[Note: I'm taking a break from blogging over the Independece Day holiday. I'll be back with new posts on Wednesday.]
"In every culture war the existing customs and traditions of a society are called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite asking whether they can be rationally justified or are simply the products of superstition and thus unworthy of being taken seriously by enlightened men and women," says Lee Harris in his recent article in Policy Review. "But is it possible to defend tradition with the help of reason? Can a particular tradition be justified by reason? And what if our traditional belief conflicts with reason can we rationally justify keeping it?"
"The Future of Tradition" is further evidence that Harris is one of the finest essayists in America. The article is densely packed with gems that can be mined from a close and careful reading. But as much as I would prefer to heap praise on the essay, I must first dwell on its significant flaw. In a brilliant piece of analysis, Richard Nokes sheds light on the weakness of Harris's primary assumption:
The article is interesting, but it is founded on a false premise: that tradition and reason are potentially competing modes of thought, and that reason itself may potentially be a superior mode of thinking than submission to tradition.
Harris misses this point (or perhaps pretends to): Reason itself as he is using it refers to the Western rational tradition. In other words, reason is itself a tradition, a particular disciplined mode of thinking that may or may not be superior to other modes of thinking. Why, in his examples, do cultural fights between reason and tradition end in disaster? Because if reason wins, it undermines its very traditional foundation, and if tradition wins, it destroys the very reason it birthed.
Allow me to explain it this way: What if I attack Western rationalism as a system of thought? How can you defend it? If you defend it through reasoned argumentation, you are creating a very small circle of logic, no larger than when someone asserts "The Bible is true because it says so." Instead, one must do what Harris feels compelled to do every time he brings up the Sophists -- justify reason according to intellectual tradition. In fact, Harris's article has the great virtue of acting as performance art in that it justifies tradition by appealing to reason on the surface, but beneath the surface is really justifying reason by appealing to tradition.
There is indeed a rich irony in a culture war that pits Reason against Tradition. As Nokes rightly points out, the two are quite inseparable, perhaps even dialectically intertwined. After all, few people adhere to customs and traditions that they consider to be undeniably irrational. Likewise, reason depends on custom and tradition in order for knowledge to be developed, accumulated, and transmitted.
What we have then is different tribes warring over their particular traditions, with each side appealing to the superiority of its own history in order to argue its case in the public square. The debate is complicated, though, by a tendency to ignore or selectively use their tradition's own histories. As David Koyzis contends, an appeal to tradition per se tends to ignore what might be called the "temporal multiplicity of traditions" -- the propensity of traditional notions to develop and mutate in such a way that the later form looks markedly different than the earlier manifestation.
There is often a striking lack of continuity between the threads of a particular intellectual tradition and its modern adherents. On several occasions I've heard advocates of Intelligent Design theory referred to as "enemies of enlightenment" (one biology professor even applies that ironic label to this blog), claiming that such theories are irrational. Yet many of the fathers of the Enlightenment were staunch defenders of the basic tenets of ID. Voltaire even claimed that "intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being" and that "Newton's intelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence." "This argument is old,"said Voltaire, "and none the worse for that."
Traditional defenders of Tradition, however, also share this shortsightedness. Conservatives, especially, often harbor a pseudo-nostalgia for earlier periods that never actually existed. The veneration of the "good ol' days" is often based on a pointillist perspective of history in which a handful of elements are fondly cherished while the baser ones are conveniently forgotten: the simple values of the 1930s were forged during a period of stultifying global poverty and political radicalism; the '40s were an age of sexual innocence and fidelity -- unless you were a GI in post-War Europe (or married to one); in the '50's families spent time together, often at events divided by the color bar. And the 1960's? Well, even conservatives can't make silk out of that sow's ear.
The modern culture war is not, as is often portrayed, a conflict between the forces of Reason and the small platoons of Tradition. It is an internecine conflict between defenders of rival traditions that are themselves bastardizations of former traditions. Secular liberals are not heirs to the Enlightenment fighting again the forces of superstition and irrationalism. And religious conservatives are not descendants of Founding Fathers who lived in the Shining City on a Hill. Both camps could also use more introspection and a lot less self-mythologizing.
