Why Christian Evangelization Fails
Epigraph
—————————–
“The greatest danger to Christianity is, I contend, not heresies,
heterodoxies, not atheists, not profane secularism no, but the kind
of orthodoxy which is cordial drivel, mediocrity served up sweet.
There is nothing that so insidiously displaces the majestic as
cordiality. Perpetually polite, so small, so nice, tampering and
meddling and tampering”.
– Soren Kierkegaard.
“Every man is a priest, in so far as he draws others to himself in the field he has made his own and can show himself master in; every man is a layman, in so far as he follows the skill and direction of another in the religious matters with which he is less familiar”.
– Friedrich Schleiermacher.
‘The Good News of life after death isn’t really Good News’
– Damian Tharcisius.
———————————-
Recently a good friend of mine invited me to a prayer service. It was organized by a religious congregation with a decades-long history in missionary and evangelical work. The congregation whilst officially Catholic, with the times, had clearly borrowed a few ideas from evangelical and Pentecostal ministries that have become popular among the faithful. Particularly those who have grown disenchanted with traditional religion. Thus it placed greater emphasis on songs, praise, and that heightened sense of urgency when it came to invoking the name of the Lord.
The service as a whole was alright to start with, endurable during the middle and just bearable by the end of it. But I was used to it. Or rather I had grown tolerant of it. The last time I went to such a service was more than a decade ago. Nothing much had changed since then. At least not on the plus side. The gathering was (much) smaller. The environment, more contained to accommodate the relatively modest group of people that number in the few hundred. A big step down from the few thousand from a decade ago.
One plus point for the day was that we had a special speaker/preacher. A Catholic Bishop from a major city in Australia who headed proceedings. Once the opening songs and worship had ended he gave an hour-long sermon on the topic of evangelization.
Evangelization.
I intended to write an essay on this subject for some time. And in the time leading up to this, I was on the lookout for a religious experience of some sort to provide some perspective and grounding to what I intended to lay out in writing. Having gotten it, this essay is the result.
Why Not ‘Evangelization’?
One of the central facets of Christian life is evangelization. Besides the subject of faith (in God), the need to evangelize is to be one of the central facets of the Christian faith.
Having been raised in a deeply Catholic family, one that involved growing up in religious environs, led to the development of an academic and spiritual interest in subjects that pertain to the divine. Note, that when I say ‘Christian’, I am speaking primarily from a Catholic standpoint; with decent experience of ministries of various Protestant denominations (much of it online).
One thing that I noticed early on was that whenever the subject of ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Christianity’, ‘Faith’ and ‘Religiosity’ was raised, the accompanying message or call, to go out and spread the Good News invariably followed. In many respects, it is impossible to separate the message from the mission. The idea of manifesting the goodness, holiness and presence of God via worship, adoration, study of scripture and fellowship as an end itself is simply untenable unless it is followed, or is based around the idea of going out and sharing the Good News.
Listen to any pastor, minister, or priest when they engage in virtually any topic that pertains to God and you will notice an unmistakable missionary undercurrent. Even when it is not found overtly in the message (that is to tell people the importance of the Gospel, the Church etc.) it pervades the religious experience. That any activity related to God in a Christian sense (Protestant, Catholic or otherwise) must carry with it the goal of extending the message to others who don’t have it.
Now in stating this I am pointing out the obvious. Of course, Christianity is about spreading the Good News about Jesus Christ to the world. Christianity, and its institutional manifestation, the Church, in its very character, is evangelical. This is a point that I will return to later. For now, the reality the faithful rightly take for granted with respect to the inner character of the faith is what I seek to scrutinize. One that is problematic despite its integral character. Despite what our Lord had to say on the subject and what Christian leaders and missionaries and martyrs have done so throughout the ages: to go out and spread the message of the gospel.
The question of ‘why evangelize’ is self-explanatory given the nature of the faith: one that is evangelical. But herein lies the problem. The world has changed. Christianity is not an unknown quantity in most parts of the world. As a global religion and historically a belief system that was advanced as a part of the geopolitical strategy of colonial powers, no corner of the world was untouched by the power, presence and influence of the Christian faith. Or at least the institutions that represented the faith that powered the engine of civilizations that set out to conquer the world.
Meaning, that the task of evangelizing the world has in a sense already come to pass. Hence it is an activity of the past. With the apex of its achievement culturally, socially, institutionally and politically being… empire. The empires that constituted Christendom: European powers that ruled much of the world and sought to subjugate the rest, before their untimely end following the two great wars of the 20th century. The Christian empires had set about and in many ways succeeded in laying the groundwork for a world that was greatly aware of the message that Christ preached and lived.
In other words, the problem with evangelization is that it is done. There is no more need for it. People already know what the message is. People have heard the Good News articulated in quintillion different ways for thousands of years and it is simply no longer appealing to the modern mind. Because the Good News is no longer new. And since it is not new news, it is by definition not ‘good news’.
Understand the point I am trying to make here. I am not talking about the subject of evangelization from the standpoint of the individual a group or even a large community. The problem with evangelization that I seek to explore in the course of this essay is one that pertains to humanity as a collective. Is the process, and underlying it, the goal to evangelize the culture, society, the nation-state and ultimately the world, the correct one? I argue, no.
This is a serious point, considering the fact Christianity is in its very character, evangelical. Thus to challenge the notion that evangelizing as an activity is problematic, and ultimately, as I will proceed to show, works against the development of the faith in the modern world, is a significant one. One that calls into question the very nature of what Christianity is: its institutional character and social function. Which must be reevaluated as it makes its way in an ever-changing world.
Thus the aim of this essay, whilst intended to outline the shortfalls of current evangelical efforts of Catholic and Protestant Churches, is ultimately to develop a broader critique of Christianity as it is today. There is something fundamentally wrong with the Christian faith. The faith as a whole, regardless of denomination, is afflicted by a host of problems that manifest at different levels, that in some ways connect with the subject of evangelization.
The state of the Christian faith today is an unflattering one despite its global presence. The weakness of its institutions, its poor social reach, weak cultural presence and most significantly its economic status as a charity, together mar the belief system as a whole. Factors that logically work into the political dimension of the faith. An area where Christianity, unlike a certain other global, monotheistic religion, finds itself as an utterly disenfranchised force, unable to affect the tides that shape the nature and trajectory of the modern world.
So when we circle back to the subject of evangelization, the problem we are faced with at a critical level is the inability or unwillingness of the leadership of the Church to deal with problems that are internal to the workings of the institution; an institution that has been unable to adapt to the demands of a changing world. Thus how the Church, notably the Catholic one, should go about engaging these social dynamics is a key facet of this essay.
The final point that will I engage in the concluding sections of this essay is the importance of change. This is a tricky subject when it comes to religion, particularly Christianity. A belief system that (somewhat misguidedly) holds to the view of God as unchanging; which is taken to mean the institutions that represent God on Earth also must remain unchanged, or be principally opposed to the idea of change. This is problematic. And indeed it is at the core of many if not most problems the Christian faith is facing today.
From the rise of religiously non-affiliated, the weakening presence of Christian institutions in society, the waning influence of religious leaders in the public square, to the growing invisibility of Christianity as a cultural force in much of the Western world. All of these problems can be sourced to the core issue of the failure on the part of the Christian faith to evolve with the times; with the emphasis placed on evangelization, being a key inhibitory force undermining its evolution.
Why Evangelization Fails... Eventually
The Christian life is supposed to be a missionary one. To follow and live the teachings of God is meant to go hand-in-hand with the idea of going out and spreading the gospel. To make known the teachings of Christ our Lord to an unbelieving world.
The problem with this view is that this has been done many times before. The culture we are a part of, speaking of Western, European, and historically Christian societies have all had their dose of the Good News. In some ways Western culture that traditionally encompassed regions of the world known as ‘Christendom’ was built by and/or emerged from a Christian socio-cultural matrix.
The idea that European history is Christian in its character must not take away from the fact that Europe as a socio-political project came about out of the structure and strictures that were laid down by the ecclesiastical authorities of the time. Notably the Catholic Church. With its institutional construct becoming the spiritual successor to the political remnants of the Roman imperial era.
This is a subject that was dealt with expertly by the historian and political scientist Francis Fukuyama in The Origins of Political Order (1). Atheists and anti-theists routinely castigate the religious by pointing to the history of violence, bigotry, and ignorance that characterized the more religious societies of the past. But they do so while ignoring or being ignorant of the religious roots of the very societies they speak of. An honest reading of history reveals that Christianity was an integral force that enabled the development of modern European polities.
Christianity was an integral force in the emergence and evolution of European societies. Key developments in the history of the West like the Gregorian Reforms, Magna Carta, the Peace of Westphalia, the Protestant Reformation, and the Council of Trent shaped the relationship between the State and the Church and by extension the relationship between the individual and society, and by extension the citizen’s view of the divine and the kind of relationship that resulted. Thus Europe and by extension the Western world; one that is Western in a geographic sense, Christian in a religious sense, and European in an ethno-cultural sense has Christianity in its very DNA.
Since the basis of Western identity contains elements of the Christian religion, the Christian ethos has in a sense become ingrained into the very psyche of the West. That is to say, any nation or society that manifests a European ethnic identity, Christian religious history, or is part of the West’s cultural sphere geographically and by extension integrated at varying levels into the commercial (capitalist) framework, has by definition been touched by the spirit of the faith in Jesus Christ.
Meaning, there is really no need for the faithful to go out and preach in a very literal sense the word of God. To tell people about how great Jesus is; why the Bible is the best book in the world; and the importance of surrendering your life to God. All these religious truisms have in a sense been baked into the consciousness of the people who inhabit these societies. Yes, and that means even if the person or group in question: like a bunch of undergrads doing a business degree in London who have little time for prayer, are not moved by the great sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and what his Resurrection means for humanity, are still subconsciously aware of the Christian message.
This might be a difficult point to grasp. So let me explain it this way. If the world that we live in today is mostly secular, which it is: one where the power and influence of religious institutions, in this case Christian ones, have waned and weakened over time; that would mean the prior efforts at evangelizing the culture have already failed. This point follows logically since Christianity at its core is an evangelical religion. To spread the Good News is built into the very fabric of the faith.
Thus given its evangelical nature, the faith and its institutional dimension, the Church, has been at this since the very beginning. In other words, the Christian faith has never stopped evangelizing the world. But despite its efforts, Western culture has progressively moved in a secular direction.
This state of affairs necessarily raises questions on the efficacy of the Church’s historical efforts to evangelize, particularly since the dawn of the 21st century. Here an observation can be made with a degree of certainty that the current problems involving the secularization of culture, and the growing disenchantment among those in modern cosmopolitan societies towards a religious way of life cannot be addressed, let alone resolved with more evangelization.
Preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ to a culture that was once Christian, but has now turned away from it, is a misdiagnosis of the problem. The weakening of the religious sense in the minds of the faithful in the West points to a deeper issue that first needs to be understood before it can be remedied.
And this takes us to the crux of this essay. The problem with the secularization of culture is not a function of evangelization (i.e. the lack thereof). In some ways the goal of evangelizing, whilst posited as a response to the rise of secular worldviews, is counterproductive for it fails to consider, understand and address the underlying factors and forces that led to the decline of religiosity in the West in the first place.
So what are these factors? What kind of forces at a societal level and at a personal level have contributed to the growing disenchantment among tens of millions across the developed world to move away from religious life? The severity of the break manifested at varying levels from outright atheism to the more hostile form of atheism, known as anti-theism, propounded by the new atheist types; to the countless agnostics who view the idea of God with varying levels of ambivalence. To those who may or may not believe in a higher power, but come to distance themselves from a religious way of life and the promises of heavenly reward, for the idea of having a good time now.
The phenomenon of the NONES: or the religiously non-affiliated is a case in point. The break between God and society is partly a function of the growing personal divide between individuals and religious institutions whose job it is to bring ‘God’ into the lives of people. The ‘de-churching’ that is now spoken about involves people who over time start switching out of religious life for a variety of reasons that range from inconvenience; the lack of acceptance within the congregation; the decline or absence of belief; having other priorities or for political reasons (2).
Taken together the factors that are driving people away from religious life, taking the United States as an example, can be boiled down to a lack of connection, spiritual or otherwise the people are feeling towards their religious group or congregation. Whatever the character or denomination of the Christian institutions, the people who happen to be a part of it over time begin to to feel a sense of disenchantment. One that is propelled by a variety of factors that pushes them away from the congregation and in time from religious life as a whole.
This points to a problem that is internal to the religious institution and is not a fault of the disenchanted believer. And since this happening across denominational lines, understood collectively as the secularization of society, one can infer that this problem is one that is systemic to the faith. In sum, there is something wrong with the state of Christianity in the modern world.
The spiritual aura the Christian faith generates at the level of the congregation is not powerful enough to override the variety of problems and conflicts that people develop over time with the religious construct: its organization, leadership, and mission; with fellows believers, and ultimately with God himself; in relation to whatever that is going on in their personal and professional lives, apart the Church.
The connection between God and man which is mediated by the religious institution (i.e. Church of a given denomination) must be able to compensate and in time remedy the difficulties the person in question is facing in their relationship with God and with fellow faithful and, this is a critical point, in their lives outside the Church. This point takes to the subject of the role of the Church in relation to the desires, goals and aspirations of man.
Life is More than The Church
When you look at the reasons why people choose to move away from religious life, it often comes down to a handful of factors: career, relationships, opportunities (career or relationship-related), lack of interest in the teachings and spiritual norms of the congregation; and relational conflicts involving one or more members. The last point is strongly tied to the strength of the spiritual and emotional connection the person facing a conflict has with his congregation.
If the connection is weak, meaning the person feels he/she has little to lose from leaving the said group, then whatever conflicts one may be facing will be deemed as sufficient grounds to quit the fellowship. It also means the person upon leaving the congregation has some other source of respite, connection, community and importantly, a livelihood. The last point is critical in the analysis of why people leave the Church.
When people make serious decisions in life it often pertains to a handful of factors: health, security, relationships and money. All of this in some way corresponds to work: the way a person makes a living. Now in a religious context if the financial dimension is not intertwined with the commitment one has to his congregation, then the incentive to remain amidst whatever negativity is relatively low.
Conversely, if there is a definite financial benefit to be derived, such as being employed by the organization that runs the congregation, the person in question will naturally weigh the option to leave more seriously. Considering this fact, the reality of people leaving the Church, any Church, can be put into perspective in socio-economic terms. Whilst the point is obvious, its implications need to be understood better.
People leave the Church for a variety of reasons, however, the incentive to do so is reinforced by a lack of connective elements. One of the most profound is productive work and what it implies: a livelihood, a source of meaning and purpose, and the opportunities it provides to meet people and build connections that extend beyond the line of spiritual duty.
This means the vast majority of the people who leave the Church or disconnect from religious life at varying levels are in the camp that does not have a professional connection with their congregation. Speaking of my time in Christian congregations (mainly Catholic), over the years the persons who have chosen to remain steadfast in their commitment to the faith and the cause of the religious group are those who have come to tie their personal and professional identity with it. Meaning, that if the connective element is not financial, it at some level connects with a psychological and by extension social attachment to, not exactly God per se, but the lifestyle enabled by the religious congregation.
In terms of organizational responsibility, the chance for leadership in the group, romantic prospects, and the sense of belonging and purpose the person can develop with and via the congregation that adds value to his/her life in a way that transcends the dimension of faith is key. In other words, the idea of seeking God, worshipping God and experiencing God operates at a different, more grounded, and paradoxically more human level. One that ties them closer to God… Or is it the world?
What keeps the faithful connected to a religious body is the workings of the organization. The duties that revolve around arranging the Church hall, setting up the audio-video equipment, ensuring the congregation has the right environment in which the various functions that make up the religious service are in order etc. Meaning, that the personnel who are more connected with the processes that govern the operations of a particular congregation are also more likely to be faithful, and committed and hence less likely to quit the Church, and in time the faith as a whole.
This state of affairs naturally raises the question, how exactly can the Church, of whatever the denomination, get more of its followership actively involved in its operations? The answer is: only that much. There is a limit to what is essentially a non-profit organization can manage to do. An organization that exists mainly due to the charity of its members who choose to part with their hard-earned money at the weekly collection, on top of any tithe they may or may not be giving.
