Ross Douthat's take on the state of religion, and particularly of Christianity, in America has not been without it's critics. Even though his targets run across the theological and political spectrum, the greatest criticism comes from the left side of the aisle. Michael Sean Winters in the New Republic writes that Douthat makes factual errors in his book, but what is most troubling is the oversimplified picture he gives of a robust, orthodox Christianity that went to hell in a hand basket during the 60's. But I don't think you have to give Bad Religion a terribly close read to understand that Douthat isn't simply using the "60's as a Scapegoat" argument so common from those on the right. He sets the scene of a powerful and influential orthodoxy (broadly defined) in the 50's, true, but also states that there are no true Golden Ages, so it would be wrong to over idealize that period. Beyond that, he is careful to trace the long history of the varying heresies he identifies and shows that they all predate the 1960's, and in many cases were alive and well during the 1950's. His point, I think, is not that one era was good and the other bad, as much as in previous generations, when the established Protestant Mainline and Catholic Church were strong, they were able to serve as a counter balance to these other, less orthodox, impulses in American Christianity.
But what gets the left leaning critics upset, I'm guessing, is Douthat's critique of the establishment's response to the theological upheaval of the 60's. Rather than taking the new trends as a challenge to be engaged on the battlefield of ideas, the Mainline, and in a more subtle way the Catholic Church, surrendered to these "modernizing" trends without a shot. They accommodated, believing that the Church needed to adapt to the new trends or face irrelevance. The Mainline proceeded to include women in the ranks of their clergy (later extending the invitation to openly gay candidates), softened the moral teachings on sexuality and adapted a more explicitly political agenda in the tradition of the 19th century Social Gospel, with a helping of Marx on the side. The Catholic Church did not make these moves, at least not officially, but many of her theologians and clergy did become more politically minded, and internally the Church was roiled by controversies over many of these issues, especially over the role of women and sexual morality. While the Church's political consciousness was raised the once faithful disciples in the wider culture either yawned or fled. Irrelevance came came in spite of the accommodation.
Douthat criticizes the liberals who politicize Jesus, placing orthodoxy on the back burner, reducing Jesus to a wise man, ethical teacher or social revolutionary at the expense of his divinity. But he also points his jabs at the purveyors of the Prosperity Gospel like Joel Osteen or those like Glen Beck who identify discipleship in Christ with American nationalism. He stresses the central place of chastity in the Christian tradition while pointing out that greed and gluttony are also deadly sins that should be preached on. The problem with heresy, as the author points out, is that it takes one aspect of the truth and makes it the whole. True Christianity is riddled with paradoxes and apparent contradictions. The heretic tries to circle these squares, but always at the expense of the truth, robbing Jesus and His message of their power. Our faith is constantly seeking understanding, so when we give in to the pat explanation we trade a far reaching, mysterious journey for the mirage of certainty.
Does Douthat hit some obvious targets? Yeah. Can he belabor a point to death? Yeah. He could make his points more economically. But the charge that he's overly simplistic or partisan in his "attacks" are unfair. He may ask simple questions, but they are ones that few seem to have the courage to ask, let alone try to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment