One of the other things I didn't like about Charles Taylor's book is his theory of secularisation. While he does not explicitly blame Protestantism for the phenomenon he does see it as being a significant factor. But what if it he is right and Protestantism does lead to secularisation, how does that explain the precipitous decline of religion in Catholic countries?
The implication in Taylor's book is that Western culture as a whole has undergone the changes he describes--religion being transformed from a holistic thing into a mental one--and this phenomenon is equally applicable to Catholic as is to formerly Protestant cultures. Once again I don't buy it.
One of the interesting things to note is that secularism tends to be far more militant in formerly Catholic countries than it tends to be in Protestant ones. Now while it's true that a dechristianising "protestant mindset" will result in a different atheism from a catholic one, a dechristianisation that is the result of protestantisation should produce a secular culture that is similar to the Northern European model of religious indifference instead of the observed hate. Protestantism does not appear the culprit here and some other mechanism is at play.
It's my contention here that Protestantism is not the primary mechanism of secularisation, rather that secularisation is the result of decline in Grace, and given the cultural differences between the two religions, the effects of secularisation will be culturally contingent. Reasons may change but old habits die hard.
Catholicism, with its strong sense of of
Mainline Protestantism, with its strong sense of individual autonomy and tolerance, on the other hand, will decay into milder, yet more sincerely held, forms of socialism But that really depends on the particular variant of Protestantism. The more puritanical branches are liable to morph into something particularly nasty. To put in in a more succinct way:
Catholicism - Grace = Communism
Mainline Protestantism - Grace = Socialism
Puritanism - Grace = Pol Pot. (That's assuming that God's grace is extended to Puritans.)
The point I want to make when it comes to Protestantism, I do think although it was separated from the Catholic Church, God did extend his Grace to some of the branches of it. Other branches were excluded from it. As a religious/epistemological system Protestantism is wide open to error but the same quality that makes error so easy, is also the faculty that makes legitimate Christian innovation possible and it was those branches which enjoyed God's grace and favour. Where I think Taylor--and others-- make the error is in looking a Protestantism only though its errant, graceless branches: confusing the lack of Grace with Protestantism.
I've been struggling to find a term which accurately explains how Taylor got it wrong. The omission of Grace in a book about secularisation is really an attempt to explain spiritual phenomenon in a non-spiritual way. You see the same thing in Jordan Peterson's understanding of religion which was also strongly influenced by Jung. You also see it in books trying to understand the phenomenon through sociological analysis. There's something not quite right about it.
And I think the person who got this right was Owen Barfield,* who described the phenomenon as Residual Unresolved Positivism. (Thanks Bruce Charlton.) It's basically trying to understand religion as psychological phenomenon and not a spiritual one. The problem with this approach is that you approach religion as a problem of psychology instead of seeing as a problem approached though the lens of Christian understanding.
23 comments:
Judaism - God = Bolshevism
Lutheranism - God = Naziism
Catholicism - God = Chavismo
Protestantism - God = modern progressive liberalism
The non-answer to the question of why secularism was so violent in Catholic countries is that Catholic countries tended to be more politically unstable during the early 20th century, and therefore both radical left/communist parties and fascist/radical right parties had more success.
Protestant majority Germany would have probably gone Communist if not for the Nazis, and you might have seen the same sort of violent form of secularism as in Spain. Not that the Nazis were great for religion, or nonviolent, of course.
This model fits very nicely!
Wonder if anyone can come up with a counter-factual?
A minor epicycle to fit to the Catholicism Bit is that in much of the non-Western world there always was a very great deal of Syncretism going on; I think far more than is generally acknowledged. Guess which part survives the Departure of Grace.. the cultural import or the Atavism? Well, it’s not Roman Catholicism hacking heads off, impaling people, and performing various other unpleasant rituals in the parts of Mexico ruled by the Drug Gangs.
