Oh well done. You just articulated the whole thing about Peterson et. al. with an eye to the real and very large problem looming over them far better than any academic take that I’ve seen, and took on the elephant in the room. I haven’t really seen anyone else do that yet (which doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, just that I haven’t seen it in the academic discussions I’ve been around.)
That’s valuable. This is not an academic vs. lay person take. Lay people have really valuable things to say too, just as much as us in the academy, and this was one of them. Thanks so much for this.
"Jesus answered: 'My kingdom is not of this world.'"
Much of contemporary Christianity, consciously or not, ends up being very this-worldly. Even many of the good aspects of Christian culture – social charitable activities, encouragement of moral behavior, etc – can be this-worldly. All of the Cultural Christianity and Instrumental Christianity is this-worldly in focus, with barely any acknowledgement of spiritual realities.
And this is not a question of Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right. The “temptation on the left” (as Fr. Seraphim Rose referred to it) is making Christianity too “relevant”, submitting to contemporary trends, erasing any boundaries, mistaking extreme tolerance for love, etc. The “temptation on the right” is to make it overly moralistic, “based” and rigidly doctrinaire, to the extent that love is pushed aside in favor of “correctness”.
Two other interesting essays in this regard are the following:
One is Fr. Seraphim Rose’s “Letter to Thomas Merton”, which brilliantly summarizes the “Not-This-Worldliness” of true Christianity, as well as the risk that even our most well intentioned actions end up being a kind of outwardly focused busy-ness that distracts us from living a life of true repentance and of holiness.
Representative quote:
“You speak of "Christian action," "the Christian who manifests the truth of the Gospel in social action," "not only in prayer and penance, but also in his political commitments and in all his social responsibilities." Well, I certainly will say nothing against that; if Christian truth does not shine through in all that one does, to that extent one is failing to be a Christian, and if one is called to a political vocation, one's action in that area too must be Christian. But, if I am not mistaken, your words imply something more than that; namely, that now more than ever before we need Christians working in the social and political sphere, to realize there the truth of the Gospel. But why, if Christ's Kingdom is not of this world? Is there really a Christian "social message," or is not that rather a result of the one Christian activity—working out one's salvation with diligence? I by no means advocate a practice of Christianity in isolation; all Christianity—even that of the hermit—is a "social Christianity," but that is only as context, not as end. The Church is in society because men are in society, but the end of the Church is the transformation of men, not society. It is a good thing if a society and government profess genuine Christianity, if its institutions are informed by Christianity, because an example is given thereby to the men who are a part of that society; but a Christian society is not an end in itself, but simply a result of the fact that Christian men live in society.”
The other is Paul Kingsnorth’s recent essay / lecture “Against Christian Civilization”, which with its provocatively hyperbolic title, makes similar points:
“Did God intervene on Earth just to give us another identity to fight over? Or to build us a civilisation or an empire with a cross painted on it? Or did he tell us to live differently? To see differently. Literally, to repent, which in the original Greek word, metanoia, does not mean ‘say sorry’, as I always used to believe, but rather: transform yourself. Turn around, change your mind, change your heart, change your way of seeing. And through that: change the world."
Atheist wanting to use Christianity as a tool for social cohesion and "moral and cultural values" is not a new thing - Maurras was already condemned by the Vatican in the 1930's for that reason.
Thanks for this well written post that clearly defines the very issue that I’m encountering with people myself, it is relevant and much needed defence of the true meaning of Christianity. You’re doing a great work!
I used this quote in recent discussion on this topic: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV)
Until one sees the truth of the resurrection and the internal consistency of the message from Genesis to Revelation, the reason why Christ came to earth and the reason for his resurrection, you are not only not a Christian, but you are also not saved or born again.
Knowing this simple fact as truth is what changed the disciples very being, and why they died for their belief that Jesus was resurrected.
The reason is that this change, by the grace of God, gives you a foundation for epistemology that no other religion or belief system provides.
I agree with everything you’ve said, I just think that this is the crucial point that is being missed by the people who think that the bible has some nice things they can pick and choose what to believe from.
Yes it’s all or nothing, but also you must go one step further and actually become convinced of the truth of the resurrection, it’s not just another idea to believe in but a powerful life changing affirmation that transcend any other idea, as it delivers one to eternal life.
Thank you so much for this bold and clear statement. A great danger we face today is crossless Christianity which has no power to save but only to mislead.
Oh well done. You just articulated the whole thing about Peterson et. al. with an eye to the real and very large problem looming over them far better than any academic take that I’ve seen, and took on the elephant in the room. I haven’t really seen anyone else do that yet (which doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, just that I haven’t seen it in the academic discussions I’ve been around.)
