To Douthat or Not to Douthat, That Is the Question
My normal practice, when posting about the books we read for our DMin program, is to first read the reviews and articles about the book and the author. This week that may have been a bad choice. Before ever opening Bad Religion: How we became a nation of heretics, I was…well…I guess I’ll just say I was less than enamored with the author (Ross Douthat) or the premise of the book.
I had to check myself because Douthat approaches Christianity and religious life in America from a very different worldview than my own. I tend toward the left (he would call me a liberal) and he looks at life from pretty right of center (conservative). I do not want to live in an echo chamber, so I find value in reading and hearing from people who see the world differently than I do. I think disagreement is healthy and, as a Christian, I think it is important to listen especially to those who are honestly trying to live their faith as much like Christ as possible, but do so looking through a different lens than my own.
Many of Douthat’s statements resonated with me but, when he explained his thinking, I realized we had very little common ground in our foundational understanding of how Christians in America can course-correct. Douthat’s premise is that, while we have always been a “nation of heretics,” Christianity is now truly in trouble because we no longer have the “center” of Christian orthodoxy to hold the core of the faith together.[1] He uses examples like Oprah, Joel Osteen, and Glenn Beck to claim that Christianity is now a “choose your own Jesus” sort of faith that no longer resembles the faith of traditional orthodoxy.
Traditional orthodoxy. What does Douthat mean by that? I may have missed it in the book, but I never really felt like he defined his understanding of orthodoxy other than a few mentions of creeds. In his interview with Christianity Today, he says that his idea of heresy and orthodoxy comes from “theological common ground shared by (the) Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations” and that it’s “a C. S. Lewisian, Mere Christianity definition of orthodoxy or heresy.”[2] I’m not sure what that means. Can orthodoxy only be found in those areas where Catholics and Protestants come together (or as Douthat states, “many Protestant denominations”)? I mean, Catholics and Christians have some pretty big dogmatic and doctrinal differences. Don’t we? I’m just not sure Douthat understands orthodoxy, especially in light of the fact that he believes, “The idea that America has some distinctive role to play in the unfolding of God’s plan is compatible with orthodox Christianity.”[3] Unless he would also state that all people groups have a distinctive role to play in the unfolding of God’s plan, I think he is buying into the American exceptionalism that he claims to find dangerous.
In his conclusion, Douthat offers four things that faith and Christianity in America “should” be: 1) Political without being partisan, 2) ecumenical but also confessional, 3) moralistic but also holistic, and 4) oriented toward sanctity and beauty.[4] For the most part, I agree with these four statements. I think an American Christianity that consistently followed these ideals would be pretty spectacular. The problem is that Douthat struggles to flesh these out in a way that includes views other than his own, and his explanations come across as shallow and failing to deal with the complexities and messiness of life. How do we avoid partisanship when we have a two-party system and a single “plank” from the platform of those parties (pro-choice vs. pro-life) tends to define American Christianity? What does it look like to be ecumenical and confessional when his own words describe Mainline Protestants as “accommodationists” and Catholics and Evangelicals are noted as be “co-belligerents” in the culture wars?[5] What does it mean to be moralistic as well as holistic? Douthat hits the moralism hard, but fails to talk about the fact that being holistic requires making real systemic changes in order to help people belong before they believe, and survive within the morality ascribed. Finally, who sets the standards for sanctity and beauty? Do Christians really have a monopoly on those things? Can we find sanctity and beauty outside of traditional orthodoxy?
I think the heart of my complaint with Douthat is not that he is conservative or that his worldview differs with mine, but that he treated this book like one really long article. He relies on hyperbole and nostalgia to fill in the spaces where he has not thought through the complexities that result from his conclusions. He somehow came to the conclusion that post-WW2 America was some sort of halcyon era of Christian orthodoxy without digging deeper under the surface to understand the ugliness that festered in Christian America during that time. He relies on tired stereotypes of academia and secular culture to support his theories without exploration. I think he has some good points that could be developed into something helpful for the future of American Christianity, but he took the easy way out.
So, I always ask myself, “Why did Jason (our lead mentor) want us to read this book?” It may not be Jason’s reason, but this book reminded me that we can’t simply rely on a pithy turn of phrase or stereotypes to support our work. Douthat completely neglected to explore the rise in American Christianity that is coming with Millenials but looks very little like that of the 1950s and 1960s. Leaders look to the horizon for what God is already doing and support others in joining that vision.
[1]. Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How we became a nation of heretics, (New York: Free Press, 2012), 6.
[2]. Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “Q & A: Ross Douthat on Rooting Out Bad Religion,” in Christianity Today, April 2012, 1. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/may/ross-douthat-bad-religion.html
[3]. Ibid., 3.
[5]. Ibid., 286.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
16 responses to “To Douthat or Not to Douthat, That Is the Question”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow, Kristin. I sorta liked the book, but you’ve made me really take a second look. You go so much deeper.
I hope that the main thing all Christians can agree on is the Apostle’s Creed. After that I believe that all cultures are unique and express their worship in many ways. Not only that but different times are unique also. I admire Francis of Assisi but I hope that we can express the love for others that he did in our modern context.
Thanks, Kristin! Very thought provoking!
