The End?

Tags

Christian, Christianity, Church, classical, End Times, eschatology, Evangelical, History, millennium, Orthodox, Patristics, Protestant, Religion, theology

Since I just returned from Hawaii last week and am attending my brother’s wedding this week, the posts have been rather light as of late.  However, in light of a recent Sunday School discussion and upcoming series at church, I have provided some reading material for those interested in the End Times part of Christian theology (known as eschatology).  In Classical Christianity, the two views most represented are known as “realized millennialism” (sometimes called amillennialism), and certain forms of “premillennialism.”  According to the theological method of finding classical Christianity (the view held consensual across the different traditions, by believers everywhere), the method “points more toward realized millennialism than its alternatives, but not with much confidence…the already/not yet tension in the texts accounts for much of the potential for diverse interpretation” (Oden, Classic Christianity, 811).  Because of this, and because of popularity of what is known as “dispensationalism” in the United States in particular, I have included some links (and one pdf file) for your perusal, in order to become better acquainted with this line of classical Christian thought.  Note that this does not necessarily imply agreement with every nuance of the articles and sites provided (the different traditions represented should be evidence enough for that), but that this line of thinking should be considered seriously, especially by those who have bought into the “Left Behind” mindset.  Some are a bit long,  and comments are of course welcome!

Lutheran perspective (also introduces the other views as well)

Reformed (Calvinist) series

Eastern Orthodox view

*It also important that from a “mere Christianity” perspective, all orthodox Christians recognize Christ’s second coming, and the final judgement (see the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds).

Contemplating the Mystery

Tags

Apologetics, Basil the Great, Cappadocian, Christian, Christianity, Church, Contemplation, Devotion, Greatness, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory the Theologian, Light, monotheism, Mystery, Patristics, theology, Trinity

Inspired by this post by Cameron Cloud on Basil the Great and the Trinity in worship, I thought I would contribute a couple of devotional and instructional passages by Basil’s contemporary and good friend, Gregory of Nazianzus (also known as Gregory the Theologian):

“From  the day whereon I renounced the things of the world to consecrate my soul to luminous and heavenly contemplation, when the supreme intelligence carried me hence and set me down far from all that pertains to the flesh, to hide me in the secret places of the heavenly tabernacle; from that day my eyes have been blinded by the light of the Trinity, whose brightness surpasses all that the mind can conceive; far from a throne high exalted the Trinity pours upon all, the ineffable radiance common to the three.” (From a poem in Greek)

“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illuminated by the Splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.  When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me.  I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest.  When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light. (Orations, 40.41, On Holy Baptism)

How often in our society to we actually think, write, and pray like this?  In a sense, these thoughts can be seen as an extension of this earlier post on Anselm, and the idea of God being too small for too many.  This is yet one more example why I highly recommend the church fathers.   Any thoughts on these beautiful passages?

Tasting Time Again

Tags

aesthetics, Analogies, art, Christian, Christianity, Church, classical, culture, Education, Evangelical, History, Kenneth Meyers, Modern, Music, relativism, Religion, standards, theology, West, worldview, Worship

In a previous post (found here), the idea of aesthetic and cultural relativism was addressed, and what assumptions are behind such thinking. With this previous post in mind, three analogies encountered in my education come to mind in regards to culture, including that found both inside and outside the church.  As a reminder, analogies are by their nature highly generalized and not necessarily perfect, but are useful for seeing general concepts and tendencies.  The present author is himself not completely sure about some parts of them.  With this said, here are three analogies of why many traditional Christians (such as myself) voice concerns about the state of culture in the west:

1. The Stick-figure and Michelangelo.  Imagine for a moment that you know someone who is a master of drawing the childhood stick-figure.  These stick-figures are perfectly done, excellent by anyone’s stick-figure standards, and are the best that this person is capable of.  One could say, “his heart is in the right place,” as he uses his talents to bring joy to others who only know stick-figures as the most relevant and easy to participate form of visual art.  Does this mean that this artist is one the same level of Michelangelo or the Dutch realists? Because “his motivation is pure,” does his art become the work of a master, worthy of being studied, emulated, and placed at the front of western art? Does this mean the average person should be content with only viewing and imbibing stick-figures, because they are easy to do and relate to? The average person laughs at such a scenario (treasuring parents aside), but many people make similar arguments when it comes to other aspects of culture, even if the materials being studied are less obvious.  In this case, the medium itself is self-limiting, even if it is done excellently.

