David Brooks created quite a stir on Good Friday with his opinion piece in the New York Times, “Creed or Chaos.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22brooks.html
The article is based upon his experience seeing the musical curiously titled “The Book of Mormon”.
The central theme of the play he suggests is that
religion itself can do enormous good as long as people take religious teaching metaphorically and not literally; as long as people understand that all religions ultimately preach love and service underneath their superficial particulars; as long as people practice their faiths open-mindedly and are tolerant of different beliefs.
For Brooks this conviction rings hollow. He argues that
Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.
We flawed human beings need
doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth.
Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality. These maps may seem dry and schematic — most maps do compared with reality — but they contain the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers who through the centuries have faced similar journeys and trials.
We need these realities because
Rigorous theology helps people avoid mindless conformity. Without timeless rules, we all have a tendency to be swept up in the temper of the moment. But tough-minded theologies are countercultural. They insist on principles and practices that provide an antidote to mere fashion.
….
Rigorous codes of conduct allow people to build their character.
For Brooks “a no-sharp-edges view of religion” is simply not up to the task of keeping its adherents on the straight and narrow.
As proof Brooks sights his experience in Africa.
I was once in an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa. The vague humanism of the outside do-gooders didn’t do much to get people to alter their risky behavior. The blunt theological talk of the church ladies — right and wrong, salvation and damnation — seemed to have a better effect.
Children need discipline. They need rules and regulations to keep them safe. It is important to establish boundaries for children. Clear parameters for acceptable behaviour help children grown into healthy mature adults.
But, is it appropriate or healthy to treat the adult residents of “an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa” as if they were children? Is spoon-fed “right and wrong, salvation and damnation” a life-giving approach to religion even if it does seem to create a tidier world for a time?
Mr. Brooks mocks a religion “that is all creative metaphors and no harsh judgments.” But, Africa provides a troubling example of the virtues of “harsh judgments.
Is Mr. Brooks concerned about the fact that the African continent continues to be afflicted by thousands of deaths due to tribal conflicts? Is the ethnic identity that views the world in black and white terms really life-giving in the long-term?
If I am forced to choose between the gentler religions of “creative metaphors,” or religions that are “so doctrinaire and so socially conservative that they would make Pat Robertson’s hair stand on end,” I think I will align myself with the metaphors.
The “blunt theological talk of the church ladies,” may have short-term appeal. But, experience suggests that it is more likely to lead to dishonesty and denial, than true life and freedom.
Jesus came to set Christians free from the legalism to which Mr. Brooks would have us enslaved. Jesus seemed willing to trust that, there is an inherent beauty and truth that resides at the centre of every human being created in the image of God.
The prophecy of the great Hebrew prophet Jeremiah has been fulfilled,
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,* says the Lord. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-35)
I do not feel inclined to rush back to the old covenant simply because life at times is untidy and frightening. I value too highly the dignity of freedom, even the freedom of AIDS-ravaged villagers in Africa.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Lindsay
I received this letter from my Mom in South Africa a couple of weeks ago … which set me thinking about lowering and raising expectations in general … I’ll post it separately with apologies because it is a bit long.
Reading it again now, I started wondering about this man Jonathan Jansen who is the chancellor of the University of Bloemfontein … which is in a staunchly conservative (farming and gold mining) province of South Africa and near where I grew up … This is an article I found about him … he seems an extraordinary man ….
http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-03-08-the-beautiful-mind-of-jonathan-jansen
April 27, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Lindsay
Mediocrity
by Jonathan Jansen: Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State .
I have in front of me the 2010 “Statement of Results” for the National Senior Certificate statement of a youngster who demands to study at university.
They are: Afrikaans 43, English 39, mathematical literacy 38, life orientation 78, business studies 41, computer applications technology 31, life sciences 28
At the bottom of the certificate is this unbelievable statement: “The candidate qualifies for the national senior certificate and fulfils the minimum requirements for admission to higher education.”
Understandably, this young woman takes these words literally, and correctly demands a seat in any place of higher learning. With the young woman’s claim to study I have no problem. With the society that sets the bar for performance so low, I have serious problems.
Slowly, slowly we are digging our collective graves as we fall into a sinkhole of mediocrity from which we are unlikely to emerge.
We make excellence sound like a white thing. Behind a massive wave of populism, and in the misguided name of regstelling (setting right the past), we open access to resources and universities to young people without the hard work necessary to achieve those gifts and to succeed once there. Of course, you’re a racist if you question this kind of mindlessness; how else do you, as a politician, defend yourself against the critics of mediocrity in an election year?
