"Christians are supposed not merely to endure change, nor even to profit by it, but to cause it.”
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
Well, YF, where do I begin? I have no idea. But I'll start with the Modernist controversies and go from there. Heh. What's a hundred years between friends? I know that people want to undo the entire Enlightenment in many American theological circles. I get it. Really I do. But I think that is too large a chunk of theophilosophizing in the American context. Unlike Europe or the East, Amerca showed up after or even as a result of the Enlightenment. Our Constitution and even secular (Let's not debate the use of that word for this post...) values reflect that we come from out of the Enlightenment. It has been good and bad for us. 'Nuff said.
But things come to a head in the early 20th century. What do we do when science seems to outrun faith in the public sphere. It's not as if athiesm was new in 1911. Not at all. See: Ben Franklin. And American Protestant Chiristianity has always been heavily socially driven. Thus the Prohibition Era. That was the fruition of a hundred years of politicing by the churches. Slavery was an issue that caused some very strange ecclesial unions on both sides of the issue. So, when you speak of liberal Christianity being a failure, I think you may not be speaking about liberal Christianity at all.
If the Abolitionist movement is "liberal Christianity" then did it fail? Did the Civil Rights Movement? I dunno if I am being clear.
Bonhoeffer studied at Union in New York. He served at a church in Hell's Kitchen when he was here. One of the things he was struck by in his class work was how little dogma the students studied or engaged, but how much more passion, feeling and societal influence faith held for these people. He brought this back with him when he returned to Germans. Much of his work that followed incorporated that experience into the theophilosophical maelstrom of German study and politics. Thus he spoke out. Thus he stood up. Thus a community was born. Now, I don't want to make too much of this, but I think that the church acting was a foreign thing to him until he came to the US. Really.
The American form of Christianity, liberal or conservative, has always been moralist and action oriented. From the Puritans to Harry Emerson Fosdick, this has been so. Currently, Falwell and Forbes are our moralists. They both pick and choose doctrine that undergirds their specific understanding of Christian ethics. Welcome to America. Pick what you like. And, as you suggest, the RCC and OCA have both picked up on this cultural particular in the US. That cannot be a surprise.
So, respectfully, I think that we have to expand the conversation beyond liberalism in American Christianity. It is a greater conversation than that. Remember, the NCC is based out of an American evangelical organization...one sent to rescue "the heathen" in Africa from their own culture. American/Western culture, which assumed Christianity, was espoused.
I know, I wanted to keep it simple, smaller than the Enlightenment. And I still think that. Let's talk about the Modernist controversies again. Let's see what went wrong there...and then follow the stream back.
If you are on to something at all, it is that American Christianity is the child of the Reformation, a movement that assumed Christianity to be the highest form of Western culture by the time America was founded. Liberalism and conservativism (fundamentalism etc) all assume Christianity within the cultural milieu. England taught us that. Heck, the West taught us that. So, if Christianity is assumed, doctrinal chatter and musings become unimportant. Doctrine is assumed. So, has the cultural assumption changed? Do we no longer assume Christianity within the culture? Is that what we are seeing? Doctrinal Christianity itself has been watered down to the point where it has vanished? I doubt that, but maybe what we are seeing is a change in the posture of the American Church of one era struggling with the inherited posture from another.
Blah. I am blathering now. Have I said anything worthwhile? Let me know.
Peace!
Posted by tripp at January 31, 2007 09:23 AMTripp I've posted my thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure that I agree that "if Christianity is assumed, doctrinal chatter becomes unimportant," but I do agree that Christianity is no longer assumed as often as it once was, at least in the United States.
Posted by: Jorge Sanchez at January 31, 2007 02:43 PMI keep forgetting to tell you.
A couple of weeks ago, I saw a French modern dance group. Well, it was 3 French guys and a
Spaniard.
I learned from them that the Trinity thing --
3 in 1 or 3 separate ones -- is not really that difficult to do.
The choreographer's concept was making 4 people into 1. And these people are just mortals.
Next time I am in Chicago, I can demonstrate.
All you need are some every day items like
bottled water. No contorting your body necessary.
The only difference between the Trinity and
3 French guys & a Spaniard, is that the 4 into 1
sometimes would fall asleep.
The Trinity, from what I understand, never sleeps.
The Spaniard had the last line in the concert.
None of us could understand what he was saying.
So, at the wine & cheese reception after the concert, I asked one of the French guy dancers what he said. He said in a French accent, "Yes,
the Spanish accent is difficult to understand."
I thought that was funny.
Anyway, the Spaniard was speaking one of Hamlet's
lines.