Category: Culture

“In more popular parlance, however, all three words, — ‘secular,’ ‘secularization,’ and ‘secularism,’ — have to do with the squeezing of the religious to the periphery of life. More precisely, secularization is the process that progressively removes religion from the public arena and reduces it to the private realm; secularism is the stance that endorses and promotes such a process. Religion may be ever so important to the individual, and, few secular persons will object. But if religion makes any claims regarding policy in the public arena, it is viewed as a threat, and intolerant as well.”

D. A. Carson
Christ And Culture Revisited — pg. 116

Before getting to this quote I want to make it clear that I always find reading and listening to Carson stimulating. My posts here continue to critique him but that shouldn’t be interpreted as meaning that I disagree with him at every point. I have read Carson over the years with great profit and I have to say that among all the big guns I’ve seen and heard preach his sermon on water and life is one of the best I’ve ever heard. In this book his section “One (Epistemological) Step Further” is worth the price of the book. In this section he quickly and efficiently undresses James K. Smith and his book, “Who’s Afraid Of Postmodernism.” In this section Carson offers a way to navigate between hard modernism and hard post-modernism, and I like it because he agrees with me.

Still, after saying all that I will continue to critique Carson. First, this quote above is pretty standard fare among the Reformed intelligentsia. I have read the same type of thing over the years from Os Guiness, George Marsden, and others. It is precisely because this type of thinking seems to own the academic and intellectual field that I continue to return to the problems contained therein. Those of you who have made a habit of reading my offerings are not going to surprised by what I say next.

The idea that ‘the religious’ can be squeezed to the periphery of life is just not true if only because the secular, secularism, and the secularization process stem from religions operating incognito. Those who are pushing the ‘secular agenda’ are pursuing it from a core of religious convictions. When ‘religion’ gets pushed to the periphery it is religion under the guise of secularism that is doing the pushing. The effectiveness of secularism is found in its ability to disguise its religious orientation.

There seems to be an inability to understand that God or a god concept is an inescapable category and as such it is not possible to have a realm where there is no god ruling. This continues to be important to re-articulate since those who want hold to the idea of the secular are insisting that the project of locking out religion (which always follows in the train of the presence of a god or god concept) from the public square is achievable. It is not.

Another way to argue this is by locating the god that is left in the public square once all other religions are removed. If, by way of legislation, god, and so religion, are removed from the public square, there must, by necessity, be a mechanism in place that monitors and governs the public square in order to make sure that it remains naked. This policing agency in our putative secularism has the responsibility to ensure that the various competing gods and their religions don’t encroach upon the public square. In a defacto sense this makes the policing agency the god of the gods. This policing agency is charged with governing the gods making sure they don’t show up in the public square. Everyone knows that the institution charged with policing the public square in order to make sure the competing gods know and keep their place is the State. The State, as God in the public square, continues to build around it a religion dedicated to the preeminence of the State as God. Hence, all of this contributes to the pursuit of a religion that dominates the public square that goes under the fatuous name of secularism. But make no mistake about it, this putative secularism is a religion, replete with all the defining characteristics of a religion. Its effectiveness as a religion is enhanced and advanced by cloaking itself as ‘secularism,’ and Christians contribute to the problem of revealing the charade when they continue to speak as if secularism is not religious complete with its own God (State), Church (Government Schools), Priests (Government School Teachers), along with every other traditional manifestation of religion. In secularism the religious is most certainly NOT at the periphery of life. Like all religions it informs everything and like all religions it is intolerant of any competitors.

It is absolutely essential that Christians begin seeing this for what it is because the failure to do so is keeping us from seeing that the option isn’t between some ascendant religion in the public square and no religion in the public square but rather the option is always between one religion or another dominating the public square.

“The first will be most clearly perceived when we recall that up to that point in history, religion, and state were everywhere intertwined. This was true, of course, of ancient Israel: at least in theory, Israel was… a theocracy. Similarly in the pagan world: most of the gods of the people were necessarily the gods of the state. When the Romans took over some new territory, they arranged a god-swap: they adopted some of the local gods into their own pantheon and insisted that the locals take on some of the Roman gods….But nowhere was there a state that was divorced from all the gods, what we would call a secular state, with the state and religion occupying distinct, even if overlapping, spheres. But on the face of it, this is what Jesus is advocating. At the very least, insofar as he envisages a transnational and transcultural community that is not identified with any one state, he anticipates the obligation to give to Caesar that is in power whatever is his due.”