2.  Skittles.  Imagine holding a bag of Skittles.  There is nothing inherently evil about the candy (unless you are trying to lose weight perhaps), and they can be enjoyed.  They could even save your life when lost in the wilderness or with certain medical conditions.  However, they are still Skittles, and certainly should not become a regular part of you diet, or even worse, ever become the majority of your diet (or perhaps we could add McDonald’s for some protein).

Now imagine replacing the “s” on each Skittle with a cross (changing the lyrics), and making sure it is marketed as a Christian product.  Does that make the candy healthy? Perhaps if we pray over the Skittles, does that make them nutritious?  No doubt God can work miracles, and can use anything for good, but as a general principle, the Skittle (or Big Mac) is still junk food, and should only be enjoyed rarely or in moderation.  With this in mind, how does this apply to our fast-food culture?

3. Going on a Date (taken from Kenneth Meyers’ excellent book, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes):

“…let’s separate three different “cultures” of the preparation and service of food: high (gourmet), folk (traditional home cooking), and popular (fast food)…the categories work as a rough approximation of different food cultures.  Most people would agree that fast food has deficiencies that the other two categories do not, not simply in nutritional value or in taste, but in ethos, the way the food is served, consumed, and experienced.  Most young men of moderate means trying to make a positive impression on a young woman do not treat her to a meal at the nearest Burger King.  They realize there is definitely something missing in the meal’s social experience.

“Now, if every meal you ever ate was from a fast-food joint, would that affect your outlook on the meaning of meals? If there was never any elegance or grace, any ritual or decorum as part of your meals, if all the food you ever ate was delivered to you by a person in a funny-looking hat, and was wrapped in cardboard or styrofoam, would that affect your impressions of the Biblical metaphor of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?”

These three analogies demonstrate why traditional Christians are concerned primarily not with “words” or “motivation” (although these are certainly important), but with the form or medium of what is being presented itself.  In other words, the form or medium communicates a message in and of itself, such as the fast-food dining experience above.  I submit that certain churches have adapted the sort of thinking in the analogies above, “baptizing” them in the name of “relevance” or “efficiency.”  While none of the items in the analogies are necessarily evil (a mistake some traditionalists make in arguing against specific instruments for example), the argument is that they would be imprudent to use, or especially, imprudent to make one’s majority “diet” of culturally.  In this way, it parallels the Apostle Paul’s statement that “everything is possible, but not everything is beneficial” (I Corinthians 10).   Any thoughts? How does this impact the Church?

See Also:
Chart on different forms of culture (related to the Meyers analogy)
Chart on different views of the church (Useful for seeing why evangelicals in particular struggle with this issue. I would argue it is in part because they forget about the second column in particular).

Why the differences? (38,000? part 2)

Tags

Apologetics, atonement, Catholic, Charts, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Church, consensus, denominations, doctrine, ecumenical, Evangelical, History, humanity, liberal, Occident, oden, Orthodox, Politics, Protestant, redemption, salvation, Sin, Thomas Oden

In an earlier post (found here), the issue of the supposed existence of 38,000 different Christian denominations was addressed, and why that number is demonstrably inflated.  It was argued that the true number is probably less than 10, with a definite, historical, orthodox, “mere Christianity” able to be understood.  With this in mind, some may still be asking, “so why do these differences exist regardless?”  While not comprehensive, this is an attempt to show how many of these divisions are about points of emphasis, or good things taken to the extreme at the expense of other good things.

For this, I have adapted a couple of charts based on Thomas C. Oden’s amazing work, Classic Christianity (highly recommended), which systematizes what Christians have always generally agreed on, especially in the first 5-700 years of the church (based on scripture and the fathers).  One of the easiest ways in which to see how these divisions exist is to look at how the church itself is viewed by differing Christian traditions:

 Church Patterns Chart (note: these are not absolute columns, but general trends that often intersect.  Also, please ask if you need a definition or explanation of any terms. Google is your friend.)

