
We Catholics can have our discussion abut "thin" and "sharp" w/o going outdoors.