So the commitment question and underpinning it, the financial dimension gives rise to a circular problem. One where the Church is hopelessly reliant on its members to take an active interest in its services, and in turn value it sufficiently to contribute to its operations. However, it is these very contributions that ultimately help the Church build and maintain the institutions that draw the faithful into its midst.
So, if what keeps the faithful engaged with the workings of the congregation at varying levels is the strength, scope and growth of the institution; but those efforts in turn are predicated on the benevolence of the very faithful the congregation seeks to recruit! Thus the Church is faced with an intractable problem. The Church needs people to grow. But it needs money to finance its operations in order to grow. But this can only come from the faithful it is trying to attract and maintain.
A problem, as the reader can understand, is inherent to the very character of the Church. This takes us to the subject of why people leave the Church in the first place. Apart from whatever spiritual, religious, or transcendental blessing they stand to receive, their life consists primarily of work and relationships that contain personal and professional goals into which the religious dimension must fit. Not the other way around, as much as the religious leadership may think otherwise.
If you take the time to listen to pastors, priests, ministers of the faith and other religious leaders, the emphasis that is placed on keeping God at the center of your life is a recurring motif. That is to keep ‘God’ or what it translates to in practice: the commitment to a religious, or specifically a Church-centered way of life. This expectation whilst understandable from the standpoint of the leaders of the congregation, will be perceived differently and often negatively by the followership because their (our) lives are more than what takes place during a Sunday mass, a Saturday fellowship, a Wednesday prayer service, or whatever number of religious events the community has in store.
In other words, people have commitments. Commitments, and underlying them goals that transcend the aims of the religious community. Commitments that take the form of jobs, families and aspirations that are not particularly tied with, not ‘God’ per se (i.e. the Creator of Heaven and Earth) but with the workings, aims and goals of the religious congregation.
The idea of ‘doing God’s will’ will mean different things to different people. One that would clearly differ from the standpoint of those who have committed themselves to a religious or church-centered way of life against those who chose to operate in ‘the real world’.
This is a broad subject and to help understand it we shall look at an example of a religious group. A Christian (Catholic) congregation that has been on mission for many years; where its members are now faced with a challenging proposition: Does seeking the Kingdom of God ‘first’ mean that everything else will be added unto you?
—
This Catholic congregation had planned a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The journey was a long time coming. For some of its members, it was decades in the making. The pandemic scare and the years of disruption to global travel pushed the eventual date of the journey back by several years. When things finally settled down and the dates, lodging, and travel itinerary were settled, came the war in Gaza.
The conflict in the Middle East, which is still raging on, pushed back travel plans by several more months. Eventually, a new date was settled more than half a year later. The tickets were purchased before the visas were obtained, as it was deemed a requisite to strengthen the visa application; since the faithful in question are from a developing country; and developed nations like Israel tend to take a harder stance on travelers coming from godforsaken parts of the world.
As the visa processing was underway the members of the congregation who had submitted their applications were notified that a considerable sum was needed to finance their short stay (around 10 days) in the Holy Land. Amounting to over $1000. This was on top of the ticketing fair that amounted to a significant price for members of the congregation, who for the most part are not well-off. This meant securing the funds for the trip took a lot out of the faithful in question. Whilst it was a sacred pilgrimage that was meant to be the culmination of a decades-long spiritual journey, its fulfilment ultimately rested on a monetary question.
I am using this example to illustrate a key point. A central one in many ways. In the world of faith, religion, spirituality and ‘God’, it is impossible to escape the cold, hard reality of the real world. One that is characterized by logic and reason. The mechanics that govern human relationships and the institutions they give rise to and their inner workings are invariably ordered by, what is that term? ‘Worldly’ things. Things like money, power and status. The very things the religious, notably those in religious authority routinely downplay, disregard or demonize as it pertains to the spiritual lives of the congregation and the kind of relationship they ought to have with the Lord.
The relationship with God, a specific kind that would come to, or ought to affect their perception and approach towards ‘the things of this world’. The sources of temptations such as the lure of money, the appeal of power, and the desire for recognition are posited as antagonistic to a holy life. But ironically such ‘sinful’ things become the very forces that determine the capacity and effectiveness with which a person is able to operate effectively in the real world, and also in a spiritual one.
Returning to the Israel example, the people in the said Catholic congregation spent decades in service of the Lord: journeying together as a Christian community in prayer and faithfulness; reading and reflecting on the Word; partaking in religious ceremonies and working to order their lives in accordance to the teachings-as it is interpreted and delivered by the leaders of the congregation. However, when the time came to make a big decision in their spiritual life: to make the journey to the Holy Land, they were found wanting with respect to the cost and other requirements for the journey.
Factors that are a function of their citizenship, income level and travel history. All of these factors connect with the financial question. But it is not just money we are talking about: that is having adequate cash to finance the pilgrimage. It is the lifestyle and outlook towards life that wealth brings forth, and the kind of history (reputation) it renders persons in possession of it.
Look at it this way, for a person who has never traveled out of the country, or does not have much of a history of overseas travel to speak of, the prospect of going to a wealthy nation will be a daunting one however sacrosanct the cause. Given the significance of money, and preceding that the kind of career or heritage that is needed to produce or have that kind of wealth, one that enables a person to be able to afford a lifestyle where vacationing abroad is the norm; thus making the prospect of taking on an expensive trip to the Holy Land manageable and realistic.
The question now is, how exactly have the leaders of the said religious congregation aided and empowered the followership to actually attain that kind of lifestyle in the first place?
In the good life, where money, health and status are abundant, which in travel terms would equate to ‘travel miles’, and a passport that showcases multiple top destinations. The question is: how does a person, a religious one who follows the teachings of the Lord, get to this position? More specifically, do the teachings that have been fed into the mind of the believer over the course of many years aid his growth in the financial sphere, and by extension his ability to operate successfully in a world where money, status and power are the measure not only of success, but of survival.
The subheading for the next section of the essay is taken from the famous verse from Matthew 6: 33: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”. Unpacking this will take us back to the Beatitudes, and critiquing that will take us into dangerous territory. Instead, I will next briefly analyze verses 24 – 34 in chapter 6 of Matthew’s Gospel, and connect it with the reality of life in terms of the centrality of money, and its relationship to human well-being.
On Serving God and Money
The only way to not serve money is to have a lot of it.
This is a point I have made elsewhere. In simple terms, the less money you have the more of it you need. Need. That is the urgency with which the use of the money you have in your possession is demanded. To explain, here’s some economics 101.
- Say you have $100 in your bank account. And that is all the money you have in the world. How badly would you value that $100?
- Contrast that with the scenario where you have $100,000. The money you have whilst extremely important, in terms of every single dollar, the value that you attached to it would be lower. After all, losing $ 10 from a lump sum of $100,000 is not a significant loss. However, losing $10 on a total of $100 would be pretty bad.
Thus the only way to avoid this problem is to have more of it. More of that cold, hard cash that virtually every moralist and religious guru under the sun (except for the prosperity gospel guys) deems to be the source of all your ails. However, this presents a problem given the nature of the world that we live in. One that is driven for the most part by market-based relationships, where the value proposition is paramount.
Making money involves skill, application, and determination. In practice, this means work, sacrifice and risk-taking. All of these correspond to a certain state of unease. The sense of something missing in one’s life. Which translates into worry that must be addressed. However, the value of money as a problem-solving, worry-relieving mechanism runs into conflict with Christian teachings:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?” (Matthew 6: 25 – 27).
There are a couple of problems with the analogy that Christ is employing here. The first point is that life is more than food and the body more than clothes bluntly contradicts reality. On a number of occasions, my beloved mother posed the question: ‘Why bother doing anything if not for hunger?’ Meaning, that our actions in the course of the day invariably revolve around how we go about satisfying our basic needs and wants.
To eat one needs food. To have food one needs money. To have money one needs a job or a source of income. When you work this line of thinking forward, by eating, you have the energy to do other things like working and socializing. Eating and drinking are social activities that in turn give rise to the formation of relationships. Asking a girl out on a date involves making the proposition that going to a coffee shop or restaurant is a good way to spend some quality time together.
Eating and drinking are what human beings do. Thus using it as a catalyst to initiate a potential relationship makes perfect sense. Speaking of clothing, particularly in relational terms, how you look and by extension how you present yourself is integral to who you are and how you are perceived by the world. Especially a potential partner.
So the question now is: what is life apart from eating, drinking and clothing? Or more specifically what is life apart from the time, energy and application that we dedicate towards acquiring and attaining the means with which to fulfil our basic needs and wants? Here Christ responds with the example of nature, on how God is able to provide for beasts. But is this implied association between non-human creatures of the Earth and human beings appropriate?
The birds in the sky clearly do not farm, trade or store up wealth, because they do not possess the urge to do so. And when it comes to sustenance, birds, like all living creatures must find a way. Food, water and shelter are not simply given to them. A problem that is notable among carnivorous birds. So the next question is the validity of Christ’s observations: Are they true? Truthful in nature, so that it is relatable to human needs and wants in terms of how they are fulfilled?
—
Take the example of the shrike: an organism that is part of the passerine order of birds. An avian species is known as the ‘butcher bird’ owing to its habit of capturing and impaling its prey on thrones. Its prey includes insects and even small vertebrates like fish. This method of killing its food is also used as a way of storing its meal for future use. And even more bizarrely, this practice of impaling its prey is even used as a courtship ritual by males, who seek to impress prospective mates.
This is a crude example that I have chosen to illustrate the heartlessness of the animal kingdom. But it is a real one. One that extends into other species of birds, land animals, reptiles and beyond. The examples of the sheer barbarism that is characteristic of the world of beasts are many. Among the notable example of the horrors of wildlife is the practice of what can be described as infanticide by male lions of cubs that are sired by rival males. The ‘kings of the jungle’, upon taking over a pride will massacre the cubs of the defeated males, to bring the females into heat and ready for mating.
Male lions lead a hard life from birth to death. With research showing that one in two male lions die in the first year of their lives. Males who survive for a few years more are driven out of the pride upon reaching adolescence (3). Left to wander as nomads, their biggest threat is male lions from other prides.
Taking a step back, the question is how does this harsh reality square with what Christ is saying with respect to the goodness of God the Father as a provider to all living things?
Moreover, the next question is: How exactly does this ‘providing’ take place? The answer is that it doesn’t. At least not in the way that you and I would like to think it does. However, that does not mean that the reality of ‘God providing’ is not without precedent. The Bible in fact is filled with such examples. Events where God provides for the needy, that contrast with the kill-or-be-killed logic of life; or that go against the logic of human life that presupposes hard work and sacrifice.
Following the sacrifice on Mount Carmel where God sends fire from heaven to burn the offering, which is followed by the killing of the prophets of Baal, King Ahab’s wife Jezebel seeks vengeance from the prophet Elijah. Fleeing for his life Elijah enters a place called Beersheba where he is totally exhausted. But an angel of the Lord touches him and provides food and water. Having eaten the food he regains his strength and continues his journey.
A comforting story. But it is not a realistic one. Meaning, these sorts of miracles don’t usually happen. At least not anymore. If God were to take such a direct concern for the welfare of his creation-human beings specifically-then world hunger, malnutrition, and diseases related to dietary deficiencies would disappear overnight. This obviously is not the case.
Now by saying this, I am not trying to attack the goodness of God or the validity of his Word, spoken through Christ. Rather what I am calling for is a deeper evaluation of the things Christ’s says in scripture that are literally taken ‘as gospel’ (i.e. divine truth).
Another such teaching that requires a deeper study is the famous statement on money our savior makes: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6: 24).
If the idea of serving God is contradictory to the idea of serving money, the question is how does one not serve money, given its essential character. Money is integral to virtually everything we do. And considering the fact that serving God through prayer, worship, fellowship and sacrifice does not logically or necessarily produce the desired outcomes, however good, necessary or urgent the request; raises questions on the meaning of this statement. Specifically, one must ask do we even understand what Jesus Christ is talking about when he says we cannot serve God and money?
The Abundance Equation
In the world of business, politics and virtually anything that involves glitz, glamour and fame the examples of people who ruin their lives by falling into an endless moral spiral craved out by money, drugs, sex and corruption are many. In someways it is natural that people (society) focus on these high-class failures and construct this image of how money, power, honor and pleasure correlates necessarily (at leas in time) with moral failure; that in turn translates into breakdown in other areas of one’s life.
This view is strongly prevalent among the religious. Particularly in faiths that place a premium on afterlife and the rewards that await the faithful in heaven. The tendency to draw attention to the dangers that await those who pursue the promises of riches and material comforts follows logically, given the incentive structure that has been built up around a set of teachings on what it means to lead a good life.
What is interesting is that in the modern world: namely the segments of culture that have moved on from or thrown away the religious traditions, a very different kind of worldview is in operation. One where the idolization of athletes, celebrities, entrepreneurs, politicians and in more recent times, ‘influencers’, that revolves around the success the said individuals have attained in their line of work.
‘Success’ that in practice corresponds to, you guessed it: money, power, honor and pleasure. At this point it is important to provide a quick overview of what these things even mean. Given the negative connotations that are associated with these terms one tends to miss the character and the goodness these actually embody. For a fuller analysis of the positives of wealth, joy and success, I would direct the reader to my essay on Why Bishop Barron is Wrong on Happiness.
What the reader needs to understand here is that the good things one stands to receive by way of blessings from God, ironically corresponds to these very (supposedly evil) things. Let’s work through a set of examples that correspond to each of these ‘evils’ or sources of temptation that leads us away from God.
Wealth
Take the example of Mr. Joe. Joe has just been fired from his steady job. He is now unemployed and has a family to provide for. And he happens to be the only person capable of doing so. In such a scenario what Joe needs is a good job. An occupation that provides a decent income with which he could support himself and his family, and maybe as an added bonus, it could be a job that gives him a sense of meaning: a role that correspond to his beliefs and convictions.
Now say that Joe faced with this ordeal confers with a friend about his problem. His friend whilst not in a position to help him directly (i.e. give him a job) promises to pray for him. This is fine. But does the act of prayer directly address the predicament Joe finds himself in? Not really. Whilst prayer could have an effect it is not a solution in itself. For the key factor that can turn this negative scenario around for Joe is money.
So when Joe’s friend proceeds to pray for him, that he would find decent employment, he is requesting God to do something that ultimately correspond to material wealth. So money is still the answer to Joe’s problems. When viewed from this perspective, God’s blessing in its concrete form corresponds to something good in a physical sense. And since money is the instrument that brings forth the good, whatever that leads to it like a good paying job and/or improved career prospects as an actor, writer, singer or heck a politician, all correlates with a blessing from God.
The problem is that the religious tradition, particularly the Catholic and a more biblically literal one, adopts view that posits God and money as mutually exclusive in their function and character. When in fact ‘God’ as a reality can only be understood or experienced in relation to the things of this world that the person can hear, see and feel. The ‘world’ where money is the main arbiter.
This takes us to the core problem with Christ’s message. By telling his followers that they ‘should not worry about life’ and that God would somehow take care of their needs and wants, his teachings engenders a mistaken notion of reality: one where the incentive to learn, work, strive, grow and prosper as a function of human thought and action is disempowered. Where one is left wondering and waiting for something miraculous to happen and for it to happen consistently. as it was in the case of the prophet Elijah, whose life was filled with miraculous occurrences.
This is where the notion of ‘God provides’ comes from. The view that owing to one’s faith and prayer-life, God, through a set of inexplicable/incomprehensible events and circumstances (or miracles) will make the impossible possible. The trouble is, this view is not entirely wrong. As a person of faith one must believe that God can make things happen. Notably in the absence of human will and agency. The trouble however is if one comes to order his/her life around this view it tends to works against human initiative.
The idea that ‘God provides’ is routinely preached within religious circles. Where the congregation is supposed to, and naturally does take comfort from the message that is being advanced. However, the problem here is that persons advancing this message: the leaders of the said congregation are reliant on the generosity of the members of the Church to finance their activities. So when they preach the message of ‘God provides’, what follows this proclamation is the routine collection that takes place on the day of each mass or prayer service. So if you think about it, from the standpoint of the leaders of the religious congregation God really does provide! He does so, because they ask the congregation-real people not a divine entity-to do so.
The trouble for the laity however, is that they (we) don’t have the same luxury. When we are told that ‘God provides’ most of us are left wondering what exactly are we supposed to do next once that belief is internalized? After accepting the message in faith, what concrete steps are we supposed to take so that this Word is actualized in our lives?
