Saturday, August 26, 2006

Religious Conservatism on the Upswing

Scot McKnight and friends had an interesting discussion yesterday about the rise of neo-fundamentalism:

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1383

Russ Gunsalus showed me the most recent front cover of Christianity Today, which is about the resurgence of the more virulent forms of Calvinism.

The trend is more than just the usual fight against the "dying of the light," the age old sense that religious institutions are always going liberal. I have thoughts on this subject too (surprise).

"Tangent" on the Dying of the Light
On the one hand, it is apparently well documented that religious institutions of higher learning have a tendency to become less and less affiliated with their parent denominations and eventually to become secular. It can go the other way, at least for a time, as the witch trial at Louisville Southern Baptist in the 90s did.

So you regularly hear rhetoric of "carrying the torch" and "don't let the fire go out" and "we need a revival." You also often hear an anti-education or anti-intellectual edge in the pew, a "town-gown" divide, as it were. It's been especially prominent on News shows with witch hunts of liberals at colleges and universities around the nation. Scarborough Country on MSNBC had a number of programs last year about removing extreme liberals from tax paid funded American universities. One of the main speakers at the Truth Conference of the Wesleyan Church this summer had this witch hunt flavor.

To be sure, there are a lot of whackos out there at educational institutions. I am amazed at a good deal of it. Don't take anything I say here as support for some of the sloppy thinking that passes in the name of education out there.

But a very sobering question lurks in the "dying of the light" scenario. Underlying this "myth" is the presumption that the more a person studies, the more likely he or she is to go liberal. Is this true? If it is, then something like one of the following must surely be true 1) there's a Satanic conspiracy, 2) there's a human conspiracy, 3) education tempts people to a particular kind of temptation that tends to lead to temptation, or 4) the truth tends to the liberal.

If there's a human conspiracy, I don't know about it (and you'd think I would by now). Clearly the conservative ideological machine is alive and well and just if not more popular right now than any liberal machine. So at best we have #3, a human temptation associated with education. I think if there is a Satanic conspiracy, it also must boil down to #3.

On the other hand, individuals like Ben Witherington and Tom Wright are immensely popular--ravenously devoured by conservatives. So I don't buy that there is some universal temptation that pushes the educated go liberal. I personally believe I could really have gone places these last ten years if my sermons and teaching played more to reinforcing traditional values and ideas. I think I could easily be on a speaking circuit by now doing a bunch of revivals and writing popular books.

[By the way, I'm not suggesting that Witherington or Wright are faking it. I wholeheartedly believe they are sincere.]

To me the answer to this question that has always been the most likely answer, that has always been staring us in the face generation after generation is that in some way, the truth tends to work against the traditional. Notice how I worded it this time. I did not say that the truth is liberal. There are a thousand different "liberals," just as there are a thousand different "conservatives." The trend is what is common, not the specific content that is deconstructing.

Note, for example, Daniel Wallace's defense of his view of inerrancy. This man is no liberal to be sure, but he is being attacked by his particular set of traditionalists, simply because he has come to see that matters are more complicated than he might at first have thought:

https://delta.indwes.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200

And there's the real answer. Ideological systems tend to be human contructs that denconstruct on closer examination. Reality is too complex for any human system of positive understanding to capture or grasp it. Institutions of higher learning tend toward their respective "liberal" simply because the more you investigate a subject, the more previous human constructs of that subject deconstruct.

The secret is thus not in constructing a new liberal system which itself will only deconstruct. But what we need to expend our energies toward is operating with a sense of mystery as we investigate, to learn to view human truth as a collection of true metaphors and true "myths." We believe God knows everything, but accept that we are only getting little snippets of what God knows in a skewed form.

Return to "Main" Subject
I suspect that 9-11 is the key factor behind the most recent resurgence of fundamentalism. For most Americans, religion is part of a cultural package that cannot distinguish America and apple pie from church. The Iraq War has only furthered the polarization of world religions. Iran will do the same. Right now I'm predicting that a Republican will win in 2008 because of the impending crisis with Iran.

So liberal colleges and seminaries are in trouble. Conservative ones face a marketing boon. So Liberty Baptist will rock this decade!

Thoughts...

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ken,

You said it superbly . . "the truth tends to work against the traditional."

That's the self correcting nature of truth.

Sadly too many good hearted, well meaning people are more committed to preserving tradition than exploring and seeking truth.

Rick

Keith Drury said...

I couldn't help remembering while reading your blog the gal in my Freshman New testament class about 7 years ago who was shaken to the core when she heard that the "three wise men" were not necessarily three and they did not visit the stable according to Scripture. In exasperation she exclaimed, "What else did they teach me that was false?"

You are right—education tends to undermine the “traditional,” in this case the handy placement of the Magi at the manger scene as part of her church’s Christmas pageant. Here the Bible was doing the deconstructing of a "human myth” that may have seemed harmless to the pageant planners.

The trouble I see is when a person holds a huge package of “truths” that includes everything from three-wise-men-at-the-stable right alongside timeless truths like the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the the resurrection of Christ. When a person holds all these things equally in one huge package then when the man-made “truths” come tumbling down they sometimes take along with them eternal Truths of the Christian faith.

