Will the Center Hold?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre/The falcon cannot hear the falconer/Things fall apart; the center cannot hold/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/The ceremony of innocence is drowned/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.--from "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yates (1919)

A common cliche in contemporary political, social, and religious circles is the question: Will the center hold? Although ignorant in the "finer things" of historic literature, I cannot help but hear the echoes of Yates poem in the current conservative-christian cry of impending doom due to the forsaking of our nations "Christian" heritage. In direct contrast to that sentiment one reads from Brian McLaren, the Church's own Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde (civil demeanor/theological monstrosity), the optimistic refrain that "there is some kind of pull back to the center," by which he means a quest for new-found unity amongst the disillusioned. Amongst Christians of various sorts then, one finds both hopeless pessimism and baseless optimism.

This contrast can be seen in Yates' day as well. His poem was a year removed from the Allied victory in WWI--the effect of which was to inflate American pride and optimism to soaring new heights. At the same time, a mind-numbing modernism was settling upon American intelligence and morality. More and more, the answer to the question "What is right?" came in the form of "whatever is most useful to the end of unity and prosperity."

The dualism likewise appeared after WWII. Allied troops had just defeated the most insatiably blood-thirsty regime in the history of mankind, only to find Europe subsequently partitioned by an "Iron Curtain," to borrow Churchill's term. On one side of that curtain, freedom reigned; on the other side, a monster that would soon supplant Hitler as history's great villain as between 40 and 100 million people were wiped out in less than a century. This new division was probably less disturbing for the deeply-reflective types than the knowledge the same naturalistic-materialist philosophy (Darwinism) that gave rise to the evils of Soviet and (later) Chinese communism was shared by the democratic West. Mengele's machines of inhumanity and torture were shut down in Germany, only to be replaced by gulags in the Soviet Union and abortion clinics in the West.

Many thought America to either be on the verge of collapse or salvation in 1967, according to a recent article by former British MP, Jonathan Aikman. In that year, communism was seen to be spreading its evil tentacles across the world and flower power was lifting America's hippies to new drug-induced highs. As in the time of post-WWI optimism and the post-WWII "baby boom," this perceived time of radical alteration was little more than a blip on the historical radar screen. Optimistic dreams were deferred and pessimistic fears were alleviated.

That leads us back to the contrasting outlooks on the present day. Science since the days of Darwin has attempted to maintain an objective neutrality in its analyses, aiming to descriptive rather than prescriptive. Following Kant's contrast between objective "facts" and subjective, non-scientific "values," science has arrogantly but judiciously maintained that line and focused upon its own perceived prerogatives. We now live in a day of the pseudo-sciences of so-called "social science," however. Psychology has blurred the line between the chemical sciences and social sciences, combining description and prescription. The most phony of sciences, sociology and my own political science ("politicology?"), study "people" and "trends" and try to prescribe "innovative" new ideas to accommodate the changes in society.

In his fascinating recent blog on Dumbledore's sexual "declosetization" (my term), my very good future-pastor friend noted his denomination's view of homosexuality. He rightly pointed out that people who struggle with homosexuality have their admirable qualities like everyone else and should be more highly regarded and loved by Christians. Here here! Apparently, some circles in that denomination have officially endorsed a "study" that declares approximately 2-3% of people are born homosexual and another 3% are born bisexual. While I would agree with many of my friend's conclusions, I must emphatically state that the Church must never ground its theology in anything but God's Word. I am not accusing my friend of turning his back on God's Word (he certainly would strive not to), but critiquing the use of such a study by the Church in this manner. Not only is this proper grounding in the Word the biblical and historic precedent of the Church, but also takes into consideration the wonderful critiques of postmodernity pertaining to the strongly-subjective nature of science. General revelation provides the human eye and mind with many things, but when it comes to theology and faith, it only provides enough to condemn (Rom. 1).

Speaking of Romans 1, that passage draws the earlier historical-philosophical discussion together with the preceding paragraph. Romans 1 describes how God gave man over to the consequences of his rebellious idolatry, the prime example of which is homosexuality. It is not grounded in Creation, but in the Fall. The people who struggle with it are entitled to respect as they are part of the created order, but the thorn with which they're afflicted is part of the distortion of that created order. It is not just the sinful action that matters, but also the fundamental distortion of God's created bond between man and wife that occurs when people adopt or succumb to a homosexual "orientation." Such a distortion is Paul's key illustration in Romans 1 concerning how ridiculous mankind is now made to look for his idolatry of the created order.

This example, in turn, provides a key to the philosophy of this age, termed by many as "postmodernism" but drifting toward the recapitulation of ancient Rome that many term "neo-paganism." Whereas modernism was a quest for economic and political unity built on the assumption of human goodness, neo-paganistic-postmodernity is a quest for spiritual unity based on the assumption that "all is one" (otherwise termed "monism"). With such an assumption and such a quest, this new philosophy seeks to obliterate the lines drawn by God in His natural law given to all of man, such as that between man and woman, mankind and animal and nature, and right and wrong.

I am becoming less of the stereotypical Republican by the day, and reject the "Religious Right's" desire to impose Christless "Christian" values on the institution of the State. The State is not the moralistic Christian's means to a theocratic end. Nonetheless, the purity of the Church is at stake when Scriptural foundations are loosened in the name of such scientific studies* (the asterisk denotes my contempt for many such studies and puts them on a level with Barry Bonds' home run record). This is why much of the Mainline denominations are spiritually-hollow civil organizations proclaiming vague notions of "peace" and "tolerance" instead of the Gospel.

Who knows where exactly the "center" is for the United States? Whatever and wherever it is, it has held fast thus far in our nation's history through God's common grace. Only let us not confuse this murky center with the biblical core of the Christian faith. The Church is united around this core, and her historical confessions and creeds speak to it proudly. Our aim should not be the Christianization of America, but the loving defense of the purity and unity of the Church. In pursuing such an aim by God's grace, a true, holy love will be made so manifest that the penchant for demonizing select sins over others will be but a memory.