the ryan king

I came across an article awhile back (don’t remember who linked to it), called The Real Culture War, by David Brin, Ph.D. by way of the author’s blog and would like to share my thoughts on it.

First, let me summarize some conclusions Brin believes are widely accepted (I don’t disagree):

1. Karl Rove is good at what he does.
2. Forget Red State vs. Blue state- think rural-urban.
3. Educated people voted more for Gore and Kerry.
4. Churches have become centers of political activism.
5. Church radicalization is seen (by insiders) as a moral issue and often as having apocalyptic significance.
6. Many of these new faith-based activists claim that they did not start the culture war, but are merely responding to previous insults.
7. The rest of the world appears to be concerned about this.
8. “This swing away from older traditions of reticence and caution in foreign affairs has deeply disturbed eminent conservatives…” [I quote because I don’t think I can summarize it fairly.]
9. The “Old Right” is uncomfortable with many of the current administration’s policies

Now the only point I would contend is number four. I think it would be much more accurate to say that white suburban churches have become politically active. Haven’t black churches been political (think Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton)?

Anyway, his reason for outlining these items is to show that these divisions cannot be explained with the old left-right axis idea. That dichotomy over-simplifies the issues, putting people in boxes with people with whom they don’t belong.

The question is, would you rather work with people who you agree with in principle or agree with regarding tactics? Then Brin asks the key question:

But how can we work together *when we disagree over the very nature of the universe and of the future*? Or over the very possibility — the *desirability* — of human improvability?

…

we seem divided between those who feel alienated toward — or enthusiastic for — a 21st Century filled with change.

I think this is a serious rift and I believe I have seen it in evangelical Christians. However, I don’t mean all evangelical Christians, just those who ascribe to a premillenial dispensationist eschatology.

For those unfamiliar with this view, it is a view which holds that the world will end suddenly with Christ returning to take the faithful to heaven. Then some tribulation, then the golden age. I’ve you’re familiar with the Left Behind series of books, you know what I’m talking about.

The reason I say that people who hold to this belief aren’t optimistic about the future is that they hold that the world will get progressively worse up until the point where Christ comes back. There’s no way we can stop the “wars or rumors of wars.” In fact these tribulations give many people hope, because it means to them that they are closer to what they think of as a “glorious appearing” of Christ.

So, instead of working to make the present world a better place, they speak out against the world that is obvisiouly moving farther and farther away from what God created. In effect, they romanticize the past– those good ‘ole days when women couldn’t vote and slavery was legal.

The best thing people who believe in this can do is try to convert people so that they can be counted in “the faithful.” Its not worth trying to make the world a more livable place (because that’s just not going to happen), its best to just try and get ready for what’s next (ie, heaven or hell).

So, how could a progressive, who believes that we should work to make the world a better place (and assumes that that’s possible), work with someone who believes that the whole of human history has been one downward trend, an act of rebellion which takes us further and further away from Eden, or whichever ideal Golden Age of yesteryear, a trend which will only be changed by an apocalypic intervention by God himself?

It turns out that premillenial dispensationalists are romantics[bottom of page] (in the literary sense):

They..

1. .. have nostalgia for the past Golden Age (Eden)
2. .. have suspician for new technologies
3. .. have a preference for hierarches
4. .. have enemies who are strawman caricatures
5. .. have a preference for the subjective over the objective
6. .. believe that symbols matter
7. .. believe that their ideology is timeless

[Of course, it would be fair to say some of these things about all Christians.]

From Brin again:

Might brighter generations *outgrow* today’s wisdom, finding it contingent, perhaps sweet, but also… a bit childish? Never!

You see, the conflict is about whether the future is improvable. If we disagree on that point, we will have a tough time working together to make the world better (because, some of us don’t believe that’s possible).

Ah. You see, this is not a new conflict. It’s not! Its not new this political season, its not new this decade or century. This is the same conflict that occured between Romantics and those of the Enlightenment.

In a sense, this mania is understandable— progress creates a future which is alien to us, who grew up in the past. For some, that’s scary. For others, that’s exciting.

I’m not sure what I think of the future.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 1st, 2005 at 8:07 pm.