I've recently been reading Philip Rieff's The Triumph of the Therapeutic and in my normal blog-perusal came across this interview of him by The Guardian. Here is the relevant excerpt that has me thinking:
Let me take a moment to quickly outline what I (following Rieff) am referring to when I say "therapeutic culture." Therapeutic culture refers to the belief widespread in our society today that what matters most in life is "my happiness." That is, all forms of truth, all systems of power, all relationships between me and my fellow men, must be subservient to my desires. Atheism or agnosticism is the default religious position in such a culture, but having faith is certainly respectable provided it exists for the same ends of self-indulgence and self-enhancement. If I am a Christian, for example, it is because being a Christian "does me some good." Jesus makes me feel good, so I do what Jesus says. The implication is, of course, if Jesus ever made me feel bad, then I wouldn't do what he says anymore.
Listen to prominent preachers today (especially in America) and they will tell you to follow God, because, "He has your best interests at heart." Let Him run your life, because, "He will do a better job than you can do." Joel Osteen telling people to give alms so that God will make them rich, or Ted Haggard telling people that Christians have better sex (no, the irony here is not lost on me) are two prominent examples of therapeutic Christianity. It is the same force that leads to "church shopping" and finding a church that "fits" oneself. It hoists up the mantras of the Reformation like interpreting Scripture on one's own and the rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy, without any of the discipline or theological seriousness that accompanied them in the first place. It lives and thrives in the mantra: "I'm spiritual, but not religious."
So what does this phenomenon mean for Christianity and culture? We are living in a time in which religious persons, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, are exceptionally active in the political process, weighing in on a variety of issues having to do with "moral values." Many of their political opponents fear that this attempt to express their values in the political process is a grab at social power. I would argue that insofar as these voters are therapeutic Christians, they have nothing to fear: these "values voters" are every bit as subservient to the dominant therapeutic culture as any social liberal.
Take abortion. When the issue first made itself known the culture was divided between those who thought that women ought to have final say over their bodies and those who thought that morality ought to constrain them from making certain immoral decisions. Today the issue is between those who think that women ought to have final say over their bodies and those who think that human babies ought to have the right to live even when their another person's womb. That is, the issue shifted from one of morality vs. individual rights to one of individual rights vs. individual rights. When the issue was first presented to the public, the pro-choice position was politically dominant. Today the pro-life position is gaining ascendancy, and shows every indication of becoming the politically dominant view when the next generation rises to power.
What I'm intending to show by this example is that Christianity was never the reason why abortion would eventually fall out of favor with this culture. Christianity, in fact, was in many ways stronger when the pro-choice position was more widespread and dominant. So why the flip? The success of the pro-life movement did not lay in the ability of Christians to politically manipulate their way into power to foist their theologies upon the nation as their opponents suppose, their success lay in their ability to make abortion antithetical to the dominant therapeutic culture. Rather than arguing that the immorality of abortion, instead they argue that it is "unhealthy" for women. Rather than arguing that we submit to nature's moral order, instead they argue that the unborn baby has "individual rights." The latter arguments resonate with the therapeutic culture which argues that the ultimate instances of human fullness lie in the expression of individual desire. How unfair it would be to not allow other people to experience that desire by cutting off their lives before their even able to do so just because they are unborn! How unfair would it be to allow this without their consent!
And so, abortion, framed in the context of individual rights, crumbles. Not because of Christianity, but because the therapeutic culture can't stomach it.
This is not so for the issue of homosexuality, which is why we see Christians and conservatives of all stripes tripping over themselves as they try to articulate arguments for its wrongness and for the 'sanctity of marriage.' In a culture where nothing is sacred except for individual desire, how can Christianity hope to stand against the gay rights movement? At least with abortion, the issue could be framed using the language of the dominant culture. The issues surrounding homosexuality offer no such recourse.