D. A. Carson
Christ And Culture Revisited — pg. 56-57

1.) The idea that a state could be divorced from all the gods is a comparatively recent Baptistic notion and it shares in the nonsense that characterizes much of Baptist theology.

2.) This insistence that the scriptures teach that a non-theocratic state can exist is exactly that which has given us a state apparatus that believes itself to be god, which has in turn yielded a state a state dedicated to no gods will be allowed to challenge its primacy.

3.) State and religion can no more be separated then body and soul. Carson asserting that such a situation is a reality doesn’t prove that it is a reality.

4.) Carson’s interpretation of what Jesus says (“Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars the things that are Gods unto God”) is not the same as what Jesus actually said. When Carson invokes the words of Jesus to support the idea that the New Testament model is one that supports a state that isn’t beholden to and reflective of some God or god concept is eisegesis of the worst sort.

5.) The reason that the ancients never had a state that was divorced from the gods is that the ancients were smarter then us, realizing that such an arrangement is literally impossible. Since God is an inescapable category, it is no more possible to posit a non theocratic state then it is to posit a person who can have no god.

6.) All of this in no way denies that the State and Religion occupy distinct spheres. Just as in Israel the King and the Priest fulfilled distinct offices though both were responsible to the God of the Bible so today the Magistrate and the minister have distinct offices though both remain responsible to God. Carson tries to say on one hand that State and Religion occupy distinct spheres while saying at the same time that while some God or god concept should rule the religious sphere no god of god concept need be present in the sphere of the state. Carson seems to think that it is acceptable — nay even Biblical — for the State to de-god God. This kind of theology is madness. Does he really believe that God wants the state to de-god God?

7.) Jesus may indeed envision a trans-national and trans-cultural community but that is not the same as envisioning a a-national and a-cultural community. Carson seems to be suggesting that in the Kingdom people lose their nationality and culture. But there is another understanding of the Kingdom that is more respectful of the diversity that reflects trinitarian thinking and that is to suggest that the community that Jesus envisions is a community that includes all nations and all cultures as their own nations and cultures. This would be a vision that is pan-cultural instead of trans-cultural.

8.) Carson’s view implicitly supports cultural pluralism. If there is no god over the state then there is no one god over the people. But if the State must rule the people then Carson’s state must be that which rules over the people’s varying gods thus making the state the god of the gods.

9.) Carson’s a-millennialism skews his interpretation about Christ and Culture as it pertains to the Christ transforming culture paradigm.

I’ve just begun Carson’s “Christ and Culture Revisited.” It looks to be an interesting read.

Already though we have hit a snag. Carson offers,

“My focus is on how we should be thinking about the relations between Christ and culture now,at the beginning of the twenty first century….Our reflections are shaped by six unique factors,

4.) … debates rage regarding what is ‘cultural’ in ‘multicultural,’ which in turn has precipitated debates over the relative merits of one culture over another. That in turn, of course, feeds into debates over religious claims, since religions, too, under the definition of ‘culture’ already given, are necessarily forms of cultural expressions. What gives a religion, any religion, the right to claim its own superiority or even uniqueness.

The problem here is that Carson has presupposed without establishing that religions are merely forms of cultural expressions. I would contend that the opposite is the case arguing that cultures are merely forms of religious expressions. If we say that religions are necessarily forms of cultural expressions, as if culture is the goose that lays the egg of religion then we run the danger of suggesting that culture is a kind of ultimate starting point. But to make culture an ultimate starting point is to get things backwards since the cult (religion) is that which makes the cultus (culture). If we are to examine culture profitably, as Carson intends to do, then the beginning point is not the culture itself but rather the religion from which the culture springs. And behind the religion of a culture looms the God whom both cult and cultus serve.

Carson’s problem begins to reveal itself even more acutely when just a page later he can speak of ‘secular countries.’ What does Carson mean by this? Does he mean that these are countries and cultures that have never been based on any religions? Such a view would require culture to be seen as something prior to religion and something out of which religion might or might not come. But of course we know that it is not possible to have a a-religious culture and so the whole idea of a “secular country,” or a “secular culture” must be surrendered.

Another sign of looming trouble in Carson’s book is by his early assertion that, “in some ways the world has become more furiously religious.” This cannot be since religion can neither increase nor decreases but can only transmute itself into different forms. Christopher Hitchens is every bit as religious as Osama Bin Laden, and were Hitchens to convert tomorrow to Christianity he would not at that point become “more furiously religious,” just as if Osama Bin Laden decided to walk away from Allah and become an agnostic he wouldn’t become “less furiously religious.” Now, it may be that the world is becoming more furiously epistemologically self conscious about how religious it is but no individual, nor any culture can ever increase or decrease their religious quota.

Carson begins this book by giving a definition of culture that he favors from a gentleman named Clifford Geertz.

“The culture concept…denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitude towards life.”

Now this is fine as far as it goes but the question that begs being asked is, where do the pattern of meanings that are embodied in symbols come from? Sure, they are historically transmitted but the question is where did they originally come from? The answer to that is that they came from the cult (religion) of a people, which itself originated from how the people thought about God.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean . . neither more nor less.”

Today the news reported that California has actually begun to dispense ‘marriage’ licenses for homosexuals. In the news report it was noted that State officials, being the clever bunch that they are, had changed the licenses which previously had spaces for the names of the ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ to provide spaces for the names of ‘partner A’ and ‘partner B.’

I thought that odd.

I means, hells bells, if your going to go ahead and redefine the meaning of the word ‘marriage’ so that it no longer means the joining of a man and woman in a covenantal bond why not go ahead and change the meaning of the words ‘bride’ and ‘groom.’ If the word ‘marriage’ can now mean the ‘uniting’ (even that word needs to be redefined) of two people of the same sex (and what does the word ’sex’ mean anyway?), why does the word ‘bride’ have to carry the connotation of a female party? And why does the word ‘groom’ have to carry the connotation of a male party? And for that matter what do ‘male’ and ‘female’ really mean?

And why stop there? If we are about redefining words to fit our pleasures then why should we constrain and limit the word ‘marriage’ to two parties? If we are about redefining words to fit our pleasures then why should we constrain and limit the word ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ to refer to human species? Is it only social convention that prevents us from defining marriage as a joining of three or more species?

There was a time when the Lewis Carroll quote we started with was clearly understood as satire.

At the risk of sounding like a cold hearted bastard, I have to ask the question; What gives with the whole Tim Russert dying thing?

Given the media exposure that this is getting you would have thought Princess Diana had died again.

Now, whenever death visits any family I am saddened, and I am saddened for the Russert’s loss but I’m still not sure why this death has to be reported on in the way it is. The problem is not that I am put off by a death being reported. The problem is that great numbers of people die yearly that are more influential public persons then Russert was and yet, comparatively speaking, very little is said about their deaths because they are not part of the Hollywood-Media elite family.

I conclude a few things,

First, the media assumes that America loves the same people they love. If I had access to television and print media I suppose that with the death of each of the lambs in the flock I serve I would broadcast it everywhere. This is what the media is doing. They loved Tim Russert and having the control of the levers of the media they are making America share their grief.

Second, one must understand that you can tell a great deal about a people when you look at who they grieve. America’s Hollywood and Media personality culture is evidenced in the way that we are all being held captive to the elites grief, and inasmuch as average Americans are truly grieving it reveals how America is a culture which has taken the Hollywood and Media elite as their representatives. Since I don’t particularly esteem the Hollywood and Media personality culture I am not particularly prone to grieving one of their own as if he was one of my own.

Third, the Hollywood and Media elite are overwhelmingly comprised of people who have no use for Christian notions of God and religion. As such, when a sudden death like this hits them they have no way to handle it. They are a people without God and without hope. When a death of a comparatively young colleague comes suddenly, like Russert’s has, they are brought face to face with their own mortality and like children scared of the night they have to yell out. Given the fact they have all the microphones, when the Hollywood and Media elite ‘yell out’ everyone is forced to listen.

I am honestly saddened for the Russert’s in their time of loss. It is sad whenever somebody this young and productive is summoned. I sorrow more for a culture whose grief is wrapped up in a Hollywood and Media elite culture.