The religious tradition remains silent in this regard. There is curious indifference to the plight of the faithful who are left to face the trials of life and overcome the obstacles both personal and professional, in which ‘God’ as a variable is functionally absent or unreliable owing to his mysterious nature. Meaning, the reality of God’s power as it is presented in Scripture, one that is naturally alluded to in making the case for Christ, is no longer felt as an operative force. At least not in a tangible, concrete, and immediately accessible one. This is a point I have dealt with extensively in my essay on The Problem with Believing in Jesus Christ.
Taken together the idea of ‘God providing’ for us is a matter that is not fully understood. This is made worse by the nature of Christian evangelization, one that appears to operate out of a worldview that takes a more literal, or close-to-literal understanding of our Lord’s teachings as far as our material concerns. Giving rise to schizophrenic outlook on life, where the person hopes or expects good things (‘good’ in a material sense) to happen, but then is left perpetually confused since the actual process or effort making trial one must undertake which precedes the positive outcome, is not clearly articulated.
Money does not grow on trees. And divine blessing in their actuality do not follow a clear input – output relationship. If prayer, and underlying it faith, are the only factors required to effectuate desired outcomes, then that overturns the positivistic nature of human relations and the institutions they give rise, and the underlying praxeology: that of human action ordered purposefully for the attainment of desired ends.
In his book the Anti-Capitalist Mentality the Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises engages the argument against the materialistic character happiness. The view that being in possession of material goods like cars, appliances, and a comfortable home does not make a person happy. The problem with this view is that it fails to make a distinction between human well-being which is measurable, against the more abstract concept of ‘happiness’. As Mises explains:
“A man who buys a television set thereby gives evidence to the effect that he thinks that the possession of this contrivance will increase his well-being and make him more content than he was without it. If it were otherwise, he would not have bought it. The task of the doctor is not make the patient happy, but to remove his pain and to put him in better shape for the pursuit of the main concern for every living being, the fight against all factors pernicious to his life and ease” (14).
Notice Mises’s underlying message. Human endeavors are in their very nature problem solving. The drive to pursue challenging goals and attain rewards presupposes the difficulty of attaining them; which in a paradoxically sense services the incentive for people to go after them in the first place by taking the required action. Purposeful action that involves will, ingenuity and the willingness to rise up in the face of failure. This is the natural order of things as far as success in life is concerned: that when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
So when it comes to the question of what God can or cannot do in your life, in practice, for those who choose to order their lives in accordance to the “do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear” what happens is that such persons in time come to let go or downplay the importance of those urges. The very factors that motivate us to take action to better the world around us, are disempowered. Essentially we come to lose a bit of our humanity in the process. And what is left is the steady negation of the self and of life as a whole. Again Mises:
“It may be true that there are among Buddhist mendicants, living on alms in dirt and penury, some who feel perfectly happy and do not envy any nabob. However, it is a fact that for the immense majority of people such a life would appear unbearable. To them the impulse towards ceaselessly aiming at the improvement of the external conditions of existence is inwrought. Who would presume to set an Asiatic beggar as an example to the average America?” (ibid).
Taken literally, there is something fundamentally anti-humanistic about the gospel message as it pertains to the fulfillment of human needs and wants. One that is born of a mismatch between the teaching of Christ about God and his power to do things in the here and now vs the actual workings of the world. The notion that ‘God provides’ in practice appears to imply or better, demand that we downplay or disregard our innate wants and anxieties and the urge to practically engage them. The feelings that stem from the human heart impelling us to take purposeful action.
To read this critically: since the purpose of our lives, as the religious argue, is to book a ticket to heaven, we might as well bury those urges and inclinations and wait for Kingdom come. In the meantime reassuring ourselves that all the good things that we stand to forgo: the things that money can buy and/or enable like healthy relationships are just not worth it. Does this sound like Good News to you?
Joy
Joy is a tricky word. The standard definition of the term relates to the positive feelings a person experiences due to something good or positive in his/her life. And unlike pleasure, which is more action or process-specific, and directly relates to a certain or certain set of physiological, and psychological sensations. Joy in a Christian sense relates to something deeper. The Catholic definition of joy according to a ‘Catholic dictionary’ goes as follows:
“[T]he feeling aroused by the expectation or possession of some good. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Joyful emotions affect the body, but they are essentially in the higher faculties of the soul. [Joy] differs from pleasure, which may affect the human spirit but originates in some bodily sensation” (5).
So a key difference between pleasure and joy is the origin or source of the positive or uplifting sensations/emotions a person may feel. And ‘joy’ as a concept and as noted above, is a ‘fruit’ of the Holy Spirit, one that is central to Christian life. Hence much of Christian discourse on life centers around the idea of having true ‘joy’: the positive emotional/mental state a person can enter by communing with the divine.
The otherworldly nature of one’s mental and by extension spiritual well-being is often stressed by the religious. Often, problematically, as something that operates or exists in contradistinction to the physical nature or origin point of ‘happiness’: That is the positive set of feelings and uplifting emotions a person may feel through acts that produce pleasure.
This is important. This thought process, that of elevating the spiritual or otherworldly nature of joy in opposition to a physical or material one, is central to many aspects of religious life. It becomes the unspoken rule of Christian spirituality. One that everyone knows but is too afraid or ashamed to admit.
To return to the prayer service that I mentioned at the start of this essay, one of its central features is the ‘praise and worship’ part. The idea of giving God the glory through song and prayer accompanied by (loud) music, is meant to elevate the atmosphere to a higher level; and is understood as a way of connecting with the divine. To be filled by the spirit and thus enter into a heightened emotional, mental and even physical state.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the said Christian congregation also affirms ‘faith healing’. The way this process unfolds is that God is believed to inform the worship leaders via ‘words of knowledge’ revealing his healing power that can alleviate various physical ailments of those present. Now I am raising this point not as a criticism or as a way to belittle the power of God or the faith of the people present. I myself, at one point, ‘claimed’ such a word of knowledge (i.e. healing, albeit a minor one) many years ago.
But the reason why this is significant is that the religious in question here are approaching the question of joy, and more specifically the question of human well-being as primarily or solely as otherworldly in nature. With respect to faith healings, which technically qualify as miracles-and admittedly I have my doubts about the efficacy of such healings especially when the ailment in question is severe like paralysis or autism-the concern is that by positing God’s power as something that manifests through prayer, it in a sense negates the physical, the practical, one could say the praxeological character of divine power.
That is the power of God manifesting or working through human ideation and action. On the subject of serious illnesses, humanity over the past few centuries has made tremendous strides in curing, treating, controlling and/or limiting the effects of various ailments. Whilst total cures for diseases like cancer and Parkinson’s disease currently remain beyond the reach of medical science, however, they are no longer so deadly or untreatable. Humanity as a collective entity is closing in on ways to stop, prevent or limit the most deleterious effects of these ailments. And in time possibly eradicate them.
This by the way is a common feature in science fiction works that prognosticate on future history. In such yarns, humanity upon reaching a certain technological threshold is able to overcome virtually all maladies and is even able to stop or reverse the effects of aging. A worldview that stems from the trust in the inexorable march of science and the sophistication of the culture that houses it.
The trouble is the religious worldview, the particular one that centers human well-being as an output of God’s power manifesting in the world, one that is made possible by ‘spiritual actions’-human endeavors that are fundamentally orientated towards the heavens rather than the Earth-is that it renders actions aimed towards the material or worldly goods or outcomes as necessarily problematic or less worthy. This includes practical steps and applications that can improve conditions for human life.
I am reminded of the example of this chap, a man in his late thirties who complained about back pain that had lasted for a week or so. He looked visibly concerned, and when inquired he mentioned the pain had subsided but there was still a bit of unease in the lower back. If it helps this took place in a religious gathering. When another person asked if he had visited a Dr. he said ‘no’. And since this was a gathering that was known for its belief in faith healing, it appeared he was waiting for something along those lines. The question: is this course of action wise?
Returning to the question of ‘joy’ in the Christian tradition there is a view, a legitimate one that pervades the faith, which is the idea that no matter what happens in life, the center of your world must be Jesus Christ. Meaning, that in good times and in hard times, your true self rests with and finds its strength in the Lord. The old hymn: How Can I keep from Singing captures this sentiment:
‘No storm can shake my inmost calm while to that Rock I’m clinging.
Since Love is lord of heaven and earth, how can I keep from singing?
The peace of Christ makes fresh my heart, a fountain ever springing!
All things are mine since I am his! How can I keep from singing?’
This is a perfectly acceptable belief. One which I affirm but struggle to keep. The trouble however, and this is stated clearly in the hymn, is that by centering ourselves in Christ, and being somehow satisfied or comforted through our (mystical) union with him, it potentially takes our minds away from real, concrete, worldly, actionable measures that can provide real remedies to whatever that is causing the storms, and heartaches in our lives.
Critical on the question of joy and its otherworldly or non-material nature is the subject of pleasure. A subject and reality that the Christian tradition, particularly the Catholic one, has shied away from. The Nietzschean critique that Christianity had poisoned the erotic dimension of life, whilst not entirely correct, is not without a grain of truth.
Besides hymns, a key facet of Christian spiritual life, again particularly in the Catholic tradition, is the veneration of Saints. The lives of Saints feature strongly in the imagination of those who embrace a religious way of life. Whose life (or lifestyle) is characterized by prayer, penance, worship, meditation, adoration, and sacrifice. In practice, this entails the adoption, at varying degrees, of the virtues of chastity, poverty and obedience.
These principles are the guiding force for those who embrace, what can be characterized as a church-centered life: the clergy, the lay ministers, preachers and virtually anyone who commits his/her time-the time that can be otherwise spent towards material endeavors-towards advancing God’s Kingdom through evangelization. However, the applicability of these teachings for the faithful as a whole is a question mark.
This takes us to one of the major hurdles that limit the development of the Christian faith at many levels. That is the perceived incongruity between living a fulfilling spiritual life and the desire to have a materially and physiologically fulfilling one. A conflict that is most evident when it comes to the subject of sex.
Evangelization’s Anti-Male Spirit
Whilst the New Testament has a lot to say on the subject of sexuality, notably on the dos and don’ts of acceptable conduct, it has very little to add to the debate concerning the nature of human relationships outside or beyond the context of marriage.
If one looks closely at the teachings on sexual morality, outside the condemnatory tone that is so dominant, notably in the writings of St. Paul, very little is said about the dynamics of male-female relationships. In fact the idea of human intimacy outside its procreative and institutional (marital) facets is simply ignored or downplayed. In the first book of Corinthians St. Paul’s teachings on marriage and sexuality are noteworthy:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. [..] Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows, I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7: 8).
Notice how St. Paul makes the jump from the subject of sex to marriage. How the potential problem of sexual dissatisfaction or frustration and the danger of temptation are collapsed together under the heading of marriage. Going as far as to assume that the idea of getting a wife, was akin to signing up for a club membership so that you can vent your excess energies in whatever games of your choosing.
Whilst this characterization may seem cynical and simplistic on my part, it is worth noting how little attention St. Paul, and by that measure, even Christ himself gave to the subject of relationships. Notably on the subject of ‘joy’ as an output of productive, fulfilling relationships in the sexual and romantic sense. Whilst sex is a significant part of marriage, the relational dynamics that precede and underpin long-term relationships are not engaged. One could say for obvious reasons; since Christ and the Apostle Paul are inexperienced in this arena. Yet the problem remains.
Further, St. Paul by elevating the role of marriage as the institutional framework within which sexual intimacy can take place fails to consider the positive, uplifting, elevating and empowering character of relationships that encompasses sex, romance, sensuality along with the foundational sensibilities upon which meaningful heterosexual unions, married or otherwise, are based on: trust, respect and value. That is the value that is attached to one’s potential partner. A value that is predicated on numerous social and economic factors that presuppose the formation of the relationship.
In April 2022 Scott Galloway, a clinical Professor in marketing from New York University wrote an opinion piece for CNN titled: The Most Dangerous Person in the World: A Young Man Who’s Broke and Alone. In it, he draws attention to the subject of men failing in modern society (6). A well-known subject at this point in time. A matter highlighted in recent years by the likes of Jordan Peterson and before him, Warren Farrell.
I will not delve deeply into this matter here, one which I have engaged in the essay: Why Men Matter. Suffice it to say that men as a group in the West are not doing so well, at least in contrast to the opposite sex at a socio-economic level. One that translates into weaker markers in other areas of life, like health and longevity. This development is especially interesting considering how feminism continues to be all the rage in the English-speaking world. Talks of gender equality (i.e. better outcomes for women as a group) crowd out any room for discussion on matters that pertain specifically to men.
Whilst there are various pro-men or ‘men’s rights’ groups out there in the West, these movements are sub-cultural: meaning they occupy a fringe position in society, and are generally viewed with a degree of suspicion, if not hostility by the dominant voices in culture. Voices that tend to be pro-feminist, and in some respects anti-man. At least the traditional heroic, heterosexual, masculine conception of manhood. In his article, Galloway defines masculinity as:
“It’s choosing skills to aggregate strength, power and influence, such that you can protect and advocate for others” (ibid).
This is a compelling take on masculinity. Especially since the resource question (wealth) and the status question (recognition) unite to manifest a socio-cultural persona to which success becomes the endpoint. It is no longer simply about a man being able to provide for himself and his family, but it is about his ability to go forward and contribute to the wider society in order to help build a better world.
Returning to St. Paul’s teachings on sex in relation to marriage, the great expounder of the faith by focusing solely on its ‘liberating’ or ‘temptation-negating’ function, fails to consider the social, economic and psychological dimensions of human sexuality.
If one speaks of joy in the modern world, the main problem with men in relation to women and their sexuality is not marriage. This is a downstream issue. The real issues are loneliness, isolation, frustration and the sense of powerlessness men have or feel they have over their lives. Addressing these problems will require concrete steps to be taken as it relates to, you guessed it, material questions. Which build on and in turn are driven by physiological needs and wants. That in turn works into relational and aspirational questions of life. The very drives the religious tradition belittles.
So the answers to life’s material and relational problems cannot be fixed by cultivating one’s spirituality. Not directly anyway. Embedding oneself deeper and deeper into the practices that shape our spiritual lives: prayer, fasting, continence, meditation and praise do not directly relate to the actions one must take, and preceding that, the mindset one needs to have to accomplish specific goals and objectives in life that can alleviate the pains, fill the void, and produce peace of mind.
‘The decline of men’, if one is to speak in such terms, is pertinent in a paradoxically spiritual sense. For it builds on the harsh fact that life for most men is an inescapable quest for survival. To make a living, to build yourself physically, to grow mentally and to rise in stature among your peers. These things do not come easy. But they are the very precursors for living a good spiritual life that the religious seems to ignore.
Returning to Scott Galloway and the point about masculinity, the virtues that are upheld by the religious are their characteristically non-material, otherworldly nature, which runs counter to the rational, logical, purposeful, goal-oriented thinking and acting that is needed to succeed in life.
Success
Success. The element that is missing in the Pauline equation of serving God and the Christological conception of human happiness. Much of Christian life revolves around the idea of worshiping God, praising God and serving God. However, very little is said on the subject of human well-being.
That by doing spiritual things (worshiping, praising and serving) we somehow logically stand to gain whatever good that we are seeking in this life, is an underlying assumption the faithful carry within them. For that is what scripture, as per the “do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear” teaches. But is this belief accurate? For it is not clear that people who do choose to not just believe, but actively dedicate their lives to doing God’s will, stand to gain in a material and relational sense.
The doctrine that by seeking ‘first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well’ does not stand to reason when one looks at the nature of how material things that are deemed to be of value are produced, marketed, supplied, and acquired. In economics, a distinction is made between economic goods and free goods. Economic goods are the output of resources of varying levels of rarity. The production of such goods (e.g. books, smartphones, cars) entails a cost for the producer, and hence a purchasing cost for the buyer or consumer. As opposed to ‘free goods’ which entails no marginal cost or the change in total production cost from producing an additional unit. Examples of free goods include air, sunlight and rainwater.
Now when it comes to the blessings that Christ speaks of in his ministry it is not clear if such divine endowments with real-world value will be received as a reward for one’s faithfulness, and it is also unclear how exactly God intends to provide ‘all these things’. But what is clear when one speaks of the working of the modern world is that material rewards do not come freely because they are economic goods that naturally incur a cost. And the cost problem that can only be addressed by a financial solution.
It is at this point the mismatch between Christ’s teachings, miracle-working vs the logical, systematic character of the modern world, that was engaged under the heading of ‘Wealth’ comes into play. Note, the problem with money more often than not is not too much of it, but the lack thereof. The Christian tradition whilst upholding the principle of charity (giving things away without expecting anything in return) subconsciously seems to work against the economic logic that governs human relations that places primacy on the exchange of value.
Whilst this is not a problem itself, after all certain types of goods: public goods (roads, infrastructure) and merit goods (subsidized health care, education) notably defy the market logic that predicates everything on price in relation to demand and supply. But since we are unclear of the exact mechanism by which God’s blessing that features in a material dimension: financial welfare, health, security etc. operates, the faithful are then left with nothing more than the Word: that is the many promises that God gives the faithful as outlined in scripture for serving him faithfully. However, these remain just promises.
Whilst this does not mean that God’s promises do not bear fruit in the fullness of time, the trouble is they are unreliable and do operate according to a set or predictable timeline. Moreover, given the prevalent antipathy towards wealth, riches, laughter and comfort that characterized Christ’s Earthly ministry, as we shall see in the next section, an argument can be made that the faithful in fact do not stand to gain any ‘of these things’. At least not in adequate amounts. That is in abundance.
The Gospel is Good News for Losers
Or would be Losers. In Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount when Christ speaks of the blessing to come, he also, rather ominously speaks of the ills that await those who are wealthy and joyful in the present:
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets” (Luke 6: 24 – 25).
Here I am reminded of a conversation I had with this bloke at the prayer service I mentioned earlier: When the religious (prayer leaders, preachers etc.) proceed to point out and isolate the sources of evil, they naturally cast their eyes towards material things. Things which stimulate our senses. Things that are connected to our physiological needs and wants and can potentially turn us away from God. However, what is greatly ironical is that when such people speak of God’s blessings, gifts and rewards these ultimately correspond to, or are manifestly material in their nature or outworking.
Take the example of miraculous healing. When the faithful in a congregation pray for the cure of a serious ailment, the request, whilst seeking the aid of the transcendental, in its Earthly manifestation takes on a physical form. The cancer, heart disease, infection or neurosis are all ultimately corporeal in nature, that require the rejuvenating touch of the divine.
Jesus’s ministry is notable in this regard. Not only did the Lord preach the Good News about the Kingdom but he gave the faithful a glimpse into its splendor and uplifting character by healing the sick, feeding the hungry and even raising the dead to life. Even the act of casting out evil spirits, which some would interpret as an adage for mental health conditions, involved addressing the psychopathology of the said person. The act of casting out demons was to heal an underlying neurological or neurochemical imbalance. By doing so Christ paved the way for the afflicted to go forward and lead a better (i.e. materially fulfilling) life.
So when one speaks of ‘God’s blessings’ in a practical sense these ultimately correspond to material needs and wants. Whilst the evils of money are often touted by the religious, but when it comes to the many hurdles the faithful face in life, almost all of them contain a material (i.e. financial) dimension. So when the preacher says that one must rely on God’s strength and providence as opposed to one’s own, the person on the receiving end is faced with a quandary on the exact course of action he/she ought to take.
Does believing in God, trusting in God’s providence, followed by the choice to act or not act (that is to not rely on one’s own strength, capabilities, resources, networks) mean that God would somehow make good things happen in your life? The answer to this question is not clear, and arguably it was never meant to be.
It is in this gray area of uncertainty, where there is no clear connection between thought, faith, planning and action where God is believed to operate. However, the uncertainty that logically results from this kind of thinking (i.e. a faith-centered way of ordering life) leads to over-thinking, carelessness, indecisiveness, and in time engendering a dissociative outlook on life.
Returning to the example of Christ, whose life is held up as the paragon of good and holy living; the core of which is to trust God’s power and to not rely on one’s own powers. But the trouble with this view, one that I have engaged at length in the essay on The Problem with the Biblical Jesus is the disempowering effect it has on the psyche of man. The faithful who preach the message of God’s power, relying on his strength, his grace, and his wisdom fail to make the connection on how such a belief in the divine relates to human action. Critically on how, or whether it relates to the aspirational character of the human spirit.
Further, what is missing in the evangelical equation on the message of trusting in God’s power as opposed to our own, is a grasp of the Maslowian Hierarchy in the structure of belief. On how a person chooses to order his/her life in relation to the beliefs and doctrines of the faith, there is a discernible void that exists. One that does not comprehend the ascending nature of human needs and wants. The problem with the Christian faith, as it relates to the centralization of Jesus’s life as this perfect example for humans to follow, in practice becomes anti-humanistic.
For now, it appears that belief in God in relation to our own personal and professional goals, which correspond to material, relational and physical needs; that include good health, and God’s own ability or disposition to address them independent of human initiative is akin to dealing with a genie in a lamp. The only problem is that the wish-granting genie in this case is God, who may or may not grant what we seek, however good or justified the need is.
Because the presence and power of God in a concrete sense, as one who can bestow blessing and provide for our needs is not real in a physical sense. Hence, one would logically argue, that these gifts and blessings are not always forthcoming and cannot be relied upon. This is the mindset of the masses in Western, post-Christian societies.
When the preacher says that ‘God has done great things in my life’ the listener is left to ponder the exact nature of such ‘great things’. And more critically what exactly did the preacher has done to receive it? Whilst the tendency is to associate these positive outcomes in life with God’s graces, the fact remains that you and I know that nothing in life that is of value comes easily or freely. Including relationships.
Getting the girl you have a crush on to notice you, engage you in a meaningful conversation, view the prospect of a date positively, share her number, go on a date, and for the date to go well enough that there is hope for something more all requires work. Work that can be broken down into time, money, and initiative. Praying to God, and trusting in God can certainly help but it does not preclude human action. And preceding that the urge to go out and pursue the things one’s heart desires.
Returning to the Maslowian Hierarchy and the ascending character of human needs and wants, a problem emerges when one follows the framework of belief where relying on God’s strength is viewed in isolation. Notably as an act of the will that downplays, negates or potentially works against human action.
The final stage of the hierarchical pyramid propounded by Abraham Maslow is self-actualization. This refers to the full realization of an individual’s potential. It is a stage in the life of a person where he/she is able to fully or almost fully showcase their talents and abilities in a way that is fulfilling to them and also beneficial to society.
Building on the foundation set by the fulfillment of the needs and wants that came before it, the concept of self-actualization essentially ties together the growth dimension that is integral to the positive psychology of human motivation-that which drives us as opposed to what keeps us down (psychopathology). This view enables human beings to look at their desires, urges, and aspirations as voids that need to be fulfilled. As projects that need to be completed and goals that need to be attained. One that requires a consistent commitment to constructive thought, learning, application, measurement of results, re-calibration and reapplication until the desired goal or outcome is achieved.
The sense I have of the religious worldview is that it does not One: cater to the inner logic that guides human nature, one that is aspirational in its outlook; Two: It does not wish to understand it, and often regards it as a threat to spiritual life; or Three: It is unable to understand it. To explain this problem let us return to the problem of the Church as an organization that is reliant on the generosity of its followers to keep its operations and itself as an institution, afloat.
The example of the Israel trip that I mentioned earlier; at one point during the preparations for the journey the interest of an external party, a relative of mine, in the prospect of joining the pilgrimage became known to one of the leaders. He is an itinerant, and Catholic priest who has been a part of the congregation for many years. Upon learning of the said individual’s intent, he stated that it was not possible for someone from outside the community to enter. However, he mentioned that if that person could lend their support financially to their efforts, it would be much appreciated!
The perennial problem with Christian evangelization, irrespective of denomination, but most visible in the Catholic world, is that the governing apparatus of the Church, inclusive of the people who run it is hopelessly reliant on the very same faithful they are meant to minister to and in some respects provide for.
If the pathway to a closer relationship with God entails making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, then the leadership of the Church ought to be in a position to make possible the means necessary for the faithful to make that journey. Instead, the faithful, who by the way have been indoctrinated over the course of years or decades on the dangers of money, and the temptation of wealth and comfortable living, are now left to find those very means to effectuate the desired outcome.
Worse, the costs incurred by the religious hierarchy in terms of their maintenance and lifestyle, the leadership that preaches and proselytizes the faithful on the evils of money are sustained by the very contributions of the materially disempowered souls. This gives rise to a circular problem where ‘God’ as a reality is approached by the lay-faithful in a principally negative light, since the reality of God in human life is viewed as antithetical to material comforts, and preceding that the work and ingenuity it presupposes.
This inner contradiction that lies at the heart of the Christian faith gives rise to a state of mind among the faithful, who are on the one hand made to view God as good, loving and gracious but then are compelled to view the good things in life that money can buy or bring forth as sources of temptation or coming from Satan himself!
The logical result of this incongruity is that some, and nowadays speaking of the cosmopolitan West, many, come to view ‘God’ or what God is supposed to represent: poverty, chastity, and obedience; or in more realistic terms: privation, loneliness and servitude as evil. Which in turn, again quite logically, compels them (us) to view ‘God’ as…. Evil!
So what happens to the many religious who choose to embrace this rather twisted, but widely operative worldview? This is a difficult question to answer. Since it strikes at the heart of the faith: its anti-materialistic and by extension anti-humanistic character. This indicates there is something wrong with how Christianity works, and going deeper, with what Christianity is. A problem that has not been addressed (arguably till now) and certainly not resolved.
So what now? Well, the following explanation only addresses a fraction of the problem, but it is a start. What happens is that many believers come to hold two views with varying degrees of zeal: one about God and the hereafter and how it relates to the material world; and the other regarding wealth, work and relationships and how these, in turn, relate (positively) with the idea of God despite what is preached at the pulpit.
The faithful, since they are being told to believe that Earthly joys and material upliftment (which are interconnected) are bad, immoral, sinful etc. And hence are supposed to rely on God’s promises, blessings, graces, and rewards; which in practice entails the faithful not relying on their own strength, knowledge, capabilities and resources. This is where the famous verse from the gospel of John comes in:
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me, you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (John 15: 5 – 8).
There is a lot to unpack here but the gist of the problem with this teaching relates to the question of man’s relationship with God and his relationship with ‘the world’: himself, relationships, career, self-actualization goals and the institutional environment that underpins these. A relationship, at least at a subconscious level, involves a trade-off.
A trade-off that takes the form of accepting the value of faith, and religious life in terms of the psychological benefits it confers either directly (through prayer) or indirectly through communal life combined with the frank recognition that in order to have anything of value: wealth, relationships (pleasure), security (status), he would have to work for it. The ‘toil’ factor is recognized but internalized at only varying levels of intensity.
Meaning those who believe that they ‘remain in’ Christ, and thus reckon are able to “ask for whatever” they wish, and the Lord will grant it; naturally come to value their own skills, aptitudes and ultimately themselves, less. As opposed to those who do value their skills, aptitudes, willpower and critically their dreams as significant, in time come to lose interest in the idea of ‘remaining in’ Christ. The men and women of the world who wish to make their way in life and shape their own destiny, in time, disconnect with the idea of being connected to Christ as a branch.
Not that there is anything wrong with being united with God through Christ. Rather the problem lies with the unwritten, but undeniable condition that it is supposed to entail. One that is preached endlessly by the clerical class: that following God in practice entails the negation, loss and/or self-denial as far as material, sensual, and existential questions of well-being that matter so much to man.
The consequent effect of this message, rather than weakening the resolve of the faithful who are oriented towards material upliftment, attracts those who are not committed to the process of learning, working, applying and growing in the pursuit of success in the real world. A life of toil in other words. A life that comes with the potential for great reward, becomes the unreachable ‘sour grapes’ for those lacking in ambition, determination and grit; who in turn become the main adherents of this life-negating message.
That by ‘remaining in God’ a person somehow stands to receive ‘whatever’ he/she ‘asks for’ rings of a genie and the lamp type of relationship with the divine. The only problem is that the wish-granting, or in Christian parlance, the ‘blessing bestowing’ nature of God is not a given, with the input-output relationship between prayer and answer in the material, physical and relational sense often not forthcoming, at least not in the way one may hope for owing to the ‘mysterious’ nature of God’s goodness.
Nonetheless the faithful, specifically those who are not disposed towards working for the said reward, persist with this belief. Thanks at one level, to the psychological comfort it brings. That God will somehow provide at some point. Returning to what our Lord said, the many woes that are supposed to befall people who are having it good at the moment. Such statements make little of the work, ingenuity and sacrifices that need to be made in the first place for the person to be able to:
Be rich,
Be comfortable
Be well fed
Be joyful enough to laugh
And to be a person of high social standing.
The dismissive way in which Christ downplays the good things of life and posits the inverse (i.e. of those who are enduring their negatives) as good, is contradictory to human nature. Not the ‘sinful’ aspect of it, but rather the healthy, aspirational one. When one learns of others who are rich, recognized, and respected the right response is to want to be like them. To learn what they have learned, to emulate their example and to accomplish what they have accomplished. Rather than tearing them down.
Interestingly, this is one of the features of celebrity culture. Which, despite its apparent superficiality is actually a manifestation of the deep yearning of the human heart to want, desire, and work towards something better. But the message that Christ seems to advocate appears to go against this impulse. One could say that Christ is being a revolutionary in advancing this message, yet it remains problematic owing to its incongruity with the aspirational character of man.
This now takes us to the actual content of what is preached or evangelized by the faithful as they seek to bring the Good News of Christ to the world. One that begs the question: Is the Good News of Jesus Christ, really Good News?
The Problem with Preaching the Kerygma
Christian evangelization is centered on the doctrine of the Kerygma. The central message of Christianity: That God who so loved the world, and us his greatest creation, sent his son into it to be a living example. The perfect man, who in his time would teach us, heal us and then eventually die for our sins thus paving the way for eternal life.
This is the message that rolls off the tongue of every preacher, teacher, cleric and evangelist of the faith. It is the kernel of Christianity and thus is a critical part of any activity that involves the teaching of the faith and the works that revolve around it. But the problem is that the Kerygma, despite its profundity, is ultimately an impotent one in light of the wants and expectations that characterize the psychology of the modern man or woman.
The Good News of Jesus Christ, in light of the challenges, goals, heartaches and aspirations that occupy the minds of the faithful living in post-industrial societies, does not resonate with them as it does with those who are tasked with advancing the message in the first place.
An argument can be made that this message of hope, joy and deliverance that defines Christian evangelization is not viewed as good news at all. The Good News that is contained in the Kerygma that is pronounced all across the world, but particularly in the secularizing West, under the heading of the ‘new evangelization’ is not perceived as good news. But rather, provided it is not viewed indifferently and dismissed altogether as it is the case with the agnostic masses, it is viewed as bad news.
The Bad News of Good News
I pose the question again: Is the Good News of Jesus Christ really good news?
When one considers the message of forgiveness of sins, deliverance from Satan’s power, and a pathway to heaven, these sound good but only as far as the eternal questions of life are concerned. That is to say, the factors that constitute our spiritual life in terms of their reward-and-punishment framework, and hence operate on a spectrum that is otherworldly in character. To such an extent that in the minds of the masses, these promises rob of people of the power and urgency to go out and fulfill their goals in life.
When one speaks of Christian spirituality, take the example of the average person who decides to go to a Church or congregation. He/she is doing so for a variety of reasons. Such as the need to find an answer to a question; a solution to a problem; or to find some respite from the trials they are facing in life. In other words, the main draw of religious life is the promise of ‘good news’ but not the one that is necessarily preached.
Here I am reminded of this Catholic preacher, an Italian; a serious man, with a long history in evangelization, who once detailed the event where some members of his congregation from his homeland went out into the open. Going to parks, cafes, along the roads; basically anywhere, and engaged people randomly, telling them about Christ.
On one occasion they encountered a forlorn man sitting in a park. The members proceed to speak to the man, telling him about God and the Good News of Jesus Christ. As they spoke, the evangelist explained, the sad-looking man kept his head down and listened, and once they had finished he looked up and said that he was a person who had grown sick of life, and had decided to end it, and was planning to hang himself on the nearest tree that very day. But their message had given him a reason to live.
There are a number of takeaways here. The first one is that the Christian message of God’s enduring love for his creation is a positive one. One that naturally evokes a sense of hope and possibly even joy in the hearts of those who receive it. The trouble however lies in the sustainability or long-term appeal of this Good News.
The message of hope that there is an almighty God who loves us, cares for us and critically, as the Christian faith claims, has chosen us (rather than us choosing him) gives the person on the receiving end a sense of direction and in time, possibly even a sense of mission. In fact, many people who claim to ‘be saved’ often refer to this very state of mind. Where there is a paradigm shift, as the person starts living as a chosen, redeemed son or daughter of God, believing that he/she now is a new creation.
This is all good. But the trouble however lies with the question: what happens next? That is, once the message of hope, and the short-lived sense of spiritual elation wears off, what happens to everything else going in the person’s life? Here we are talking of the countless people who are lost, hopeless and depressed. What happens to the many problems, hurdles, and shortcomings internal and external, mental and physical that such individuals (the majority of humanity) are facing in their lives? Do they all magically disappear or get resolved overnight? If ever.
Sufficiency of Grace – Insufficiency of Remedies
It goes without saying that if your life is perfect, then your need for not God, but rather what God can do for you; or what you think God can do for you, will evaporate. In many ways, it is our problems that bring us closer to… God? Or is it religion? The two, whilst deeply connected are not exactly the same.
God is an incomprehensible being. Whose ways and thinking are far beyond our own. Religion, in this case Christianity, makes the claim that God’s word, and thus the nature of his mind has been revealed to us in scripture. And via the institution of the Church (of whatever denomination) asserts its claim to know the will of God by way of its interpretative powers, and the tradition and authority that results from or underpins it.
However, the Gospel is not God. And God’s powers to heal, provide and uplift are not limited to the workings of wonders and miracles. In fact, an argument can be made that God’s power manifests itself through human skill and ingenuity. The many solutions that the world of experimental and applied sciences and the wealth-creating potential of the market economies and problem-solving institutions of representative governments indirectly manifest God’s power working through human hands.
This brings us to the central factor that defines man’s relationship to God: the imperfect nature of life. Human life is far from perfect, and the inadequacies and disappointments that characterize human life drive men towards their maker. So if the problems, trials and ordeals of life are what brings us to God, then their resolution will quite logically mean the negation of God, or better the religious life that promises to give you the very solutions to the problems that you are looking for.
Returning to the example of faith healing that I raised earlier, if people spending time at a Christian congregation are going there partly with the hope that their physical ailments, including very serious ones like cancer, can be miraculously cured; or their personal problems like poor career prospects will find resolution through divine intervention, then such congregations would grow rapidly to a point where such feats would make the news. But this is not happening.
The decline of Christianity in the West is a very real one. It exemplifies the growing disenchantment people feel towards religious congregations and what they have to offer as far as, and this is the critical point, their Earthly considerations. Which are of course physical, financial and relational.
The Good News of Christianity: of God sending his Son into the world to save us from the effects of Sin, and paving the way for eternal life, is a message that sounds increasingly alien in relation to the economic, social, and psychological demands that correspond to our Earthly condition. Whilst the religious will likely dismiss these realities and the related urges that stem from the human heart as the effects of Sin, the perverting effects of materialism, and the lies of a Fallen world.
However, such arguments are deeply flawed and often hypocritical. As they fail to consider the very functioning of religious congregations and the livelihood of its leadership. Which rests on the economic potential of the folk to whom it preaches the evils of money, power, pleasure and honor. The very ‘evils’ or sources of temptation that in many ways correspond to human well-being, including healthy relationships and good health. This inner contradiction at the heart of the Christian message is what drives a wedge between the believer and the Church, and later between the believer and God.
The divide between God and the Church is a subject for another time matter. The concern here is how the relationship between the believer and the Church-that is institutional construct that is supposed to represent God on Earth-weakens and eventually breaks down owing to incongruities that exist at the core of the faith in relation to the desires that stem from the human heart that aren’t necessarily evil.
This divide pushes the faithful at a subliminal level to move away from institutional religion towards a more personalized faith. One that is more ‘spiritual’ or individualized in nature as opposed to outwardly ‘religious’. It is a more ‘worldly’ spirituality that then grows in the minds of the masses, particularly those who are driven by existential questions, and physiological urges (i.e. men and women who recognize the ascending nature of human needs and wants). The kind of people who are less enamored by the grand promises of divine grace, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and the Salvation of souls.
All of these metaphysical gifts that Christianity upholds and advances as the great rewards that await the faithful, over time begin to look distant, impractical and eventually unappealing to the modern, Western (or Westernizing) mind. A mind that is oriented towards material upliftment, relational fulfillment and social recognition.
At this point when one looks at Christianity as a positive, uplifting force in the lives of the faithful, we are confronted with a negative in relation to the promised good. St. Paul’s famous words on the sufficiency of grace are pertinent here.
“Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12: 7 – 10).
Did you notice it? The power of Christ as St. Paul understands and articulates is not a corrective, healing, or uplifting force. It is at best a band-aid. One that cannot heal, cure, liberate or rectify. The argument St. Paul makes, that Christ’s power is made perfect in human frailties and inadequacies, seems to imply a perversely symbiotic relationship between the negatives of life: hardships, persecutions, ailments and inadequacies with divine blessing.
This to me is problematic. St. Paul’s negative influence on Christianity is a subject of growing interest to yours truly. One that I have made some progress in engaging. For those interested you can read about it here: Paul and the Problem with Christianity Part I.
Human weaknesses that correspond to or emerge from economic shortfalls, the limits of reason, lack of resources, and few or poor relationships are what impel men to look up and seek heaven’s aid. However, if such divine aid is not forthcoming, or if the help that comes from above only works to extend or perpetuate the suffering and discomfort, whatever its spiritual justification, would then be rejected.
Further, if the development and progress of culture from the agricultural revolution to the industrial age to the advent of post-industrial society is anything to go by; the march of humanity at its core has been about reducing suffering, prolonging life and expanding opportunities for material well-being. All of which concretely relates to the reality of joy. However fleeting this ‘joy’ the religious may deem it to be.
Further complicating the picture, one that makes the Christian message of hope and deliverance an even harder pill to swallow, is the conditions that come with accepting Christ into your life. The most notable being the consequence for rejecting him. Whilst God’s love is stated as unconditional, a deeper reading of the faith reveals that the Christian claim introduces in the minds of the modern faithful an undesirable variable: That to reject the divinity and saving grace of Christ produces retribution.
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3: 17 – 18).
In the minds of the masses the whole proposition of accepting Jesus as the Savior, and that by doing so and following his teachings one would stand to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is a sales pitch that increasingly does not resonate, depending on the life path, career goals and social aspirations of the person in question.
This is not to say that people with ambition and the will to succeed in life are logically opposed to a relationship with Christ. Rather the problem is the inner contradiction that lies at the heart of the faith between worldly ambitions and spiritual fulfillment; one that disposes potential believers from entering into a relationship with God, and those who are already in communion from nurturing a stronger connection.
Returning to the example of the man who was on the brink of taking his own life and was confronted by the two lay evangelists who preached the Kerygma that filled him with hope. I recall discussing this evangelical endeavor with the person who was at the time in charge of the local congregation. I remember us joking about the prospect of going out on a late Sunday afternoon and telling people about Christ, and how it would come across as such a pain! Having to endure more sanctimonious moralizing talk at a time when people are just out and about trying to have a good time before the work week starts!
It is funny looking back on that moment. The person in question was a very devout follower of Christ and took his work as the leader of the congregation very seriously. However, he too realized, thanks to my indirect urging, that the idea of talking about God, no matter how positive, hopeful and enlightening it may be, was at a certain level undesirable. Something people could do without.
But why though? To challenge my own assertion, what exactly is the problem with hearing the Good News? The answer is that there is something fundamentally wrong with Christian evangelization. One that in turn points to something fundamentally wrong with Christianity.
The Core Problem: The Church that Exists to Evangelize
We are getting into the business end of this essay.
One of the core problems with Christian evangelization is the very intent to evangelize. Meaning, the problem with Christianity lies with its overt, and seemingly singular focus on evangelizing. When the Church of Jesus Christ represented by all denominations, could be doing other things apart from evangelizing, to expand the reach of the Church.
A paradoxical point, one that I will return to in the concluding sections of this essay. For now, we need to understand why evangelization is an integral aspect of Christianity. The answer to this question is straightforward. Because Christ our Lord mandated it. However, the more pertinent question is why has Christianity not moved beyond the task of evangelizing and pursue new goals that could or ought to take its place in the spiritual priorities of the Church?
A key development that reasserted the evangelical function and orientation of the Catholic Church in recent history can be traced to the encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi issued by Pope Paul VI in 1975. In it, the Pope posits evangelization as the defining feature of the Church:
“Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize, that is to say, in order to preach and teach, to be the channel of the gift of grace, to reconcile sinners with God, and to perpetuate Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass, which is the memorial of His death and glorious resurrection” (7).
And to validate the significance of evangelizing, Pope Paul VI points to scripture.
“Anyone who rereads in the New Testament the origins of the Church follows her history step by step and watches her live and act, sees that she is linked to evangelization in her most intimate being – The Church is born of the evangelizing activity of Jesus and the Twelve. She is the normal, desired, most immediate and most visible fruit of this activity” (ibid).
The Pope goes on to posit evangelization as important not only in terms of the positive effect of bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world but also that the very process of evangelizing is necessary for the health of the Church. The process of going out into the world and sharing Christ’s message of redemption was a process through which the Church rejuvenates itself:
“The Church is an evangelizer, but she begins by being evangelized herself. She is the community of believers, the community of hope lived and communicated, the community of brotherly love, and she needs to listen unceasingly to what she must believe, to her reasons for hoping, to the new commandment of love.
She is the People of God immersed in the world, and often tempted by idols, and she always needs to hear the proclamation of the “mighty works of God” which converted her to the Lord; she always needs to be called together afresh by Him and reunited. In brief, this means that she has a constant need of being evangelized if she wishes to retain freshness, vigor and strength in order to proclaim the Gospel” (ibid).
This dual role of evangelizing the world and being evangelized herself has become an integral feature of modern Christianity. For anyone who has had a Christian upbringing and/or has experience with Christian congregations of whatever form, the centrality of the Word: that is its study, reflection, sharing and celebration form the core of spiritual life. Hence it is only natural that members of the congregation in living out their faith are called to, and quite naturally feel inclined to, go out and spread the word of God.
According to this reading, Christianity is reduced to a belief system that can essentially be boiled down to a ‘religion of the book’: That is a biblical religion, no different from Islam or Judaism. This point might seem like a banality but it is a major problem that lies at the heart of the faith.
For now, what the reader needs to consider is that this Word or ‘Scripture-centric’ character of the faith is a consequence of the failure on part of the belief system as a whole to evolve to a higher stage in its spiritual history. In other words, the fact that Christianity vis a vie its institutions is still stuck to an evangelization-first strategy, one that has come to define its internal character and social mission is a reflection of the core ills that bedevils the faith as a whole.
Pope Pius VI, in citing scripture and the development of the early Church as the foundational features that define the Church, indirectly also admits to its one-dimensional nature. The Church, outside its evangelical activity, lacks focus and direction in terms of its broader mission to the world: that is to be the bridge between heaven and Earth.
As a thought experiment, think of any Christian preacher, teacher or leader in any denomination. What is the first thing that sets them apart from the rest – that is people who are not in ministry? The answer would be their disposition to spread the gospel, and along with it the conceptualization of their relationship with God as one that ought to be, and eventually is, defined through a life that is dedicated towards evangelization. This means the idea of who or what ‘God’ is, in practice is logically understood within an evangelical framework.
If you think about it, it is very difficult to speak about ‘God’ outside the evangelical dimension. Whenever the subject of God: that is his nature, power, presence, love, and function is engaged, it is invariably from the standpoint of spreading the Word. It is always about how God is good and why you should listen to his teachings (i.e. scripture), then proceed to live by it and then go out and spread it.
This process in turn becomes God. Or rather the idea of what constitutes ‘God’ from the standpoint of the faithful is subsumed within the framework of preaching and proselytizing. This is so characteristic of the faith that it is easy to miss. What else can Christianity be other than an evangelical faith?! What else could ‘God’ be, if not for the ‘Word of God’?
Can you see the problem? There is really no separating ‘God’ from Scripture. The power of the divine from the evangelical mission of the institutional body of the Church. To understand how this gospel-centric and evangelization-centered orientation of the faith harms the true development of Christianity, one that can thrive in the modern world, let’s now look at the subject of apologetics.
The Problem with Christian Apologetics
Apologetics in simple terms refers to arguments that are advanced in defense of the key teachings and doctrines that constitute the faith. Arguments that are deemed to be intellectually sound enough to withstand criticisms advanced by critics and do so whilst not appealing to faith or religious authority.
Christian apologetics has become an increasingly significant part of evangelization. In the post-new-atheist age, the need for believers to be equipped with the right arguments, reasons and potentially even evidence to make the case for Christ has become stronger.
There is more to this, but Christian apologetics is basically about making the case for Christ to a world that is driven by skepticism, cynicism and the growing dominance of naturalism that is born of the disenchantment with the transcendental. Writers and philosophers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Lee Strobel have made a strong case for the reasonableness of faith and at the same time have advanced a persuasive criticism of the reductionist character of materialism.
The men of faith who have bravely challenged the evolutionary (Darwinian) critic of Biblical Creation, have also argued for the distinctness of life, notably man. Building on this, if one gets into the realm of where science meets faith, and the deeper questions pertaining to the very nature of reality, the origin of the cosmos, the development of complex life and the emergence of consciousness then the dividing line becomes even finer. A subject that is worth perusing.
Defending Design – Mostly Good
The question: ‘What is faith?’ is no longer solely about one’s beliefs regarding the supernatural (i.e. empirically unverifiable phenomena) but extends into domains like perception, the limits of the scientific method and teleology. This is good from a pro-theistic perspective. The growing persuasive power of arguments that reinforce what is known as the strong anthropic principle (SAP), is conducive to traditional faith.
The strong anthropic principle (as opposed to the ‘weak’ one) posits that life exists in the universe necessarily. That things are the way they are in the universe because they were intended to be so. Intention presupposes the existence of someone or something that envisioned and effectuated the final outcome.
This works into what is known as the argument from fine-tuning: that the laws of nature feature constants such as the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, the electromagnetic coupling constant and so on that have been preset in order to allow life, notably complex life that can ponder the nature of the cosmos, to arise.
This view goes against what is known as the Copernican Principle that emerged during the dawn of the scientific age, which effectively removes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately humanity from a privileged position. According to this view, there is nothing particularly special about planet Earth and human life. A thought process that has endured to this day, and underpins the efforts of those who affirm a non-teleological view of nature and the universe.
For example, the efforts that are underway to discover exoplanets, specifically the ‘Terrestrial’ and ‘Super-Earth’ variants that are believed to harbor life, potentially intelligent ones are pertinent in this regard. The objective is that discovering such life-supporting planetary systems, and better, intelligent life, would help knock out the argument that our world is a blessed place and would also bring humans down a peg or two (8).
In the apologetic dimension of Christian evangelization, notably the defense of the core doctrine of faith: that God created the world, we are looking at an argument that pertains to the nature of the cosmos. Affirming its teleological character, and the design that lies at the center. That together amounts to a reasonable defense of theism: the doctrine that the world was created, ordered and sustained by a higher intelligence that takes an active interest in human affairs. AKA God.
A lighter form of the defense of, not God per se, but the presence and necessity for a designing intelligence in the emergence of the cosmos, the stability of matter, and the development of complex life, that by extension counters the sufficiency of natural, non-purposive causes, is the argument from design with a capital ‘D’.
The role of Darwinian evolution in the emergence of complex life has historically been used as a hammer to beat down the reasonableness of the Creation narrative. If biological systems can emerge through a process of chance and random mutations, it negates the need for designing intelligence and the uniqueness (special Creation) of human life.
Countering these naturalistic arguments head-on using the scientific method, falls under an area of study that is controversial in both the theistic and atheistic camps: Intelligent Design. Whilst Intelligent Design (ID) is not widely accepted in the Christian world, notably the Catholic one, the fruits of the labor of ID theorists and scientists have been relied on by faithful who seek to provide a more intellectually sound basis for the faith.