Culture war battles cannot be won with either reason or tradition alone. Each side needs reason to shore up their traditions and tradition to justify their reasoning. What is also essential is an awareness of where we share common ground, an ability to appeal to common sense, and humility. It's an old recipe for political success, with a long and venerable tradition. And none the worse for that.
1
Culure wars are just that--wars of culture.
By their nature they are a diversion from
the work the Gospel and the building up of
others around us. For some the war may be an
avenue for dispensing the Gospel, but by and
large Culture is the focus.
Jesus Christ was sent to redeem people,
not cultures. He did not redeem the highest
cultural values of Rome or Greece or even of
the Barbarians. But he regenerated individuals
from all those lands and so much more.
As a result I've retreated from the culture war
because the initial premise of the need to
redeem culture is worse than flawed.
2
Culure wars are just that--wars of culture.
By their nature they are a diversion from
the work the Gospel and the building up of
others around us. For some the war may be an
avenue for dispensing the Gospel, but by and
large Culture is the focus.
Jesus Christ was sent to redeem people,
not cultures. He did not redeem the highest
cultural values of Rome or Greece or even of
the Barbarians. But he regenerated individuals
from all those lands and so much more.
As a result I've retreated from the culture war
because the initial premise of the need to
redeem culture is worse than flawed.
3
Collin,
With respect, I have to say that I find your view on this to be worse than flawed. It presupposes a western individualism that itself is distinct from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was sent to redeem a culture - a specific culture in fact - he was the Messiah to Israel. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the declaration that Israel's Messiah is lord over all the world. This means that Caesar himself was obligated to bow the knee to him.
In the transmission of the gospel to the cultures of Rome, Greece, or even the Barbarian world, there was nothing that could simply be affirmed as it was. All needed to bow the knee to Christ. However, having done this, there is nothing that, having submitted to Christ, would not be redeemed.
The gospel of Christ is about more than saving individual souls. It is the decisive blow in God's project to restore creation to himself. If we reject applying the gospel to culture - aka the communal life of humanity - than we are being faithless servants of Christ.
posted on 07.03.2006 1:28 PM4
For one who has lived but one life, sir, you are very wise.
posted on 07.03.2006 9:44 PM5
Wonders,
My starting point is neither western individualism nor the national principles of replacement theology. It's individual repentence, and being grafted into a Body which as a whole serves Christ. Philippians 1:27.
Collin
posted on 07.03.2006 10:17 PM6
Collin,
Sorry to come down so strong there. The thing is that we all read the Bible through cultural blinders, and being aware of this is a big step toward deeper understanding.
I am convinced that the exclusive focus we have on individual souls reflects our culture far more than it does the mindset behind the New Testament, much less the Bible as a whole. Doesn't it seem strange to you that God would spend so much time and energy forming a people and a nation - complete with cultural symbols and practices centered around God's acts of redemption - if in the end all he was interested is autonomous individual souls?
Not that God DOSN'T care about individuals, but that this notion we have of a man as an island is completely foreign to scripture. His redemption knows no boundaries. He will redeem your individual soul. He will renew all of creation. And everything in between. The church is called to be an agent of this redemption.
posted on 07.05.2006 8:30 AM7
Wonders,
Thank you for some good thoughts. (I don't take your statements at all as coming down on me.)
Nobody denies the cultural flavor of the Bible. That's part of the richness of it. The issue I'd take on is the presumption that culture is a driving force rather than a component. The Ephesians description of marriage as typifying the church and its relationship to its head is, as I understand things, an over-riding principle on the whole of Scriptiure. Marriage, the first institution, was meant to picture something of His love for humanity. Cultural components for the Hebrew nation as well that came out of Law and His influence work toward that end.
Then to transpose that or any other necessity to American culture or tradition is to give such a broad application to Scripture that it becomes difficult to separate ourselves from a culture war. If anything were to be preserved it would certainly be the Hebrew culture.