In the interest of disclosure, the present author was raised mostly in the first column on the left, and has enormous sympathies with and in some cases, has embraced the second column as well without leaving the first.   The third when isolated tends to give birth to heresies and false teaching in the name of “love and inclusion” at the expense of truth and correct doctrine.  However, there is truth in this view as well, which should naturally flow from the previous two views.  So perhaps I am arguing that the first two views will give birth to the third, but that the third cannot be divorced from the others without the loss of historic Christian orthodoxy.   Oden goes on to argue that all three views need each other, which I have difficulty disagreeing with.  Interestingly enough, some young evangelicals are trying to marry the first and third (especially politically) while ignoring the second completely.

These divisions can also be seen in the doctrines of the atonement and humanity.   It is asked, what did Christ accomplish through his life, death, and Resurrection, and how does that work itself out when it comes to the human condition?  Again borrowing from Oden, these views can be broken down in a chart:

Atonement and Humanity Views Chart   (like the first chart, these are not absolute categories with many crossovers)

Oden himself admits that the last two columns (Substitution/Sin and Victory/Bound Will) are the closest to a consensus within Christian history.  Most western Christians will recognize much of the third column as “the gospel message” when it comes to “how does one become saved?”  The fourth column has always existed in the west, but has been emphasized more fully in the east.  These views are highly complementary, and taken together can be safely called the classical Christian view.  This being said, there are truths in the first two columns as well, but these are not as well represented in the historical church and consented to by the majority of believers.  Many churches of a more “liberal” or “modernist” mindset hold to the first column alone, with perhaps the second column thrown in for the sake of politics.  Such a view however is at odds with the classical teachings of the church and what seems to be emphasized in scripture.

Any thoughts or comments on the charts or this post at all?  Can you see why these divisions can exist while orthodoxy is still be found and promoted?

Is Your God Too Small?

Tags

Anselm, Christian, Christianity, Contemplation, ex nihilo, God, God is too Small, Greatest, incarnation, Jewish, Medieval, Ontological, Philosophy, theology

I once heard this question posed by a Christian in a debate, in which he tried to demonstrate that his atheist opponent’s very conception of God was faulty, meaning he was arguing against a “smallish” and rationalist idea of God.  One of the greatest Western fathers  to read devotionally and philosophically on this issue is Anselm of Canterbury.  Anselm is probably most famous for his version of the “ontological” argument for God’s existence, where the very idea of God requires that he exists, otherwise one is not thinking of the correct God.  This is closely tied into the idea of the “greatest being,” or “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.”  In Anselm’s Prosologion, this thinking is done in prayer, as he tries “imperfectly” and “tainted by sin,” to try and understand more of God’s nature and attributes in order to understand and worship (he quotes the Psalms throughout).   A few examples should suffice to demonstrate how we should think about how “big” the Triune God really is.

One of the first ideas of God being the “greatest possible,” is in the area of attributes.  Classical Christian theology uses positive terms such good, just, merciful, beautiful, etc…and ascribes them to God “to the max (or infinite).”  However, one must be careful to not make the attribute greater than or equal to God, because that would mean God is less than or equal to that concept.  In other words, it is wrong to say “God has justice,” but completely proper to say “God is justice.”  Put another way, the very idea of what we view as universal virtues and goods are a reflection of the divine nature, who is these attributes by nature.

The same idea applies to the natural world. If time, matter, or any part of creation is believed to have existed before or at least always with God, this means it is either greater than or equal to God.  This is incorrect, and is one of the reasons (there are several) the church (and many Jewish traditions) have God creating the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing).  This means God is outside of time, even when he chooses to act within time (such as the incarnation).  Many debates both within and outside of Christianity often forget this idea.

Finally, Anselm posits that the very idea that the God of the Bible exists is better than him not existing.  Since it is better to be alive than dead, or to exist rather than not to exist, God must exist, otherwise “your God is too small.”  In order for him to be the greatest being, he must exist, otherwise he is not the greatest being.  One might have to read this a few times in order to completely “get” this argument, but if you ponder the first few “greatest” ideas it will start to make sense.  Remember, this argument only works for the “greatest possible” being, of which there can only be one.  So arguing that this can prove Santa Claus or Atlantis means you’ve missed the point (a mistake Anselm’s critics made even in his day).

