Christianity and it’s Divisions
Last week I wrote about two kinds of atheism. This got me thinking about division within religious belief.
My thesis: the deepest (and most important) divisions in Christianity aren’t denominational (i.e. Roman Catholic vs. Presbyterian). Rather, the deepest divide is between those who hold to what C.S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity” and those who might be called progressive (or liberal) Christians. “Progressive” in this context refers to theology not necessarily politics (though the two usually go together).
If this is true, then that would mean that a “progressive” Lutheran is much closer (theologically) to a “progressive” Roman Catholic than with a fellow “non-progressive” Lutheran.
Secondary thesis: whether one is a “progressive” Christian or a non-”progessive” Christain in large part depends on one’s answers to three questions. And it is through these three questions that the content of “progressive” and non-”progressive belief can be seen.
Question one: what do you make of the Old Testament? “Progressive” Christians don’t take the Old Testament as seriously, if they take it at all, as non-”progressive Christians do. For example, it is hard to take seriously the Old Testament and argue that God always hates war (pacifism). Another example: the only commandment repeated in the first five books of the Old Testament is the death penalty for murderers. The “progressive” Christian is likely to say that God has changed or that the Old Testament is no longer relevant for the contemporary Christian.
Question 2: Do you make a distinction between ethics in the micro, and ethics in the macro? Do you make a distinction between your private life and public life, or do you believe that the personal is the political? “Progressive” Christians don’t tend to make the distinction between micro and macro. For example, Jesus commanded his disciples to love their enemies. He commanded his disciples to turn the other cheek. Is he commanding these things on a micro level, or on a macro level, or both?
If someone strikes my right cheek (as a Christian), I should offer him the left. But if North Korea bombs Los Angeles, should we offer them New York as well? Is sex in private the same as sex in public? Is nudity in private, the same as nudity in public? Is cursing in private the same as cursing in public? For the “progressive” the answer is yes. For the non-”progressive” it is important to make a distinction between the private and the public (the micro and the macro).
Question 3: do you believe people are basically good? Or put differently, is the source of evil the human heart (internal) or is it society / culture (external)? Are cruelty, cheating, stealing, rape, and murder the result of “the man” (unjust laws and unfair enforcement). Or are cruelty (and all the rest) products of the human heart, and exist no matter how egalitarian a society becomes. If you believe evil originates with the human heart, your focus will be you and your life (ethics). If you believe evil originates outside the human heart, then your foucs will be on the external (social justice).
My purpose in this post isn’t to argue for the truth of one type of Christianity over the other (though I have a definite position), but merely to describe.
To sum up, the most accurate divide in Christendom is between “progressives” and non-”progressives”. What makes one a religious “progressive” depends on one’s answers to the above three questions.
What do you think?
Atheisms
UPDATE: If you’ve come here as a result of Austin Cline’s criticism of this post, you can read my response here.
What do you make of the recent suge of Atheistic polemics?
There are, it seems, at least two types of atheistic writers today: One that understands religious belief (as opposed to secular, or atheistic, belief), and then rejects it. And one that rejects religious belief, and then seeks to justify that rejection.
The later group has deceived itself into thnking that it is belief-free (“I only believe in science” – Esqueleto). The former understands that it has given up belief in God, but has not given up belief altogether.
The later group believes philosophy demands atheism. It believes that rationality entails “the end of faith”. The former understand that philosophy (and rationality) do not have that power. A logically consistent case can be made for both theism and atheism.
The later is obssesed with, and full of hate for, religious believers and conservatives. The former disagrees with, but can empathize with, religious believers – and some of them are conservatives.
The later group is shrill and angry. The former group is calm and rational.
The later is compsed of “thinkers” like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The former is composed of philosophers like Keith Burgess-Jackson.
By the way, I’d love to see Burgess-Jackson and Harris debate each other. And here is George Wiegel’s latest on the new atheism: Angrier, Dumber, Better sellling.