My recent reading of the Progressive Revival blog provides a good opportunity to explain my own identity as a progressive Christian. Of course I must immediately point out that what the larger society deems progress may not necessarily be genuinely progressive, which raises the central issue of what makes for progress. How do we know it when we see it? How do we know what to work for?
The followers of the various ideologies have their own definitions. Marx famously believed in the inevitability of a global movement towards the classless society. History moves in a single direction through the mechanism of the class struggle.
Nationalism believes that the liberation of the nation from foreign control (however the words nation and foreign be defined) is a progressive development.
Liberalism has moved through more than one stage beginning with Thomas Hobbes and culminating in its most recent manifestation in North America. The eschatological vision of liberalism may be less obvious than in Marxism, but it can be said to consist of a society in which everyone acquires equally a maximum degree of personal autonomy, by means of either a small government getting out of the way or, more recently, an expansive government actively intervening to increase the range of personal options available to all.
From a Christian perspective, all three approaches are fundamentally flawed because they fail to account for the givenness and stability of human nature, and because they at least tacitly assume that all obligations not incurred voluntarily are intrinsically alienating and oppressive. Progress is mistakenly deemed to entail ever greater degrees of human autonomy over against such “oppression.”
Although this is a vast topic requiring considerably more than I can give it in this space, I believe that there are two basic ways of measuring progress. The first of these is rooted in the biblical motive of creation, fall and redemption. The second is based on what Reformed Christians call the cultural mandate, as found in Genesis 1:28 and following. There is a tendency in some circles to conflate the two, as found in this wikipedia article, where the human task of developing creation is erroneously identified with “redeeming the culture.”
First, all Christians are aware of the ways in which our culture falls short of God’s intentions. Here genuine progress would entail God’s image-bearers increasingly living up to their pluriform responsibilities in the various spheres of life: husbands and wives remain faithful to each other; parents do not abuse their children; governments refrain from oppressing their citizens; church attendance goes up; the gospel is preached; governments stop pursuing policies that, while pretending to enhance individual freedom, actually contribute to social anomie; political corruption decreases; people use technical developments for good rather than for ill.
Many Christians properly focus on the above, because they know that the proliferation of evil has deleterious effects on the social order. Christians on both right and left try to bring the larger society into conformity with the expressed will of God in, e.g., the Decalogue or the Sermon on the Mount, by focussing on such issues as abortion, euthanasia, alcoholic beverages (a century ago), or poverty.
Second, I would argue for a reading of the cultural mandate that recognizes that the divine call to form culture exists even apart from the post-fall realities of sin and salvation. We image-bearers are not called to redeem our cultures. Only God in Christ can do that. But we are called to develop culture. Here I would strongly recommend a reading of Andy Crouch’s excellent book, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. While Jacques Ellul, George Grant and others view technology as nearly a fall from grace, I am persuaded that we should view our cultural creativity as rooted in our God-given nature. Certainly such developments are subject to abuse, given our sinfulness, but this cannot discredit the developments themselves.
Some possible examples of such progress include representative government, constitutional federalism, modern banking systems, the market, the limited liability corporation, improvements in transportation and communication, refrigeration, improved agricultural methods, international organizations, mass literacy and education, the welfare state (but not an omnicompetent one) and even the softening (though not the elimination) of gender roles. All of these arguably, if not incontestably, can be said represent positive developments of general benefit to humanity. Their absence centuries ago did not represent evils from which our ostensibly more enlightened contemporaries have recently liberated us. Their presence now simply represents legitimate uses and improvements of what God gave us from the outset.
However — and this must never be forgotten — the legitimate development of God’s creation is not itself redemptive. This is where both Social Gospellers and “Save America” types often go wrong. The invention of time-saving devices has freed both men and women to pursue life paths not open to their forebears. Yet this greater range of options in no way brings people closer to living obediently in the light of God’s word. In fact, it may tempt us to assume that we can easily cushion ourselves from the destructive consequences of living as we please. This points to the grain of truth in the negative assessment of technology in Ellul and Grant. We cannot redeem ourselves and we are guilty of overweening pride and idolatry if we assume otherwise.
To call ourselves genuinely progressive requires no small measure of discernment. We cannot afford to bypass this discernment process by assuming that we can accept the larger culture’s definition of progress and go from there. This is the error of many of our self-proclaimed progressive Christians. So, yes, with all these qualifications in mind, I am pleased to call myself a progressive Christian.
November 17th, 2009 | 9:17 am | #1
Not to be too much of a contrarian, since I agree with the main point of your post (yay technology!), I think the “redeeming culture” phraseology might be more biblical than you suggest.
Noah received the same mandate as Adam after the fall, and his covenant arrangement was secured by a propitiatory sacrifice, prefiguring Christ. Abraham in a way got the same mandate: he got promise of a plentiful and royal seed and land, as a means for the destruction of Satan’s kingdom. The Messianic Psalms also take up and associate the dominion mandate with the Messiah’s kingdom: “Ask of me, and I will give you the ends of the earth” says 2:8. And then, as agents of the Messiah’s kingdom itself, we are given the great commission: bring all nations under the sway of Christ’s kingdom.
Leaving eschatological questions aside of whether the Bible envisions the church succeeding in this task, I think it’s hard to deny that the Bible continually fuses the cultural mandate with the expansion of the Messiah’s kingdom.
My $.02, for what it’s worth.
November 17th, 2009 | 9:21 am | #2
Also, I didn’t mean to imply that your only main point was about technology (before someone implies that)…
November 17th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #3
Also also, I really didn’t mean to sound aggressive or angry in my first comment.
I really did like your post. An example in balance that is often missing in discussions about “progress” and “the culture war”. Thanks for your thoughts :-)
November 17th, 2009 | 10:12 am | #4
Take heart, Andrew! I sensed no anger whatever in your comment. :-)
November 17th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #5
David, if only more “progressive” Christians were as thoughtful and pleasant as yourself. Aside from your judgments concerning particular technologies (you’re okay with the modern banking system?), I find myself in general agreement, especially with the main thrust of your post concerning culture and “progress.”
One of the more interesting questions is how to discern whether certain technologies are acceptable or not. I must admit some suspicion with the ease with which you described Ellul and Grant as viewing “technology as nearly a fall from grace” in contrast to those, like yourself, who “view our cultural creativity as rooted in our God-given nature.”
Surely it is a bit of a broad stroke to assert that Ellul and Grant view technology monolithically, and that their position can be distinguished from one that sees cultural creativity as rooted in our nature. Would it not be fair to characterize their thought as distinguishing the nature, benefits and costs of particular technologies and making a judgment on a particular technology on the basis of such engagement? Grant, after all, used the radio and other public technologies to communicate his thought.
Perhaps it is precisely this concern that animates their thought: that viewing “technology” monolithically as either “all good” or “all bad” would necessarily lead to a blind acceptance of all technologies without regard to their human and creational impact, since it is impossible to reject all technology.
November 17th, 2009 | 12:38 pm | #6
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy Crouch and Jake Belder, ThinkChristian. ThinkChristian said: RT @ahc Can we "redeem" culture? No. But we should "develop" it. http://bit.ly/2uxvAy [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 1:32 pm | #7
Albert, I had meant to post a link to an essay by Ellul, “Technique and the Opening Chapters of Genesis,” but it’s been removed from its former location and I cannot find it elsewhere. Perhaps you’ll have better luck. If you’d like, you may contact me via email and I can send it to you. This essay is probably the best introduction to the foundational assumptions behind Ellul’s worldview. I would recommend that you read it and see whether you still think I am painting with too broad a brush.
My own sense is that Grant is somewhat more moderate in his views than Ellul, at least in so far as he sees more of a place for human responsibility in our current plight. He believes that Canada could have chosen not to follow the technological path some seven or so decades ago, but he is scarcely less pessimistic than Ellul.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #8
I believe it’s here:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/technique-and-the-opening-chapters-of-genesis.pdf
Also lot’s of Ellul resources here: http://www.jesusradicals.com/theology/jacques-ellul/5/
Great post, David.
Matt
November 17th, 2009 | 2:09 pm | #9
It is indeed important to distinguish cultural development & the cultural mandate from any idea of cultural redemption.
Koyzis writes:
” We image-bearers are not called to redeem our cultures. Only God in Christ can do that. ”
True as far as it goes. In various ways, the term “redemption” (as applied to culture) has been distorted and misapplied.
However, there remains a legitimate sense (in neocalvinist terms) of Christ redeeming culture as in the reformation or transformation of regenerate persons when their beliefs and practices are brought from control of idolatrous religion and violation of norms to being in accord with God-given norms and under the influence of Christian religious belief.
For shorthand, this is what we neocalvinists mean when we talk of “redeeming” culture, or a “redemptive” approach to culture… whatever non-neocalvinists may mean, we neocalvinists believe we are called to bring Christ’s redemption to bear on culture.
November 17th, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #10
Thanks, Matt. That’s the article.
And yes, Gregory, you’re correct in your interpretation of what I wrote above. We bring to bear Christ’s redemption on culture.
November 17th, 2009 | 6:15 pm | #11
David, I read the essay by Ellul, “Technique and the Opening Chapters of Genesis,” and I can see why you would believe Ellul thinks of technology as “nearly a fall from grace.”
He writes:
In other words, this essay is a consideration of the nature of the prelapsarian Adamic vocation of work answering whether it involved techniques and tools.
It is a speculative piece criticizing other odd speculations. He essentially says that pre-Fall, man did not need tools because he was a participant in an unbroken world of abundant gift where he exercised his dominion through the word. Post-Fall, man and the rest of creation were broken and his capacity for speaking the word was broken as well.
Is he right? As speculations go, his limited point is argued pretty well, although I suspect he lacks in his understanding of the maturing of creation and especially of Adam.