Listen to the arguments against gay marriage if you want a taste of what I'm talking about. Sociologists make claims that it would be 'bad for children' (that is, it would inhibit certain children from being able to succeed and express themselves as much as they would otherwise). Legal scholars make claims that it would lead to forcing Christians and other religious persons to abandon a tenet of their faith or risk censure or stripping of certain legal protections (that is, it would force people to choose between violating one of two things that make them feel good, and so inhibit their means of self-expression). Few, very few, make arguments about the natural order of things and the rightness or wrongness of certain types of behavior. These are the same types of people that argued against abortion before it became, in a certain way, fashionable to do so.
I bring this up because I think that the issues associated with homosexuality will draw a deep, bright line between orthodox Christians (those that believe Christianity because they believe it is true) and therapeutic Christians (those that believe Christianity because it makes them feel good). If Christianity is a means to an end and not a description of truth, then its doctrines can be changed to fit the culture to avoid having to choose between two things that make one feel good. However, if Christianity is true then one is going to have to make sacrifices whether those sacrifices be in one's lifestyle or in one's comfort in the dominant culture, in order to submit oneself to the authority of truth. It means following Jesus to the cross, not eating with him at supper and wandering off on the way to Gethsemane when no one is looking.
I don't have any predictions about what is to come. Perhaps the orthodox Christian Remnant will stay focused and hidden until a new culture friendlier to her doctrines arises in the West. Perhaps the sun is setting on the West and we must prepare ourselves for a new Dark Age. Or perhaps those made wise enough by God's grace to see where we are headed will find in their hearts and minds the new language we will need to irrefutably speak truth to power. I rest in Hope and Faith that in the end, God will triumph, but I also look around me and can't help but see a trying road ahead.
He is referring, of course, to President Bush, who was not above putting his faith to service in defense of a particular political program. Neither, I would add, is President Obama. I want to delve into this view of faith for a moment, though."[The therapeutic culture is] characterised by a certain vacuity and diffidence. The institutions which were defenders of the second world, or second culture - I think cultures are world creations - have not offered the kind of defence or support that would have been more powerful than therapeutic forces. So Christianity becomes, therapeutically, 'Jesus is good for you.' I find this simply pathetic."
Are therapeutic cultural drives, then, what one might describe as hedonistic?
"Yes, many of them are pleasure driven. But they are not unintelligent. They may be pleasure driven but there's a limit to their stupidity. They don't act in a way that is blatantly destructive or self destructive. Nor do they ostentatiously deny the past. Christianity in America, for example, has in one sense never been stronger. But I don't believe that 'Jesus is good for you, Christ is good for you' is good Christianity. It's therapeutic Christianity. You can find therapeutic motifs in dozens of examples of Christianity around you today."
His own president, of course, is one such example.
"Oh, absolutely. And proud of it. And he's perfectly sincere. He is president and this is a prime example. I am not going to hammer away at this naive man's beliefs. The prey is too easy."
Let me take a moment to quickly outline what I (following Rieff) am referring to when I say "therapeutic culture." Therapeutic culture refers to the belief widespread in our society today that what matters most in life is "my happiness." That is, all forms of truth, all systems of power, all relationships between me and my fellow men, must be subservient to my desires. Atheism or agnosticism is the default religious position in such a culture, but having faith is certainly respectable provided it exists for the same ends of self-indulgence and self-enhancement. If I am a Christian, for example, it is because being a Christian "does me some good." Jesus makes me feel good, so I do what Jesus says. The implication is, of course, if Jesus ever made me feel bad, then I wouldn't do what he says anymore.
Listen to prominent preachers today (especially in America) and they will tell you to follow God, because, "He has your best interests at heart." Let Him run your life, because, "He will do a better job than you can do." Joel Osteen telling people to give alms so that God will make them rich, or Ted Haggard telling people that Christians have better sex (no, the irony here is not lost on me) are two prominent examples of therapeutic Christianity. It is the same force that leads to "church shopping" and finding a church that "fits" oneself. It hoists up the mantras of the Reformation like interpreting Scripture on one's own and the rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy, without any of the discipline or theological seriousness that accompanied them in the first place. It lives and thrives in the mantra: "I'm spiritual, but not religious."
