The renovation, not liberalization, of fundamentalist faith in a globalizing world

ARTICLE: "The Politics of God," by Mark Lilla, New York Times Magazine, 19 August 2007, p. 28.

Brilliant piece. Vonne, please get me this guy's upcoming book ("The Stillborn God"), which describes the Great Separation of church and faith that America (but you could add Canada, Australia and New Zealand too), in its political and economic uniqueness, managed to achieve organically over its history, while Europe has managed it only since the end of WWII.

Islam, meanwhile, is just beginning to explore such a possibility (overwhelmingly in Asia, I would argue, as opposed to the politically theocratic Arab/Persian universe).

Lilla offers a lot of fascinating religious overlay to the political theorizing of Hobbes and Rousseau, reminding me of the true intent of their work (Hobbes, to free people from religion with his Leviathan; Rousseau, to justify religions as an essential human-derived need).

Two excerpts:

As for the American experience, it is utterly exceptional: there is no other fully developed industrial society with a population so committed to its faiths (and such exotic ones), while being equally committed to the Great Separation. Our political rhetoric, which owes much to the Protestant sectarians of the 17th century, vibrates with messianic energy, and it is only thanks to a strong constitutional structure and various lucky breaks that political theology has never seriously challenged the basic legitimacy of our institutions. Americans have potentially explosive differences over abortion, prayer in schools, censorship, euthanasia, biological research and countless other issues, yet they generally settle them within the bounds of the Constitution. It's a miracle.

That's going a bit far. I don't consider it a miracle, but rather a pathfinding accommodation of faith and freedom that America, as the world's oldest and most successful multinational economic and political union, achieved over many long decades and with a ton of dedicated effort--plus one nasty civil war. This is no miracle, but a deliberate effort, from founding to future, and we owe it to the world to not only continue this great experiment, but to encourage and defend the sort of economic connectivity and freedom globalization imparts on a planetary scale, just as our own mini-globalization once afforded us on merely our continental/frontier scale.

This evolution is repeatable but amazingly tricky, not something we can impose but only enable by focusing on that economic connectivity and freedom and not its political counterparts, which must be derived locally and from the people upward.

Next excerpt:

... a number of Muslim thinkers around the world have taken to promoting a "liberal Islam." What they mean is an Islam more adapted to the demands of modern life ... The history of Protestant and Jewish liberal theology [covered earlier in this well-written essay] reveals the problem: the more a biblical faith is trimmed to fit the demands of the moment, the fewer reasons it gives believers for holding on to that faith in troubled times, when self-appointed guardians of theological purity offer more radical hope. Worse still, when such faith is used to bestow theological sanctification on a single form of political life--even an attractive one like liberal democracy--the more it will be seen as collaborating with injustice when that political system fails. The dynamics of political theology seem to dictate that when liberalizing reformers try to conform to the present, they inspire a countervailing and far more passionate longing for redemption in the messianic future. That is what happened in Weimar Germany and is happening again in contemporary Islam.

The complacent liberalism and revolutionary messianism we've encountered are not the only theological options. There is another kind of transformation possible in biblical faiths, and that is the renewal of traditional political theology from within. If liberalizers are apologists for religion at the court of modern life, renovators stand firmly within their faith and reinterpret political theology so believers can adapt without feeling themselves to be apostates. Luther and Calvin were renovators in this sense, not liberalizers. They called Christians back to fundamentals of their faith, but in a way that made it easier, not harder, to enjoy the fruits of temporal existence. They found theological reasons to reject the ideal of celibacy, and its frequent violations by priests, and thus returned the clergy to ordinary family life. They then found theological reasons to reject otherwordly monasticism and the all-too-worldy imperialism of Rome, offering biblical reasons that Christians should be loyal citizens of states they live in. And they did this, not by speaking the apologetic language of toleration and progress, but by rewriting the language of Christian political theology and demanding that Christians be faithful to it.

Today, a few voices are calling for just this kind of renewal of Islamic political theology ...

Then he names Khaled Abou El Fadl and Tariq Ramadan and quickly summarizes their approaches.

This guy can really write well, so his stuff is a joy to read. It's also very revealing, making my mind wonder over a lot of stuff.

