Books on Christ and culture or Christianity and politics are all the rage these days. While some publishing houses are churning out New Atheist book after New Atheist book, other houses are getting who's who in Christian circles to write on Christ and culture or politics and religion. Both are hot ticket items these days. Thankfully, the former's popularity seems to be waning (too boorish), while interest in the latter is rising. But, there's more to be thankful of. The latest author to enter this ever-growing market is Carl R. Trueman. As a Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), Trueman is qualified to write on this topic; not only that, he brings a fresh and unique perspective to the American debate, writing as a Englishman who has lived in America for the past several years. He describes himself as a British round peg jammed into an American square hole.
I have developed a keen interest in Christ and culture/politics issues over the past couple of years. I am still reading in the field and trying to put those aspects I have found persuasive into a more coherent picture---though I know it will remain fuzzy in places, and puzzle pieces will also be missing. I have been positively influenced by several contemporary thinkers (though not agreeing with them on all points, even strongly disagreeing on some), here are some of the influences: Greg Boyd, D.A. Carson, Oliver O' Donovan, John Frame, Os Guinness, Timothy Keller, Darryl Hart, Michael Horton, Ken Meyers, David VanDrunen, and David Wells. With the publication of Republocrat, I am pleased to add Carl Trueman to this list.
Trueman's basic thesis is that being theologically conservative does not entail being unconditionally politically conservative (or liberal). His main motivation for writing the book is that he fears Christianity is in danger of alienating members of its population, especially the younger members, by drawing too close a connection between the essentials of the faith and our current American expression of political conservatism. Though he did not say this, I can safely assume that he feels the same way about any connection between Christianity and liberal politics too. While I applaud this motivation, it is noteworthy that similar motivations drive the publication of books like Peter Enns's Inspiration and Incarnation, as well as the current surge in books seeing to show the harmony of Christianity with Adam-denying evolutionary theory. I am not trying to poison the well here, and I am not sure there is anything of interest in pointing out the similarities in motivation, but I wonder if there's a slippery slope somewhere nearby? Are we in danger of alienating members for teaching that man has an immaterial soul? How about teaching eternal retributive punishment in hell for the reprobate? Same with inerrancy and evolution. Are these "essentials" that make up "Christian fidelity" (xx)?
In Chapter one, "Left behind," Trueman begins by critiquing the "New Left," wisely softening the blows he will later deal to conservatives. The basic criticism given to the "New Left" is that it in leaving behind the "Old Left" it has become preachy and has opened the door for "everyone to become a victim and for anyone with a lobby group to make his or her issue the Big One for this generation." Whereas the "Old Left" was concerned with oppression, it limited this oppression to "material, empirical issues--hunger, thirst, nakedness, poverty, disease . . ." The "New Left" expanded the category of oppression to "psychological categories," where this category is conceived in terms of "'Authenticity' and 'inauthenticity'" which is an entirely subjective way to categorize (p.17). For example, homosexuals have been oppressed and thus not allowed to live a lifestyle that is "authentic" (p.12). Another example is to consider the women who have been "oppressed" and not allowed to live "authentic" lives because they have to be bogged down by a child. Thus, abortion allows women to be "authentic," and the "New Left," ironically, fails to give a voice the voiceless, which is the origin of the left (p.12-13).
Trueman also applies this criticism to many evangelical liberals who vote Democrat "in a kind of schoolboyish 'Aren't I naughty?' kind of way." The psychologizing of oppression allows them to self-righteously critique others in a way that doesn't cost anything. He cites, as a recent example, how many left leaning evangelicals criticized Wheaton College's appointment of Philip Ryken to college president. Trueman notes that while evangelical liberals complained "about how dreadful it was that the job had been given to a middle-class white male intellectual rather than a representative of a minority," none of these middle-class white male intellectuals "gave up their own job to make way for a minority candidate and to help with the ending of oppression." Trueman notes that these kind of complaints make the evangelical left "look ridiculously sanctimonious and self-important." It is the type of complaint that, "costs the whiners nothing and [is] therefore worth nothing" (p.15-17).
Conservatives might rightly scratch their head at what Trueman takes to be the "Old Left." Conservatives (and capitalists) have long tried to point out that they are "concerned with oppression . . . limited to material, empirical issues---hunger, thirst, nakedness, poverty, disease . . .", or at least that they can be so concerned (cf. Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice). Indeed, many have pointed out that the numbers seem to suggest that when government taxes less and gets out-of-the-way, charitable giving goes up. Plenty of conservatives have been charitable; very charitable. So, some might claim that Trueman is not playing fair. That is what I was thinking while reading this chapter. However, I believe Trueman sets himself apart from those conservatives at the end of the chapter when he writes that he believes "society and government . . . has a role to play in health care and helping the poor" (p.18, emphasis mine). Now, it should be admitted that "has a role" is vague, but I think Trueman thinks the role should be more involved than most conservatives would want to grant. Trueman does not get specific here---that's not the point of his book---and so there is nothing to critique. It should be pointed out that for what this chapter intends to do---critique the "New Left"---it succeeds.
Chapter two is titled, "The Slipperiness of Secularization." In this chapter Trueman looks at the issue of "secularization" and wonders whether America has escaped it as much as some on the religious Right seem to think. Mind you, Trueman admits that there is a difference between the secularization that happened, and continues to happen, in Europe, and what is going on in America. America is definitely more "religious." Trueman reports the lament of a pastor in Grand Rapids who said that only half of the local population would be in church on Sunday. "Wow, Trueman thought to himself, "that's a tragedy? Back home we'd call that a revival beyond our wildest dreams." Still, Trueman wonders if a secularization hasn't happened in American churches. The main question he asks in the chapter is to wonder whether the "American church has maintained the loyalty of the population by essentially becoming a secular institution" (p. 26-27). Trueman's answer is: sure looks like it.
While he begins by picking on soft targets like Hinn and Osteen, he claims that many of the more conservative churches have bought into a more sophisticated version of the prosperity gospel. Trueman agrees with David Wells's critiques of Evangelical mega and emergent churches, but wonders if similar critiques could be offered of protestant churches Wells might favor. Trueman thinks so. He begins by pointing out that the secular idea of "rights" spills over into church membership, such that church vows are not taken seriously at all. We're individuals with rights and we have no problem ditching a church if it offends our rights, perhaps even in ways that are theological counterparts to those who sue fast food restaurants for not telling them the coffee is hot (p. 28-32). Another indication of secular values is that celebrity syndrome, a "preoccupation with superstars" (p.37). Secular society has Access Hollywood, "the church has---well, insert your name here" (p.39).
"Not-so-Fantasic Mr. Fox," is the title of chapter three. I have to admit, this chapter was a little weird for me. Not because I like Fox news---far from it---but because not only did it seem like Trueman was settling a personal score (Rupert Murdoch is blamed for Trueman's exiting the conservative party, xxiii), I'm not sure the intended targets of his critique will read this book. Much of this chapter reads like a gossip column. Rupert Murdoch does not come out looking good. The gist is that those who think Fox news is a bastion of family values need to recognize that it is owned by a guy three times divorced and who had nude images published in one of his British newspapers. But most who think this read more Colson than Trueman.
Having said that, I should add that Trueman rightly points out that all news organizations are biased, and all trade in offering substanceless soundbites masquerading as sophisticated and rigorous analysis of current events. Trueman also disabuse people of the notion that Fox is the paragon of religious virtue some seem to bestow on it. Furthermore, Trueman is also correct in pointing out that those like Beck and O'Reilly make wild claims and poor arguments, not to mention employing conspiracy theories to scare viewers.
Read more ›