I miss Steve Biko. In the thinking of black consciousness, he would have railed against the low standards we set for black achievement, in the language of the 1970s.
This young (incidentally black) person did not achieve anything above 50% in her Senior Certificate results for any exam subject, but we tell her she can proceed to higher studies. What are we saying? That black students are somehow less capable and therefore need these pathetic results to access higher education? No, I am sorry, but today I am angry about the messages we send our children.
I saw black parents and students squirm the other night when I addressed a racially diverse group of parents and students and made this point clear: “If a black student requires from you different treatment and lower academic demands because of an argument about disadvantage, tell them to take a hike.” (Okay, I used stronger language.)
I saw white teachers squirm when I made the other important point: “If you have lower academic expectations of black children because of what they look like, or where they come from, that is the worst kind of racism.”
Our society, schools and universities have adjusted expectations downwards, especially in relation to black students, and that is dangerous in a country with so much promise for excellence.
As stories come rolling in from across the country for our Great South African Teachers book, I am struck by one thing. That many black professionals who are chartered accountants, medical scientists or corporate lawyers tell of attending ordinary public schools under apartheid, often in rural areas, and having teachers at the time who, despite the desperate poverty and inequality, held high expectations of their learners. There was no compromising on academic standards; there was homework every day; there was punishment for low performance; and there was constant motivation to rise above your circumstances.
Not today. Mathematical literacy is a cop-out, a way of compensating for poor maths teaching in the mainstream. Parents of Grade 9 children, listen carefully – do not let your school force your child into mathematical literacy because they will struggle to find access to academic degree studies at serious universities. Insist your child does mathematics in Grade 10 for that important choice determines what your child writes in Grade 12.
It is not, of course, mathematical literacy that I am concerned about; there are good teachers of the subject. It is about the message we send: that children can’t do maths.
In other words, a message again communicated of low expectations. Do not buy into this culture of mediocrity in the way your child makes subject choices. Also, tell your child not to take life orientation seriously; as you can see in the above results, there is no positive relationship between high marks in academic subjects and this thing called life orientation.
Small wonder young people with better results than those above are without work. The marketplace, and serious universities, know this child will not succeed with these kinds of results, even if Umalusi does not “get it”.
April 28, 2011 at 12:39 am
timberwraith
That’s funny, I’ve seen “rigorous” (i.e. rigid) theology demanding conformity from people under fear of everlasting damnation and ostracism by their faith community. I’ve also seen “rigorous” theology being used as a weapon to condemn those who refuse to conform to patriarchal, heteronormative, cisnormative social expectations. More than a few of the “timeless rules” embraced by “rigorous” religion tend to embody oppressive, hurtful social codes that should have rightfully been left in the past along with so many other forms of ancient barbarity.
When I hear David Brooks utter these words, what I hear is a carefully crafted dog whistle that calls out to bigots who dismiss progressive social change as “conformity, fashion, and political correctness” and who define “counter cultural” as harkening back to an era when women, LGBT people, and other undesirables accepted their lowly station in life without complaint.
By the way, just a reminder: Uganda, the country that Brooks mentions, is the country that has been trying to institute a bill that further criminalizes homosexuality by making provisions for executing anyone who has repeat convictions for engaging in same sex relations (homosexuality is already illegal and punishable by 14 years imprisonment). The existence of this bill was inspired by the influence of US evangelical Christians in a country that already embraces hyper-conservative versions of religion. This is what the “rigorous” forms of religion that Brooks so lovingly speaks of tend to bring into the world: oppression, violence, and death for those who will not conform to religion’s attempt to control and manipulate humanity.
Consequently, I’ll take non-rigorous, non-literal forms of religion any day. My childhood and my family relationships were warped by a version of Christianity that saw life’s answers as bound in a rigid set of archaic social codes. My country’s laws are currently being warped by forms of Christianity that are either equally rigid or far worse. Inevitably, people of this mindset reach a place where they try to exert control over the way everyone leads their lives—both those within the church and those without. Consider that the Mormon church, a religion which Brooks sees as having the requisite characteristics of a “rigorous” religion, has poured tons of money into opposing civil rights legislation for LGBT people.
This needs to stop now, before more people are hurt.
Words can not express the level of disdain I feel toward the attitudes of people like David Brooks.