So what does this phenomenon mean for Christianity and culture? We are living in a time in which religious persons, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, are exceptionally active in the political process, weighing in on a variety of issues having to do with "moral values." Many of their political opponents fear that this attempt to express their values in the political process is a grab at social power. I would argue that insofar as these voters are therapeutic Christians, they have nothing to fear: these "values voters" are every bit as subservient to the dominant therapeutic culture as any social liberal.
Take abortion. When the issue first made itself known the culture was divided between those who thought that women ought to have final say over their bodies and those who thought that morality ought to constrain them from making certain immoral decisions. Today the issue is between those who think that women ought to have final say over their bodies and those who think that human babies ought to have the right to live even when their another person's womb. That is, the issue shifted from one of morality vs. individual rights to one of individual rights vs. individual rights. When the issue was first presented to the public, the pro-choice position was politically dominant. Today the pro-life position is gaining ascendancy, and shows every indication of becoming the politically dominant view when the next generation rises to power.
What I'm intending to show by this example is that Christianity was never the reason why abortion would eventually fall out of favor with this culture. Christianity, in fact, was in many ways stronger when the pro-choice position was more widespread and dominant. So why the flip? The success of the pro-life movement did not lay in the ability of Christians to politically manipulate their way into power to foist their theologies upon the nation as their opponents suppose, their success lay in their ability to make abortion antithetical to the dominant therapeutic culture. Rather than arguing that the immorality of abortion, instead they argue that it is "unhealthy" for women. Rather than arguing that we submit to nature's moral order, instead they argue that the unborn baby has "individual rights." The latter arguments resonate with the therapeutic culture which argues that the ultimate instances of human fullness lie in the expression of individual desire. How unfair it would be to not allow other people to experience that desire by cutting off their lives before their even able to do so just because they are unborn! How unfair would it be to allow this without their consent!
And so, abortion, framed in the context of individual rights, crumbles. Not because of Christianity, but because the therapeutic culture can't stomach it.
This is not so for the issue of homosexuality, which is why we see Christians and conservatives of all stripes tripping over themselves as they try to articulate arguments for its wrongness and for the 'sanctity of marriage.' In a culture where nothing is sacred except for individual desire, how can Christianity hope to stand against the gay rights movement? At least with abortion, the issue could be framed using the language of the dominant culture. The issues surrounding homosexuality offer no such recourse.
Listen to the arguments against gay marriage if you want a taste of what I'm talking about. Sociologists make claims that it would be 'bad for children' (that is, it would inhibit certain children from being able to succeed and express themselves as much as they would otherwise). Legal scholars make claims that it would lead to forcing Christians and other religious persons to abandon a tenet of their faith or risk censure or stripping of certain legal protections (that is, it would force people to choose between violating one of two things that make them feel good, and so inhibit their means of self-expression). Few, very few, make arguments about the natural order of things and the rightness or wrongness of certain types of behavior. These are the same types of people that argued against abortion before it became, in a certain way, fashionable to do so.
I bring this up because I think that the issues associated with homosexuality will draw a deep, bright line between orthodox Christians (those that believe Christianity because they believe it is true) and therapeutic Christians (those that believe Christianity because it makes them feel good). If Christianity is a means to an end and not a description of truth, then its doctrines can be changed to fit the culture to avoid having to choose between two things that make one feel good. However, if Christianity is true then one is going to have to make sacrifices whether those sacrifices be in one's lifestyle or in one's comfort in the dominant culture, in order to submit oneself to the authority of truth. It means following Jesus to the cross, not eating with him at supper and wandering off on the way to Gethsemane when no one is looking.
I don't have any predictions about what is to come. Perhaps the orthodox Christian Remnant will stay focused and hidden until a new culture friendlier to her doctrines arises in the West. Perhaps the sun is setting on the West and we must prepare ourselves for a new Dark Age. Or perhaps those made wise enough by God's grace to see where we are headed will find in their hearts and minds the new language we will need to irrefutably speak truth to power. I rest in Hope and Faith that in the end, God will triumph, but I also look around me and can't help but see a trying road ahead.
Posts
0 intuitions:
Post a Comment