As for Outside Context for Illumination by Contrast, it is hard to use the Islamic World for this as whilst the urban elites in many places secularized some time back, the demographic and political rise of the (far more pious) Fellaheen is still being worked through just about everywhere.
Looking at multi-credal polytheistic much of Asia, seems to me that the biggest change there is urbanization and unleashed female freedom to be hypergamous — the social changes and tensions unleashed by these far outweigh any discernible changes in religious belief or practice.
Has our Esteemed Host every written on Salazar and the Estado Novo?
Portugal makes a nice contrast to Spain during the troubled years.
Still the Poz got them in the end. Of course this is the Really Big Question: why does a the Poz always get us in the end no matter what?
@Genji: Because Portugal has been effectively a vassal-state of the US since the close of WWII, like the rest of Western Europe. The places that can deflect the effects of American "soft power" also tend to be the places that are truly sovereign (China and Russia). Portugal hasn't been a great power in centuries and eventually the people there got American TV. So the key question is why did the US become liberal/secular.
I'm sure the internal weaknesses of Portuguese Catholicism also had something to do with this but I will defer to an expert on that topic.
Does Taylor see secularism as a fundamentally bad thing? He may quibble with some of it but my impression of his work is that he sees modernity as basically a good thing. To that end, he seems to generally appreciate Protestantism's role in the development of the modern world especially in the form of Romanticism. In Taylor's narrative, the rise of individualism in Western Christendom is owed to Augustinian theology, and to the extent that Protestantism represents an outworking Augustianianism it is a "good thing". Being a good ecumenical modernist he would likely agree with you that grace is operating among Protestants.
Being a good ecumenical modernist he would likely agree with you that grace is operating among Protestants.
One need not be a modernist for this. Heck, Ratzinger himself said as much; I think he called Prots "the church of Mary" who "does whatever (Jesus) tells them to do" (of Iremember he called RC the church of Peter & EO church of John). He flat-out said we cannot deny the HS is active in the non-RC churches.
@Dave
Judaism - God = Bolshevism
Not sure about that one.
@Anon
Protestant majority Germany would have probably gone Communist if not for the Nazis, and you might have seen the same sort of violent form of secularism as in Spain. Not that the Nazis were great for religion, or nonviolent, of course.
One of the things that really surprised me about the pre-WW2 Germany was just how much the Protestant faction of German society was polarised between the socialists and fascists. The more "catholic" the Protestantism the greater the drift towards socialism. Indeed I tend to think of fascism as "chavismo socialism". I also think it's important to note that apparent lack of Catholic support for fascism in the German election more an issue of tribal politics than ideological convictions. A lot of Catholics individually were highly supportive of it.
@Genji
I think there is a degree of syncretism that goes on everywhere. I think it is this feature which give a religion a lot of its local flavour. The thing is the religion defines the limits of incorporation. Lose it and suddenly the atavism reappears.
I worry a lot about western atavism. There's a lot of brutality lurking under the surface of every man.
Has our Esteemed Host every written on Salazar and the Estado Novo?
Not really. Though I felt that Salazar dealt with the problem of modernity far better than Franco he was still constrained by the traditionalist approach. I think the error of the Trads is to try to suppress new ideas instead of trying to beat them in the "open market place of ideas."
What I find fascinating is the Amish approach which I feel may be a better way to deal with the problem. Their retention rates are surprisingly high given the pozzed culture they live in.
why does a the Poz always get us in the end no matter what?
Because we've probably doing the Christian religion wrong for the last 150 years. I think one of the errors is always to assume that religious error always lays to the Left of it. The traditionalists are blind to Right wing errors. What I found interesting in Weber's book is the recognition that the rot began in France about the mid 1880's. That's a hell of a long time before V2.
@Anon
The places that can deflect the effects of American "soft power" also tend to be the places that are truly sovereign (China and Russia)
China and Russia are some of the most heathen places on earth and they never had the benefit of US TV.
Does Taylor see secularism as a fundamentally bad thing?