My opinion is Christians need to hold our beliefs in “orbits of priority" making sure the central core truths are firm and insulated against the crumbling of any of these outer-orbit man-designed things.

Alas! This is hard for the church to do in an hour each week of peppy praise songs & helpful advice-for-good-dieting (I watched Joel Osteen today!)

Developing orbits of truth takes time and careful teaching—both of which are seriously lacking in today’s brand of Christianity. I hope to see this corrected by our students who seem to care for more than shallow pop Christianity. I pray so.


(As for the election, I’ll bet you a candy bar that we’ll have a President named McCain next time, which apparently will satisfy Jerry Falwell just OK.)

Ken Schenck said...

I actually emailed McCain last week and offered my services to him in Indiana for the upcoming 2008 election... :-)

::athada:: said...

Drury - well said. Every freshman needs to understand that, I think! Better to be prepared ahead of time than to find it too late.

I also have bent a little more "liberal", I suppose, because education helped me realize how little I actually do know. I'm less sure of so many things in life, we leaves me more open to debate and change and mystery. Which doesn't have to be so bad if you can still cling on to the "cake" :)

Anonymous said...

Ken
Maybe you might consider the possibility that the more one studies and earns degrees etc, the more arrogant or full of pride he or she may get. Does knowledge not have the potential to "puff-up?"

I am in a denomination with many liberals. I was ordained a UM Elder with a "liberal" who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth or the divine inspiration of scripture. Having an open mind, open door and open heart for liberalism might sound cool, but look what it has done to mainline denominations. Be careful!

Mike Cline said...

Are we really willing to put our voice behind a guy that waited until political timing was right to "all of a sudden" be a Bush/war hater? McCain flip flops as much as John Kerry for political clout! But I realize this is not the blog to discuss this. Oh wait, I already threw it out there. Sorry. :)

I'm wondering when Obama is going to run for the presidential nomination.

Mike Cline said...

I'm wondering if anyone in this country would be wise enough to vote for a guy with an Arab last name some day. You think anyone would vote for an "Obama," or would our administration find a way to link him to 9-11 too?

Ken Schenck said...

Craig, going from a KJV type to where I am today has been an extremely painful and torturous journey for me and one filled with self-doubt. I am in little danger of adopting any position out of arrogance. I do not privilege positions because they are either conservative or liberal.

My operating procedure is rather this: I accept by faith the orthodoxy of Christendom, regardless of the question of evidence or reason (the core Drury spoke of). On the other hand, my bias is to take the position of the majority of scholars in a particular area as the most likely conclusion on the basis of the current evidence on a topic if it is not a topic I myself am an expert on.

So to use the subject of evolution as a test case. I am unclear as to whether there is a position I must take as a Christian on this issue, other than to believe that spiritual death entered the world through Adam and that God created the world and directed the creation of humanity. If someone can show me that there is a clear Christian position on the issue, I will adopt it by faith, regardless of the evidence one way or another. Or if my church had an official stance on this issue, I would submit to it (I would say the WC has an unofficial stance on the issue, and I accordingly privilege scientific creationism in my teaching).

Yet in terms of the evidence currently available, which of course can be deceiving, I don't see how anyone who uses computers and cell phones could rationally reject the evidentiary position of the vast and overwhelming majority of those who know the most about the evidence. I am not one of them and the majority of those who would disagree with this comment are not scientifically qualified either. But since it is the same scientific method in use in both cases, it seems irrational to me to be dogmatic to the contrary unless I am competent as a scientist to make the decision.

The key to my operating procedure is that x doesn't always mark the spot, and the evidence doesn't always point to the right verdict. So the trick is to know what we must simply believe by faith and where we should go with the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Ken
Your wrote:
"But a very sobering question lurks in the "dying of the light" scenario. Underlying this "myth" is the presumption that the more a person studies, the more likely he or she is to go liberal. Is this true? If it is, then something like one of the following must surely be true 1) there's a Satanic conspiracy, 2) there's a human conspiracy, 3) education tempts people to a particular kind of temptation that tends to lead to temptation, or 4) the truth tends to the liberal"

I hope you were not thinking that I was accusing you of being an arrogant or pride filled intellectual. I was merely suggesting a pt. 5 for your options!

Coming from KJV fundamentalism has been a traumatic journey for many I know. When I was at IWU I was a disciple of Dr. Glen Martin, who taught us the certainly of absolutes and the philosophy of Francis Shaeffer. That was my "fundamentalism" and intellectual upbringing. It has made it very difficult to understand and accept the post-modern concept of relative uncertainty.

Sniper: No, I would not vote for Obama. I don't vote for Democrats. You see, I am still a child of Dr. Martin.

Mike Cline said...

Dr. Martin...he always made me smile.

I'm sure he would say something to you like: "Good Craig, that's real good. Obama sounds like Mohammedism..." I loved it when he refered to Islam as that. There are still many disciples of Martin still on campus, even after his death. The legend lives on...