A Great Returning?

     Quoth Chris Queen:

     We’ve heard a prevailing narrative that Americans are drifting away from faith in general and Christianity more specifically. For a long time, we’ve seen interviews with celebrities who grew up in Christian homes but now consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.” Surveys make a big deal out of how many Americans consider themselves “nones.”
     […]
     Noted atheists like Russell Brand and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have become Christians, and other non-religious people like Richard Dawkins and the UK’s Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch publicly speak of the value of Christianity to the culture. Does that mean that the tide is changing?

     The possibility that the West is rediscovering its Christian roots is more than interesting; it’s heartening and exciting. Not only is there immense value for individuals in the Christian faith – both its mythos and its ethos — it’s also an indispensable suit of civilizational and cultural armor. Without it, we have grown all too penetrable by creeds and ideologies hostile to what makes America uniquely great. As those invading creeds and ideologies are inherently imperialist, our values – spiritual, cultural, and legal – have taken a number of body blows.

     There are some hazards to be avoided, of course. An aggressive, imperialist Christianity in response to imperialist alien faiths would be dangerous to the whole world. Christians must not seek to convert the rest of Mankind by force; that’s the aim that makes Islam evil. Nor should we aspire to “establish” Christianity, in the British sense, nor strive to impose it on others willy-nilly. Not only is that forbidden by the First Amendment; it would be counterproductive. True faith must always be a matter of free individual choice.

     But for Americans to return to Christianity would be of enormous benefit to us. Non-Christians tend to be deficient in optimism: weak in hope, if you will. Christianity is explicitly an optimistic, forward-looking creed. The core of the thing is that God is benevolent, and that He has a Plan for each of us. It fosters hope in those who sincerely believe, and makes it durable.

     What a beautiful possibility to entertain at this time of year!

     I’ve had a few conversations with others in recent years that bear on this subject. It seems that there are many who want to believe but can’t quite get there. The “leap of faith” – the decision to believe without conclusive proof – isn’t like any other act of the mind. Not only does it require what seems a non-logical inference; it’s powerfully opposed by a number of forces that have grown strong since World War I. I have two in mind that strike me as the most important of the lot.

     First is the ultra vires phenomenon: that is, the attempts by men to yoke their personal preferences to the authority of Christ. Simply because a man has been ordained as a priest or minister does not make him an infallible authority on what God wants of us. The source material – the Gospels of Jesus Christ – must be treated as the empowering documents for any doctrinal assertion. In other words, if He didn’t say anything that applies to a particular topic, then Man is free on that topic, subject only to the dictates of conscience. I had a character declaim on this in In Vino:

     “There are people who would regard a Mustang with a V8 engine as wasteful and irresponsible,” Ray said. “Obviously I don’t. Judgment call. Here’s another: there are people who consider the breeding, slaughtering, and eating of animals a terrible act of disrespect to the animals, their Creator, or both. As my favorite meal in the entire universe is a juicy bacon cheeseburger broiled the way Costigan’s does them, clearly they and I see things differently. Judgment call. Even material acts of charity can have some controversial aspects. Suppose you give some money to a charitable organization, which promises to use it to help others in need…but you find out later that the money actually made things worse for the supposed beneficiaries? Did you really commit a charitable act, or should you do penance for the harm that was done with your money? Judgment call. I could think of lots more.”
     Fountain, who had been silent practically from the start of the session, spoke up at last.
     “Is that why we are told to listen to our consciences, Father?”
     Ray chuckled. “Thank you, Fountain. It is. The word ‘conscience’ means ‘knowing with.’ But knowing with whom? As we can’t read one another’s consciences, or transmit into them, it can only be God. Conscience is the channel God uses to help us make our judgment calls—which does not mean that if you and I make a particular one differently, then one of us is ‘wrong.’ You can never know what another person’s conscience has told him…or whether he’s really paid attention to it as he should.”
     “‘Judge not, that ye be not judged,’” Larry said.
     “Exactly,” Ray said. He pointed upward. “Do what you can with yourself, and leave the rest to Him.”
     “Glory be to God,” Domenico Monti whispered.

     Second is the attack on Christianity that’s founded on a perversion of intellectualism. This is one against which many have brushed, as it’s both aggressive and self-satisfied. Those attributes make it both dangerous and vulnerable.

     The core of this attack is an appeal to vanity: “You’re too smart to believe all that crap.” I wrote a little about this yesterday, but the tactic deserves wider and deeper reflection.

     Christianity is a miracle faith. He who cannot believe in miracles cannot accept Christianity, for Christianity requires that he accept a miracle – the Resurrection of Jesus Christ – as a historical fact. C. S. Lewis put it thus:

     No nation, and few individuals, are really brought into [Christianity] by the historical study of the biography of Jesus, simply as biography. Indeed materials for a full biography have been withheld from men. The earliest converts were converted by a single historical fact (the Resurrection) and a single theological doctrine (the Redemption) operating on a sense of sin which they already had — and sin, not against some new fancy-dress law produced as a novelty by a “great man”, but against the old, platitudinous, universal moral law which they had been taught by their nurses and mothers.

     But it’s the easiest thing in the world to reject a miracle… at least, if you weren’t there to see it. Indeed, some have rejected personally witnessed miracles simply by insisting to themselves that “That couldn’t have happened.” They who attack Christianity on this basis perform a bit of conceptual sleight-of-hand. To harness vanity, they speak of intellect – “you’re too smart” – but in point of fact are appealing to natural skepticism about fantastic events that cannot be reproduced by mortal man.

     In the face of those two opposing forces, a true resurgence of Christian faith in our time would be even more significant than Chris Queen thinks. For faith that arises despite powerful opposition must be tough. It must have muscles. And have no doubt of it: the opposition is strong, determined, and relentless.

     I wrote recently about the hostility of those who pose as authorities toward other sources of moral guidance:

     All secular power is threatened by alternative sources of authority and moral guidance. The powers that be hate Christianity above all other creeds, for it proclaims Man to be free.

     A resurgent Christianity would face not just the opponents I mentioned in the previous segment, but also the enmity of secular “authorities,” who have profited greatly by Christianity’s decline and who would lose stature and influence in the face of its renewal. We’ve known for a while that nearly all the members of our ruling class are moral degenerates; the evidence could hardly be plainer or more copious. How, then, would we expect them to react to a newly energized Christianity, grown bold enough to point at their depravities and condemn?

     And with that, I leave the matter for my Gentle Readers to ponder.