I've written about moralistic therapeutic deism before (and having just reread it, have to say I think what I had to say back in March stands up pretty well).
The subject is in the news lately thanks to CNN and the good folks at Get Religion have some typically insightful commentary. Reading the pieces that Get Religion links, however, I wonder if some Christian critics aren't overdoing the criticism. For example, Terrence Mattingly quotes sociologist Christian Smith's definition of the central principles of MTD and adds that these principles are "mushy".
Mushy? Pardon me but as a certified crypto-Catholic libertine (it even says I am in my profile so it must be true) I smell a hairshirt in the bushes here. I don't think the problem is that the principles are mushy. The problem is that they aren't quite right. That's right, they aren't quite right, meaning that they are partly right. MTD has its flaws to be sure but it's tending in the right direction.
Which raises an interesting question: Is moralistic therapeutic deism really all that different from what mainstream protestant Christianity has always tended to be?
I won't answer that but here are the five principles from Christian Smith with my commentary:
BUT aren't problems a form of grace? Don't we tend to come to Jesus when we are troubled? Would we disdain someone who spent years of their life coming to God with their problems and then forgetting about him when things started to go well? Because that sounds a lot like me.
Well they do don't they.
I know, I know, you want to say that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. But isn't that what good people do?
I'll grant that no amount of "goodness" will counteract a life spent dismissing Jesus and the Holy Spirit but can anyone who does that be called good? And someone who did that could be forgiven, Saint Paul for example.
Am I saying that God will save anyone who is good and that having faith and the Church is not necessary? No I am not. I'd advise anyone who wants to be saved to get themselves to Jesus as soon as possible and I'd tell them that the way to do that is to get to the Catholic Church but I wouldn't presume to set limits on whom God will save or suggest that there is anyone he cannot save.
My prayer concerning Christopher Hitchens, for example, is that God will bring him to his kingdom not that Hitchens will have some sort of death bed conversion and announce his error to world. That might happen but I only pray that God bring Hitchens to himself and I trust God completely as to how he gets him there.
The subject is in the news lately thanks to CNN and the good folks at Get Religion have some typically insightful commentary. Reading the pieces that Get Religion links, however, I wonder if some Christian critics aren't overdoing the criticism. For example, Terrence Mattingly quotes sociologist Christian Smith's definition of the central principles of MTD and adds that these principles are "mushy".
Mushy? Pardon me but as a certified crypto-Catholic libertine (it even says I am in my profile so it must be true) I smell a hairshirt in the bushes here. I don't think the problem is that the principles are mushy. The problem is that they aren't quite right. That's right, they aren't quite right, meaning that they are partly right. MTD has its flaws to be sure but it's tending in the right direction.
Which raises an interesting question: Is moralistic therapeutic deism really all that different from what mainstream protestant Christianity has always tended to be?
I won't answer that but here are the five principles from Christian Smith with my commentary:
1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.The problem here is a lot of extraneous detail that implicitly applies qualifications and limits to God. The truth is much simpler: "God created the world and watches over human life."
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.Well no, not as taught by most world religions but as taught by Jesus Christ. As I said in my previous post, the Golden Rule is no rule at all. It is a vague principle that needs a lot of content and stage setting to work. The person who fills that out is Jesus Christ by his presence as the word and through the Holy Spirit.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.This is quite simply true. I know, we all want to rush in and qualify "feel good about oneself" so that nobody gets the notion that if it feels good it is good. But surely we as Christians have arguments to counter that. Surely our argument is that the harder work of faith allows us to feel better about ourselves than a life of transient pleasures would do.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.This is the big problem with MTD. The correct Christian response is that we need to involve God in our life and we need to do that all the time.
BUT aren't problems a form of grace? Don't we tend to come to Jesus when we are troubled? Would we disdain someone who spent years of their life coming to God with their problems and then forgetting about him when things started to go well? Because that sounds a lot like me.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
Well they do don't they.
I know, I know, you want to say that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. But isn't that what good people do?
I'll grant that no amount of "goodness" will counteract a life spent dismissing Jesus and the Holy Spirit but can anyone who does that be called good? And someone who did that could be forgiven, Saint Paul for example.
Am I saying that God will save anyone who is good and that having faith and the Church is not necessary? No I am not. I'd advise anyone who wants to be saved to get themselves to Jesus as soon as possible and I'd tell them that the way to do that is to get to the Catholic Church but I wouldn't presume to set limits on whom God will save or suggest that there is anyone he cannot save.
My prayer concerning Christopher Hitchens, for example, is that God will bring him to his kingdom not that Hitchens will have some sort of death bed conversion and announce his error to world. That might happen but I only pray that God bring Hitchens to himself and I trust God completely as to how he gets him there.
I wasn't familiar with this so I clicked on the links. I see what you're saying here and I agree with it. There was also a "comment" that said this is really no different than '50s mainline Protestantism, I assume referring to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's Power of Positive Thinking.
ReplyDeleteI guess like you the only point I would take issue with is #4. Ignatius says in the Spiritual Exercises that God is present "momently" in our lives, i.e., every moment of every day. I believe that because I experience it.
When I was in grad school there was a lot of speculation and worry about people "psychologizing" faith. That wasn't a new concept at the time, it had been around for decades. I think there is a strong connection between the spiritual and the emotional/psychological that is often difficult to separate, but some people see a conflict. Yet the earmark of psychological health is to see oneself as part of a larger picture, that there is something greater than ourselves. That's really no different than what Religion says. I think that young people are maybe changing the vocabulary of what it means to have Faith and getting back to the basics. Many of what are considered core beliefs of traditional Christianity are actually extraneous to what Jesus said.
I'd say the problem is #3. It seems straightforward enough, but actually I think it is not transparent at all. It's vague enough that it can be used in support of almost anything.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have issues with #3 too. You're right, it is vague enough that it can be used to justify almost anything. But from a Christian perspective, Jesus never said that following Him would bring happiness in this life. He also said that it could very well involve suffering. As I interpret the Gospel, He said we wouldn't have to suffer alone because He would always be with us throughout our suffering.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment Gaius. I take it from your screen handle that I probably don't have to tell you about the long debate about whether or not Aristotle's definition of happiness is circular.
ReplyDeleteI remember a housemate I knew in university who went a little wild in third year. There were two guys and there women in the house and the other two women became alarmed when she went through five sexual partners in three weeks.
Anyway, there was a bit of a confrontation with much tears. What really struck me was that the woman in question turned on her critics at one point and said something to the effect of, "If I'm really hurting myself so much by doing this, how come I feel better about myself than I ever have before?"
So how would virtue-ethics proponent like me answer an argument like that?
How about "to each his own" or "chacun a son gout"?
ReplyDeleteI think the problem with most ethical systems--philosophy in general--is that it over-reaches way beyond its legitmate purview, going back to Aristotle. Its one thing to say that X is morally right or or Y is morally wrong, and then justify it. Its quite another thing to say that doing X will bring you happiness. That puts the person saying it in an untenable position--and puts their entire philosophical system at risk of ridicule and--dare I say--shame? because no one can say what will make someone else happy; most people don't know what will make themselves happy, its a life-long process of discovery, usually through trial and error, but that's good. I studied Aristotle as an undergraduate, and there were of course references to him in graduate school classes, but it was an academic exercise, I don't think anyone took what he said seriously as a design for living.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's ethics is not rule-based. Nowhere does he say do X and you will be happy.
ReplyDeleteWhat he does say is develop certain virtues and you are much more likely to be happy (Aristotle admits that there are certain contingencies that might well make it impossible for someone to be happy.)
The stunning thing is that there is a whole lot of social research to back him up. People who develop virtues really are much more likely to be happy.
I didn't mean to suggest that Aristotle's Ethics are rule-based. What I thought I said was the Philosophy over-reaches when it tries to explain what will make people happy. Yes, I've read studies that suggest that people who go to church regularly are less likely to become depressed, or married people allegedly live longer (if you want to call being married a virtue). But doesn't this go back to our earlier discussion about how virtue is culturally determined, I seem to remember you saying Aristotle did not consider humility a virtue? Going back to your original question about the girl who had five sexual partners in three weeks, in our culture many would consider that an incredible stroke of good luck rising to the level of a virtue if she was that hot that five guys wanted to sleep with her! Maybe the virtue that her behavior would be grounded in is that they she and her partners enjoyed it and she saw no harm to herself or them. On the other hand, if you believe that having five sexual partners in three weeks is not virtuous, all you can say is that she isn't aware of the harm yet--either in this life or the afterlife--which requires a leap of faith, its a Faith issue.
ReplyDeleteKnowing how the things worked out in the long run for that woman, I still have to side with Aristotle. The Serpentine One and I ran into her just the other night. She has grown up to be one hard, bitter woman and I don't think that's an accident.
ReplyDelete