Theological Liberalism vs Modernism: Can't We Just Get Along? Hey, Are You Listening?

So, last post I was talking about how Evangelical Christianity (EC) and Modernism interact and how there's a flaw at the heart of Evangelicalism. In case any Liberal Christians are feeling smug,* it's your turn next.

Liberal Christianity also arose in the context of modernism, and also takes on the modernist assumption that "real" truth is rational, verifiable and preferably scientific. However, where Evangelicalism asserts that religious truth is real truth (and hence rational and verifiable), Liberalism seems - I'm going here on inadequate knowledge because I've never been a classic Liberal Christian or moved in those circles, so correct me if I'm wrong - seems to say that religious truth is basically metaphorical truth, and tacitly accepts modernism's assumption that this means that it rates lower on the "real truth" hierarchy. So where extreme Evangelicals are sometimes motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is a rational, verifiable fact, even if its plain sense is metaphorical, extreme Liberals seem motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is actually a metaphor, or at least definitely not a fact, even if its plain sense is factual.

I have this mental image of a Liberal Christian who lives in a wooden house calling out to a couple of secular modernists who live in a concrete house. "Hey, look! Look over here! Wooden houses really are inferior to concrete ones, you're right! In fact, look, I'm setting my wooden house on fire right now. Do you respect me now? Huh? Huh?"

On the other side, meanwhile, an Evangelical in another wooden house says, "No, really, wooden houses are just as good, in fact, better. Look, totally fire-retardant," and he, too, sets his house on fire.

Upon which one of the secular modernists turns to the other and says, "These wooden-house guys really do suck, don't they? You'll never catch me living in one of them."

*I have no proof that anyone at all reads this apart from me, so these smug Liberal Christians are purely hypothetical.

Evangelicalism vs Modernism: fight!

So, the first of possibly several posts on this.

I've been thinking a bit more about how different counterphilosophies interact with modernism, which is still the dominant philosophy of the time and place I find myself in. I'll start with Evangelical Christianity (EC) because the interactions seem reasonably clear to me and I know it fairly well.

I was an Evangelical Christian for over 10 years, from the age of 18 into my early 30s (I'd find it hard to put a date on when I stopped; it was a gradual thing, and the process isn't over yet.) This represents more than half my Christian experience and well over a quarter of my life. In this time I read widely, wrote stuff myself, heard many sermons and speakers - I think I know how Evangelical Christians think. (Outliers, exceptions, disclaimer, blah.)

EC inevitably defined itself in relation to modernism; it arose in the late 19th century but really flourished in the 20th. Modernism was the thing it had to define itself against. At the same time, any time there is as pervasive a philosophy as modernism, there are likely to be aspects of that philosophy that any critique of it will tacitly accept, without entering into discussion or debate; it's just "obvious to everyone".

(There's change over time and place and person, disclaimer, blah.)

Seems to me, what EC tacitly accepts is modernism's concept of truth: Truth is rational, propositional, literal, demonstrable, manifest and preferably scientific. It is firmly decideable. You won't see debate about this in the central regions of EC, because debating it pretty much automatically places you on the margins, if not beyond them. It's just a given.

However, EC explicitly denies modernism's contention that only what is material is true and real. Indeed, EC would contend that what is material, being temporary and temporal, is less true and less real than what is immaterial, some of which is eternal.

Herein we have a potential contradiction sitting at the heart of EC (and indeed at the heart of modernism, in a slightly different sense which I will probably talk about some other time). The contradiction is not acknowledged because, remember, the concept of truth isn't up for debate.

So we have this chain of logic:

A: "Real" truth is propositional, rational and provable (implicit, not up for debate).
B: Religious truth is real truth (explicit, not up for debate).
C: Therefore, religious truth is propositional, rational and provable.

And from this stem many of EC's problems, in my opinion. At the extreme, this leads to "creation science" and its desperate attempts to show that statements which were never, could never be, intended as scientific statements, which were made before there was such a thing as a scientific statement, are nevertheless scientific statements - because only if they are scientific statements are they "real truth".