April 28, 2011 at 8:05 am
timberwraith
From David Brooks’ article:
Here is the primary argument that is used to paint atheists and agnostics as inherently amoral or immoral people. This is one of the unfortunate tropes that generates so much of the animosity that non-believers feel toward religious people. It also leads religious families into rejecting family members who do not follow the family’s belief in a god. I really, really hate the stereotype of immoral non-believers and it’s a sure fire way to make me pretty darned angry.
There are many ways of arriving at a solid form of ethics and moral codes that do not involve a belief in deities. Empathy and an understanding of what hurts others are pretty good places to start. My sense of morality and ethics is just as solid as the next person—god or no god.
Besides, religion’s morally superior history is littered with atrocities committed in God’s name across the centuries. There’s also the Catholic church and its numerous instances of child abuse that were deliberately hidden from public scrutiny. A belief in a god guarantees nothing unless you engage you intellect and your heart. I might add that one can accomplish both with or without a belief in the divine.
Plus, David Brooks’ line of reasoning so easily degenerates into the sectarian tribalism that divides one believer from another. So, people can’t be moral unless they listen to their god? Whose version of divinity should people listen to? What about all of those people throughout the world’s 40 religions (and thousands of sects and denominations) who worship different spiritual forces than you? I’m guessing that they are probably going to be seen as immoral, too… kind of like those rudderless, bohemian atheists.
Just ask a conservative Christian what they think of Paganism. Ask them what they think of Muslims or Hindus, too. Remember the sense of moral outrage that is currently being expressed by Rob Bell’s detractors? They sure are upset about the version of divinity embraced by all of those nasty, liberal universalists. Worshiping the “wrong” god(s)—or worshiping them “incorrectly”—ultimately boils down to embracing the wrong sense of morality and once again, exclusivism rears its ugly head.
What I suspect that Mr. Brooks is uncomfortable with is the notion of people who dare think for themselves. This is a fear embedded in the notion that the world can not be described in a simple series of absolute statements: shades of gray striking fear into the heart of a black and white thinker. His words reflect a general fear I so often see manifested toward those who would challenge the moral claims of the world’s traditional, authoritarian religions. Unspoken lies the elitist assumption that the commoner cannot be left to make decisions without the guidance of the church, as the face of God so often serves as a deceptive mask for the edicts of institutional authority.
April 28, 2011 at 5:40 pm
inaspaciousplace
Wow! I kind of feel breathless after reading both your comments. Thank you for the energy and passion in your words. I wish you could post them as a comment to Mr. Brooks and that he might read them and respond.
I agree with everything you say… But I have one nagging little question. It is perhaps simply a reflection of my position in a religious organization… but it is just possible it expresses a legitimate concern.
It seems to me that the shred of validity that lies in Mr. Brooks’ almost entirely specious argument is that any community needs to have at least a minimal way of establishing its identity if it is going to hold together as an identifiable entity.
This is why I keep using the word “parameters.” See particularly “Parameters #1″ posted on April 16 in which I tried to articulate the issue in the hopes of gaining some insight. Interestingly, it generated no comments.
I work in a Christian church. The use of the label “Christian” identifies me and the church in which I work in a certain way. It alerts people to what they might expect to experience if they were to attend the church in which I work. Surely, this is not a bad thing.
In the church in which I work, we attempt to identify ourselves as a place that is open, welcoming, and inclusive. These are identifying labels. They help us be the community we hope to be. Ironically, they also serve to warn certain Christians that we are a community they want to avoid. Thus the use of the defining terms makes us less inclusive than we hope to be.
Having said all that, I hope you might get the chance to see the film “Of Gods and Men.” It shows such a beautiful and to me touching vision of Christian faith. I will speak a bit about it tomorrow in my post.
Again thank you so much for your thoughtful reflections.
April 29, 2011 at 7:51 am
timberwraith
Thanks for saying that, Christopher. I was a little worried that my slipping into “rant mode” would alienate people. Sometimes, when I write while angry, I say things that push boundaries a wee bit too much.
I’ll contemplate doing that. I rarely leave comments on newspaper comment threads because there are so many trolls roaming those spaces. It can be quite triggering to interact with folks who are in that frame of mind.
I would pose a different question: how does one establish group identity in a way that does not depend upon denigrating or dehumanizing those who lie outside of the group?