In a climate that emphasizes immediacy and efficiency, such contemplation of God is often deeply unpopular or considered “irrelevant” or “impractical.”  For this reason (and many more) I highly recommend reading Anselm and other church fathers, since they are “anti-trendiness with a vengeance.”  Even if one disagrees with what’s read, it forces a 21st century post-Christian culture to “think differently.”   Thinking about such greatness makes our ever increasing list of invented psychological problems seem rather trivial and unimportant by comparison. The Triune God truly is “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and we owe him his due.

Exaltation is Theosis?

Tags

Apologetics, Athanasius, Augustine, Christian, Christianity, Church, classical, culture, eisegesis, Exaltation, Heaven, History, Latter-Day-Saint, LDS, Mormon, Occident, Orthodox, Patristics, Religion, Tertullian, theology, Theosis, Trinity, western, worldview

In a recent faith column on the historic Christian doctrine of theosis (found here), it is asserted that the Latter-Day Saint (LDS) doctrine of exaltation is either equivalent to or a restatement of this classical Christian doctrine.  Church fathers (patristic) such as Athanasius, Augustine, and even the recent C.S. Lewis are brought to bear in support of this.  However, the thinking behind the two streams of thought are vastly different regardless of any similarity in terminology, as the classical Christian thinking demonstrates.

The doctrine of theosis in classical Christianity can only be understood by the traditional teaching of the Trinity, and in the nature of the Godhead.   In other words, both Eastern and Western fathers have in mind the idea of the Trinity as defined at Nicaea and Chalcedon, councils and creeds that are rejected by the LDS.  One cannot claim patristic support for a doctrine while rejecting the very nature of patristic thinking.   By definition, the three persons of the Trinity (one God in substance) are uncreated, immutable (never changed or changing), eternal, self-existent, Holy, and the supreme and ultimate source of all things, including time and space itself (Augustine, On the Trinity).  God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), and has always been God.  Humans, while created in the image of God, are finite beings created out of nothing (ex nihilo), and are completely dependent on the Trinitarian God for existence (Tertullian, Against Marcion).   Put another way, God minus the universe equals God, while the opposite is impossible.

When the church fathers such as Athanasius, Augustine, and others referred to the doctrine of theosis, these concepts of God and human nature were clearly in mind.  In order to reconcile humans to God because of sin, the second person of the Trinity (including all the attributes above, always being God before and never ceasing to be God) took on flesh, humbling himself.   By doing so, the gulf between humans and God has been “bridged” for those who have faith in Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection.   The incarnation is God becoming flesh, not a man becoming god by exaltation.  Theosis states that because of Christ, believing humans now can be united to him, and become “partakers” or “participants” in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  Union with the Trinitarian God of the Bible does not mean we become God in essence, but that we achieve status by grace to be called sons of God as co-heirs of Christ.

Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, we are cleansed and made more and more like Christ, ultimately perfected in the final judgment and bodily Resurrection.  This does NOT mean that humans become God (or even like God) in his essential creator capacity or essential attributes, but that we are changed and glorified by our union in Christ.  We still retain our distinction as created humans with personalities, and will always remain human in a glorified state, completely dependent on the supreme Trinitarian God of the universe.   The human does not become a god unto himself or by nature, but is united to Christ by grace, pardoned for sin (Oden, Classic Christianity).   It must also be remembered that classical Christianity looks forward to the Resurrection of the body, where “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

This concept of the believer’s ultimate glorification and union with Christ in classical Christian teaching is a far cry from the LDS concept of exaltation, in which men can become exactly as God is in essence (including the creation of new worlds), because God was also once a mortal man (Gospel Principles, 1992, 305).  Such a view is completely foreign to the church fathers, who believed in the classical view of the Trinity as outlined above, a belief still held by orthodox Christians across denominational lines today.  Utilizing these church fathers and the Scriptures in support of a doctrine at variance with classical Christianity is to completely decontextualize both, and is an exercise in eisegesis, or “reading into the text” what one wants to find.

Blinded by Fads

Tags

Apologetics, art, Christianity, classical, deconstructionism, Diversity, Gender, History, Literature, Marxist, metanarrative, Modern, Modern Chauvinism, Nancy Pearcey, politically correct, Politics, Postmodern, Rights, Secularism, theology, West, western, Worldviews

In her book, “Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning,” Nancy Pearcey traces the different types of modern, post-modern, and post-Christian Western thought and the resultant effects on culture (especially art). While the book is relatively straightforward and non-technical, the amount of cultural and intellectual history covered can be a bit daunting for many, so I have chosen to focus on the idea of deconstructionism and Political Correctness, to show how “ideas have consequences,” and why certain things are taught today, especially in universities.

