Issues Facing the Church: 55. The Seven Demons of the
West’s New Tribalism
Introduction:
The New Tribalism of Western Society
We are already in a post-postmodern society, a society best understood as ‘tribal,’ as I have earlier argued. To be sure, this tribalism has a particular flavour for Western culture: being politically correct lies at the heart of post-postmodern tribalism. Abundant examples of this can now be given for society at large—such as the latest regulations, with fines applied, regarding the ‘correct’ terminology to use for the self-identity of sexually confused persons.[1] But how does this new culture create a new understanding of ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ within the Church at large?
In the pre-Modernist (pre-mid-17th century)
and Modernist (Enlightenment, post-mid-17th – 20th
centuries) periods in Western society, when the notion of ‘truth’ was still defined
in terms of objective reality, heresy was a matter of denying official,
orthodox teaching. That official
teaching might have been described in terms of authoritative documents (such as
Scripture), authorities (such as the Church—or some denomination), or—in the
case of the university and the increasingly secular society—objective research
through scientific disciplines.
For both good and ill, postmodernity challenged
certain established authorities. Who is
to say that the Encyclopedia Britannica
was more authoritative than, say, Facebook? Postmodernity functioned to deconstruct the
established authorities that allowed an objective description of truth and
reality. This effectively called into
question the very concept of ‘heresy’—and we saw a variety of ways this
deconstruction was administered. It
could be accomplished in the simple enough challenge of how to ‘do church’ and
turn away from denominations to the independent, mega-church of the 1980s to
today. It could also be seen in the
subversive writings of someone like Bart Ehrman, who is one of the champions of
deconstruction of Christian faith through distortions in scholarship.
But postmodernity has now given way to a new tribalism
in Western society. This shift from
deconstruction to new tribalism reminds the writer of Jesus’ warning:
Luke
11:24-26 "When the unclean spirit has
gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a
resting place, but not finding any, it says, 'I will return to my house from
which I came.' 25 When it
comes, it finds it swept and put in order.
26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than
itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is
worse than the first."
The Seven Spirits of the New Tribalism—With Thanks to
Archbishop Welby
If we have cleaned out the unclean spirit of Modernism through postmodern deconstruction, we are now beginning to identify the ‘seven other spirits’ of the new tribalism in Western culture. Heresy is no longer understood as a denial of some objective orthodoxy but is now any affirmation of objective truth. If ‘unity’ used to mean the confession of a common faith and following apostolically established practices and convictions, it now means acceptance of diverse faiths and endorsing alternative practices. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has recently and helpfully (although unwittingly, it seems) identified some of the clichés used to obfuscate objective truths in the interest of introducing ‘new spirits.’ Welby lists the following clichés heard in mainline denominations exploring their unorthodox unity:
"There is a
lot to do although we have journeyed far; what unites us is more than what
divides us; our common history tells us . . . whatever; real unity is
invisible; what we need is a new Committee."[2]
These clichés help us to identify the demons of New
Tribalism.
1. The Demon of Communal Authority:
Tribalism affirms the authority of the community making decisions, not the
authority in some more objective entity, such as Scripture, orthodox Christian
teaching, or scientific enquiry of ‘reality.’
Tribalism locates authority in the social groups that have come to
dominate the culture. ‘Reality’ is not
objective; it is negotiable and subject to being defined by dominant
groups. The dominant groups can either
be a majority or a powerful minority, enforcing its perspective on others.
2.
The
Demon of Socially-Constructed Reality: In such a situation, the
focus comes to rest on perceived or socially constructed realities rather than
reality itself, on common activities rather than convictions, and communal
processes rather than careful interpretation of authoritative texts and
orthodoxies. Thus, people can enthusiastically speak of what they do together rather than what they believe, or that they ‘journey
together’ rather than hope to persuade others of the truth.
3. The Demon of Marginalising
Convictions: Another example of how the new tribalism
of Western society functions is in the cliché ‘what unites us is more than what
divides us.’ This is a way of demoting
what used to be considered truths or facts in an earlier age by giving them a
certain value that is determined simply by the executive authority of those
controlling the dialogue. A good example
of this is in how President Barack Obama has simply refused to enforce certain
laws. It is one thing for a legislature
to pass laws but quite another for a President to marginalise these laws,
giving them a peripheral value at best and simply not applying them. In the same way, past convictions of the
Church are now being demoted in mainline denominations to the periphery and,
ultimately, deposited on the rubbish heap of irrelevant rules. This takes place, in the new tribalism,
through a social process: what ‘we’ decide should unite us rather than divide
us. It is not the objective truth of a
conviction held by the Church but the value some group places on the conviction
that determines the group’s practices.
4. The Demon of Relational History: Further,
Welby reminds us of the phrase, ‘our common history….’ This phrase has no relationship to the
authority of an orthodox Church’s history, as though Church history matters. It rather has to do with the social history
of a people—quite likely the present people in a relationship. Such a reconstruction of Ecclesiology makes
division impossible, since the mere fact of relationships disallows division
over essential doctrine and ethics.