But I find it wonderfully reinforcing of the notion that Steve DeAngelis and I push with Development-in-a-Box(TM), which is that the Core needs to focus on the connectivity and let the political and theological renovation takes its course without outside interference or badgering (though hectoring over human rights is laudable so long as it does not take precedence over the goal of economic connectivity). To me, this is how we lead by example (our continuing experiment in the Great Separation) but likewise act proactively (by defending and expanding globalization's advance). We do God's work by balancing the two, and trusting that people will eventually take advantage of each.

Does that speak to a long struggle? Sure. Globalization's penetration of traditional societies is highly disruptive, so don't expect less fundamentalism in response but more. The Great Separation is a refuge from the nastiness of religious wars, but we can't expect people to pre-emptively make that leap of logic without first indulging their wars of the spirit (Fukuyama's point).

Again, that's why I called it "The Pentagon's New Map." I have no illusions about the inevitable violence ahead. I just want people to understand our best strategies for the long haul so they can keep their eyes on the prize.

Comments

[Rashad]

As long as the final goal, or prize as you call it, is peace on earth and not an effort to bring about the second coming, I’m all for it.

Politics and religion is an explosive mixture- but, having religious thoughts dominate in the military, to me, is unthinkable. General’s like Boynkin, stating “our god is greater than their god” is surly the slippery slope to the mass spilling of blood.

Michel Weinstein’s criticism of dominionist evangelicals trying to corner the military and especially new recruits, is surly something to watch out for.

I realize the growth of religion, in an increasingly globalized world, acts as a soothing comforter, but having religious thoughts dictate the future of the US military, is surly not the answer- especially when it is coming from a literalist viewpoint that seeks domination of the military…well it scares the crap outta me.

[Richard Spencer]

You might enjoy "ON TWO WINGS" by Michael Novak that quite clearly explains the history of our separation of church and state. It is the best researched history about the personal role of religion of the founders in their founding of the country that I have read. Their belief that the American eagle rises on two wings, reason and faith, led directly to an early decision of separation even though some were comfortable with one or the other but few with both. The majority of the founders were of religious faith but did not want state interference as that would hinder religious growth. That early agreement , lasting through the generations, has created both a vibrant economy and a vibrant religious population that stuns the world with its successes.

[stuart abrams]

I often like to speculate about an American History class being taught in the year 3007. Some precocious student raises his hand and says, "Was the American Constitution really all that significant? After all, most of these concepts in the Bill of Rights were really just adaptations of English law going back to the magna carta." The professor will respond, "Separation of church and state was the truly revolutionary concept that the American Constitution gave to the world - it really had no precedent before the American Constitution. This was the principle that ultimately made possible the economic and political integration of all humanity. And we are still applying this same basic principle today in the United Federation of Planets."

[stuart abrams]

Haven't read this piece yet, but am looking forward to it. However, I'm not sure I agree that Europe has yet figured out the separation. In many ways, Europe has gone from a society in which Christianity was the official religion to one in which Secularism is the official religion. That's not the same thing as the kind of separation that we have in the US - that's why they can do things like banning head scarves in public schools, which would be blatantly unconstitutional here. I see the recent wave of "Atheist Fundamentalist" writings (Dawkins, Hitchens, Jonathan Miller) coming out of Europe as representing a typical sort of Fundamentalist backlash that happens when a dominant group feels itself threatened by new connections brought about by Globalization, in this case, by the influx of religious Muslims into Europe.

[Anonymous]

hey, Dan. speaking of too zealous, care to trot out any papal excesses in this regard?

balance on Luther is one thing. over-balance is another...

[Anonymous]

stuart: couldn't agree more (as i have opined before). i wonder if it's fair to call secularism a form of fundamentalism... on that view, no wonder we have so much heat and so little light in the creation v. evolution debates: Christian fundamentalists v. Secular fundamentalists with the same basic mind-set and rhetoric.

[Hans Suter]

I'm reading Juan Cole's Napoleon's Egypt which it out this week. On page 34 he writes:"Bonaparte made the typically Western error of thinking about Islam primarily as a doctrine, whereas for a Middle Easterner such as al-Jabarti it was a way of life. For Muslims .... Islam lay in the five pillars of recognising the uniqueness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad, praying five times a day, fasting the month of Ramadan, " etc. Now if you believe, as I do, that John Gray's Modus Vivendi shows the way to go it simply will take a lot of time and patience. Which of course is no excuse for idling. Because Napoleon's pamphlet had a different impact on literate peasants than on Cairene patricians.

