I’ve followed Ross Douthat for a while now, well before he became an online and op-ed columnist for The New York Times, one of its few conservative voices and the youngest op-ed writers in the paper’s history. He’s one of the country’s great thinkers, in my estimate. So I was excited with the release of Bad Religion, as Douthat turned his attention away from the subject of politics to religion. What I wasn’t expecting was the rather dour feeling this book left me with. Sort of like watching an autopsy: The clinician (in this case, Douthat) quite ably determines the cause of death. While the cadaver (in this case, American religion), remains very dead.
The focus of the book is the decline of orthodox Christianity and how that decline threatens every level of American society – politics, education, the arts, etc. Douthat’s thesis is simple: America’s problem isn’t too much religion, as secularists have argued; nor is it intolerant secularism, as many on the Christian Right believe. Rather, it’s bad religion: The slow collapse of traditional faith has given rise to a variety of alternative, watered-down, pseudo-Christianities.
Bad Religion is divided into two parts. The first half traces institutional Christianity’s decline and the factors that have contributed to it. Beginning in the 1950s, where religion was still bipartisan and acted as the moral force behind the civil rights movement, through the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s, the co-opting of religion by the Right and the Left, to the polarizing debates of the present day.
A Christian “crisis of confidence” began as globalization spread. With the increase of technology, so came an awareness of other traditions and faiths. Suddenly, truth claims that supported a Christian worldview seemed to wither.
The more the newfound global perspective exposed Americans to non-Western realms and cultures, the more skeptical they became about the idea that their particular faith (whether Protestant or Catholic) could claim to speak definitively for God and truth.
With Christian truth claims sufficiently weakened, the tumultuous 60s opened the door for an embrace of relativism and, what Douthat labels, an “age of accommodation,” wherein the secular and the sacred were conveniently intertwined.
…it was time for Christianity to turn from the supernatural to the natural, from theology to anthropology, and from the Kingdom of God to the City of Man.
This sets up the second half of the book in which Douthat articulates four prominent “heresies” that have pervaded American culture:
1.) The Gnostic Gospels — embodied by Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman, and The Jesus Seminar. The belief that secret texts like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, alternative Gospels, have been suppressed by organized religion.
2.) The Self-Help / Prosperity Gospel – which Joel Osteen epitomizes. A therapeutic gospel which believes in a “formula” for success; that prayer, meditation, positive thinking and positive confession are the key to God-given material prosperity and health.
3.) The God Within Heresy – a synthesis of Eastern religion, Gnosticism, and positive thinking. Books like Elizabeth Gilbert’s, Eat, Pray, Love and Oprah Winfrey are perhaps the best representations of this heresy. A “designer religion” that Douthat suggest is behind the “spiritual but not religious” movement.
4.) The Gospel of American Nationalism – A messianic / apocalyptic faith that deifies the Founders and sees America as a Christian nation with a distinct destiny. Glen Beck is an example of the apocalyptic, the doomsayer who proclaims calamity unless we repent and turn to God. Interestingly enough, both the Right and the Left have their messiahs. On the Right was George Bush who mobilized evangelicals. On the Left is Barack Obama who was hailed as a new leader who would unite the world and bring justice to the oppressed.
I found Bad Religion slow reading, not because it was boring, but because it’s packed with info, quotes, and historical references. Douthat maintains a fairly balanced critique, looking hard at both the Religious Right and the Secular Left. All that to say, this isn’t a conservative tirade.
But I must admit – this book left me rather down. In his conclusion, The Recovery of Christianity, the author assures us
Christianity… must contract before it grows.
Meaning,
…not a renewed engagement with the postmodern world and a more successful quest for relevance, but an extended period of withdrawal, consolidation, and purification.
So while the accommodationists are ultimately “more interested in adapting to the culture than in changing it,” the thinking Christian is willing to bide their time to “withdraw, consolidate, and purify.” Which led me to ask: It was bad theology and bad religion that got us here. But is there enough good theology and good religion to get us out?
Therein lies my like and dislike for Bad Religion.
Not really buying his argument that technological progress has made the Christian faith irrelevant (or whatever he’s trying to hint at). If anything, transhumanism and tech have bolstered this strawman of paganism within our post-Christian society.