Further, many Christians involved in evangelization proceed to do so without necessarily affirming the core tenets of ID. This is fine. However, the evangelists in their enthusiasm to defend the intellectual basis for ‘God’ but also scripture as well, create problems. Since the Bible is a not a strictly scientific text nor is it a philosophical one. Which means defending the ‘God’ one encounters within its pages is necessarily problematic.
Defending Scripture – Mostly Bad
A major problem emerges when the purview of Christian evangelization extends into the domain of defending claims that are fundamentally biblical in nature. Notable examples are the 6-day Creation, the Flood and essentially anything that pertains to the history of ancient Israel as it is laid out in scripture.
To elaborate, take any notable critique of Christianity. The many atheists, skeptics, agnostics and more interestingly anti-theistic characters that are out there these days, and follow their converse. What is noticeable is how the criticisms leveled against the Christian faith invariably begin with or eventually circle back to a critique of scripture. The countless problems anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the bible encounters, particularly in the Old Testament becomes the target of criticism not only scripture: its teachings, message and significance; but the Christian faith as a whole.
In the aftermath of the new atheist attacks on the major faiths of the world, and with it the growing disenchantment with organized religion that is visible in many parts of the West today; with phenomena like the rise of the religiously non-affiliated (‘Nones’) particularly among the youth; Christian evangelization in present times has retreated, quite understandably into a defensive shell. Secular critics target the supposed intellectual shortfalls of the faith by engaging the problems with scripture. Where there are many.
The trouble Christianity as a united body is facing today is owing to ‘it’ (the belief system) being equated with scripture. It has got to a point where it seems perfectly reasonable to hold the view that Christianity = Scripture or Scripture = Christianity. Thus any criticism of scripture, the New Testament and the Old, would somehow qualify as a critic of the faith in its entirety. This should not be the case.
The new atheist attacks on religious faith was mainly directed at Christianity. This is unsurprising since the critics in question are from the West, and did a fine job directing their angst and anger towards religious faith by pointing to the numerous examples of violence and depravity that pervade the Old Testament. The attack on ‘God’ thus became primarily a criticism of ‘the God of scripture’. And this kind of critique was somehow viewed as an adequate and effective weapon to blunt belief in the God of the universe.
The point is, that critiquing the God of scripture does not necessarily qualify as a critic of God: the creator and sustainer of the universe. The critic of the ‘biblical God’, whilst not exactly a straw man fallacy, does make the flaw of going for the low-hanging fruit: that of highlighting the horrendous laws, events, teachings, and questionable acts attributed to the divine found in scripture. Thereby reducing the entirety of the faith to an ugly caricature where the wrongs, evils, hurts and, by modern standards, injustices that are present in the bible become the defining feature of the faith.
Admittedly the Christian tradition does bear some blame for this state of affairs. The overtly biblical character of Christianity today that has given rise to the view of Christianity as a “biblical religion”. A religion of the book or holy text, something which characterizes religions like Judaism or Islam. These are textual religions. But Christianity is different. To understand how faith in Jesus Christ differs in this regard, let’s look at the elucidation provided by Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech he gave at the German Bundestag in 2011:
“How do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say, a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God” (9).
The German Pope’s explication of the origins of law is important when engaging any passage of scripture critically. The laws that are made to order and govern a Christian society whilst inspired by scripture are not supposed to be based on scripture alone. The Bible does not contain within itself the life manual, a legal playbook or a political treatise on how a person, society, or state should order itself. That job is, as Pope Benedict XVI explains, results from the interplay of different forces: nature, reason, and tradition among others. This means the various passages found in the New Testament and especially in the Old, need to be looked at critically through this particular lens.
When it comes to taking the teachings of God presented in scripture, what truly matters in a human context is their moral, existential and legal interpretation. For example, should the teachings on morality, like the 101 moral laws found in the books of Leviticus and Numbers be made into law in the present day? The answer is clearly No.
What is needed instead is a critical analysis of their social good, legal applicability, political acceptability and, yes even their moral character in light of the ethics of today. This is to say that even though the bible, ‘the word of God’ appears to mandate certain practices as God’s law, its interpretation and applicability entail a complex process involving various strands of knowledge and contributions by different types of institutions before they could become the law of the land.
The Bible, whilst the book of God’s word, is not the book of God’s law. The commandments of God, like the Ten Commandments, must be put through a serious study before their social utility and legal applicability can be realized. In the Catholic tradition, for example, there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that analyzes, explicates, and systematically codifies Christian doctrine. Providing a critical look at each of the Ten Commandments, and elucidating their true meaning in light of the nature of man and the state of the modern world.
During the 2008 Presidential Elections, a message delivered by Barack Obama as an aspiring senator from Chicago in 2006, at an ostensibly Christian group named ‘Call to Renewal’, made the news. During that speech, the Hawaiian-born politician made some interesting remarks that are pertinent to this debate on reading scripture:
“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? [..] “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount? A passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application [..] Folks haven’t been reading their Bible” (10).
Piercing words. But the criticisms are valid. How exactly does one derive moral teachings from the holy text that are applicable to society in this day and age? Critically, what is the method or process that must be undertaken by society or polity when it comes to building the legal framework that considers Christianity its moral and spiritual foundation?
These are difficult questions to answer. However, the wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI that Christianity does not propose a “juridical order derived from revelation” is critical in this regard. Whilst Christ did teach the importance of loving your enemies by turning the other cheek, which the then-senator was clearly referring to with regards to the Sermon on the Mount-but in application, these teachings are not meant to be read, interpreted, internalized; and if it gets that far, normalized as one sees fit.
Here let us look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the commandment: ‘Thou Shall Not Kill”:
“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not [..] Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow [..] (11).
Interesting isn’t? Whilst there is a tendency to adopt an extremely literal reading of scripture: loving your enemies and turning the other cheek implies the negation of the principle of self-preservation. But as the catechism teaches, this is not the case. Going further, on the social character of the teaching on loving your enemies and what it could mean for the collective defense of the polity, the Catholic Church teaches that:
“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge” (ibid).
According to this reading the Department of Defense will survive. But the broader point is that reading scripture and drawing moral and doctrinal conclusions without theological insight is problematic and inadvisable. The relationship between God and society for much of human history has been mediated by the institutional body of Christ: the Church. So it is to its teachings, as much Protestants may protest, rather than scripture alone that we must direct our gaze.
On the authority of scripture, the first four books of the bible are understood as the ‘Books of Law’; but their validity as a legitimate source of moral law that the faithful must adhere to is questionable, and at best is only applicable to those who adhere to the Old Covenant. Non-Christians in other words. This rule applies before we even get to the matter of how scripture should be interpreted.
So when reading what the bible has to say on a specific subject, the first point of order is to determine which book the teaching or commandment originates from – the Old or the New? This is a critical first step for a number of reasons. The Old Testament, in case one must point out the obvious, is Old. One that was replaced or better, ‘updated’ by the New.
The New Covenant between God and man is Jesus Christ. And the teachings of Christ and his lived example contained within them the love and wisdom of God. His teachings, in crucial ways, differ from the Old: the centrality of forgiveness, the brotherhood of all men and women as opposed to one nation or ethnic group, and the power of the Holy Spirit that reveals God’s wisdom into the minds of the faithful directing their actions, are not found in the religion Christianity superseded.
Due to this fact, that of a new stage in God’s relationship with humanity, many of the teachings and laws advanced in the Old Testament necessarily lose their power and authority. To put it bluntly, if anyone has a problem with Christianity, pointing to whatever s**t one may find in the Old Testament and using that cudgel to beat the faith will not work.
This point seems to go over the heads of many atheist pundits; something that most thoughtful Christians are well aware of. The bad stuff that is found in the Old Testament does not undermine the credibility of the faith, because much of it is not even Christian to start with. It is well known in Christian circles that one can find all kinds of filth in the Old Testament: from gang rape, mass rape, incest, sex slavery, castration etc. In addition to the countless laws-laws apparently sanctioned by God himself-that do more harm than good. So the idea that by somehow pointing out these perversities one succeeds in undermining the Christian faith does not follow.
Further, by going after the world that is presented in the Old Testament and the ‘God’ who reigns over it, the only religion you are attacking is Judaism. And this is before we get to the subject of knowledgeability: are the critics of ‘the God scripture’ theologically literate? The answer often, and this certainly is the case with the new atheists and their army of obnoxious followers, is virtually nil.
Interestingly when we get to the New Testament the same problem of interpretation remains. One cannot critique certain aspects of the gospels, the letters of St. Paul and so on and then deem that to be sufficient as a critic of God that the Christian faith upholds.
Here it is right to point out the copious writings on God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, scripture and the many, many related subjects and fields of study that Christians have founded and developed over millennia. That together form the body of insights, wisdom, history, doctrine, poetry and tradition that constitutes the faith. If the bible is the be-all and end-all, why bother studying theology? Why write books on the development of Christian doctrine, the contributions of the Church Fathers, or the significance of the great Councils?
To simply go after weird passages in the Old Testament and deem it to be a sufficient critique of the faith, and in the process feel content of one’s moral superiority is not serious. This state of affairs, that of the elevated significance that has been attached by the nonbeliever and the faithful alike to the contents of the bible, points to a deeper problem within the faith.
Christianity for a variety of reasons has regressed to a point where it has become a ‘biblical religion’. Not unlike Judaism and Islam. The ‘people of the book’ as they are known, is a characterization that does not apply to Christians. We are the people of God. Our relationship with our Maker cannot be reduced to the contents of a single text, no matter its holiness, power and significance.
Christian apologetics, as far I can understand, is a predominantly Protestant enterprise and has naturally become tethered to scripture and its defense as opposed to the defense of God and Christian culture. A culture that is inclusive of traditions, literature, art, the history, role and significance of the institutional body of Christ known as the Church, and critically, theology. Realities which transcend the remits of biblical teachings.
Speaking of the Protestant contribution to the rise of ‘biblical Christianity’ this does not mean that the Catholic faith is not guilty of its own bible-centric approach to the faith. A popular whipping boy of my Christian writings, Bishop Barron, a Catholic YouTuber and one of the faces of Catholicism’s ‘new evangelization’ uses the term ‘Biblical Religion’(12). Now it is debatable if his ministry is one that is solely centered on advancing the teachings of scripture and in turn looking at the entirety of the faith through a scriptural lens. Having followed his commentaries for the good part of seven years, I have noticed his teachings have increasingly begun to center, or gravitate towards scripture.
There is a discernible ‘start with the bible’ – ‘end with the bible’ formula to many of his messages. This is understandable but problematic. One that I have seen in many other Catholic priests and leaders. The Bible seems to have become foci of the Christian spiritual experience, and hence its foremost position in Christian apologetics. That in turn reinforces the reductively biblical character of the faith.
If Not for Evangelization, What Then?
Since we have established the identity and social function of the Church, notably the Catholic as tied to its evangelical character; a reality that is broadly applicable to all major Christian denominations. The question now arises: Is this the right way? Should the Christian faith in its mission to engage the world, be driven by an evangelize-first approach?
The papacy of Pope John Paul II, a man who went around the world preaching the gospel and was a symbol of Christ’s love in his mission to bring the Good News to all is an example of this spread the Good News first, ask questions later strategy. One gets the impression that Christianity today is a belief system that is aimed towards, and in turn organized around the task of evangelizing the masses. To make known the message of love, forgiveness and redemption. This is what Christianity has to offer, and in some respect, it is all that Christianity has to offer.
Whilst there is no shortage of reasons to ground and justify the need for, and hence the basis of the evangelical character of the Christian faith. But given the decline of Christianity in the West, first as a socio-cultural force in the aftermath of WWII, followed by the steady erosion faith in terms of its outward religious expression in the masses; where formerly Christian societies have entered a stage of deep secularization, notably the nation-states of Europe, with America not far behind; this position needs to reevaluated.
The question I am posing to the reader is: since Christianity has experienced a steady decline in what were once bastions of the Christian faith: known collectively as Christendom, is evangelizing people in already secularizing societies, the way forward? Critical to note here is the character of such post-Christian societies.
Christianizing a Post-Christian West
Evangelization as an activity was historically carried out by the faithful and aimed towards non-believers. Starting with the first apostles of Christ, the missionary journeys of St. Paul and the many other preachers of the Good News who have followed in their wake.
Following the emergence of European nation-states and with it the development of Europe’s Christian character, one that was closely tied to its political and social identity, it logically meant that Christianity would become one of the major exports of European culture. Through immigration, conquest, and education Europeans reached out, engaged and brought in alien cultures of the world under the Christian fold.
The task of acculturation that went hand-in-hand with the colonial endeavors and geopolitical ambitions of European empires is a controversial but undeniable part of Western history. The, seemingly forced Christianization of parts of the world in the name of Westernization and vice versa, aided by European trade, diplomacy and conquest is notable.
The trouble is, when one speaks of the secularization of the West, it is fundamentally a problem of European secularization. Parts of the world that were first to embrace Christianity and played a crucial role in Christianizing the rest of the globe. America is a nation that in many ways is a cultural extension of Europe: in terms of its ethnic origins (European), intellectual foundations (ideas born of the Enlightenment), language (English); and spiritual character (Christian).
Speaking of modernity, that is characterized by hyper-individualism, consumerism, and a market-based framework through which most human relationships are carried out; all of which are products of a capitalist, entrepreneurial economic systems that America and the Anglo-American world more broadly exported to the globe in the post-WWII era, and especially since the end of communism.
The core elements of a market economy, with the promise of wealth creation, rising income levels, greater personal freedom and the opportunity to express your freedom and yourself via the purchasing power that money brings, means people naturally have less time for God, the Church and matters concerning the afterlife. The promises of not exactly money, but what money can buy and the lifestyle and comforts it promises become a more desirable option.
Engendering a way of life that is built on wealth accumulating, spending and building one’s reputation. These are made possible in a post-Christian world ruled by individualism that is viewed as conducive towards the attainment of self-actualization. Here Christianity, particularly one that is evangelically oriented, other-world centered, and moralistically preoccupied is viewed as an antagonistic force or a nuisance at best.
Here I recall a conversation with an Italian priest (a different one) around 2016, who spoke of the impacts of modernity, notably the effects of globalization on non-Western societies. Countries in South and East Asia specifically. On how the growth in trade, adoption of communication technologies, the influx of tourists, and exposure to Western culture via mass media: entertainment and literature had a secularizing effect on these societies. That people drawn to the promises of material well-being that higher income levels bring, and discover of new centers of identity apart from traditional religion, would in time distance themselves from the beliefs of their native homeland.
This he argued was a good thing from the standpoint of Christian evangelization. That non-Western and by extension non-Christian societies of the world, upon steady exposure to the material promises and cultural distractions of the West, start to turn away from the traditional religions of their native cultures leading to the logical weakening of the spiritual hold those belief systems had on the natives. Creating a void for a more, as he understood, adaptable belief system like Christianity, to take its place.
There are a number of assumptions built into this argument. The first is the admission that the advance of modernity: from the growth in telecommunication, integration of world economies, the rise of consumerist culture, the growing significance of individual identity as self-created and value-centered; and the pursuit of outcomes that are oriented towards the advance of Earthly or existential goals rather than transcendental ones, have an adverse effect on religious belief.
The fact that most religions preach material detachment, sacrifice, self-negation and altruism; all of which logically work against the impulses, aims and by extension the social systems that have arisen to cater to the material upliftment and sensual fulfillment that lie at the basis of modern market based-societies. This is a complex matter that integrates areas of study such as business, psychology, and economics and the role played by the institutional environment encompassing institutions like governments, households and firms.
The first requirement from an evangelical standpoint is that this complexity must be recognized, as there is a tendency within the religious tradition to downplay or dismiss material considerations. Often categorizing them as corrupting influences or sources of temptations that come from the devil. Consequently, the inner character of our material impulses; relational yearnings and expectations, particularly the romantic and sexual kind are not considered in terms of their interconnected nature. That is how they relate to the Maslowian hierarchy and its institutional outworking.
The argument the Italian priest-evangelist was making is that for the religions in the non-Western world, where Christianity is not the native or dominant belief system, the advent and progress of modernity had a necessarily eroding effect on the hold the beliefs have over the land. Considering that societies of whatever culture, if they are to thrive in the modern world must accept market principles for wealth creation and limited government to ensure good governance. Changes that necessarily open the doors to modernization, and in time Westernization.
