Image HT
This afternoon, I am regretting that I did not sooner discover this outstanding Peter Berger post from two weeks ago:
Pluralism, the co-existence of different world-views and value systems in the same society, weakens the certainty with which people had previously held their religious and moral convictions. Minimally, one becomes aware of the fact that other people, who do not seem obviously demented, do not share these convictions—and nevertheless manage to get along in their lives. This awareness makes it difficult to take one’s convictions for granted; now, one must stop and reflect about them. Pluralism has become a global reality. All those “others” keep obtruding…
In religious communities this has led to a quest for the core of the tradition, which is non-negotiable, as against more peripheral aspects which, if really pressed, I might modify or give up. I have used the term “cognitive bargaining” to describe this process…
I think that such a process of reflection is very useful. It has been broadly repudiated as “essentialism” by postmodern theorists. I disagree. Of course some alleged “essences” are poorly chosen, or are devices to avoid the immense complexities of reality. But reflection about core convictions is a healthy, and in some situations an inevitable exercise. Emile Durkheim proposed that the survival of a society depends on the willingness of its members, if necessary, to die for it. This implies that the core of what the society is, that for which one may be prepared to die, can be distinguished from more peripheral or even immoral items (the ideals of liberty and equality, as against the excesses of French colonialism). Every curious child will ask about this or that newly encountered phenomenon: What is this really all about?
the equivalent of “hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one” or “there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet” or the Buddhist four noble truths, “what he thinks Christians actually do hold to be essential, rather than what he himself thinks ought to be held essential.
Some of the evidence he brings for this is fascinating:
He spoke about religious pluralism along the Silk Road, the great trade route between Europe and Asia, which had its heyday in the first millennium CE. Not only were so many religions present and active in the region, but there was a lot of so-called syncretism—mixing of ideas, practices and symbols from these traditions: Manicheism, Christianity (mostly Nestorian), Buddhism, Confucianism, and yet others. I remember that the lecturer showed a depiction of Jesus dressed as a Confucian scholar, one hand raised in Christian blessing, the other in a sign of Buddhist Enlightenment. Often a text begins full of Confucian ideas, then goes on to end as a Buddhist message. The lecturer made the point that there is one item in a text that occurs only in an originally Christian one—mention of physical resurrection.
His point about pluralism is incredibly important. Christian intellectuals are increasingly losing sight of the real origin, nature, and value of religious freedom. “Modernity” has become a swear word in fashionable intellectual circles. Leave it to Peter Berger, as always, to remind the cultured despisers of the bourgeoisie that the 14th century was not the pinnacle of human civilization.
That said, I would add two caveats to Berger’s comments about the resurrection as the (sociological) essence of Christianity.
One, when it comes to the mainline, he is having his cake and eating it, too. It’s clear from what he says that he regards the Protestant oldline as part of Christianity, and even though I’m one of Machen’s Warrior Children I can certainly go along with that for sociological purposes. But the mainline has never treated the resurrection as non-negotiable. As I understand it, this is an essential divide between Rome and “evangelicals” on the one side, and the mainline with its “critical scholarship” on the other.
Two, shouldn’t the crucifixion be in there along with the resurrection? I mean, not merely its occurrence as a historical event, but as the act that secured salvation. If the Buddhists get four essential truths, can’t we at least have two?
I would submit that the Christian focus on the resurrection stems from two sources. One is apologetic. It has long been recognized that if you can get someone to acknowledge the resurrection as a historical fact – to acknowledge that Jesus is currently alive and not dead – it becomes extremely difficult for them to resist all the other claims of Christ and the church. The other is that the crucifixion is implied by the resurrection more easily than the other way around. That Jesus died for your sins does not immediately suggest (except to the well-catechized) that he rose from the dead. But to say that he rose from the certainly dead implies that something momentous was going on in his death, that his death had a profound meaning and purpose.
Go read it.
Interesting articles! I always appreciate your insights.
It seems clear that to the Apostles the essential Christianity is the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension. “God has made Him both Lord and King, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
I would argue that this is one truth (albeit a complex one) and that it’s hard to find any Scripture (either prophesying before or proclaiming afterward) that considers one part without reference to the others – suffering, life and glory.
It worries me, though, that Mr. Berger seems to conflate “essential” and “non-negotiable.” Easter is essential to Christianity, in that without it nothing else makes sense (“If it is for this life only that I have believed, then I am the most pitiable of men.”). However, while this means that “all the other miracles of the New Testament” are of secondary importance, it does not mean that one can be a good Christian disbelieving them. If nothing else, no one can maintain logical consistency while accepting some parts of eyewitness testimony and rejecting other parts of equal reasonable credibility (especially if your reason for doing so is to fit in to the crowd better).
It’s an important exercise to remember the touchstone and keep the right focus, as Mr. Berger demonstrates so clearly with his ending examples of floundering. That shouldn’t mean that everything else is up for grabs. There are several levels of importance in between “the central meaning of everything” and “not worth arguing about.” While so many people are trying to de-claw Christianity, we should be cautious about the intent behind even smallest nail file.
You’ve put your finger on something critical here – how can we maintain a coherent system of beliefs in a context where we can’t insist that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the whole system isn’t a believer? That’s a hard challenge, but it’s better than the old context in which it was all or nothing and people didn’t have any freedom.
I think it’s also made more of a challenge by the nature of God, in that everything relates back to Him. So, it can be hard to figure out which facts are important and which aren’t, and how much an accurate understanding of a small point is holding up a big point. I personally tend to be enthusiastic for finding as much of the truth as I possibly can, so I resent attempts to minimize all discussions to the common denominator. Christian teaching should challenge us to grow to be more like God and to know Him better. Christian charity, on the other hand, should be patient and generous. In practice, that means I recognize that my various Christian friends are Christians, I admire their following of Christ, and when a decision or a question comes up we aren’t afraid to present our best understanding of the truth, even if we disagree.
I’m not sure what “old context” you are referring to: are you thinking more of theocratic governments, or internal church procedures, or something else?
I mean before the rise of the social pluralism Berger describes in his article. You couldn’t be a member of society unless you subscribed to the official religion. If you had doubts you had to stifle them or flee.
I’m not interested in parceling out blame between church, state, etc. for that situation – that was just the way every society had always been run.