Taylor views secularism, on the whole, negatively. Though he does see some positive elements in it. He regards some of the elements of traditionalism as actively encouraging modern secularism especially with regards to social atomisation, instrumentality and sexual relations.
In Taylor's narrative, the rise of individualism in Western Christendom is owed to Augustinian theology, and to the extent that Protestantism represents an outworking Augustianianism it is a "good thing"
No, I think he is ambivalent about some of the developments.
Being a good ecumenical modernist he would likely agree with you that grace is operating among Protestants.
No, I felt that the books huge fault was that there was no mention of Grace in it a all.
@MK
One need not be a modernist for this. Heck, Ratzinger himself said as much
I take a historical approach to these things. When I look at Protestantism in its entirety, some of its elements have been undoubtedly good. The elimination of slavery, the practice of tolerance (within certain limits), the strong individualistic expression of Christianity, etc. There's got to be some good in it. I think that Trads need to strongly reflect on the fact that it were powers, based upon a Protestant tradition, that liberated Rome from the Nazi's. The Catholic approach to the Nazi menace was ineffectual. There needs to be more reflection on this.
I think Catholicism - Grace equals anarcho-communism or anarcho-tyranny.
SP, are you familiar with the works or Emmanuel Todd and his explanation for ideology. Your formula is close to his, but he takes into consideration different family patterns. Latin Catholic countries in Europe tended toward equalitarian nuclear families, and these areas were the first to De-Christianize. The holdouts like Ireland, Northern Iberia, the Rhineland and Alpine Europe were either Stem extended or Semi-stem in their family arrangements.
To put what Todd says into formula:
Catholicism - Grace + Equalitarian Nuclear Families = Jacobinism, Anarcho-Socialism/Communism, Anti-clericalism, Progressivism, wanton Feminism, earliest De-Christianization. (Most of Spain, Portugal, & Latin America, Most of Italy, The Parisian Basin.)
Catholicism - Grace + exogamous Community Families = Gramscian Communism, Italian Fascism, Soviet Communism (Central Italy/ Papal Sates, Slavic countries), intermediate De-Christianization.
Catholicism - Grace + Stem Family: Later less hostile De-Christianization, in some cases like Ireland, very late. Generally Ultramontane, Christian Democracy/Republicanism, Nationalism, Regionalism/Separatism, Corporatism, Fascism, Authoritarianism. Today, however Pro-EU technocratic Liberalism (Northern Spain & Portugal, Peripheral France, Ireland, Germany, Alpine Austria & Italy.)
Catholicism - Grace + Inegalitarian Nuclear Families: Similar to the Stem Families, with a little more local liberty, but ambivalent towards nationalism. (East Brittany and West Normandy).
Now Protestant countries didn't have the Equalitarian Nuclear Family, so Protestant countries experienced De-Christianization later.
Protestantism - Grace + Stem Family: Social Democracy, Socialism, Corporatism, Fascism (Nazism), Nationalism, Christian Democracy, Ordoliberalism (Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Scotland, most of the Netherlands).
Protestantism - Grace + Inegalitarian Nuclear Family: UK Toryism, moderate Libertarianism (ordered liberty), Labourism, Progressivism, ugly Feminism. (England, Denmark, South Norway, Netherlands by the Sea).
And lastly, the Eastern Orthodox countries whose family inheritance patterns were almost all Community:
Eastern Orthodoxy - Grace = Bolshevism, Soviet Communism.
@Alex
are you familiar with the works or Emmanuel Todd
No I'm not but I'll have a look at him. He does look like he goes into more detail.
Though I was struck by this comment
Now Protestant countries didn't have the Equalitarian Nuclear Family, so Protestant countries experienced De-Christianization later.
That would seem to go against the facts.
Anyway I'll have a look at him. Thanks for the tip.
