Christianity and Culture, Part One
Not many Protestants are aware of the deep and rich philosophical literature of English Catholics. I’m not sure whether it’s the wisdom of English culture minus the liberalizing tendencies of the Anglican Church, or the persecution endured by Catholics in England that caused such a deep vein of thought and culture. While not endorsing their doctrine of course, we can appreciate the work of English Catholics like Tolkien, Lewis (lifetime flirtation & deathbed conversion), Belloc and Chesterton.
Chesterton (1874-1936), of whom I’ve read a very little bit from secondary sources, was quite the original thinker, a defender of localism and promoter of an economic idea called distributionism derived from Catholic social principles as an alternative to what he thought were the twin evils of communism and capitalism (He defined capitalism not as free enterprise but as the unholy separation of management and ownership protected by the limited liability veil of corporate governance, effectively removing moral responsibility and consequences from both parties).
One of the distinguishing arguments of Chesterton and Belloc was the idea that the Christian faith was uniquely European, and that while it could and should be exported to other cultures, it could not be separated from its genesis in Europe. The two were eternally bound.
While I would not venture to take an argument that far (especially in light of Europe’s declining faith, as there are now more people attending mosques than churches in Europe, a double symptom of insane immigration policy and postmodern soul-killing agnosticism), it does seem there is some substance to the claim that Christianity is inseparable from Western Civilization and that culture should play a role in our religious experience.
The Orthodox Churches, arguably the closest surviving model of the original New Testament church, intentionally organizes itself into national-level entities instead of one universal church (a heresy, they claim of the Catholic, which literally means universal, Church). There is a Greek Orthodox Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, a Serbian Orthodox Church (the unfortunate victims, if you recall, of Bill Clinton’s UN-backed “police action” on behalf of Muslim-Albanian terrorists to distract from the Lewinsky scandal), an Armenian Orthodox Church, among others. Each church is headed by someone called a Patriarch who heads a church government of bishops and priests who are allowed to marry (celibacy being a Roman Catholic doctrine alien to the original NT church). Each national division of the Orthodox Church celebrates its own heroes, saints and holy days. For example, Serbians celebrate Serbian saints and historic Serbian victories over Muslim aggressors (as one of the last outposts of Christianity in southeast Europe, the Serbs are a little rough around the edges, but only because of centuries of being the firewall against various Islamic invaders of Europe).
The Orthodox understand that God has created men as members of nations and peoples- there is no universal man, thus there can be no universal church. Orthodox churches are united on doctrine (somewhat), but not in government or culture.
We sons and daughters of Western Europe sometimes in our hubris believe we can overcome the ties of blood and soil. Some believe that an abstract Christianity can be distilled from the Scripture where we can escape what we see as the unnecessary “worldly” loyalties that can be cast aside through unity in Christ. Such notions are actually anti-scriptural, because the Bible clearly indicates that nations and nationalities will even persist into the new heaven and new Earth. Such beliefs represent a hyper-scriptural idealism reminiscent of the heresies of Babel. Some Christians explicitly endorse this theologically, with specious arguments that the judgment of Babel was somehow reversed at Pentecost, and thus we can proceed to destroy God’s ordained order of nations and peoples by pursuing the same abominable global unity with a Christian veneer.
I believe that the loyalties of blood, soil and nation are ordained of God- and that the maintenance and cultivation of these loyalties is necessary to the full Christian life. Just as we favor our families over other people’s families (not because they are necessarily better- though of course it is entirely healthy for a parent to think well and be proud of their child- but because they are ours), we should favor our nation and people over those of others. This is the order ordained by God in the world, and arguably in the world to come. As a wise man once said, there is no such thing as a “man”. There are Englishmen, and Frenchmen, and Germans, and Irishmen, etc- but no one has ever seen this supposed “man”.
Taking as a postulate this loyalty, we must then determine what duties this loyalty requires of us. And more importantly, as the definition of “American” becomes less meaningful, we must determine the group to whom we must be loyal.
I also believe that participating in the culture of our people must be practiced in our lives. In the media we consume, the politics we support, and the history we teach our children we should do our best to improve and better the biocultural entity that God has ordained as ours.
Finally, as our people reject the emptiness of the broader culture and seek meaningful alternatives, largely in a real and robust Christianity, we should also avail ourselves to the rich and deep Christian heritage that sits waiting for us to experience. Poems, novels and histories, more than we could ever read, are still with us from the days (approximately 100 years ago) before our civilization went perilously off-track. But since they are all in the public domain, they will not be marketed to us- we must seek them out.
