Bill Muehlenberg yesterday reminded us of J. Gresham Machen's fight in the culture wars of his day, the early 20th century ('Notable Christians: J. Gresham Machen,' Culture Watch (August 28, 2018; online at: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/08/28/notable-christians-j-gresham-machen/). Machen's battle was not simply with the culture but with the culture in the Church--in the Presbyterian Church of his day. In his brief life (1881-1937), Machen started a seminary (Westminster Theological Seminary), a new, Presbyterian denomination (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), and a mission board.
Machen's work reminds me of how large the Evangelical tent has been--his Orthodox Presbyterian world is quite distant from my own engagement with the Evangelical movement. Yet his assessment of the problem of his day with mainline denominations was spot on. Evangelicals, for all their differences and in all their varieties, coalesce around their agreement that Scripture wins every argument with culture. Muehlenberg quotes Machen's understanding of the battle line with Liberalism in the Church in Christianity and Liberalism (1923). The issue was 'naturalism':
Machen's work reminds me of how large the Evangelical tent has been--his Orthodox Presbyterian world is quite distant from my own engagement with the Evangelical movement. Yet his assessment of the problem of his day with mainline denominations was spot on. Evangelicals, for all their differences and in all their varieties, coalesce around their agreement that Scripture wins every argument with culture. Muehlenberg quotes Machen's understanding of the battle line with Liberalism in the Church in Christianity and Liberalism (1923). The issue was 'naturalism':
'In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism’ or ‘liberalism’…. But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism, that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God.
[W]hat the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.'
This quote caught my attention. I have argued that the issue we now face in the culture wars of the West is anti-naturalism (see Rollin Grams, 'The Anti-Naturalism of Western Culture' (2 February, 2018); available at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-anti-naturalism-of-western-culture.html). This anti-naturalism appears in various forms as culture rejects the constraints of a Creator and seeks to construct its own, 'against nature' world. The Liberalism of Machen's day believed in nature; it just spoke of nature without needing the 'construct' of 'God'. (God, like religion in general, was seen as a human construction.) Evolution, e.g., is still a natural and scientific theory even if its most common form rejects the Creator. Christians could at least dialogue with Modernity regarding the theory of Evolution in that both believed in natural order. The dispute was over whether the order in creation involves intentionality (was caused by a Creator) and an open system of cause and effect (that God worked miracles in His world), or that it involves adaptation (mutations) and a closed system of cause and effect (that there is no external force in the universe).
Today, however, the debate with culture, a culture that has also entered and taken over the mainline denominations, is between nature and against nature (a rebours, as Joris-Karl Huysmans termed it in his 1884 novel rejecting 19th-century Naturalism). Greek philosophy and culture in antiquity (particularly Stoicism and Cynicism) also engaged with this perspective--it is not new. Both philosophical views offered ways to live in accordance with nature over against human constructions of reality. The language of 'according to nature' and 'against nature' was regularly used by Stoics such as Epictetus. Paul, in fact, uses this standard language from his culture when speaking of lesbianism as 'against nature' (Romans 1.26). Indeed, one primary example of constructing an 'against nature' world in ancient and modern times is the so-called LGBT movement.
One terribly sad example of how this attack on nature plays out is in its attack on children, the product of nature. Unable to produce children of their own naturally, this movement closes down adoption agencies that only place children in heterosexual families, removes foster children from families if they hold normal views on biology, uses the unnatural method of surrogacy to produce children for itself, corrupts children in school systems, encourages anti-natural gender identity over against biology, offers sex change surgery and drug therapy, inisists on using restrooms according to how one identifies, not how one is made biologically, and on the list of 'against nature' examples goes on just this issue alone. Take a closer look at four examples of anti-naturalism that affect children.
1. Trans Referrals
One terribly sad example of how this attack on nature plays out is in its attack on children, the product of nature. Unable to produce children of their own naturally, this movement closes down adoption agencies that only place children in heterosexual families, removes foster children from families if they hold normal views on biology, uses the unnatural method of surrogacy to produce children for itself, corrupts children in school systems, encourages anti-natural gender identity over against biology, offers sex change surgery and drug therapy, inisists on using restrooms according to how one identifies, not how one is made biologically, and on the list of 'against nature' examples goes on just this issue alone. Take a closer look at four examples of anti-naturalism that affect children.
1. Trans Referrals
Scotland: In Scotland, 222 children were referred to specialist services over transsexual identity in 2017, up 21% from 2016. The average age is just under 14 years old, and the youngest was only 6 years old. The Scottish government is considering lowering the age for sex change operations from 18 to 16. Its guidance to schools is that children ‘should be supported to explore and express their identity regardless of their age.’ Moreover, as socialist states eventually do, they seek to transfer parental rights (which are natural) to state rights (which are a constructed authority). They say that parents should not be told if their children are sharing rooms with children of the opposite sex on school trips, for example. (See ‘Trans referrals of children reaches record high in Scotland,’ Christian Institute (11 July, 2018); online: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/trans-referrals-children-reaches-record-high-scotland/).
2. Minor-Attracted Persons (MAPs)
One feature of a culture that rejects nature and argues instead for constructed realities is that it to construct those realities on some foundation. This is problematic, since the postmodern view is anti-foundational. The answer in the West has been to locate the foundation of constructed realities in tribalism, that is, the privileges of one tribe over another. This Western tribalism assigns privilege to persons granted ‘victim’ status. In this post-foundational logic, pedophiles may be granted the status of a victimized minority group deserving public sympathy. Their passions and actions cannot be considered unnatural or against God’s Law, since nature and the Creator have been rejected. Orientation is simply a given, however one comes by it, and the more that one’s orientation is different, the more one qualifies for victimhood status.
3. Designer Babies
Gene editing is now possible, such as ‘molecular scissors’ gene editing by ‘crispr’. It may soon be acceptable practice. Will it become expected or even required in the future and, if so, will it mean that persons with problems that might have been edited but were not will be discriminated against? Currently in the UK, 90% of Downs Syndrome embryos are terminated. Are we entering the world of eugenics? Gene editing will be hereditary: a permanent alteration. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB) has answered that changes should meet two tests: (1) it should benefit the future person whose DNA would be affected; (2) it should not ‘increase disadvantage, discrimination or division in society’. (See: Alex Matthews-King, ‘Designer babies: Picking traits for non-medical reasons could be 'morally permissible', says UK ethics group,’ Independent (16 July, 2018); online: https://anglicanmainstream.org/designer-babies-picking-traits-for-non-medical-reasons-could-be-morally-permissible-says-uk-ethics-group/.) It is difficult to imagine, however, in an anti-naturalist cultural context, that disadvantage, discrimination, and division in society will be avoided when religious views that affirm nature, even a Creator, are viewed negatively.
4. Three-Parent In Vitro-Fertilization (IVF)
Proponents of three-parent in vitro-fertilization are trying to change the terminology to ‘mitochondrial DNA transplants’ to make it more acceptable. Defective mitochondrial DNA can be replaced by another woman’s mtDNA. This can be done in four ways, especially by spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT). Some defective mtDNA remains, but in the case of the latter method, two embryos are created with eggs from two women and the father’s sperm. One of the embryos is destroyed. Some opposed to abortion might consider mtDNA if all embryos produced in the procedure are implanted. Yet, from an ‘according to nature’ perspective, this unnatural form of procreation is morally repugnant.
Since the debate of nature and against nature views was already an issue in the public square of ancient Greece, that there is a minority group pushing an anti-natural agenda in our day should come as no surprise. The difference in our day is that Christianity has no philosophical ally in affirming nature. Not only so, but mainline denominations that have capitulated to culture, as in Machen's day, have adopted anti-natural views, particularly in regard to human sexuality. The culture has adopted certain assumptions that make arguments from nature difficult to put forward. Western culture (postmodernism) has so imbibed an anti-natural stance that it seems logical and moral to be against nature or, at least, to defend any behaviour against nature as acceptable, even laudable. When the dominant value in a culture is liberation, nature is eventually viewed as an autocratic authority that must be overcome.
What we need to recognize is that, while the mainline denominations began their liberal slide with a naturalist agenda, they are continuing it with an anti-naturalist agenda. Religious liberalism in Machen's day promoted naturalism, but it has evolved in an anti-natural liberalism in our day. Both forms are examples of Christianity being conformed to secular culture instead of Christian faith. The enemy of the Church in a post-Christian culture has roamed freely in mainline denominations, first in the shape of naturalism and now in the form of anti-naturalism. The missional challenge to Christians in the West has been and continues to be to articulate Christian belief in compelling ways to a culture constructed without God. We begin to do so as we confess with Christians of old, that we 'believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth' (Apostles Creed).
Comments