Ultraguy over at New Wineskins links us to a post (Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America) from Albert Mohler's blog. Here's an excerpt which might tease you into reading this in light of the posts here on the Pew Forum report:
Moral relativism has so shaped the culture that the vast majority of Americans now see themselves as their own moral arbiter. Truth has been internalized, privatized, and subjectivized. Absolute or objective truth is denied outright. Research indicates that most Americans believe that truth is internal and relative. No one, the culture shouts, has a right to impose truth, morality, or cultural standards…
Though sociologists point to continuing high levels of religious activity and statements of belief–both of these in sharp contrast to other western nations–the truth is that very little of this activity translates into authentic discipleship, active church membership, and bold Christian witness.
The worldview of most Americans is now thoroughly secularized, revolving around the self and its concerns, and based on relativism as an axiom. We Americans have become our own best friend, our own therapist, our own priest, and our own lawgiver. The old order is shattered, the new order is upon us.
I've had fascinating conversations with my students (I teach high school) over the years on this very topic. In one of the most memorable ones, a student told me that she had been taught so emphatically in grade school about respect for people's differences and other viewpoints, that she felt she had no right to claim that certain things are wrong. I'm currently reading a book by Alsadair MacIntyre which suggests that we, as a society, have lost sight of what it means to be a human being; because of this, we don't know how to find common ground for moral debate.
ReplyDeleteAs always, thanks for prompting (or in this case provoking) some intense thought. Checked out New Wineskins and am not sure what I think but give the guy credit for his effort and mixing things up. The link to R. Albert Mohler's website got me going. He is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and,needless to say, very prominent in the SB Convention. The posting on Mohler's website reference's a BU professor's (Prothero,if I recollect correctly) take on the Pew Study and the number of study participants considering themselves to be spiritual/people- of-faith but decline to affiliate with any particular religion. I appreciate this point of view...the lack of affiliation. For example, as a child many are taught that only members of their faith will be saved/get to heaven. Although simplistic, this exclusion of friends, etc. is discomforting. Well, forgive me for rambling..but I encourage others to explore the links you always embed in your wonderful blogspot. May we all continue to grow and learn and delight in the spiritual and intellectual expansion. By the way, liked the quadrant above and the "So, are you claiming that no culture throughout history was ever morally wrong or misguided?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a disturbing, true observation about where our culture is today.
ReplyDeleteThis is in reponse to both the PEW study posting and this one.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about this data, the more I think the cultural issue it reveals is more significant than indicated. The surface observation is that there is a significant drop in active religious life. Yet the percentage of people self identifying an affiliation is quite high. As the pastor observes, there seems to be a significant trend towards selective observation with no corresponding consequence or negative impact for many people. Quite the opposite, it seems to make many people feel like they are even better, more tolerant people than those that actually try to live a life guided by their religions.
This leads me to a couple thoughts. First, I think this is some sort of misguided hypocrisy, and for me personally, hypocrisy is one of the worst accusations that can be made in life. The simple version is “saying one thing and doing the opposite”. The more complex version is living a lie, and actively misleading others for personal benefit in the process. Say you are Catholic/Jewish/Lutheran, but then go about your life with no intent to follow the rules of that belief. You want all the benefits of the label, but none of the real obligations. Switching to the current political context, this is like saying you have four core beliefs, yet you vote for someone who shares none of them, only because they carry the label of the political party of your parents. At the end of my mom’s life, she had not a single policy belief that she shared with the current party she voted for, yet she continued to pull the lever for them every year because of dedication originating during the depression era. That is what this survey seems to indicate, that we are more comfortable saying that we are of a religion, despite our inability to truly accept and embrace the laws, rules or beliefs of that religion.
I think it was WC Fields who famously said he would never belong to a club that would have him as a member. I wonder if many in our culture could ask the same of their religion. Why would you want to be a member of a religion that accepted people that shared no bond formed from common belief and commitments to that religion’s laws? What’s the point? Does it make people feel better to self identify as Catholic, despite such low expectations that they do not even marry in the church or baptize their children? Is it really easier to let their religion slowly fade away in the next generation than to face that reality in the here and now? In this case, and I would think in God’s eye, actions towards actually practicing religion speak much more loudly than the box checked in a PEW research study.
Perhaps the worst contribution of this non-religious moral relativism to our world will be that of shared and deep-rooted laziness. If nothing that causes discomfort needs to be accepted, then how will we ever achieve greatness? After all, isn’t everything good in life only attainable through hard work and struggle? Does love come easy, and if it does, can it survive the decades without tremendous effort? Does belief come easily and without doubt? Is it easy to live your life guided by a religion’s rules and to struggle to make decisions that accept those beliefs as you own? Do human rights bloom without a fight? Did Democracy and freedom and human rights grow from moral relativism and narcissism or from the belief in a higher power that valued all people as children of God?
Perhaps our culture is most at risk from the underlying degradation of all things that are challenging and difficult. If we won’t put our belief and efforts into things that challenge us to be better than what we are, or maybe even better than we think we can be, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will not believe. We will not be better. We will not grow. We will not learn. We will not feel the fulfillment of challenges met and conquered. In the end, we will be hollow shells of what we could be. Not because faith and religion is easy, but exactly because it is challenges us and makes us work to build a better life using our faith and religion as the guide to something better.
I have read "Ken said" post through a couple of times and am curious about the anger I sense he has for individuals who may have "checked the Catholic box" and do not fully practice/participate in the church at the parish level according to a standard he finds to be acceptable. Who is the arbiter of faith other than God? I can fully understand many people considering their fundamental belief system to be rooted in Catholicism yet having doubts about how to participate and support a church that itself has been very human, very flawed in some areas, yet has a hierachy that acts exclusionary and unaccountable. Because many individuals do in fact have strong moral compasses they have a difficulty with much about the Catholic church in our time. To use "ken said's" political analogy another way, many who check the Catholic box are not willing to support an institution that does not admit its own flaws and failures nor perceive a need to grow.
ReplyDelete