The eschatological question is an interesting one, which he hints at. Will we use technologies then? Will we cut our fingers on scythes? Will we need scythes if our fingers can’t be cut? Will we eat meat? What will the eschaton look like? There will be a city, but will it be made with technologies or through the Word?
On topic, the important assumption I think you hold that I’m not sure about is whether we need to be using technologies in order “to view our cultural creativity as rooted in our God-given nature.” I am pretty sure Ellul, despite his (reasonable) issues with how some designate the creative capacities of man as “co-creative” with God, would see the use of the word as equally creative (in a looser sense) and formative of culture.
Thanks for the essay, David. It’s an interesting perspective I think would be a beneficial counterpoint to technology enthusiasts because it deals with issues that have totally fallen off the radar in contemporary culture, to our loss.
November 17th, 2009 | 7:25 pm | #12
Albert, you might also have noted this revealing parenthetical phrase in the article:
In short, all of Ellul’s speculations on a prelapsarian world appear not necessarily to be anchored in actual history. Was there really a world without technique? It may simply have been an “etiological myth,” and its truth may be of the order of folk tales told to explain a certain otherwise inexplicable phenomenon. In this it may serve something of the function of Hobbes’ state of nature. Ellul has the luxury of speculating in some fanciful ways because it seems not to matter to him whether it really happened.
November 18th, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #13
David, I could be wrong here, but “etiological myth” (which is for him nonetheless true)is Ellul’s term for what folks who do not believe in a literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis believe. This is problematic in many ways, but there are a lot of old-earth creationists out there whose theologies are excellent despite their belief in the non-literal nature of the origins narrative. We should not think of them or Ellul as not caring of what actually happened (or should we?), but as highlighting the importance of genre in hermeneutics.
Is that unreasonable?
November 18th, 2009 | 12:13 pm | #14
The main issue, however, which I think we may be able to agree on, is that we need to look more carefully at what particular technologies (which I agree we do exercise our creativity in making) do for us and to us and what they mean for how we understand ourselves; God; creation;, and our relationships with God, man, animals, and the rest of creation. Do these technologies constitute “progress” in fulfilling our God-given natures in relationships or do they simply constitute “progress” in getting more material stuff for the winners who can access/control these technologies, other consequences be ignored?
I do believe the Church is particularly lacking in its wisdom concerning these issues and technologies, which we produce (“create”) often just because we can and it seems at first to solve some problems. Ought there not be more thought given to our endeavors than that?
November 18th, 2009 | 1:23 pm | #15
Albert, your last comment is absolutely spot-on, in my view. This is why I qualified what I said with “arguably, if not incontestably.” In principle, even the internal combustion engine could be said to be a legitimate development of the huge potential of God’s creation. But there is no doubt that, as we currently use it, it has led to unstewardly living and transportation patterns of questionable sustainability over the long term. “Ought there not be more thought given to our endeavors than that?” Most definitely.
As for your first point, I think we would agree that genre is important in hermeneutics. My own approach to the origins narratives is that they are historical, but that their communication of that history can hardly be expected to conform to contemporary historiographic standards. In that respect, I might be considered a nonliteralist from a certain vantage point. However, my difference with what I think Ellul is saying is between two ways of approaching these narratives:
1. The early chapters of Genesis represent the mythical efforts of primitive people to explain their own origins; and
2. The early chapters of Genesis represent God’s revelation to his people of the story of their own origins in a way that they could understand.
With Ellul’s use of “etiological myth,” it seems to me that he would follow the first approach, while I would follow the second. The stories are more than just tales: they represent real events (creation, fall, flood, &c.), but related in a way that made sense to the people reading them, if not always to contemporary readers.
November 18th, 2009 | 2:42 pm | #16
Great!
As for Ellul, I think it’s hard to say with confidence, apart from a broader reading of Ellul than I have done, that he would reject your 2.
Thanks for the very interesting conversation. :)
November 18th, 2009 | 3:02 pm | #17
It’s that sort of short hand, Baus, that looks a lot like cheating. If you don’t want to be construed as redeeming culture then stop speaking that way. If you mean that Christians are to be obedient to the stipulations of the New Covenant then why not just say it that way? Being redemptive and being obedient are vastly different, and neo’s don’t help anything by employing the former language to convey the latter meaning.
November 18th, 2009 | 3:35 pm | #18
Zrim, neocalvinists *do* want to be construed as doing culture redemptively, and we mean the redemptive work *of Christ* coming to bear on Christians’ cultural activity… a certain different way of doing cultural work/development.
It’s not simply that you think/thought neocalvinists mean they themselves are somehow “Redeemers”; but the real disagreement is whether (and if so, how) redemption has any non-theological, non-ecclesial, non-moral meaning in culture.
We want to be construed as saying “yes, redemption has a meaning for culture.” To know what exactly meaning we think it has, you have to do a bit of reading.
Neocalvinists have a different view than theonomists and “Save America” Evangelicals.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact