{"id":12367,"date":"2017-03-15T19:06:42","date_gmt":"2017-03-16T02:06:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/?p=12367"},"modified":"2017-03-15T19:06:42","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T02:06:42","slug":"midcentury-christian-renaissance-a-model-for-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/midcentury-christian-renaissance-a-model-for-today\/","title":{"rendered":"Midcentury Christian Renaissance: a model for today?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ahh, where to begin in my exploration of Bad Religion<\/em>? Perhaps in introducing a comparison between Ross Douthat\u2019s text and James Davison Hunter\u2019s To Change the World<\/em>. Hunter introduced us to ways American Christians engage the world from the left (\u201crelevance to the culture\u201d), right (\u201cdefensive against\u201d) and neo-Anabaptist.[1]<\/a> Whereas Hunter introduces three (really, two) paradigms that he believes fall short, and offers an alternative, positive model for Christian engagement in our world, Douthat approaches the world through the \u201cChristian right\u201d paradigm of Christianity maintaining a defensive position against the culture. He quickly dismisses the \u201csecular left\u201d\u2014notice there is not even a suggestion that there might be a \u201cChristian left.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

What Douthat gets right, I believe, is his identification of the current state of America: \u201cAmerica has indeed become less traditionally Christian across the last half century, just as religious conservatives insist, with unhappy consequences for our national life. But certain kinds of religious faith are as influential as ever, just as secular critics and the new atheists contend.\u201d[3]<\/a> Douthat believes the root problem of this state lies in traditional Christian teachings that have been warped by both the \u201cChristian right\u201d and \u201csecular left\u201d\u2026 bad religion.<\/p>\n

That said, Douthat approaches the current state of America from such a different foundation from me that I found it difficult to appreciate much of what he said at all. Shortly after this book came out, Douthat was interviewed by Christianity Today<\/a>. In that interview, Douthat argues that, \u201cwe agree that America is uniquely favored by God\u201d and \u201cthere are biblical passages that suggest a link between a nation\u2019s morality, a nation\u2019s religious beliefs, and its historical fate.\u201d Douthat likens America, not to \u201cKing David\u2019s Israel,\u201d but to the \u201cpagan nations\u201d such as Babylon or Assyria, who, the prophets said, were the instruments of God. My problem with that is the assumption that a nation can be \u201cChristian\u201d or \u201cpagan,\u201d leaving room for a theocracy. Especially, as Benedict Anderson suggests, our modern nation states are relatively new social constructs, to liken America to the ancient nations is a false comparison.<\/p>\n

Douthat\u2019s solutions for how Christians can respond to the state of American religion are, for the most part, troublesome.<\/p>\n

Midcentury Christian Renaissance?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>One serious concern (among many) I have is Douthat\u2019s premise that Christian religion in America was \u201cidyllic\u201d until the 1950s, when everything began falling apart.[5]<\/a> That is na\u00efve, and misses the nuances of that time, as he harkens back to a non-existent nostalgic past, which he terms the \u201cmidcentury Christian renaissance.\u201d[6]<\/a> For instance, while he adds a romantic caveat that Christians fought against Jim Crow laws with priests and ministers marching for human rights, he misses the reality that the majority of white Christians and churches were not interested in participating, except as antagonists, fearful of accommodating the rights of black and brown people.[7]<\/a> Likewise, Douthat infers that the ordination of women was a byproduct of churches accommodating the culture.[8]<\/a> We\u2019ve slid down a slippery slope into heretical theology since the 1950s. So he suggests examining American Christianity of the 1950s as a model for today: \u201cWe don\u2019t need to imagine what a Christian politics less corrupted by ideology and partisanship would look like. We only need to remember what was possible not all that long ago.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know about you, but I\u2019m not really interested in returning to 1950s Christianity. While Christianity may have been a common language spoken by many\/most Americans, it was also a cultural Christendom that sought to maintain the status quo, isolated from other contexts. I appreciate a living faith that isn\u2019t dominate or assumed, that isn\u2019t afraid of those who are different, and that doesn\u2019t seek to circle the wagons to preserve our identity.<\/p>\n

Benedict Option<\/strong><\/p>\n

Douthat also suggests one way to renew American Christianity is to embrace the Benedict Option, \"\"<\/a>which I introduced in my post last week, as well. Coined by Rod Dreher,[10]<\/a> the Benedict Option suggests that Christians separate themselves from the wider culture into communities (following the monastic model) for a period of purification.[11]<\/a> Like Hunter, Dreher believes geographical proximity is important. But Dreher believes its importance lies in the value of a close-knit Christian community to pray and worship close together and stay distinct from the culture, whereas Hunter would argue that those Christians gathered into a community are meant to engage with and be fully present to that place, rather than separating from it. I resonate much more with Hunter\u2019s model of the \u201cJeremiah Option\u201d to seek the welfare of the city and pray for the place where I live.<\/p>\n

Confessional<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another posture of renewed American Christianity is for churches to be both ecumenical and confessional. What sets one part of the church as distinct from another? I actually appreciated Douthat\u2019s suggestion that \u201ca conversation has to reach conclusions in order to actually stand for something; a community has to define itself theologically in order to be able to sustain itself across generations.\u201d[12]<\/a> Our cohort would be a fine case of this: we have amazing conversations that spur each of us to think critically and refine how we understand our faith and relationship to the church and the world. Yet in the midst of that, we each also maintain our confessional foundations as Baptists, Presbyterians, Assembly of God, etc. And one of the delightful realities is that by maintaining our own confessional foundations, we enrich one another.<\/p>\n

It seems to me that Douthat misses the opportunity to reflect on God\u2019s sovereignty in this place and time. He is so concerned with pointing out potential heretics that have diverted from his idea of orthodox faith that he fails to see the possibility of God at work in the world, he fails to imagine the big picture of God at work in history.<\/p>\n

Finally, although Bad Religion<\/em> was published in 2012, the pronouns throughout the text are consistently masculine. I am willing to overlook that tendency\u00a0in texts published decades ago, but in today\u2019s context, masculine pronouns are no longer gender neutral and inclusive language is the norm. I found his resistance to inclusive language extremely distracting and irritating.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> See my post from last week on why I don\u2019t believe this is a third insufficient paradigm, but rather, parallel to Hunter\u2019s theology of faithful presence.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> cf. Ross Douthat, Bad Religion<\/em>, (New York: Free Press, 2012), 3, etc.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid, 3.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/04\/19\/books\/in\u00adbad\u00adreligion\u00adross\u00addouthat\u00adcriticizes\u00adus\u00adchristianity.html<\/a><\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Douthat, 292.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid, 24; cf. 286.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Ibid, 90-91.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Ibid, 286.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Dreher happens to be an acquaintance of Douthat\u2019s (he\u2019s mentioned appreciatively in the Acknowledgements of Bad Religion<\/em>).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid, 280; cf http:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/ct\/2017\/march\/benedict-options-vision-for-christian-village.html<\/a><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Ibid, 287.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ahh, where to begin in my exploration of Bad Religion? Perhaps in introducing a comparison between Ross Douthat\u2019s text and James Davison Hunter\u2019s To Change the World. Hunter introduced us to ways American Christians engage the world from the left (\u201crelevance to the culture\u201d), right (\u201cdefensive against\u201d) and neo-Anabaptist.[1] Whereas Hunter introduces three (really, two) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":85,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-12367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-douthat","cohort-lgp7"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/85"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}