The Secular Litmus Test

Published on by D. G. Hart

Contemporary conservatism — religious, political, cultural — is defined at least in part by opposition to secularism. Jerry Falwell and Francis Schaeffer scored early and often when throwing around the phrase secular humanism, for instance. Meanwhile, one of the complaints (or worse) about 2K is that it tolerates — even welcomes — a secular world. (For some reason, folks don’t seem to notice that the secular is actually a Christian notion that designates a specific time in salvation history.)

Because of the associations between opposition to secularism and conservatism, I was surprised to read that Pete Enns is glad to see a reduction in secularity even if he is not exactly a conservative. In a post that lauded Oprah’s discovery of Rob Bell, Enns appealed to N.T. Wright for help in making the case that spirituality is the natural human response to the unsatisfying demands of a secular world:

The official guardians of the old water system (many of whom work in the media and in politics, and some of whom, naturally enough, work in churches) are of course horrified to see the volcano of “spirituality” that has erupted in recent years. All this “New Age” myticism, the Tarot cards, crystals, horoscopes, and so on; all this fundamentalism, with militant Christians, militant Sikhs, militant muslims, and many others bombing each otherwith God in their side. Surely, say the guardians of the official water system, all this is terribly unhealthy? Surely it will lead us back to superstition, to the old chaotic, polluted, and irrational water supply? They have a point. But they must face a question in response: Does the fault not lie with those who wanted to pave over the springs with concrete in the first place.

“The hidden spring” of spirituality is the second feature of human life which, I suggest, functions as an echo of a voice; as a signpost pointing away from the bleak landscape of modern secularism and toward the possibility that we humans are made for more than this.

Along then comes Rob Bell (and others) to the rescue, according to Enns:

I think what Bell is doing is helping unstop the springs, and I’m glad he’s doing it. Those who lose sleep over the damage he’s causing may, even in the name of Christ, be more in league with the dictator than they may realize. As many have noted: American fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism have more in common with modernity than many may be able, or willing, to see.

But why Bell? Why not someone with “better theology” (some might ask) for such a time as this? Because the tools of evangelical theological fine-tuning are not suited for excavating concrete. Plus, Bell is a truly gifted communicator who doesn’t use in-house lingo. He knows how to market his ideas, i.e., to get people to listen.

This suggests that Enns, Wright, and Bell have more in common with many conservatives than they might imagine. If you’re going to frame the question as one between the secular and the religious, then the nature of Christianity is going to look different from the way that confessional Protestants understand it. Why Enns is willing to welcome Bell’s aids to spirituality but keeps fundamentalist or evangelical helps to devotion at arm’s length is anyone’s guess (though Bell is hipper than John Piper). It would seem to me that if you’re in the business of pulling down the secular order, you take help from inerrantists as much as from militant Sikhs. (It is precisely that kind of expansiveness in opposition to secularism that produces the Manhattan Declaration.)

But if you believe the church is called, in the words of the Confession of Faith, to minister the “ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world,” (25.3), then you may not care if your tool box has tools to excavate concrete. The spiritual weapons you’re carrying are a lot more powerful and responsive than that.

10 thoughts on “The Secular Litmus Test”

  1. John Howard Yoder, Revolutionary Christianity, 2012, p 11–“There is a certain sense on which we can with gratitude accept the ‘secularization’ that characterizes the modern age. To the extent that this means that Christianity is being disentangled from a particular civilization, and especially as it is being disentangled from identification with the total membership of any one social group, this development clears the decks for a restatement of what it means to be a church in but not of the world.”

    mark: Constantinianism is confusing a church with the world. Christendom is a synthesis of what should be two different things, a church and the world. Many attempt to hold the ethics of the old age and the new age together by saying that individual Christians live in the old age while a church lives in the new age. Though we can and must assume the presence of sin in a church in this age, this is no reason to endorse either the sin or the world. The old age will not be defeated until the second coming of Christ. A gospel church knows the world better than the world knows itself, and that without alliances with Jews, liberals, or other non-Christians.

    Even if Enns is correct about fundamentalists being “modernists” (we have all read Marsden and Noll), that does not mean that Enns is not also a modernist.

    As if postmodernist desires for some sort of “sacred” were not also idolatry…

    Like

  4. Another thing they all have in common is the “Christian Think Tank” mentality:
    Peter Enns (Trinity Foundation),
    Rob Bell (Mars Hill),
    NT Wright (Theos Public Theology Think Tank)
    And (Tim Keller; Gospel Coalition, Lectio Devnia http://www.redeemer.com/connect/prayer/lectio_divina.html, New City Catechism.)

    It seems like the “Christian Think Tank” idea has made it’s way into the church in the form of “Coalitions” “Small Groups.” and “Church Book Clubs.”

    Goodbye “Westminster Confession of Faith” , hello “Christian World View.”
    Goodbye Church, hello “Christian Think Tank.”

    It’s all Greek to me, or is it Epicurian?

    Like

  5. Pingback: The Secular Litmus Test

  6. Ginger,

    Appeals to the Christian “worldview” are endlessly frustrating. I’d never thought about it as a product of the Christian version of a think tank. Good point.

    Thanks for the headaches and the arrogant dismissals, Francis Schaeffer.

    Like

  7. “Plus, Bell is a truly gifted communicator who doesn’t use in-house lingo. He knows how to market his ideas, i.e., to get people to listen.”

    Yeah, that’s why I’ve never read anything he’s written or heard anything he’s said.

    Like

  9. David VanDrunnen, Natural Law and the Two kingdoms—or should that be “secular law”?

    DVD—In the Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology, O’Donovan emphasizes that, in Christ’s resurrection, the earthly powers have been subdued and made subject to divine sovereignty. Though the powers are given a SECULAR space and authority
    to exercise their judicial function, they ought to serve the CHURCH’S mission (chapter 4)

    “After Christ’s ascension, therefore the terms on which political authorities function are not the same as they were (The Ways of Judgment). Society is to be transformed. The Christian state may now be disclosed from time to time ( but it should not coerce belief or try to protect its own existence)”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/protestprotest/2015/10/would-n-t-wright-be-popular-if-people-knew-his-politics/

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.