In a nutshell, deconstructionism is a literary and artistic theory that assumes that the meaning behind a given text or work is found in the reader, not in the author or creator. This means that literature is simply a “tissue of quotations,” that are supposed to be sorted out and explained. There is really no limit in the meaning, since the meaning is found in the reader or interpreter alone. One is then supposed to be “creative” in interpreting, choosing the meaning to be found, and this has been expanded to include areas such as theology or history. Oddly, many deconstructionists become angry when people “misinterpret” what they say, which seems to imply there is meaning to be found after all. One wonders what the point of writing in the first place is in such a view.

Regardless of this contradiction, certain remnants of Marxist are thought are still clinging in certain circles, even though it has been discredited as an economic theory. These two streams (deconstructionism and Marxist thought) are then combined in many arts and humanities departments. This leads to individuals associating themselves with certain “victim groups” and viewing any sort of historical, artistic, or theological study through this identity politics lens. Also inherent in this view is suspicion of any sort of “metanarrative” (an overarching idea or system that explains everything from the beginning of man to the end). This suspicion is what leads to buzzwords and phrases such as “diversity is a value,” or “multiculturalism.” I will now quote Pearcey demonstrating where this thinking leads:

“…only select groups are singled out to represent “diversity”-certified victim groups based on race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. And the analysis of the problem is typically derived from Marxism. Some group is said to be victimized and oppressed, and the path to liberation is to revolt against the oppressors.

This explains why art and literature departments on the university campus have become thoroughly politicized…Politically correct regimes are not liberating students to think for themselves. They are turning students into cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take orders from the faddish theorist of the moment.” (Pearcey, 241-242)

This is also why any sort of artistic endeavor that is “innovative,” “revolutionary,” “subversive,” or “liberating,” is automatically better than anything traditional, religious, etc…Because the west has abandoned the Classical Christian worldview in favor of such nonsensical relativism, is it any surprise why new types of “rights” and the glorification of “democracy” take place? Even though the view is inherently self-refuting, it is extremely popular because it allows one to choose an identity, rather than be accountable to the created order. While it claims to be liberating, the view actually is imperialist, insisting that it alone “has the ability to see through everyone else’s underlying interest and motives-to deconstruct and debunk them. Thereby it effectively silences every other perspective.” (Pearcey, 242). This also leads to labeling any sort of counterargument as “bigoted,” “patriarchal,” any sort of phobic, etc. as a means of silencing opposition.

Classical Christians and western traditionalists need to be ready to challenge such suicidal (the view kills itself) thinking and offer a better and more truthful alternative (of course that means I’m part of the “problem” because I have a “metanarrative” and am therefore bigoted). Any thoughts?

War Reminder

Tags

Apologetics, Choice, Christian, Christianity, Church, democracy, Diversity, Education, Gender, Indoctrination, LGBT, Modern Chauvinism, News, Occident, Politics, Schools, theology, War, western, Worldviews

One of the sessions that I teach regularly is entitled “Worldviews At War” found in the “notes” section of this website.  An idea that starts to become prevalent in the ultramodern era, and in certain postmodern circles as well is the idea of the autonomous individual, accountable to no authority but the self.  This means one can simply choose everything that one does or is, including one’s own identity, regardless of the created order, Church, Scripture, tradition, family, or any sort of societal norms.   Choice in this case is inherently virtuous, and the consequences are immaterial, or privy to one’s private interpretation of truth. This is of course at variance with the Christian and Classical worldview, and leads to increasing levels of evil behavior being praised as “diversity” or “choice.”  As noted in the post on modern chauvinism, if you oppose such evil, ultramodern “progressives” label you as “bigoted,” “intolerant,” “unaccepting,” etc…, which brings me to this disturbing news item:

“As two transgender bills (AB 433 and SB 48) are poised to be passed by the California Legislature, at least one elementary school in Oakland is already indoctrinating kids starting in kindergarten about “gender diversity”…Young children are being taught that they can choose to be a boy or a girl — or both. Boys, for example, should be comfortable wearing girls’ clothes and nail polish, etc. And there aren’t just two genders, there can be a range. And, of course, the school does not allow parents to opt their kids out…”

The report goes on to state that this program is a “necessity” to “help kids,” and if you oppose it, you want kids to commit suicide.  This sort of tactic is called “ritual defamation,” which is one of the main tactics of modern chauvinism, and is used to silence those who defend the Christian and Classical West.  Do not be deceived, this is indeed a war, and it is being fought over everything from the education of children to the arts.  You may find the rest of this report here, with video evidence of such “diversity” indoctrination taking place.  