Countries like post-war Japan and Korea, and in more recent times Vietnam are examples where the adoption of a market economy necessarily paves the way for a modernist ethos to take root in the nation and in time the Westernization of their societies. Now the extent to which this weakens the hold of traditional beliefs is debatable. Since countries like Japan still hold on to their native Shinto traditions. However, there is a deeper logic that underpins the progressive decline of not exactly religious faith at a personal level, but the weakening of the hold of institutional religion on the mindset and lifestyle of the polity at large.
For example a country like Vietnam despite being ruled by a Communist one-party government, with the adoption of the pro-market ‘Doi Moi’ reforms in the mid-1980s that led to the steady liberalization of the East-Asian nation’s economy, resulting in increased economic growth and a higher quality of life, brought it economically and culturally closer to the West. The political leadership despite being ideologically committed to statism, recognized the potential of market economies and has steadily moved the nation in that direction since (13).
Today Vietnam is a nation where the private sector plays an increasingly important role, tourism is a major draw, and its culture despite its enduring connection to its native traditions under the oversight of the one-party government showcases unmistakable signs of Westernization. Western-inspired showcases like beauty pageants being very popular in that part of the world, built on the consumerist, and individualist ethos that accompanies it. These developments in time shift the attention of the masses away from religion, weakening their attachment to it.
This trend is known in sociology circles as the secularization thesis. Building on the works of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and to some extent Karl Marx, the secularization thesis states that as societies modernize there is a gradual but inexorable decline in the importance of religious life. Underlying this shift is the growing power of science and the institutions that exploit or advance it. The Austrian-American sociologist Peter Berger’s take on modernization as: “the growth and diffusion of a set of institutions rooted in the transformation of the economy by means of technology” is pertinent in this regard (14).
The decline of religion goes hand-in-hand with the emergence of a more technologically oriented society; one that seeks technical solutions to human problems and political action to address societal inequities. Interestingly, the secularization thesis has experienced some push-back in light of the rise of Islam, the greater religiosity among immigrant populations in the West (e.g. the Latinos, Filipinos and Vietnamese in the US) and the effect of counter-secularization efforts in the form of evangelization (ibid).
Nonetheless, the core hypothesis remains valid. As societies progress economically and advance technologically the hold of traditional belief systems weaken. As for the counter-argument that certain religions like Islam appear resilient to the effects of modernity; and immigrant populations in the West continue to hold on to their faith; these concerns require a dedicated response. For now, I will make the argument that in these instances we are talking about people from societies which are more religious and less economically developed.
So the people who choose to immigrate are from cultures that have not experienced the benefits of industrialization, modernization and the rise in economic individualism. And in some ways that is one of the reasons why they choose to leave their native homelands in the first place. So it is only logical that in time, the lure of wealth, status and a self-created identity found in Western societies will crowd out their religiously-centered one.
So the challenge for Christianity as a Western religion, in light of these developments is to understand a way to, not exactly counter the effects of modernity, as it historically has done, at least at a subconscious level, but to work alongside it.
The onset of secularization is a logical and in many ways a necessary feature of societal progress. As people come to lose faith in religious institutions and the power of spiritual solutions to pressing problems (e.g. miracles and faith-healing) and place their trust in technical fixes and political solutions; impelling them to seek alternate centers of identity apart from God. This is one of the features of the self-help and personal development industry that has in some way filled the void for a personal God and the ‘personal relationship with God’ that has been touted in more recent times by the religious.
Returning to the point about modernization as a force that weakens traditional religions thus creating a spiritual vacuum that Christianity could fill. The challenge now lies in the ‘evolvability’ of Christianity as a belief system that is able to take advantage of the modernist ethos that has taken root in the minds of the masses living in post-industrial, information economies. What the leadership of the various Churches, notably the Catholic one, need to consider is how Christianity can evolve into a belief system that can find a synthesis between spiritual growth and material upliftment.
To do this there are four key steps the Church of Jesus Christ (meaning all Christian denominations and sects) must recognize and integrate into their mission. ‘Steps’ that are predominantly intellectual in nature and demand a change in outlook to the faith’s missionary character.
Step One: Understanding the Post-Christian Psyche
Sometime in 2010, I had an interesting conversation (yes another one) with the local parish priest on the nature of faith and the role of the Church among other things. This took place at a time in my life when I was questioning almost everything. Yet it was also a time when I was deeply interested in the character of the Christian faith at a more structural level: in terms of what Christianity in an institutional sense was doing and what it could do better.
The Catholic priest, a learned man with Marxist leanings, a point which he openly admitted, argued that the freedoms and opportunities granted by market economies and the individualist-consumerist cultures they give rise to have had a corroding effect on the spiritual fabric of a polity. Here he was referring to the hyper-individualist character of America, at least the more prosperous parts of it, that had access to the comforts of modern life.
He made the case where the religious tradition with its rituals, practices and codes of conduct had to literally compete with materialistic alternatives provided by (a capitalist) culture for the attention and commitment of the masses. For the time of people who live in such wealthy societies and had a lot of disposable income at their command.Thus it was important that the religious tradition find a way to work alongside these realities, whilst being cognizant of the dangers they (i.e. a materialistic culture) posed to one’s spirituality.
At one point the priest went as far as to say that even attracting the presence of the faithful in religious ceremonies like feast days was a challenge since many were disposed to spending their free time on the beach or in some other sensual indulgence. There are a number of assumptions baked into this analysis by the Catholic priest of the post-Christian mind. Many are on point but for the wrong reasons.
The first thing to consider is that these types of complaints are a recurring feature within the Catholic tradition. Understandably so. Unlike the Protestants, the Catholic Church and its spiritual practices are designed to cater to a hierarchy that has embraced the principles of poverty, chastity and obedience. Hence their antipathy towards anything that could be considered ‘worldly’, ‘enthralling’, ‘stimulating’ and ‘aggrandizing’ are principally shunned in favor of reflective, contemplative, moderating, and self-denying alternatives. This is a matter I have engaged in greater detail in my essay on The Anti-Humanism of Roman Catholicism.
In the non-Catholic Christian world, with the exception of certain peculiar forms of Protestantism like the prosperity gospel movement, which comes with its own set of problems, the Christian tradition generally approaches the subject of material prosperity with unease. This is problematic. Not that there is a problem with the idea of safeguarding against the danger of riches. As such teachings were outstanding features of Christ’s ministry, as he preached in the intro to the story of the ‘Rich fool’:
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12: 15).
Rather, the problem lies in the failure to understand the nature of riches (i.e. origins and value of money), their social use, and the psychological significance that people attached to them in relation to the ascending character of human needs and wants. There is a fundamental misapprehension of the principles of wealth creation, accumulation, its proper utilization and the social and personal relationships it enables and presupposes.
In some respects, the problem goes back to Christ himself. Who operated in a pre-scientific, pre-technological, pre-capitalist world where much of the populace lived in agrarian societies characterized by neo-feudalistic social structures. One where freedom, liberty and self-actualization, at least as far as the masses were concerned were utterly alien concepts. And the Good News that Christ preached on the forgiveness of sins, the redemption of the soul had a remarkable other-worldly orientation. One that logically devalued existential joy and gain.
This is an immensely complex problem that goes to the heart of Christ’s ministry and the Christian faith overall. A problem that I have engaged in my essay: Science Fiction as the Successor of Scripture. For now, the scope of this analysis will be limited to the worldview that this seemingly life-negating tradition at the heart of Christianity has bequeathed to us. Whilst it is not possible to challenge the teachings of Christ directly, the implications they carry, and the worldview they give rise need to be looked at anew.
The first step in this corrective process is the need for elements of the Christian faith that are focused on evangelization to pay greater attention to the material, relational, and in time the aspirational character of the human psyche that lies at the heart of a secularizing mentality. One that has lost or is losing its connection with God in a traditional (purely biblical) sense, the trust in his divine promises and belief in the credibility of institutions that are meant to represent his will and teachings on Earth.
Step Two: Making Man the Center of the Faith
I decided to give the prayer service, the one I mentioned at the start of this essay, which I had missed for a variety of reasons the previous two weeks, another go. A gathering where the sermon given by the charismatic preacher was the main selling point. Meaning, if not for the message the appeal of the prayers, songs, praise, and the promises of healing are doubtful to provide adequate incentive for yours truly, and I suspect a good many others to show up.
On the day things went as expected. The sermon was good: an insightful message that was clearly coming from a person filled with a charism who has done this for some time. Then we got to the praise and worship. It started well. I felt connected to the experience and more engaged than I had on previous occasions. But it lasts only a few minutes. As the worship and song went on for another 20 – 25 minutes, I had already switched out and just played along.
One thing that stood out about the whole experience was how often God’s name was evoked. Sure, we were here to be in the presence of God, but I couldn’t help sensing that in order to make God’s presence more real, felt and consequential; it was the human element that was being indirectly elevated. In praying to God with songs, music and the chorus of voices, God’s voice and, paradoxically his presence, were being drowned out. A point I shall return to.
—
The aims of Christian evangelization can be broken into two main camps that pursue different but interrelated goals. One: is to teach or enlighten the masses that the pursuit of material riches, financial security, political power, sexual gratification and social status are not worth it; that these are either sinful or misguided and will prove to be your undoing. Two: To stress the importance of having a relationship with God and the promises that it holds: that by trusting in God, and in time surrendering your will to him, you stand to be blessed by him. The question is: Is this effective?
The kernel of the Good News is ultimately aimed towards the saving of the soul, to which all other concerns of life are subjected. But what the religious tradition fails to consider is that this hierarchy of priorities generates friction in the minds of the faithful. The people who come in search of God generally do so because they are driven by existential concerns: financial difficulties, health problems, relational conflicts or the lack of healthy relationships etc.
So when these humanistic concerns are deprioritized in favor of moral and ‘spiritual’ ones, the significance that is attached to the transcendental aims of the faith is consequently devalued. Moreover, the overt or singular emphasis placed on spiritual matters to the exclusion of material ones raises questions about the Church’s actual ability to address pressing human problems promptly. In his encyclical, Mater et Magistra Pope John XXIII writes:
“Christianity is the meeting-point of earth and heaven. It lays claim to the whole man, body and soul, intellect and will, inducing him to raise his mind above the changing conditions of this earthly existence and reach upwards for the eternal life of heaven, where one day he will find his unfailing happiness and peace” (15).
This statement captures the governing worldview of the Catholic faith and arguably Christianity as a whole. Faith in Jesus Christ at its core is a belief system that is aimed at not only saving souls by liberating them from the power of sin, but preceding that it is about shifting the gaze of the faithful towards higher, transcendental concerns. The promise of salvation and the eternal nature of Christian reward affect all aspects of Christian life. Including the prayers and petitions from the faithful that are aimed towards existential concerns. As Pope John XXIII writes in the same encyclical under the heading of ‘Temporal and Eternal’:
“Hence, though the Church’s first care must be for souls, how she can sanctify them and make them share in the gifts of heaven, she concerns herself too with the exigencies of man’s daily life, with his livelihood and education, and his general, temporal welfare and prosperity” (ibid).
This message whilst positive masks an inner contradiction. In the modern world, human thoughts and considerations, especially during the pre-twilight years of one’s life are necessarily directed towards earthly or material considerations. From the time of birth, the parents are concerned with the welfare of the child: food, clothing, health and safety are their primary considerations. The child on the other hand is hopelessly reliant on its parents (or guardians) to cater to its needs. And providing for the needs and wants of the child presupposes the parents’ ability to take care of themselves. This comes down to an economic question.
Then we move to the subject of relationships. Notably the stages preceding the emergence of children and family. A subject that is getting a lot of attention in present times, particularly within conservative political circles. The idea of having a good social life (away from social media), engaging with members of the opposite sex, finding a potential partner, building a connection, settling down, staying together, having kids and raising them into healthy adults are topics of concern.
However, what should not be missed is that above every stage of this process hangs the financial demands of modern life. A matter that is most pressing from the standpoint of men. This is a subject I have engaged in detail in my essay: Women are more important than men. Men are better than women. The financial question, and underlying it, the matter of economic value and social recognition are key factors that underpin success in a man’s life.
The success that correlates positively with his reproductive potential: that is to be desirable to members of the opposite sex and to view him as a viable long-term partner are realities that are often ignored by the moralistically centered Christian tradition whose main or only occupation it seems is to ‘save souls’.
And with good reason. For Christianity, these humanist considerations are practically alien to its worldview, or at best ancillary with respect to its primary goal of aiding Salvation. Going further, an argument can be made that subconsciously the Christian faith embodied by its leadership and institutional character, is opposed to the material, social and relational upliftment of man.
But this does not mean the Christian faith, in this case, the teachings and social mission embodied by the Catholic Church are opposed to human welfare. As Pope John XXIII goes on to write in Mater et Magistra:
“[W]ork, which must be regarded not merely as a commodity, but as a specifically human activity. In the majority of cases, a man’s work is his sole means of livelihood. Its remuneration, therefore, cannot be made to depend on the state of the market. It must be determined by the laws of justice and equity.
Secondly, private ownership of property, including that of productive goods, is a natural right which the State cannot suppress. But it naturally entails a social obligation as well. It is a right which must be exercised not only for one’s own personal benefit but also for the benefit of others” (ibid).
The Pope then goes on to outline the role of the State in safeguarding the common good and to lay the groundwork for a just economic order to emerge. To this one can add the numerous charities and initiatives that are organized and run by Christian organizations throughout the world, understandably inspired by Christ’s teachings, to provide for the various needs of humanity.
Needless to say, the Churches of any denomination are principally charitable. However, this does not mean it is necessarily affirming of the humanistic principle to learn, grow, succeed and prosper as a self-made man. There is a tendency to conflate the two approaches to human well-being: the charitable one and the aspirational one; when they are two different things. Often resulting in the self-made, aspirational approach being sidelined as egoistical, the result of pride and driven by avarice.
This state of affairs is problematic but understandable. Since the Church is primarily oriented towards the mission of saving souls, it is compelled to work alongside, and often under the shadow institutions and frameworks, public or private, whose primary goal is the provision of the very same earthly needs and considerations of man. So when such institutions work correctly they often do a better job than the religious ones, or they prevent the need for such faith-inspired remedial solutions to be warranted in the first place.
Take a food shelter or food bank as an example. Such initiatives are often run by Christian charities and are aimed towards providing for the needy from all backgrounds. A very Christian thing to do. As Christ our Lord commanded, aiding your fellow brothers and sisters (everyone) is a core facet of the Christian life.
The issue is the demand for services like food banks presupposes the existence of certain social ills. Many of which reflect underlying problems that plague the extant socio-economic order. The most notable consequence of this is poverty. Poverty is a complex problem that is endemic to virtually all societies. The causes of poverty are manifold but at its core poverty, at least in capitalist societies is a result of market inefficiencies that exist with respect to resource allocation.
This can result from a myriad of factors such as price ceilings, rent controls, minimum wage laws, and the existence of State or private monopolies. Combined with poor governance concerning the funding and management of welfare programs, the provisioning of merit goods and the inability to create the right incentives that will push the able-bodied to work towards self-sufficiency and cater to the requirements of the needy.
Corruption is an underlying cause of poverty. It is a bane that afflicts nations both rich and poor. It becomes a serious social ill when combined with a lack of accountability at the highest levels of government. That in time leads to the institutionalization of the corrupt practices, giving rise to what economists call “extractive institutions” (16). That can (and often does) operate in nominally “capitalist” economies; where the political class has entrenched itself into the workings of major industries; peopling its management, controlling the profits, and engaging in rent-seeking behavior.
Known as crony capitalism-though a more suitable term that Austrian economists have given it is “crony socialism”-this kleptocratic model of governance effectively distorts the working of the market, creating large wealth imbalances that are exploited by a select few to the expense of the many. The failure of many post-colonial Sub-Saharan African states is a case in point.
When we get to socialist or communist economies, here the causes of poverty are structural. Meaning, it is the very economic system that produces socially deleterious outcomes. This point is a banality that needs little elaboration from a historical standpoint. Socialist/communist societies like Cuba, pre-reform China, Vietnam, and Cambodia are classic cases of the failures of statist collectivism.
In present times the fate of the oil-rich but terribly governed Venezuela is an example of the dire consequences that befall a nation embracing socialist policies such as extensive nationalization, price controls and politically motivated welfare programs that are fiscally unsustainable. The once richest nation in South America is now buried under hyperinflation, resource shortages and widespread crime resulting from the breakdown of social order (16).