That’s valuable. This is not an academic vs. lay person take. Lay people have really valuable things to say too, just as much as us in the academy, and this was one of them. Thanks so much for this.
"Jesus answered: 'My kingdom is not of this world.'"
Much of contemporary Christianity, consciously or not, ends up being very this-worldly. Even many of the good aspects of Christian culture – social charitable activities, encouragement of moral behavior, etc – can be this-worldly. All of the Cultural Christianity and Instrumental Christianity is this-worldly in focus, with barely any acknowledgement of spiritual realities.
And this is not a question of Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right. The “temptation on the left” (as Fr. Seraphim Rose referred to it) is making Christianity too “relevant”, submitting to contemporary trends, erasing any boundaries, mistaking extreme tolerance for love, etc. The “temptation on the right” is to make it overly moralistic, “based” and rigidly doctrinaire, to the extent that love is pushed aside in favor of “correctness”.
Two other interesting essays in this regard are the following:
One is Fr. Seraphim Rose’s “Letter to Thomas Merton”, which brilliantly summarizes the “Not-This-Worldliness” of true Christianity, as well as the risk that even our most well intentioned actions end up being a kind of outwardly focused busy-ness that distracts us from living a life of true repentance and of holiness.
Representative quote:
“You speak of "Christian action," "the Christian who manifests the truth of the Gospel in social action," "not only in prayer and penance, but also in his political commitments and in all his social responsibilities." Well, I certainly will say nothing against that; if Christian truth does not shine through in all that one does, to that extent one is failing to be a Christian, and if one is called to a political vocation, one's action in that area too must be Christian. But, if I am not mistaken, your words imply something more than that; namely, that now more than ever before we need Christians working in the social and political sphere, to realize there the truth of the Gospel. But why, if Christ's Kingdom is not of this world? Is there really a Christian "social message," or is not that rather a result of the one Christian activity—working out one's salvation with diligence? I by no means advocate a practice of Christianity in isolation; all Christianity—even that of the hermit—is a "social Christianity," but that is only as context, not as end. The Church is in society because men are in society, but the end of the Church is the transformation of men, not society. It is a good thing if a society and government profess genuine Christianity, if its institutions are informed by Christianity, because an example is given thereby to the men who are a part of that society; but a Christian society is not an end in itself, but simply a result of the fact that Christian men live in society.”
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/merton.aspx
The other is Paul Kingsnorth’s recent essay / lecture “Against Christian Civilization”, which with its provocatively hyperbolic title, makes similar points:
“Did God intervene on Earth just to give us another identity to fight over? Or to build us a civilisation or an empire with a cross painted on it? Or did he tell us to live differently? To see differently. Literally, to repent, which in the original Greek word, metanoia, does not mean ‘say sorry’, as I always used to believe, but rather: transform yourself. Turn around, change your mind, change your heart, change your way of seeing. And through that: change the world."
https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/against-christian-civilisation-ea2
Atheist wanting to use Christianity as a tool for social cohesion and "moral and cultural values" is not a new thing - Maurras was already condemned by the Vatican in the 1930's for that reason.
Thanks for this well written post that clearly defines the very issue that I’m encountering with people myself, it is relevant and much needed defence of the true meaning of Christianity. You’re doing a great work!
I used this quote in recent discussion on this topic: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV)
Until one sees the truth of the resurrection and the internal consistency of the message from Genesis to Revelation, the reason why Christ came to earth and the reason for his resurrection, you are not only not a Christian, but you are also not saved or born again.
Knowing this simple fact as truth is what changed the disciples very being, and why they died for their belief that Jesus was resurrected.
The reason is that this change, by the grace of God, gives you a foundation for epistemology that no other religion or belief system provides.
I agree with everything you’ve said, I just think that this is the crucial point that is being missed by the people who think that the bible has some nice things they can pick and choose what to believe from.
Yes it’s all or nothing, but also you must go one step further and actually become convinced of the truth of the resurrection, it’s not just another idea to believe in but a powerful life changing affirmation that transcend any other idea, as it delivers one to eternal life.
Fantastic article. I enjoyed Dominion, with the same reservations about the final chapters.
Christianity without personal faith in the Savior is indeed vain! The purpose of the cross is not to create or save the West, but to pardon sinners!
Glad you enjoyed the essay!
It was a great book!
Thank you so much for this bold and clear statement. A great danger we face today is crossless Christianity which has no power to save but only to mislead.
I’m glad you enjoyed it
Didn’t Tom Holland convert ?
I’m not sure, I don’t believe he has, but he has certainly grown more Christian-friendly