War is being waged for the heart and soul of the West.  What are you doing to be involved?

Tasting Time

Tags

aesthetics, Allan Bloom, Apologetics, art, Bruce Springsteen, Carson Holloway, Chauvinism, Christianity, culture, democracy, Evangelical, Kenneth Meyers, Modern, Modern Chauvinism, Music, Philsophy, popular culture, relativism, sexuality, Thomas Jefferson, western, worldview

One of the most common arguments and statements one has heard for the last few decades or so, both inside and outside of the church, is the idea of “apples and oranges” or “its all about taste” in regards to culture and the arts.  This is very much tied into the idea of individualism and the almost sacred idea of “choice,” in which one simply makes cultural decisions like partaking of a food buffet.  Related also is the idea of cultural relativism, where every culture is considered “equal.”  Kenneth A. Meyers, in his book “All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture” addresses such assumptions, specifically focusing on the idea, “the medium is the message.”  In other words, the very medium, whether it be a musical idiom, the latest romance novel, or the architecture of a building, inherently conveys a message.   Such a view is highly unpopular in today’s age of modern chauvinism and pluralistic way of thinking, but this view was the most common one in the west (and in other places such as China) for many centuries (see Carson Holloway’s book, All Shook Up: Music, Passion and Politics, where he traces this idea from Socrates to Nietzsche).

In lieu of a long, formal book review,  I have decided to provide a couple of quotes with some minimal commentary to hopefully convey some of the general ideas of Meyers’ thinking, which I would argue is firmly rooted in a biblical worldview and the classical Christian tradition of the west. To start, here is Meyers writing about how the idea of individual “rights” and “choice” so commonly assumed impact one’s view of culture:

“…the individualism that characterizes the sort of social structure which gave rise to popular culture also characterizes its aesthetic structure.  Just as modern individualism encourages each person to define their own social reality apart from considerations about how the creation is ordered (Should I get married or live with someone? Should I be heterosexual or homosexual? Should I believe in God or be an atheist? Should I be a faithful wife or a lesbian feminist?), so modern individualism encourages people to define their own aesthetic reality apart from considerations about how the creation is ordered (Meyers, 85, italics in the original).”

One may of course assume that divinely ordained institutions such as the family and church would be part of creation considerations.  Meyers mentions how evangelicalism in particular is congenial to this sort of thinking, since in America and England in particular, there is a sort of almost romantic ideal of “democracy,” and since we are supposed to be evangelizing the masses, why not just adopt what is popular at the time and “Christianize” it?  Or better yet, take 2,000 years of church tradition and dress it in popular culture garb in order to be “relevant.” Of course it is never asked if relevance to an inherently anti-Christian worldview is a worthwhile pursuit.  Perhaps in some situations, it would be better to be irrelevant, but I digress.

A second issue Meyers address is the idea of cultural relativism, “that nasty habit all to common in the twentieth century to assume that all values that have some tie with one’s culture are simply created by that culture, that all cultures create different values, and that it is simply egocentric…to prefer one set of values to another (Meyers, 29).”  Meyers borrows from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in stating that the fact that there are differences about good and bad in different times and places does not prove that none is superior.  Instead it should raise the question of which is right instead of banishing it altogether.  I would argue that this idea is closely tied into modern chauvinism, and that anyone who argues differently is “bigoted” or “ethnocentric.”  Meyers then proceeds to show how absurd this way of thinking is:

“Cultural relativism not only makes it impossible to assert that,  for example, Thomas Jefferson is a more significant thinker than a headhunter from Borneo; it also makes it impossible to claim that Thomas Jefferson is a more significant thinker than Bruce Springsteen.  Cultural relativism cuts in several planes.  It denies the possibility that one society’s culture might be superior to another’s, and it denies the possibility that one form of cultural expression might be superior to another from within the same culture. (Meyers, 29-30).”

Any thoughts or qualms? Meyers’ book is highly recommended by the way…

20 Ways to Be a Modern Chauvinist

Tags

art, Bigot, Chauvinism, Christian, Christianity, Church, culture, democracy, egalitarianism, fundementalism, History, homophobic, How To, intolerance, Modern, Modern Chauvinism, multiculturalism, Music, orthodoxy, Philosophy, Politics, progressive, racist, theology, tradition

1.  Believe that humanity is constantly getting better, and that each new era of history is better than the last. Progress is inevitable.

2.  Refer to any previous age that valued religion, cultural conformity, and family values as a “dark age,” “ignorant,” or “intolerant.”

3. View scientific naturalism as “rational” and “open-minded,” while anything metaphysical or religious is “childish,” “naive,” or “stupid.”

4.  Believe that the chief source of the ills of the world is religion, “intolerance,” or “unenlightenment.”

5.  Believe that every individual is autonomous, and that social and family virtues are “outdated.”

6.  Distrust any ancient source because it lacks modern “precision” or skepticism. In Christianity, this means that the modern historian knows more than the church fathers, Greco-Roman historians, or Jewish sources because he is more “rational” and has the latest discoveries.

7.  In the arts, if you are populist, emphasize the 60′s, “indie”, and Andy Warhol. If you are an elitist, emphasize John Cage and Jackson Pollock. A combination of the two views is preferred.

8.  Related to number 7, if art is “conventional,” “classical,” paleo anything, religious, traditional, or western, view it as “boring,” “regressive,” “irrelevant,” “unoriginal” or “oppressive.” By contrast, any art that is “shocking,” “provocative,” “activist,” “subversive,” “innovative,” or politically relevant is automatically genuine, inspired, relevant, and true artistry.

9.  Re-interpret western cultural history in lieu of number 8.

10.  Secular, egalitarian democracy based on an ever-increasing list of individual “rights” (the individual is autonomous, remember?) is the ultimate and perfect form of government. Any sort of hierarchy, religious system, or previous form of government is simply “anti-progress” and “bigoted.”

11.  Make sure you label those who oppose you with anti-intellectual or politically expedient stereotypes, including but not limited to: bigot, hick, racist, ethnocentric, xenophobic, homophobic, backwater, dark aged, anti-learning, anti-progress, anti-education etc…

12.  Make sure “love” = moral license, but moral laws = intolerance. Especially use this to undermine traditional, orthodox, Christianity.

13.  Related to number 12, make sure that “progressive Christians” that agree with you on many of these points are labeled “true loving Christians,” but traditionalists are considered “bigoted” or even better, “militant fundamentalist.” After all, an orthodox Christian should always be grouped with a militant Muslim, right?

14.  “Separation of Church and State” is your personal religion. Anything else makes one a Fascist or Theocrat.

15.  Make sure you bring up Hitler whenever possible as an example of “the extreme right.”

16.  Make sure that all previous western history is understood to be “Patriarchal,” “oppressive,” and “colonialist.” Make sure that those that are from the Christian and classical west hate their heritage and embrace “multiculturalism,” “democracy,” and “pluralism” as true enlightenment. This is especially important in the education system as the young are prepared to be global citizens.

17.  To ensure this hasn’t been forgotten, again, always use labels such as “hate,” “intolerance,” “racist,” “homophobic,” and others as much as possible to silence opposition, especially in reference to Christians and western traditionalists. Again, make sure an increasing list of individual “rights” is considered love. If possible, accuse someone who disagrees as “self-loathing.”

18.  Fulfillment is found in being true to yourself, expressing yourself, and making yourself happy. If you feel confused or unfulfilled about this, please seek someone truly scientific like a psychiatrist. Never become pious! Anyone who finds religion is “weak.”

19.  Make clear that while we can have precision and certainty on anything naturalistic, anything based on a Scripture or orthodox faith is “full of contradictions” because it lacks this precision.

20.  Finally, if you are feeling “down,” “depressed,” or “disillusioned,” with the enlightenment outlined above, and modern psychology hasn’t worked, do one of two things: Find a ton of hobbies to make yourself “busy” and be constantly entertained, or give up that you can know anything at all and embrace nothingness.

Does anyone care to add a few more? Any experiences with modern chauvinism?