Brian, to be clear: Douthat isn’t suggesting that “technological progress has made the Christian faith irrelevant.” Rather, advancing technology has led to globalization. Our growing awareness of other cultures and beliefs has caused some to diminish Christianity’s absolute truth claims. Multiculturalism has been, sort of, a gateway to relativism.
Not going to comment until I dread the copy I just bought. But thanks for bringing to my attention.
Freudian slip? 🙂
Mike, thanks for the clear, succinct summation of the book. I think I agree with a lot of what you’ve presented as Douthat’s views, though I’d have to add to the list of heresies. I certainly agree with the premise: bad religion is the real problem
But in that vein, I think true religion has already contracted. That’s why I don’t think the departure of many is such a bad thing. The fact is, in the churches that preach the word of God–at least the ones I know about–there really isn’t a decline in numbers. It seems, though, that fewer people are attending church for the wrong reasons. Unless they’re involved in one of the heretical groups.
Anyway, your review makes me want to read the book.
Becky
Sounds like an interesting book. I also find it interesting that you put “heresies” in quotes when leading up to Mr. Douthat’s four main points, so that I’m not quite sure whether you agree that they are heresies or not. ;p I agree with him on points 2 and 3, although I’d say 1 is closely related to 3 and could therefore be lumped into the same category. (I don’t have a strong agree/disagree opinion on point 4).
Surprisingly, as of late, Calvinist teachings are a breath of fresh air to me. I think I’m having a knee jerk reaction away from touchy feelie emergent, which has become so saccahrin that it makes physically recoil. I don’t agree with Calvinists on all points, but how nice it is to hear truth stated plainly, even if it’s painful to hear. I’ll take that over wishy-washy half-truths any day. And I pray that I’m one who is brave enough to stand firm as so many others fall away.
Jessica, you’re right. I put heresies in quotes because I’m not sure I agree that they are heresies in the traditional sense. This isn’t to suggest these movements haven’t contributed to the decline of orthodox Christianity, however.
And I concur about Calvinism. I have many Reformed friends. We disagree often, but I appreciate their intellectual rigor. There is such a vast gulf between postmodernism’s namby pamby, hem-hawing, mealy-mouthed, Milquetoast approach to Truth and the neo-Reformer’s black-and-white. I lean to more “grey” in my approach to theology, but not so far as the fog bank that is the emergent church.
“The fog bank that is the emergent church” = I like that!
I never have a problem discussing areas of doctrine with someone that differs with me. From past things written here, I am pretty sure we would butt heads quite a bit over the Reformed faith. However, I picture us with Bibles open and a sincere desire to come to truth together. Wesley and Whitefield never came fully together until they took their place with the redeemed in heaven but neither doubted the common foundation on which they built their lives and eternity.
This new crop of “neo-evangelical-we’re better than the old church” fog dwellers is a different story. Pride in what one does not believe is like being proud of the ability to stand on a mound of jello. Whoever is atop that pile will be swallowed up shortly by the next proud jello king.
My husband and I have had many, many discussions lately about how we have grown tired of Church Plus – church plus politics – church plus these extra laws that make you even more righteous than just following the Bible! – church plus programs – church plus plus plus. We have decided that we are ready to practice “naked” faith in Christ in that we want to strip down the extrabiblical things one tends to pick up in today’s church culture, whether one believes them or not.
I think those four heresies covers the spectrum fairly well. The conclusion is a bit more than interesting to me as my husband has said now for the past 18 months or so that he has felt a recurrent command in his heart and prayer time – “regather”. As a person who has felt a call to minister since I was very young, I have never felt stranger about the right way to do so. I’ve had to just trust God on that – because everything He’s asked me to do in the last couple of years has been a giant, suicidal leap off the church culture gangplank. Like you, I don’t align with the Christian progressives, but I haven’t aligned with the current church culture either. It actually feels good to see someone point out that what that culture has become is far from orthodox. Lately, I have been retracing the writings and works of the Clapham crowd and Wilberforce, who seemed to navigate the world of secularism and awkward church culture better than most.
I may have to give this book a go. Thanks for the review!