But even in the NT we see the ministry in Greece and Macedonia being much different than the ministry in Israel, esp. wrt men even speaking to women.
My influence on this has been some "anabaptist" thinking. Though I'm not following that tradition specifically and am closer to a hybrid of traditional fundamentalist and earlier evangelical, my motivation is to take both the specifics and clear principles of the Word and give them application.
Cultural change may result, but cultural change itself does not change hearts. Changed hearts often change culture, and I know of no other NT principle wrt culture.
Collin
posted on 07.05.2006 2:20 PM8
Changed culture doesn't change hearts? I know of no more pervasive and powerful influene on human beings than their communal life. It is the lense with which they view all of life (defining even personal identity) and if that lense is distorted so will their lives.
The Old Testament is, more than anything else, a story of God building a people around himself, in order to use this as a sprinboard for redemption. The entire Old Testament is about the formation of a culture (if the definition of "culture" is wide enough to include all of the symbols, stories, practices, and public discourse of a people).
It is only in the context of this culture that He can make himself known fully. Jesus didn't just happen to be born to Israel. Israel was formed for this purpose.
Now in Christ the people of God has been expanded to all nations, and all are invited to be his people and He will be their God. This will involve both judgement and renewal of every aspect of life - public and private, internal and external. The redeemed people of God are born again into Christ, and Christ's life is to permeate every level of their existance.
This means that my culture need to change. Do I decorate my house with idols? Is my city square filled with temples to gods and demons? Does our public entertainment involve the torture of men and animals for the debasement and amusment of the masses? Does our leader invoke unchecked worship as an immortal god? Do our laws oppress the poor?
What happened historically was that all of this had to change - the culture of the ancient world had to bow the knee to Christ. Not that all of it did, or all that did fully submitted to him. But Christ changes us as a people.
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."
As a modern person, one can hardly read the scriptures without being struck by just how often God deals with man as peoples, and not just individuals. And this is partly because God knows what we are - we are not autonomous - we are connected to each other and to creation in more ways than we know.
posted on 07.05.2006 10:20 PM9
I beg to differ with this statement: "After all, few people adhere to customs and traditions that they consider to be undeniably irrational."
What could be more 'irrational' than the tradition-based doctrines of the Christian churches?
Doctrines such as the Trinity and the Miraculous Incarnation are NOT based on the New Testament but on custom and tradition.
Yet millions continue to believe in the 'irrationality' of Almighty God becoming man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth through a 'virgin birth'.
posted on 07.06.2006 2:15 AM10
Wonders,
Of course culture doesn't change hearts. It's not a regenerative agent; it's a commonality.
Vynette,
The Trinity doctrine is not founded in tradition but in a *cumulative* assessment of the teachings of Scripture.
Collin
posted on 07.06.2006 5:52 AM11
Hmmmm - culture does not change hearts. Let's address this thesis.
A Chinese boy grows up hearing the story of Wu Meng - seeing statues of him and hearing his story told by teachers and public officials. "During the Chin Dynasty (4th-5th Century CE), a boy named Wu Meng was already serving his parents in exemplary filial piety although he was just eight years old. The family was so poor that they could not even afford a gauze net against the mosquitoes. Therefore every night in the summer swarms of mosquitoes would come and bite them. Wu Meng let them all feast on his naked stomach. Even though there were so many, he did not drive them away. He feared that the mosquitoes, having left him, would instead bite his parents. His heart was truly filled with love for his parents." But I'm sure the boy isn't moved every time he hears the story - he wouldn't resolve to live up to such lofty ideals of filial piety. Chinese have no more devotion to their parents than anyone else. Naturally, culture doesn't shape hearts.
A young Spartan passes by the monument of the fallen 300 at Thermopylae. He knows the famous inscription "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie." Being trained in the harsh school of arms that all must undergo, he hears the story of Leonidas defiance of the Persian hordes, and his faithfulness to the Spartan ways even facing death. But none of this affects his heart. He is certainly no more likely than someone lacking these cultural stories and monuments to give his life for his country. Spartans, as a rule, were no more loyal, brave, or warlike than any other people. Culture doesn't affect hearts.