Yes, Mary, I agree– the New Testament and the Apostles’ Creed seem to be the place to begin with a common ground.
I agree with you about the Apostle’s Creed, Mary. I feel this is a great basis for our foundational beliefs. But what about the evangelical traditions who list as part of their identity “No creeds but Jesus?” This is something I wrestle with, having been a part of such a tradition for almost 7 years.
Like you, I think we can bring the things from our historical community into the present if we do it thoughtfully. I just want to avoid being a gatekeeper.
Well written Kristin. From my natural perspective and leanings, I was much more sympathetic to the thrust of Douthat’s arguments than you would be (I am “right” to your “left”, “conservative” to your “liberal”!), and I certainly felt strong agreement with his line on the prosperity and therapeutic gospels at the heart of much of American Christianity. I would understand “orthodoxy” to be the reformed faith of the creeds and Christian tradition, though I think you are right in picking at the threads of his arguments in some of these areas.
That’s one of the things I love about our cohort, Geoff. We have left, right, and center represented so we have the ability to hear differences from people we trust. Douthat simply failed to give me a reason to trust him, not because he is conservative, but because I felt his assertions to be shallow and a bit lazy. I know that is harsh, but I had a pretty strong reaction.
Kristen, good job at giving BAD RELIGION a more critical eye. There were several area’s where my worldview and theology differ than Douthan’s. The most obvious is that I am not a Catholic. While I respect Catholics, my personal experiences in Mexico, The Philippines, and the Dominican Republic has soured my view of Catholicism as I have seen so many who have a faith that is either overly mystical or extremely legalistic so that their religion barely resembles what I see as biblical Christianity.
Having said that, I appreciated this book in that he introduced me into something I know very little of…Catholicism in 20th century America.
In his discussion of politics, his analogy of the antiwar movement (Vietnam) stuck with me. To see a political movement oppose both Johnson and Nixon without losing steam was clearly something noteworthy.
I believe that issues like the death penalty, abortion, compassion toward refugees, care for the handicapped and the elderly, civil rights, gun control, etc. should be wrestled with in our society. Unfortunately, we live in an era where we have two parties with little room for debate. Both pro-life Democrats and pro gun control Republicans are silenced in today’s political environment.
And anti-death penalty advocates are silenced by both parties.
I so agree with you, Stu, that our current system allows very little room for debate and that we suffer because of it.
I hope that you will explore others’ views of 20th century Catholicism. While Douthat certainly approaches this discussion from his Catholic background, I’m not sure he does American Catholicism justice. At least not from my own experience growing up in a Catholic parish (while not being Catholic, haha).
Excellent Post Kristin. You make some valid points. I agree that “being holistic requires making real systemic changes in order to help people belong before they believe…” Historically, some—or maybe even most—churches expected people to change to look like the church before they were saved. I’ve said many times, we have a hard enough time getting it right when Christ is in the center of our lives; how can we expect those who don’t have Christ in their life to get it right before we welcome them. On the other side of the coin, times and methods have changed for the church. And the church seems to be engaging more than I can remember in my lifetime. Enjoyed reading your post.
“I’ve said many times, we have a hard enough time getting it right when Christ is in the center of our lives; how can we expect those who don’t have Christ in their life to get it right before we welcome them.”
I love this question, Jim! This gets at the heart of the frustrations people outside our faith feel when they approach with interest. I think we often give the impression of being a club with a secret handshake that they are expected to know even though no one is willing to teach them.
Yes, Kristin, I found myself asking the same question, “Why were we to read this book?” One thought I had was, I think it gives a perspective of how cynical people view current American religious leaders. In either case, I found myself bristling with some of his accusations and labeling of others. I also thought it read like a long article.
I love your comment in your post about it reading like a gossip tabloid, Jen. My frustration with the book was not that he holds a conservative theology, but that he somewhat lazily presents a broad view of American Christianity and a narrow view of orthodoxy.
“Douthat completely neglected to explore the rise in American Christianity that is coming with Millenials but looks very little like that of the 1950s and 1960s. Leaders look to the horizon for what God is already doing and support others in joining that vision.”
Like you, I think Douthat misses the optimism of God at work today (or maybe I missed that in what he said, which is quite possible). There is much in churches in America that give me hope (though significantly countered by frustration)– not necessarily the big public images of “church,” but faithful communities quietly impacting their neighborhoods with the good news of Jesus for the here and now.
My sentiments exactly, Katy. There was a cynicism and hopelessness that was not simply disconcerting. By offering that view, he ignores those who are already working on a much more robust solution.
‘For the most part, I agree with these four statements. I think an American Christianity that consistently followed these ideals would be pretty spectacular. The problem is that Douthat struggles to flesh these out in a way that includes views other than his own, and his explanations come across as shallow and failing to deal with the complexities and messiness of life.’
– Kristen, this really pretty much sums up my frustrations with this book – I agree with some of what he says, but he is so myopic at times that it is hard to get past and it allows him to leave his arguments in the shallows as opposed to finding the real depth that might provide meaningful insight and real answers
Kristin great post. Man it made me rethink a lot about what he proposed in his book. He use of extreme influencers like Oprah, Joel etc of course makes his points seem more validated but overall he thesis does leave much to be desired. I appreciate you wrestling with this book and challenging his point of view!