@MK
"One need not be a modernist for this. Heck, Ratzinger himself said as much; I think he called Prots "the church of Mary" who "does whatever (Jesus) tells them to do" (of Iremember he called RC the church of Peter & EO church of John). He flat-out said we cannot deny the HS is active in the non-RC churches."
I don't see what his basis for his description of the Prots is considering the disagreements on the status of Mary with the RC and EO.
How did Ratzinger come to that conclusion?
JR: I don't see what his basis for his description of the Prots is considering the disagreements on the status of Mary with the RC and EO. How did Ratzinger come to that conclusion?
I think the book he wrote this in was "Called to Communion". But he was just waxing on about how the HS was clearly moving in other churches, and in doing so divided them up into 4 types: Peter (RC, based on hierarchy) John (EO, based on love), Mary (Prot, based on individual relationship to Christ)...I can't remember the 4th branch. I may not even have the right book, maybe it was in "Jesus of Nazareth". But I remember being shocked thinking: this guy is really a theological liberal, and they call him the pope's rottweiler? The 60's have indeed won :-). I've always been pretty liberal on this stuff & I fully agreed with him.
I always thought the analogy was apt, since the debates about Mary were due to the difficulty of the divinity/humanity of Christ. IOW, if one ignores Mary, as Prots are apt to do, they soon lost the mystery of Jesus' divinity to focus only on the human Jesus, where they get the "thumbs up" Jesus & OSAS.
@Anonymous MK
"I always thought the analogy was apt, since the debates about Mary were due to the difficulty of the divinity/humanity of Christ. IOW, if one ignores Mary, as Prots are apt to do, they soon lost the mystery of Jesus' divinity to focus only on the human Jesus, where they get the "thumbs up" Jesus & OSAS."
Perhaps. Although given the emphasis of the NT Mary isn't too much of the subject of the NT outside of the Gospels. Its the similar to the Emphasis with all the other lesser or greater saints.
As much as Scripture emphasizes so Protestants do. At least those who actually take Scripture seriously.
The Book of Revelation specifically makes the Divinity of Jesus very explicit and obvious outside of those who make convoluted rationalizations that the J.W do.
Likewise the Gospels and the letters of Paul also go into the Divinity of Jesus.
If what you say is true. It will only be temporary or among those who are in apostasy.
JR: when you truly study the bible, and accept the crazy idea that Jesus is "fully" God and "fully" man, the problem of Mary becomes extreme. Scripture shows she is the true Ark of the Covenant in Luke. Remember, we are talking about the Mother of God Himself here, Mary's Creator. Sidenote: It always amused me when Prots (modern ones) think Mary had sex; would any believing man dare to look at the Ark herself, let alone have sex her?
The early Church hammered away on all this, just like it did the with the Trinity, but quickly saw that once one accepts the Trinity, Mary becomes a very serious issue. The who-cares-about-Mary movement is very recent and simply can't last long among educated and believing Trinitarians. Because blase-Mary is just blase-Christ's-divinity. Now, to JW or LDS or whatnot, Mary is no problem. Everyone else? Read the early Church; they knew their Scripture and quickly got the memo: it's Divine Jesus as New Adam with Mary as the New "sinless" Eve...or Jesus becomes a farce.
@MK
"When you truly study the bible, and accept the crazy idea that Jesus is "fully" God and "fully" man, the problem of Mary becomes extreme. Scripture shows she is the true Ark of the Covenant in Luke. Remember, we are talking about the Mother of God Himself here, Mary's Creator. Sidenote: It always amused me when Prots (modern ones) think Mary had sex; would any believing man dare to look at the Ark herself, let alone have sex her?"
Problems with said symbolism is that the Ark of the Covenant symbolizes God's Throne. The Cherubim Guardians of his Throne are akin to the Cherubim that is shown to Ezekiel.
(1st Chronicles 28:18) Even refers to the Ark Mercy Seat as a Chariot. So the Throne in Heaven may even be a War Chariot that God will ride to do battle with.