A Jewish child asks a man "Why is this night different from all other nights?" and he responds "Once we were slaves" and explains all the symbolism of the passover meal. But the child doesn't then learn to define himself in terms of a people set free by the mighty hand of the Lord. Jews are no more loyal to their God throughout mellenia of suffering, nor have they retained their identity more than any people group. Because culture doesn't do a thing to hearts.
A North Korean is surrounded by pictures of the savior and leader defending them from the evils of western imperial powers, like the diabolical USA. All day long, throughout all life, the leader's praises are sung, and the old superstition is ridiculed. But North Korean's aren't any more atheistic or devoted to their leader than Americans. They would be as quick to ridicule him as Americans are of Bush. Because culture doesn't change hearts.
I stand before my family, friends, and community as my first son is baptized. We recite the apostles' creed, affirming our faith and our commitment to raise him "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The people make vows to do all that they can to support us in this task. The pastor pours water on the child, baptizing him in the father and the son and the holy spirit. But I don't swell with pride, nor am I overcome with the burden of responsibility I have undertaken. You see, culture doesn't change hearts.
Methinks you are trivializing something rather important.
posted on 07.06.2006 9:21 AM12
Wonders,
To say that culture is a regenerative, salvific mechanism is to bypass the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.
Culture is certainly the context in which we all live. And culture is certainly a formative mechanism. But let's not reduce the Gospel to being just another cultural component.
Jesus Christ and the Gospel transcend culture in just the same way they transcend all politics and every other aspect of life.
13
I see culture as, as I have said before, the communal life of man.
Do I say that culture can be a regenerative, salvific mechanism? Only in the sense that your neighbor can be. Our corporate life can glorify God or mock him or ignore him.
The Gospel only transcends culture insofar as Jesus transcends humanity. The Gospel is cultural, insofar as Jesus is man. The Gospel may transcend culture, but it certainly also condescends to it.
posted on 07.06.2006 10:22 AM14
I used the term "redeem" in that sense of spiritual regeneration and salvation ("regenerative, salvific"). It appears there is no ground for agreement between us on this basic principle. Thank you for some good conversation.
15
Joe wrote:
"Culture war battles cannot be won with either reason or tradition alone. Each side needs reason to shore up their traditions and tradition to justify their reasoning. What is also essential is an awareness of where we share common ground, an ability to appeal to common sense, and humility. It’s an old recipe for political success, with a long and venerable tradition. And none the worse for that."
Collin wrote:
"I used the term "redeem" in that sense of spiritual regeneration and salvation ("regenerative, salvific"). It appears there is no ground for agreement between us on this basic principle. Thank you for some good conversation."
Savor the irony....
posted on 07.06.2006 5:22 PM16
Collin,
I'm sorry we did not reach more of an understanding. Perhaps this is not the best medium to really get at where we disagree - too much room for misunderstanding and too much work for so little communication. We'd have to spend a good bit more time defining terms and the like, to really get at where we disagree. I confess that I may have been a bit too polemical myself in not speaking to where you are coming from and trying to really understand where your difficulty with what I was saying.
Anyway, happy blogging!
posted on 07.06.2006 8:52 PM17
Wonders,
Talking face to face is so much better than internet chatting. We may well never reach agreement but certainly open dialog is a wonderful mechanism to enjoy. (Despite Amy's apparent irony.)
:)
Enjoy.
18
Martin Luther, master of over-the-top aphorisms, is attributed with the saying, "Reason is a whore!"
There's a method to his madness here, as always: reason is only as good as its premises or assumptions, and, like rhetoric, reason will sell its service to any set of premises.
And what sets the premises? Faith and tradition. In the end, the battle is never between reason and tradition, or reason and faith. It's always between competing traditions or competing faiths: to include faith in reason as a guide to truth.