It’s very hard for us to imagine a healthy, vigorous pride in one’s people and culture that does not involve destructive attitudes toward other groups- mostly because the media in our country tries very hard to associate such feelings with low levels of education and socioeconomic status (e.g. the movie stereotype of the hateful, sadistic, dumb, skoal-dipping Southerner with a rebel flag belt buckle, from movies like Mississippi Burning that depict a one-sided biased view of history). The reason the media does this is that the urban elite in our country have A) an irrational paranoia directed towards the people of our country, imagining them as potential fascists and Nazis (this bigotry is especially directed towards Southerners and people from rural areas, as seen in occasional left-wing portrayals of George W. Bush as Hitler) and B) a vested interest in eroding American patriotism to make way for their Globalist agenda.
An example of the sort of positive, healthy pride I’m talking about can be found in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Greeks are similar to Serbians in having developed a cultural immune system to the multiculturalism that surrounds them in the Balkans. They have pride in who they are and in their culture without denigrating others (well, except maybe Turks, but there’s a history of Turkish oppression in Greece- and let us not forget that Martin Luther’s original A Mighty Fortress included a politically incorrect line referencing “the murderous Turk”). We should be more like the high-fertility proud Greek people in this movie, with a specific cultural identity, and less like the flavorless, bland, low-fertility Northeastern liberal family of the groom.
In my next post on this subject I will seek to define who “our people” are exactly. Human groups are “fuzzy”, not subject to simple definitions, and especially as Americans it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly who and what we are. Are we English? Anglo-Saxon? Celtic? I will make a case for a uniquely American people, and seek to draw some fuzzy boundaries around this group.
I will also discuss practical ways to experience our heritage, including some regular features on this site that will offer a sampling of what is available- at least what I have come across and enjoyed in my limited experience.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Alright, Tom, there is so much to digest in this post, I’m going to have a few different comments probably. But the one thing I wanted to comment on right now is this comment:
“The Orthodox Churches, arguably the closest surviving model of the original New Testament church…”
Arguably is right. =) I’m not sure I see that in the New Testament Scriptures. I see people meeting in houses and eating with one another, and enjoying deep, rich, personal fellowship. I don’t see rituals written about, with the exceptions of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. I’m not saying they weren’t there - I just don’t see them written about or given the same import as faith and relationship.
Maybe that’s the problem I have with the more liturgical forms of worship - the ritual and custom always seems to take priority over the people. (It may not start out that way, but it seems like very often that’s the way it ends.) I am learning that there is a depth and richness to tradition, as long as it is combined with faith and relationship. By itself, it leads to death.
Anyway, I appreciate this post - it’s given me a lot to think about.
Lindsay
October 29th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
What you may be thinking of is the VERY early church. But pretty quickly the church had bishops, buildings and hierarchy. An interesting book is the journey of several leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ to Orthodoxy, called Becoming Orthodox- the reviews on Amazon give you a feel for the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Orthodox-Journey-Ancient-Christian/dp/0962271330
I admit I have a certain reactionary bias that predisposes me to this pitch:
My reactionary side also delights in the fact that the dedicated enemies of our civilization (the urban elites in places like NYC and LA who provide most of the funding for the Democratic Party) absolutely despise the Orthodox Church, and particularly the Russian Czarist civilization before Communism. Even on our side of the political spectrum, neoconservatives (i.e. an urban elite who pretends to be a conservative in order to achieve foreign policy objectives), who support using nuclear weapons against Arab civilian populations to fight the “Islamo-fascists”, hate Russia so much that they condemn Vladimir Putin for taking the gloves off when dealing with Muslim terrorists in Chechnya.
However, my rational mind quickly kicks in and reminds me that Eastern Europe has never reached the level of spiritual fruit and civilization achieved by Western European Protestant countries. And when you consider the incredibly low fertility levels in Eastern Europe (Russia is actually declining in population, losing a million people a year because no one is having babies), we see many of the same problems that concern me about the “Western” portion of the West. The Orthodox Church is clearly no panacea- but we must also remember that Eastern Europe is still recovering from Communism as well.
An interesting thing to watch will be seeing which group of European peoples (Easterners or Westerners, including the US) are able to recover from their present problems first. If in the Eastern portion of Europe, then perhaps it would be appropriate for me to re-evaluate the fruit of the Orthodox Church.
I still believe their national-level organization helps them to avoid a lot of the universalist silliness that affects evangelicals- like Rick Warren attempting to make Rwanda the world’s first “Purpose Driven” nation.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:26 am
My belief is that, after it’s earliest form, there were different groups that split off from one another, forming denominations, because of differences in the way they ‘interpreted’ Scripture, especially about such points as the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. When these churches split, my belief is that certain churches remained true to Jesus’ and the apostles’ doctrine, and others perverted Scripture (usually for money).
Therefore, I believe that the early churches with popes, bishops & hierarchy were not true churches. There were other groups throughout the centuries that were usually hidden, underground churches, because, as the Catholic and Orthodox churches became state religions, any other type of Christianity was persecuted as severely as Islam or ‘pagans’ or Jews.