Human beings are quite adept at creating “us vs. them” relationships between varying groups of people. I’d argue that we’re a little too good at doing this. One of the problems I see repeated in so many group interactions is that groups too often rely upon the notion of an external threat—real or imagined—to maintain group cohesiveness. That approach to maintaining group boundaries very effectively harnesses natural “fight or flight” emotions to keep the group whole. Human beings, like most animals, are built to survive. It’s quite primal, and because this need to survive is so deeply bound in our beings, it is a very effective resource to draw upon when forming and maintaining groups. The problem is the propensity of such emotions to drive emotional, physical, and institutionalized violence toward those who lie outside of the group. How long before these survival-focused emotions turn ugly and redirect themselves in a way that encourages great harm toward those who lie outside of one’s community? How long before these emotions are turned against members of the community who don’t quite conform to the community’s spoken and unspoken requirements for group membership?
Lets restate the problem. The issue does not so much lie with establishing a distinct identity for one’s group but rather, there is often a tendency to distrust those who lie outside of the group, evaluate those people as an external threat, and then incorporate that sense of threat into the very identity of the group. It’s important to realize that it’s not just religious groups that are vulnerable to this problematic mode of group identity—any well defined group of people is vulnerable to reproducing these dynamics. (Atheists, too! Goodness gracious, it’s not hard to find that dynamic widely illustrated on some of the more popular atheist blogs. That’s the primary reason why I don’t link to many of those websites on my own blog.)
So, in the specific context of religion, how does one form a community of faith without othering those outside one’s community, regardless of whether they hold no sense of the divine or they hail from other faiths? I’d say that focusing on conquering the human fear of difference is one of the starting points in this quandary. I’d also say that the common theme of love and caring that I see reflected in the words of many from your faith community is also a great starting point—as long as people remember to sincerely extend that sense of emotional connectedness to those who live outside of the boundaries of one’s faith community and system of belief.
OK, I’m done preachin’. Thanks for listening to my blather.
Hey, by the way, Lindsay and jaqueline commented on your April 16th article.
April 29, 2011 at 8:21 am
timberwraith
Oh, and just for the record: I fully admit that I’m as vulnerable to becoming wrapped up in the detrimental effects of “us vs. them” thinking as the next person. A lot of what I’ve written is taken from witnessing my own patterns of thought and interaction with others.
I’m part of the problem, too.
April 29, 2011 at 8:46 am
Lindsay
We need a church which transcends boundaries and works towards peace and integration between all religions and non-religions. If there is any overriding group identity this church would have, it would be in this role … It’s a similar role to what Jonathan Jansen has taken on at the University of Bloemfontein to integrate a deeply divided group of people. I like what Jansen says about love first and then a strong moral guiding code to lead in difficult times.
We need a church that has a history …. is not afraid to look at it’s chequered history, both to acknowledge and learn from mistakes made in the past and abuse of power, as well as it’s strengths and how/why it came into being in the first place as a splinter group, strongly founded on humanistic principles and deeply rooted in Christian tradition … a church which had and still has a strong voice and which is able to move forward towards reconciliation and motivated by a mission … leadership by example.
We need a church which is motivated by Love as the overriding principle … the golden and silver rules … which is able to acknowledge fear but not be swept away by it … We need a church which preaches and acts on love and peace and acceptance and understanding … is based on the teaching of Jesus and the new commandment … a commandment which is really simple and straightforward that even a small child can understand … a humble, patient, devoted love in service to God and each other and ourselves … a love which offers peace the way Jesus visioned when he wept at the gates of Jerusalem …. I sense a kind of love which has freedom, independence and backbone … which has the fortitude to withstand and lead in dark, relentless and challenging times.
What we need doesn’t seem so far off from what God is asking us to do …
April 30, 2011 at 12:32 am
Lindsay
“I was once in an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa. The vague humanism of the outside do-gooders didn’t do much to get people to alter their risky behavior. The blunt theological talk of the church ladies — right and wrong, salvation and damnation — seemed to have a better effect.”
They say it takes a village to raise a child ….
With no food, a 10 year old girl was cooking grass for her 3 younger siblings when my Dad and a group of men from the Men’s church guild found them. Their adults had died of Aids.
The men took food to the children and checked in on the small family. When the men of church went back to check on the children, they found the little girl cooking grass. “What happened to the food we gave you?” “Our neighbours took it.” The men went over to the neighbour’s hut … “Why did you take the food?” “We were hungry. The kids are going to die of Aids anyway”.
Did the men of the church shrug their shoulders and say, “This is Africa. What’s the point of trying to help these kids if their neighbours steal the food? We can’t possibly feed everyone.” I don’t know what happened afterwards … but I’ve heard the same kind of story we tell ourselves so many times …. I’d like to think the men kept going back to check up on the children, and that somehow the children got some sense that there was someone out there who cared about them, and that the neighbours somehow came to realize that they couldn’t mess with the children because there were people out there who cared about the children. I’d like to think that …
So I’m asking myself, do I honestly care about the theological ideology and religious affiliation of the people of the “village”, if the children are being fed and cared for? I’m thinking … not so much.