In case the reader is wondering at this point if this is meant to be a defense to capitalism. Well the astute reader would have noticed I recognize the limited but important role played by the State in the effective functioning of an economy, and contrary to neoclassical or Austrian economists, I recognize the insufficiency of the market to provide for all human needs on time.
However, when it comes to the subject of poverty, a matter that was central to the mission of Christ, and the role of the Church today, it is important to be cognizant of its true causes. The absence of private property rights necessarily beggars those outside the governing apparatus; the destruction of incentives to work and innovate means the social benefits of private entrepreneurship are lost; the miss-allocation of resources by the central planning mechanism leads to product shortages; and the combining of political power with economic power logically leads to the rise of totalitarian dictatorships.
Now with all of this in mind, when we turn our attention to the various Christian missions involved in charitable activities we ought to be reminded of their relative worth. The charities and other noble efforts that shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, treat the sick and empower the disenfranchised are important. But the problems they are trying to fix are an outworking of deeper socio-economic issues that are best addressed by the right policy framework, political leadership and technical expertise. Christian charity, and in some way, all charity, is often addressing a symptom, not the cause.
Further, if you work through these problems, they tend to circle back to the question of the individual: what a man (or woman) can or cannot do with his life, given the means, the knowledge, the level of freedom and the number of opportunities that he has at his disposal. For when he can meet his basic needs, then the nature of his wants and how he should go about fulfilling them becomes significant. Again, the Maslowian hierarchy.
What is critical is that at every stage in the ascending pyramid is the economic question: money, the control of resources that in turn work into the use of power. Power in the form of relationships, networks, and institutional authority that corresponds to status. Status correlates positively with success in the dating and mating marketplace. So we reenter the subject of the ‘man crisis’ that the likes of Scott Galloway have been drawing attention to. It is one that ultimately stems from an economic question.
‘A question’ the Christian worldview, not the faith per se, is functionally, and in some ways ideologically opposed to. This is a problem that goes to the heart of Christianity. Owing to a particular (anti-materialistic) reading of it that happens to be the most dominant in present times. Whilst the causes for this state of affairs are manifold. A matter that is worthy of dedicated treatment. For now the faithful must deal with the reality at hand. Christianity as a belief system does not affirm nor reinforce the material, relational, social, and political aspirations of man. As Christ preached:
“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Matthew 19: 28 – 29).
Whether he truly intended it or not, the Son of man in preaching this was laying the groundwork for a world-rejecting and by extension life-rejecting worldview to take root in the heart of Christianity. Whilst the belief system has grown and changed over the millennia, at its heart lies this contradiction. Where the idea of serving God fully, appears to work in opposition to that fire burns that within the heart of man: To go out, learn, adapt, master, fight, conquer and subdue. For man must do so not because he is opposed to the power and goodness of God, but because he must in order to survive.
Step 03: Recognize The Will to Power
Human life, despite the coming of Christ, has not returned to a way of living that is akin to the garden paradise of Eden, and nor does it look like it will any time soon. Given the systemic decline of the institutional body of Christ that is the Church, owing to the retreat of religion in the lives of faithful in the West, questions arise on the fate of the emergent Kingdom of Heaven: one that is realized within the hearts of man and then finds its manifestation in the world.
Christianity as a belief system today is compelled to exist in a state of limbo where God’s power, goodness and blessings are principally affirmed, but the world around it is racked by inequities, war, hunger, disease and corruption that exemplify its antithesis. In this state of affairs, human beings are compelled a make choices on how to navigate this challenging, at times beautiful and sometimes cruel world. Calculations that may or may not feature ‘God’ as a variable, but will involve the pursuit of power: that is the ability to have ever greater control over one’s own life and the growing capacity to affect the world around you.
Power, if the reader feels uncomfortable with the term, is something fundamental to human existence. A helpless child that comes into this world is utterly reliant on its parents or guardians to provide for its needs. This is a function of its total helplessness or powerlessness. The child’s ability to affect the world around it is minimal and its only recourse is to appeal to the emotions of its parents or loved ones to help ensure its survival.
In the Christian tradition, we are told that God is our Father. That he loves us. Watches over us. Wants what is best for us. The trouble is that it is not clear how exactly God’s power and love manifests in relation to these core tenets of the faith. The idea that God works through people, circumstances, events or through inspired thoughts in our lives is not persuasive when compared to the direct pursuit of the very things that God is supposed to provide for those who believe and are faithful to him.
Since human life fundamentally revolves around economic security, with other relational and social considerations building on its foundations, it is only natural that people orient their lives around it. Economic security thus becomes ‘the true’, ‘the good’ and ‘the beautiful’. Or that which empowers the individual to have these in the first place. Notable here is crime, which is invariably a function of financial insecurity.
So when religious leaders complain about crass materialism, individualism, and hedonism that characterize the modern world; the ‘forces’ that are supposed to be ‘tempting’ young minds away from God, and towards things ‘that will not last’. The main flaw with this analysis is that it misses the deeper realities that underpin the so-called ‘evils’.
Materialism, as I have argued is a manifestation of the yearning for greater security in life. Security that only money, or financial security, can truly address. Whilst God can be a source of security in a psychological sense, and in a social sense if one speaks of a Christian community, the very real problems a person faces in life invariably feature a financial question. From bills, healthcare costs, mortgage payments, and expenses that pertain to wooing a woman, throwing a wedding, raising children or if it comes to it, paying for divorce and alimony.
With individualism, which is a logical feature of the centrality that society places on individual worth, that is supposed to translate in the arena of work. Where logic, reason, skill, and temperament rule as opposed to prayers, petitions, songs and even faith. Hedonism is often employed as a negative characterization of our natural desire to have a fulfilling sexual and romantic life. One that the religious, particularly the Catholic, seem subconsciously opposed to.
Think about it. From the job you do (or are compelled to do), the house you live in and its neighborhood, the friends you make, the social life you have (or wish to have), and the type of goals apart from work, you choose to or are able to pursue; all of this boils down to money. Or more specifically the kind of power that money gives you via the purchasing power it affords.
Returning to the example of the helpless child; as the youngster grows and (hopefully) matures into a responsible human being, the centrality of money and what it underpins: hard work, determination, enterprise and creativity become central to his/her life. In other words, the importance of value. The centrality of value becomes hard-coded into the person’s mind that will affect how he/she perceives everything else in life, including God.
The importance of being a person or ‘man of value’ gives rise to a positivistic state of mind that continues to the end of its life. The need to provide not only for yourself but also those you care about, and if things get that far, those around you and the wider polity, rests on your capacity to succeed in life.
Success is based on the person’s ability to perform within systems that reward work, ingenuity and personal leadership. All very material, existential, and rational; as opposed to spiritual, transcendental and theoretical. As for those who choose to take the easy route (and often fail), this truism of life may not be apparent but it remains nonetheless.
Step 04: Reinforce The Centrality of Success
Success. A routinely demonized, but generally misunderstood term within Christian circles is the next key variable in the evangelical equation. When Christians in an evangelical context start talking about the temporal, impermanent and fading nature of worldly possessions, status and other glories that men instinctively seek, a characteristic ploy is to cite the failures among those who succeed in life.
The example of the famous rock star who ended his own life, or the world-class athlete or celebrity who is drowning in alcoholism and depression etc. Such template cases of where money, power and glory do not or are not supposed to bring true joy to those who seek and possess them are routinely employed. A message that is then juxtaposed with the image and character of Jesus’s humble life.
This is done for a variety of reasons. The main one arguably is to dissuade aspiring individuals who have goals of living a good life from being captured by the promises of wealth and honor, or at least the pursuit of these and thus lose interest in the pursuit of God. So to turn their gaze towards God and his promises the apparent futility of earthly joys is highlighted.
Now there is nothing particularly wrong about valuing a closer relationship with God and not being consumed by the urge to reduce one’s life to material comforts and pleasures, as it was the case with the ‘rich fool’. But human nature is more nuanced than that. A fact that the religious tradition fails to grasp.
When the message on the ‘evils of money’, and ‘the dangers of storing up wealth for yourself’ is consistently advanced through evangelization it has a compounding effect on the minds of the masses. It is a message that becomes a disempowering force in the lives of the faithful, particularly for young, aspiring men who want to make something of their lives.
The ‘evils’ of wealth, power, and pleasure when communicated so simplistically: that is to imply these things are wicked in themselves-necessarily undermine human initiative. The men and women who want not just to make money in a greedy, self-serving way but who wish to increase their quality of life by growing their career, gaining recognition, advancing in society, having a family, building a life, and leaving a legacy. The Christian evangelical tradition in preaching the dangers of money, power, pleasure and honor, fails to understand what these things mean in the context of human needs and wants and their ascending character.
A misunderstanding of the urges that drive men and women towards economic opportunities, which in turn fuels antipathy towards the religious tradition that is opposed to them in the first place. By only focusing on the extremes of hedonism, materialism, and individualism, the Church fails to recognize the human psychology that underpins it. And how it connects with our actions in the personal, professional and political spheres.
Growing up in the 2000s one of the popular artists of the time was 50 Cent. The American rapper’s first studio album ‘Get Rich or die Tryin’ (2003) was a smash hit. Whilst I never got beyond the single ‘In Da Club’, the name of the album took on a life of its own. For anyone familiar with rap music, there is a recurrent thread that centers on money, sex and drugs. Combined with lurid videos that often feature wreathing, half-naked females. Elements that has meant the genre has developed an infamous reputation in the minds of those who don’t enjoy its music.
Admittedly I used to enjoy it more as a teenager, less so as a young adult, and not so much now. However, the popularity of rap and hip-hop based on the fact that the artists sell tens of millions of copies and become multi-millionaires in the process is undeniable. And with it, the broader message these artists are trying to communicate becomes significant. However crass, indulgent, bombastic and potentially specious the contents of their music may be, these mirror a deeper truth.
The idea of ‘Get Rich or die Tryin’ is an ideal that comes from the world and history of the artist himself. 50 Cent (Curtis James Jackson III) before his fame and fortune grew up in a tough neighborhood. Raised by a single mother for some time before her tragic death when he was only 8. Lacking a father (or father figure) he fell into a life of crime at an early age before music became a way out. Having survived a shooting where he was shot multiple times by a 9mm; his musical talents were later recognized by the industry and success followed.
Success and what it implies: better career prospects, greater financial security, access to higher quality partners, and social status all contribute positively to human well-being. What is often missed by the ‘money, pleasure, power and honor are bad’ crowd is what the presence of these things means to the quality of life of a person who stands to have it. What the moralistic critics seem to miss are the dangers that await those who do not succeed in life.
Not everyone wants to be rich and famous and/or is not willing to work for it. But that does not change the inner desire for comfort, security, love and notability that is universal. So when the determinants of success: money, power, pleasure and honor get demonized and dismissed, what these mean in relation to the core human urges and their relational, social, economic and political outworking are also degraded in their significance. For what is advanced by the religious tradition as alternatives are teachings that weaken and disempower the human spirit as it pertains to the pursuit of these temporal but integral human considerations that are mistakenly deemed to be distractions that take us away from ‘God’s plan’.
The question is: what happens to persons who choose to (or are indoctrinated into) a world-rejecting and self-denying worldview and the logical embrace of a church-centered way of life? One where his/her personal and social identity comes to be defined by his relationship and affinity with the religious institution. An institution that is ironically, for all its moral grandstanding on the topics of money, power, pleasure etc. Is hopelessly reliant on the generosity and preceding that, the work ethic and entrepreneurial dynamism the faithful need to showcase in order to work, compete and produce value.
The ‘value’ that translates into financial contributions (charity) is directed towards sustaining an institution that is functionally and ideologically against those very things, whether it realizes it or not. This contradiction that lies at the heart of the Christian faith: between the ethical and social teachings of the Church and human wants in their aspirational character is a major cause of the alienation the faithful, particularly the young, feel towards Christianity.
Despite the efforts of the Church to advance the reach and accessibility of Christ’s message, it fails at this critical level effectively short-circuiting the efficacy of all other initiatives. A mass psychology of distrust towards the teachings and workings of an institution that appears to be working against the spirit of humanism that guides the modern man, works to nullify the appeal of any blessings, graces, fruits and gifts the spiritual life promises.
If one is to summarize the problem and the potential solution for Christianity from an evangelical standpoint, the answer simply would be that it needs to figure out a way to cater to the aspirational character of man. The deeper yearning for material comfort, physical security, sensual fulfillment and social recognition that the Christian faith seems to bypass or deem as less or insignificant to the greater goals like the fate of our souls and moral purity is the cause of its undoing that needs to be resolved.
However, achieving this will be a challenge owing to the history of the Christian tradition. The Catholic one most notably and for those who adopt a very literal reading of scripture. One that is functionally against the question of human upliftment by the application of our skills, abilities and ingenuity; despite what a select reading of the Parable of the Talents has to say.
An ‘anti-Protestant ethic’ of ‘anti-capitalism’ that lies at the heart of the faith. One that views the power and potential of the human mind and its accomplishments as tainted by our irredeemably fallen nature, and that redemption can only occur when man is set free from the frailty of the human condition. That is death, but preceding that all that ties man to his earthly condition. A view that leads to the logical emphasis on the promises of eternal life.
This view is not entirely problematic. However, the promise of heavenly reward and the salvation of our souls must reach an equilibrium with humanistic goals and aspirations that stem from our hearts and are logically directed towards worldly or life-centered considerations. The inability of Christian churches to engage the real world in a constructive and affirmative light, owing to their fixed skyward gaze towards the promises on high, and the invisible rewards of grace render efforts at converting the unbeliever or winning over the former-faithful futile.
References
-
Fukuyama, F. (2011). The Origins of Political Order. London: Profile Books.
-
Smietana, B. (2023). The Great Dechurching Looks at Why People Are Leaving Churches. Washington Post. [online] 15 Sep. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2023/09/15/christianity-church-attendance-decline/
-
The Conversation (n.d.). The Fast, Furious and Brutally Short Life of an African Male Lion. [online] Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fast-furious-and-brutally-short-life-of-an-african-male-lion.
-
Ludwig von Mises, (1956). The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Auburn: The Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
-
Catholic Culture. (n.d.). Dictionary: JOY. [online] Available at: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34391#:~:text=In%20spiritual%20literature%2C%20the%20feeling [Accessed 23 Jul. 2024].
-
Galloway, S. (2022). Opinion: The most dangerous person in the world: A young man who’s broke and alone. [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/19/opinions/masculinity-toxic-men-boys-education-galloway/index.html [Accessed 24 Jul. 2024]. [Accessed 23 Jul. 2024].
-
POPE PAUL VI (1975). Evangelii Nuntiandi (December 8, 1975) | Paul VI. [online] Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html. [Accessed 24 Jul. 2024].
-
NASA (n.d.). Overview – NASA Science. [online] science.nasa.gov. Available at: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/planet-types/.[Accessed 24 Jul. 2024].
-
BENEDICT XVI (2011). Apostolic Journey to Germany: Visit to the Federal Parliament in the Reichstag Building. Vatican [online] Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110922_reichstag-berlin.html [Accessed 24 Jul. 2024].
-
CNN (n.d.). Evangelist accuses Obama of ‘distorting’ Bible – CNN.com. [online] Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html [Accessed 24 Jul. 2024].
-
Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.d.). Part Three Section Two The Ten Commandments Chapter Two You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself Article 5 The Fifth Commandment I. Respect For Human Life. [online] Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_5/i_respect_for_human_life.html. [Accessed 24 Jul. 2024].
-
Bishop Robert Barron (2017). Bishop Barron on Biblical Religion. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlGUPAk2_MU [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
-
Hong, A.T. (2009). Doi Moi and the Remaking of Vietnam. [online] Globalasia.org. Available at: https://www.globalasia.org/v4no3/cover/doi-moi-and-the-remaking-of-vietnam_hong-anh-tuan [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
-
Michael S. Horton (2013). The Secularization Thesis | Modern Reformation. [online] Available at: https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/essays/the-secularization-thesis [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
-
Pope John XXIII (1961). Mater et Magistra. [online] www.vatican.va. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater.html [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].
-
Acemoglu, D. and A. Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books.
-
Di Martino, D. (2019). How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela. [online] Manhattan Institute. Available at: https://manhattan.institute/article/how-socialism-destroyed-venezuela [Accessed 25 Jul. 2024].