God in Public: How the Bible Speaks Truth to Power Today,
by N. T. Wright
[The essays in this
compilation] have to do with society and culture as a whole rather than simply
the challenge to individuals.
I have been grappling with how to understand and articulate the
conclusion I seem to be reaching: liberty – even as the most devout
libertarian sees it – is not achievable or survivable absent the foundations on
which it was built in the west and absent the cultural foundations that
Christianity offered.
I know the title of this post as well as the title of Wright’s
book is blasphemous to many libertarians and others who hold to the view that
one of the greatest outcomes of the Enlightenment is the separation of church
and state. I only consider – this isn’t the same thing as the
separation of church and society. Yet here we are.
I have only read the two-page preface and the first five pages
of the first essay and find that there is enough for a post. Let’s
see.
To place some context for Wright’s work and also my interest,
Wright offers that there is a crisis in Western democracies. Yet, Western democracies reflect, in
many ways, the fulfilment of the Enlightenment. Sure, we can
debate the meaning of liberty, equality, fraternity, property, the pursuit of
happiness; we can point to Enlightenment thinkers that support a more
libertarian version of these terms.
But we can also point to Enlightenment thinkers that provide a
philosophical foundation for the version that found itself in the French
Revolution and in Karl Marx. These Enlightenment concepts are empty
vessels; without an underlying foundation, these vessels can be filled by
anyone with a “reasonable” idea.
Wright offers three images that “bring into focus the question
of ‘God in Public.’” First is Tony Blair looking for answers in the
Qur’an in the aftermath of September 11; one can also imagine a leader in Iraq
or Afghanistan reading the Bible for the same reason.
Second, the UK government’s decision a few years ago to do away
with funding for second degrees if the degree was not at a higher level than
the first. This has especially impacted the pursuit of theology
degrees for those considering a path to ordained ministry.
Third, in 2009 the British weekly, New Statesman, ran
a special edition: ‘God: What Do We Believe?’ There was only
one overtly Christian contributor, and she was allowed all of three
sentences. But there was one piece, from Sholto Byrnes. Wright
summarizes Byrnes’ thoughts:
…our moralities of scientific certainty, human rights, and
ecology, just as strident and self-righteous as any puritan preacher,
constituted a secular form of an earlier vision of God and his purposes, and
that without that vision they were actually baseless.
How does Wright see this playing out today?
There is a deep uncertainty
about who we are and what we’re here for, and I suggest that this malaise is
directly linked to the banishment of God from the public square two hundred
years ago.
Banishing God from the
public square: one of the Enlightenment’s crowning
achievements. Does “uncertain” man seem like a good candidate
through whom freedom can be advanced and sustained? We see where
free minds and (relatively) free markets have led – take a look
around. These are certainly characteristics of a free society, but
these are not a foundation on which liberty can be built.
Wright offers other reasons why the question of God in public
must be addressed: Gnosticism and empire. Regarding Gnosticism,
Wright offers The Da Vinci Code. Why was this novel so
popular? One conspiracy inside the other, with the story of Jesus
and Mary Magdalene at the heart of the biggest conspiracy ever known in the
west.
When combined with empire…
…when people sense that the world is run by very rich and very
powerful people, and there’s nothing they can do about it, they tend to shrug
their shoulders and suppose they’d better turn inwards, away from the public
sphere.
And this is precisely what the rich and powerful people want the
rest of us to do. There is nothing to see here; move
along. For this reason, we accept enslavement, bullying, and war as
the manifestations of freedom, justice, and peace.
Conclusion
Tomorrow’s world will be
dominated by these confusions. And if the Christian gospel can bring not only
clarity but a fresh sense of direction we should all be grateful.
Is it possible that the
Christian gospels could be an antidote to the confusion of today’s world; as
Wright offers in the title of his book, speaking truth to power? If
one has liberty in mind, it might be worth finding some antidote
to our current condition.
Because chanting NAP, NAP, NAP isn’t going to cut it.