May 1, 2011 at 10:11 am
Lindsay
Hi Timberwraith,
On the face of it, it seems with you and me, our backgrounds are quite different, where we find ourselves today … in very different places and the aspects of the world we each of us feel most passionate about worlds apart … and it seems especially wonderful that we’ve been able to meet, and to meet here on Christopher’s blog space … I really hope that one day you will be able to make it out here to the West Coast … I would love to meet you and shake your hand in person, and share that slice of cake. I would love to have a chance to chat with you about ideas on how we can move forwards … beyond the pain your experience of church life has created in your own life and beyond the frustration I feel of the church here being mired in inertia, too afraid of making mistakes, of getting it wrong …
May 5, 2011 at 6:49 am
timberwraith
That would be fun, Lindsay.
Here’s an important clarification, Lindsay. The more I think about my experiences as a child, the more I realize that my experiences were not specifically a product of my church. Just to be clear, the hurtful religious/spiritual ideas that I encountered as a child were prevalent in my family, my community, and my culture—not simply the church. My experiences with religion largely happened in the 1970s (I dropped out of church before my teens), in a conservative community during a time that was just beginning to experience a wave of secularism. You could say that the damaging ideas of religion were a kind of ever-present background radiation existing in the general culture I grew up in.
From my conversations with other people who have been hurt by religion—LGBT people in particular—my experiences are not all that unusual.
Thankfully, the mainline denominations have improved since then (the newer, independent mega-churches are still quite awful). The general culture has improved in many parts of my country as well. However, there is still a very, very long way to go. Far too many children are still being hurt and in really terrible ways.
May 7, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Lindsay
Hey Timberwraith,
August would be a good month. Accommodation isn’t a problem ‘cos you could stay with me. Food we can figure out as we go … so if you could get away at that time, it would just the cost of flights, which I’d need to leave up to you …. I did some searches on the internet and it looks like it might be cheaper for you to fly Seattle arriving in the morning and either take the Clipper over to Victoria, or head over Vancouver by bus/train and catch the ferry from there … but then that also depends on whether you like to go the scenic route or directly from A -> B. I realize there might be a lot of other considerations from your end, but from this side I’m thinking it looks doable, so just putting it out there for your consideration.
May 8, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Lindsay
Timberwraith, one thing I’m wondering about is corporal punishment … Was it the norm when you went to school? In chatting with my FB buddy who went to the same boys’ school as my brothers, and remembering how it was with my brothers, they were forever being sent for cuts. It was different for me at the girls’ school. Also at home, I didn’t get beaten like my brothers were … an advantage of being a girl for sure. When I look back at how things were versus how they are nowadays and compare my brothers’ school days with my sons’ and also my own I must admit I’m really glad that corporal punishment is outlawed. It’s a change much for the better … physical punishment changes something on a fundamental level I reckon.
What’s weird too is my boys’ and their friends are such good kids compared to my brothers and their friends … I’m not just saying that ‘cos I’m their mom. It just seems my brothers got up to so much more mischief back then …. which isn’t necessarily a bad thing … it’s just different times and culture I guess, and more talking about behavioural consequences … (read lectures) which is a punishment in itself … so I’ve been told. Hmmm, note to self, gotta go back to less talking …
June 11, 2011 at 12:48 pm
timberwraith
Corporal punishment was not used in the schools that I attended in Maryland. Although, I see that it wasn’t outlawed until 1993. (I was in school in the 70s and 80s.) My parents used a fairly minimal amount of corporal punishment, I believe. I don’t remember being all that mischievous a child, but that’s probably a matter of the eyes of the beholder.
I did receive quite a bit of physical abuse from my peers however—quite a bit less than the the girls seemed to be subject to and less than most of my male peers, too. That certainly had its impact.
May 11, 2011 at 7:32 am
Lindsay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/uganda-anti-gay-bill
Following a track posted by one of my young friends on FB, this article about Uganda, the anti-gay bill and Anglican involvement. I’m wondering, does this mean the Archbishop of Canterbury has no say over what the Anglican church does in Uganda?
May 11, 2011 at 7:36 am
Lindsay
I should mention my young friend is Canadian and as far as I know has no ties to Africa or the Anglican church ….