In the NYT, Ross Douthat takes a look at the option Benedict is extending to Anglicans wishing to become Roman Catholic.
I personally think Benedict might be preparing for another dark age in Europe (and perhaps America too, but "the West" in general). He obviously recognizes that the logical end of this Enlightenment project on which we've embarked is the creation of a secularist atmosphere in which Christianity is not permitted to be Christianity because it comes into direct conflict with Enlightenment or postmodernist values.
It's an interesting dynamic to watch, since both the Enlightenment and postmodern narratives borrow extensively from the Christian one (in both form and substance), but each in its logical end has no use for the doctrines of the church insomuch as they conflict with its own sacralized values (e.g. Enlightenment rationalism, postmodern inclusionism). What I'm trying to figure out is how we've managed to keep fooling ourselves for the past two hundred fifty years that this ultimate conflict does not exist. Is it because the American mythology surrounding the pilgrims and Puritans has an overtly religious character? Is it because we've until now managed to dichotomize personal religious faith from political orientations since we've shared unspoken moral values? Or is it because we've adopted an un-Christian Christianity which is more capitalist/socialist/Enlightenment/postmodern than it is Christian?
I think the second option comes closest to the truth through history, and the third is true today, but I really have no idea what the answers to those questions are. Maybe historians will figure it out, but I can't help but think that Christian scholars at least will look back on these years as the closing of an age. I think liberals (meaning all who believe in 'liberalism,' not just those on the left wing politically) will continue pushing for an apocryphal 'perfect' future in line with their views of the sacred (think some sort of quasi-statist-libertarian mutant horror like James Poulos's Pink Police State), and conservatives (meaning those who believe in some liberal values but not others) will continue pining for a particular slice of Western history which can never come again let alone attain any sort of permanency, and, to be perfectly honest, probably wasn't so great in reality anyway. And thus we'll continue our gradual slide down into obscurity, as, in the words of Alisdair MacIntyre, the day's political debates are waged between radical liberals, liberal liberals, and conservative liberals.
In the long run, it's probably for the best. It won't be pleasant for those living through it, though. It's tough when the naked emperor has been increasing your personal prosperity and capacity for pleasure for centuries, and now he's willing to continue, but wants to strip you naked too. But remember that no matter what good he's done for you, he still has no clothes.
Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth (while two cents is still worth anything). In the meantime, enjoy the ride.
I personally think Benedict might be preparing for another dark age in Europe (and perhaps America too, but "the West" in general). He obviously recognizes that the logical end of this Enlightenment project on which we've embarked is the creation of a secularist atmosphere in which Christianity is not permitted to be Christianity because it comes into direct conflict with Enlightenment or postmodernist values.
It's an interesting dynamic to watch, since both the Enlightenment and postmodern narratives borrow extensively from the Christian one (in both form and substance), but each in its logical end has no use for the doctrines of the church insomuch as they conflict with its own sacralized values (e.g. Enlightenment rationalism, postmodern inclusionism). What I'm trying to figure out is how we've managed to keep fooling ourselves for the past two hundred fifty years that this ultimate conflict does not exist. Is it because the American mythology surrounding the pilgrims and Puritans has an overtly religious character? Is it because we've until now managed to dichotomize personal religious faith from political orientations since we've shared unspoken moral values? Or is it because we've adopted an un-Christian Christianity which is more capitalist/socialist/Enlightenment/postmodern than it is Christian?
I think the second option comes closest to the truth through history, and the third is true today, but I really have no idea what the answers to those questions are. Maybe historians will figure it out, but I can't help but think that Christian scholars at least will look back on these years as the closing of an age. I think liberals (meaning all who believe in 'liberalism,' not just those on the left wing politically) will continue pushing for an apocryphal 'perfect' future in line with their views of the sacred (think some sort of quasi-statist-libertarian mutant horror like James Poulos's Pink Police State), and conservatives (meaning those who believe in some liberal values but not others) will continue pining for a particular slice of Western history which can never come again let alone attain any sort of permanency, and, to be perfectly honest, probably wasn't so great in reality anyway. And thus we'll continue our gradual slide down into obscurity, as, in the words of Alisdair MacIntyre, the day's political debates are waged between radical liberals, liberal liberals, and conservative liberals.
In the long run, it's probably for the best. It won't be pleasant for those living through it, though. It's tough when the naked emperor has been increasing your personal prosperity and capacity for pleasure for centuries, and now he's willing to continue, but wants to strip you naked too. But remember that no matter what good he's done for you, he still has no clothes.
Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth (while two cents is still worth anything). In the meantime, enjoy the ride.
Posts
0 intuitions:
Post a Comment