5. The Demon of Invisible Unity: The
phrase, ‘real unity is invisible’[3] is a way of renouncing the
possibility of disunity. If one group
breaks fellowship with another group over its convictions, proponents of this cliché
can refuse to accept that the disunity is real.
This is similar to Roland Barthes’ (a French philosopher, 1915-1980) suggestion
that reading is not about gaining knowledge from the author but entails the playfulness
of readers. Barthes begins The Pleasure of the Text by laying out a
challenge to objective truth and therefore of unity in truth: [4]
Imagine someone … who
abolishes within himself all barriers, all classes, all exclusions, not by
syncretism but by simple discard of that old specter: logical contradiction; who mixes every language, even those said to
be incompatible; who silently accepts every charge of illogicality, of
incongruity; who remains passive in the face of Socratic irony (leading the
interlocutor to the supreme disgrace: self-contradiction)
and legal terrorism (how much penal evidence is based on a psychology of
consistency!). Such a man would be the
mockery of our society: court, school, asylum, polite conversation would cast
him out: who endures contradiction without shame? … the Biblical myth is
reversed, the confusion of tongues is no longer punishment, the subject gains
access to bliss by cohabitation of languages working side by side: the text of pleasure is a sanctioned Babel.
Barthes’ suggestions may
have seemed an outlandish attack on truth even in non-Christian circles in the
1970s; they are, however, fairly descriptive of many in Western, mainline
denominations today. Welby’s own
approach to maintaining ‘unity’ could have been taken from the pages of Barthes’
writings.
6. The Demon of Dialogue: Relatedly,
then, the practice of forming a committee for constant dialogue on issues on
which the Church once had clear convictions demonstrates the playfulness
towards doctrine a Barthesque philosophy has.
The Zhulu and Xhosa tribes use the term ‘indaba’ to describe an important conference of tribal elders. Traditionally, the purpose was to come to an
agreed decision on important matters.
However, the adoption of this approach—suggested first by Archbishop
Rowan Williams in 2008—became a way to focus on dialogue more than coming to
decisions. The focus came to be on the
social dimensions of the process rather than on conclusions. The term ‘indaba’
is, nonetheless, appropriate for the new tribalism of Western society as it is,
after all, a tribal process. There is
not an approach to doctrine through ‘right’ interpretation of authoritative
texts. There is considerable disinterest
in the convictions held by the Church through the centuries. Rather, the focus on the present persons engaged in fellowship
and dialogue becomes the new process
for enquiry itself.
7. The Demon of Sexual Confusions: Finally,
the specific issue dividing the Church today functions as the ‘seventh demon’
of the West’s new Tribalism: sexual confusions.
Opposition to the Creator’s intention for marriage and sex lies at the
heart of a social revolution in Western society. With no ground in nature and design, sex is
disassociated from procreation between a man and a woman in marital union and
is now considered a means to pleasure in any relationship. Sexual pleasure stands at the heart of
relationships rather than in a male-female marital covenant, commitment, and
contract. Tribes exercise social
constraints on relationships rather than any oath, although traditionally the
two went together. The West’s new
tribalism, however, downplays oath-taking and discards any concept of a ‘right’
relationship. Relationship per se is the
new focus, with sexual encounter defining the intensity of the
relationship. This is thoroughly unbiblical
and non-Christian. That this view is
embraced in the West’s mainline denominations shows just how possessed they are
by the demons of Western culture.
Conclusion
Thus, Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby’s address to
the heretical Church of Scotland, which has voted to affirm same-sex marriages
for its ministers, helps us to identify the seven spirits of the West’s new
tribalism. Sadly, he does so in an
affirming way. He locates ecclesiastical
unity in witness to Christ [an empty statement in this context if ever there
were one] and a political, historical, economic, global, and communal
unity. In other words, ‘unity’ is
understood relationally and socially—a feature of tribalism. One wonders if Welby is so much a creature of
the new tribalism of Western culture that he simply does not notice the absence of
any concern for unity through obedience to the Scriptures and through what all the Church has always taught everywhere—St. Vincent of
Lerins’ definition of orthodoxy from the 5th century. Or, more sinisterly, is he Roland Barthes’
man who ‘abolishes within himself all barriers’?
[1]
See ’29 New Words for Deviance You Can Be Fined $250,000 for Not Using in New
York City,’ online: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/29-new-words-for-deviance-you-can-be-fined-250000-for-not-using-in-nyc?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=37abf9e89b-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-37abf9e89b-326197606
(accessed 28 May, 2016).
[2]
See ‘Archbishop Justin Welby’s Speech to the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland’ (25 May, 2016), online: http://www.virtueonline.org/archbishop-justin-welbys-speech-general-assembly-church-scotland
(accessed 28 May, 2016).
[3]
The language of real unity being invisible was already engaged in 1919 by Newman
Smyth and Williston Walker, Approaches to
Christian Unity (New Haven, 1920), p. 56, as a way to permit ministers to
work in either Episcopal or Congregationalist contexts.
[4]
Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text,
trans. Richard Miller (New York: Hill
and Wang, 1975), pp. 3-4.