I have a great fear of the national level organizations. I personally believe that gives one person, or group of people, headship when only Christ deserves that in the church. I am not saying that individual Popes or bishops, etc. have been bad, they were probably even Christians. I just believe that is not how Jesus designed the church. If He had wanted popes and national organizations, I believe He would have designed it like that while He was here on earth.
I see the church as a living, breathing organism. It’s made up of it’s people, not it’s structure. I tend to agree with the ‘less structure the better’ approach, but that is also partly because of my personality and experiences.
A lot of the the things I believe do not fit with Southern Baptist doctrine, especially on the issues of church membership and communion. But Jeremy & I had to wrestle with all of those, and the conclusion we came to is this: We were tired of being in a church that had everything doctrinally ‘right’, but did not care about people. We were willing to commit ourselves to a group of people who don’t necessarily believe like we do because we were convinced they cared about people.
Regarding Russia, please remember that the Russian Orthodox Church does NOT preach the gospel. It may be a cultural religions, but they do not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. They pray to saints, and offer money and candles to priests, and do not preach Christ alone for salvation.
There IS Christianity in Russia, but it is not to be found in the national organization. It is buried, hidden beneath restrictions and regulations. Just like China and other countries where true Christianity is illegal.
One more thing - I’m not talking about individuals being Christians or not - I’m talking about the national organizations. Thanks for letting me express my opinion, and the very interesting discussion.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:54 am
The general arguments regarding Catholicism and Orthodox Churches are beyond the scope of my expertise. I will say my level of respect for these churches has increased the more I study them, of course without minimizing the effort of missionaries to reach people whom they believe are in spiritual bondage to these churches.
I do tend to be a doctrinal minimalist and results-oriented. By that I mean that if a Church meets a certain minimum doctrinal position, I tend to look at their outcomes to judge quality (i.e. judging by fruits).
The doctrine of salvation by grace alone- this is true doctrine. But must one believe it in order to be saved? I do not know. It is entirely possible for someone to believe that works play some role and for God to still cover them by Grace alone. An analogy would be that turning on a light switch does not require one to be an electrical engineer- the light comes on no matter what reasons you believe it will, as long as the minimum threshold (flipping the switch) is met.
But I’m not sure about this.
What I do like is those churches holding the line on issues like contraception and homosexuality. Every liberal denomination in the US (PCUSA, Episcopals, Methodists) preach “salvation by grace alone” as a doctrine, but it does not save them from bad fruit (embracing homosexuality and abortion, female “pastors”, etc). Can you imagine any American church doing this?
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031008-113616-3077r.htm
That’s a robust and healthy response to an outrage- our leaders would speak in hushed tones about God’s love for the sinner (which is true, but besides the point). But, again, I admit that this may be reactionary on my part. The hardest part of living in our times is to create your own positive vector in life instead of reacting to the latest outrage of our civilization’s cultural decline.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:38 pm
“The hardest part of living in our times is to create your own positive vector in life instead of reacting to the latest outrage of our civilization’s cultural decline. ”
I LOVE that sentence, Tom. I think that is the problem I have with a lot of arguments - especially political. Naturally, I tend to enjoy a good debate, but at times I do find myself weary - for two reasons: you never convince anyone, and, even if you did, there would just be another argument after that one.
Also, politically, spiritually, economically, no other civilization on earth has ever lasted perpetually. America won’t be any different. I’m not saying I won’t work as hard as I can do affect things within my realm of responsibility. But the truth is, I just won’t be surprised at each new level of depth our country falls to. God can work miracles, and He may preserve our county, so I don’t mean to sound fatalistic. But, even outside of a political context, why are we so surprised when unsaved people don’t act like Christians?
I appreciate the distinction made between a church that is minimally correct in doctrine and produces much fruit vs. the church that is entirely correct (in whatever my opinion is) and produces no fruit.
What is boils down to is that I don’t know a whole lot. But I do know that Jesus said the way He would judge is by those to did acts of service to Him by giving in His name to the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc. So maybe all the ‘big time’ arguments don’t matter as much as I thought. Maybe it’s just about the individuals God puts in my path.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
I agree with you about our country. All of the factors for our ruin are already in place and unchangeable- unpayable debt, a corrupt political culture, millions of hostile aliens loyal to other flags.
But the end of Rome didn’t mean the end of the Italians. And the end of our evil government will not mean the end of the American people. Franky, it will be a huge tax cut and devolution of power to the state and local levels that will likely lead, coincidental with the growing spiritual renewal of fathers leading their families, to a new era of peace and prosperity. What do we really have in common with people from Massachusetts or Vermont that compels us to live under the same government? Blue states were already talking about secession to Canada after Bush was re-elected.
Much smaller differences in culture have lead to peaceful separation- much like the amicable divorce of the Czechs and Slovaks about ten years ago.