If you put proposition A up for debate, however, instantly many of the problems go away.

As it happens, this is exactly the proposition which postmodernism directly challenges. However, postmodernism doesn't accept proposition B either; it is in tacit agreement with modernism that only what is material is "real" (a contradiction at the heart of postmodernism).

Which explains all kinds of things about why Evangelicals are uncomfortable with "postmodern Christianity".

Orthodox, open-minded, skeptical and happy

This comes out of this discussion (originally on proselytism) over at “I would knife fight a man”.

I said:

I'm (more-or-less) orthodox, open-minded, skeptical and happy - not necessarily all at once, but certainly in rapid alternation... you know that optical illusion where you can see either the vase or the two faces, but not both at once? But you can switch between them by a bit of a mental adjustment? Like that.

So what does that look like, then?

Well, when I'm saying my Trinitarian rosary in the mornings while commuting to work, I'm in an orthodox mindset. I am sincere in that orthodoxy; I approach God as Trinity, Creator, Redeemer and Holy Spirit of Wisdom.

And yet at the same time - and by a small mental shift I can engage this mode instead - I'm aware that this is a finger pointing at the moon, "that art thou, and yet that also is not thou", that the Trinity is a cultural construction quite possibly rooted in paganism (which, being of Celtic ancestry and very slightly Christopagan leanings, I'm perfectly comfortable with). I'm also happy to consider other people's religious formulations which differ from mine as being, in this sense, equally valid - that is, equally lenses through which they look for God. (Think of it this way: We all have imperfect vision, so we all need glasses, but perhaps your glasses don't help me and mine don't help you. Doesn't mean that mine don't help me and yours don't help you.)

Hence openmindedness. While affirming orthodoxy, I feel no need to assert it as an exclusive truth in the modernist sense (I've given up describing myself as "postmodern" even with disclaimers, now; I'm going for "transmodern").

It's very important to me that I affirm the Incarnation and Resurrection, for example, but I'm not going to try to "prove" them in some propositional sense, as I would have once as a modernist Evangelical. (Much less do I feel the need to "disprove" them, as modernist Liberals often do.) They are meaningful for me and in affirming them I gain more ability to make sense of the universe.

Skeptical? I'm definitely skeptical. I went to a hypnotherapy seminar recently at which the presenter spouted pure New Age hogwash for about 60% of the time. We got Atlantis, we got the Indigo Children, we got the 2012 prophecies, the lot. At lunchtime I had to hold myself back from saying loudly, "I'm not really hungry now, after all that FRUITCAKE."

Any time anyone tries marketingbabble, businessbabble or bureaucracybabble on me, skeptical is definitely what I am. Being openminded doesn't preclude skepticism for me. My openmindedness (at its best) takes the form of, "While I don't actively affirm what you are affirming there, I'm not going to set out to deny it either; that's not necessary for me in order to hold another viewpoint. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. I don't think so, obviously, or we'd think the same." My skepticism takes the form of holding things which haven't been convincingly presented to me, or about which I have causes for suspicion, in suspicion. They're innocent until proven guilty, but they're definitely under suspicion. I'm not going to believe them to be polite.

And happy? I'm happy. That has a lot to do with having a positive self-image, good external life conditions, and personal flexibility (which is part of good mental health). Skepticism and open-mindedness don't render me unhappy because I'm happy to keep things in Schroedinger's catbox for extended periods. Orthodoxy doesn't render me unhappy because I use it, it doesn't abuse me.

I've rambled. I need to sharpen up my thinking on this. But, hey - this is a blog. This is why you don't pay me money for this stuff.

Oh, afterthought/edit: Back to the image of the faces and the vase. You can look at it and, by a small act of will, see faces. With another small act of will, you can see a vase. But with a third small act of will, you can see an abstract image that isn't actually a vase or faces, just some marks that suggest vaseness and faceness to your mind, which is primed to recognise patterns like that. That's important too.