Thereby the Glory that alights on the Mercy Seat signifies God in Heaven sitting on his Throne. Surrounded by the Living Creatures or Cherubim.
It fits more that God the Father accepted the sprinkling of his Son's Blood before his Throne that Jesus himself brings into Heaven as High Priest(Book of Hebrews) which ensures redemption than Mary to carry the Symbolism herself.
Now as for why Modern day Protestants believe that Mary had sex. Is that the notion that Marriage involves sex.
And Sexless Marriages are null and void because in the OT such a thing didn't exist. They are no different from Roommates or comrades that help each other.
The Word of God isn't insufficient to keep the Divinity and the Humanity of Jesus in mind.
As if it isn't the Blade that cuts Bone and Marrow.
"And Sexless Marriages are null and void because in the OT such a thing didn't exist. They are no different from Roommates or comrades that help each other."
@JR: Popular Catholic biblical scholar Brant Pitre has suggested that Mary was a consecrated virgin. There's apparently a basis in the OT for marriages where the husband ratifies the wife's vows and they don't consummate the marriage. "And how can this be, if I do not know man?" seems to imply that Mary did not plan on knowing man at any point in the future.
I have long suspected that alot of practices that protestants claim were medieval novelties probably existed in Second Temple Judaism in some form (celibacy, monasticism, etc.) and much of this is non-controversial. STJ had a pope (High Priest), priesthood, fancy cathedral (the Temple), and a sacrament involving bread blessed by a priest (showbread).
One need not be a modernist for this. Heck, Ratzinger himself said as much
Ratzinger is in fact a modernist. I would, however, be surprised if he defined Prots as belonging to a church given that as Pope he created some controversy for stating that Protestants are not churches because they lack apostolic succession.
No, I think he is ambivalent about some of the developments.
His views are much closer to yours:
The Platonic reading of the spirit/flesh opposition also justifies a certain notion of hierarchy, and this along with pre-Christian notions of renunciation helps to credit a view of ascetic vocations as "higher". This is the distorted notion of the monastic vocation, as the fully Christian life in contrast to the lay state as a half effort, against which the Reformers rebelled. The monastic vocation was perceived by them as a slur on the lay life, while its meaning in Christian terms ought to have been an affirmation of its value. Obviously, the misperception was not exclusively, or even primarily, on the part of the Reformers. Monasticism itself was in a bad way, as other critics e.g., Erasmus testify.
Sources of the Self The Making of the Modern Identity pg. 220.
Taylor's arguments seem to be largely congruent with your own. Protestantism "saved" marriage from Catholic asceticism and Catholicism is wrong for opposing this development. My own view is that the sexual revolution was a further revolt/development out of the Protestant family ethic.
I have long suspected that alot of practices that protestants claim were medieval novelties probably existed in Second Temple Judaism in some form (celibacy, monasticism, etc.) and much of this is non-controversial. STJ had a pope (High Priest), priesthood, fancy cathedral (the Temple), and a sacrament involving bread blessed by a priest (showbread).
Also, consider the Essenes who practiced a monastic life and practiced celibacy.
@Anonymous
"Also, consider the Essenes who practiced a monastic life and practiced celibacy."
Sure. But they don't pretend to be Married when Celibate as far as I know.
@JR
""And how can this be, if I do not know man?" seems to imply that Mary did not plan on knowing man at any point in the future."
I think that is reading too much into the text that isn't there. Since Mary is a virgin prior to Marriage she has practiced Chastity as she should and shown herself to be a good mother to our LORD. As Joseph is a Good Father of our LORD.
Celibate people aren't inherently holier then Married people. Perhaps its a mistaken impression but that appears to be implied.
"There's apparently a basis in the OT for marriages where the husband ratifies the wife's vows and they don't consummate the marriage."
I don't know of any instance of that happening in regards to vows in Biblical Israel.One doesn't need a marriage if one wants a sexless partnership.
Post a Comment