[stuart abrams]

Sean: By my way of thinking, everybody (even atheists/secularists) has to have a basic belief system about the nature of existence. These beliefs are fundamentally personal, and are derived from a variety of factors such as societal influences (predominant), personal/family history, and just plain faith. In a truly isolated society, just about everbody will have the same basic belief system, and in such a society, those people will probably not even think of those beliefs as comprising a "religion" because they can't even conceive of anybody having a different belief system. However, that changes when they come into contact with people from other societies who do have other belief systems. When that happens, certain people adhering to the old belief system will feel threatened by the new connectivity and assert that the old belief system is "better" (or more "scientific" in the parlance of people like Dawkins and Hitchens) than any other system, and that they therefore have the right to impose that belief system on others, by force (including legal force) if necessary. That's what I see "Fundamentalism" as being all about. So in that sense, I certainly do think that Secularists can be Fundamentalists, although they need not be - any more than Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., are necessarily Fundamentalists.

[Christopher Thompson]

This silly term "Secular fundamentalists" and the idea secularism is religion are examples of either the religious trying to move the discussion to use only their terms or of not understanding the difference. The word secularism itself is one of those upside-down terms from the religious point-of-view that simply means not taking religious beliefs into consideration when making decisions. Well, that's really just normal decision making.

Humans have been making these "secular" decisions forever because they use the best available current information, yet can be changed, amended or rejected as new information becomes available or new circumstances arise. It is interesting that religious fundamentalists often want to treat documents like the US Constitution as infallible and unchangeable which by the document's own rules they are not.

Our language is full of words the religious have created to describe those who do not believe as they do. However, all these upside-down words are like giving a name to the hobby of someone who does not collect stamps ...

[Kim McD]

I think we have a sterling example of this move here in the US in this wonderful speech by Roger Kennedy:

http://longnow.chubbo.net/salt-feb02005-kennedy/salt-feb02005-kennedy.mp3

Here is a description:

http://blog.longnow.org/2005/02/11/roger-kennedy-the-political-history-of-north-america-from-25000-bc-to-2100-ad/

His rhetoric is exquiste, his timing and depth of understanding something all of us can unabashedly covet, then try to lead lives at this pitch. He is a true elder of our culture and if more people of all ages would find him, the better for us all.

[Christopher Thompson]

"By my way of thinking, everybody (even atheists/secularists) has to have a basic belief system about the nature of existence. "

You use the term "belief system" repeatedly but don't acknowledge the two meaning of the word belief. One is understanding and the other is faith. They are not the same.

Replace your term "belief system" with "religion" and then "knowledge" and you will understand the problem of mixing meanings. Or, think about the statement "Your knowledge is fundamentally personal, and is derived from a variety of factors such as societal influences (predominant), personal/family history, and just plain faith." The primary sources of knowledge are not societal influences, family history or faith. In fact it becomes pretty clear that the best sources of faith are the worst sources of knowledge.

Also, you start with one belief in the "nature of existence" and then start talking about "beliefs" as if the are all just as abstract. Everything is not the same just by saying so.

[Michael]

Chris, Sean isn't referring to fundamentalists in the religious sense. If you define fundamentalist as "someone who holds a set of beliefs as dogma to be enforced and defended at all costs", then the term secular fundamentalism makes sense. You can also think about (and probably identify) free-market fundamentalists, environmental fundamentalists and communist fundamentalists (my apologies if I missed one).

[Christopher Thompson]

But fundamentalism is not "a set of beliefs as dogma to be enforced and defended at all costs" -- it is a literal and unchangeable adherence to beliefs. What you describe is fanaticism. One definition of fundamentalism is actually opposition to secularism. Like my criticism above, you can't just stick words together that don't mean what you are saying and try to make a point.

There may be people that are fanatical about secularism, but if they are actually secularists then their understanding of the world can change with new knowledge, as can their rules of behavior.

Interestingly, secularists are actually much more absolutists than the religious because they constantly follow our expanding knowledge toward some absolute truth. The religious on the other hand are interpretists, forever using the relativism of reinterpretism to try to make their texts somehow avoid our expanding knowledge

[stuart abrams]

It always amuses me when atheists react angrily if you suggest that they are also operating on a system of beliefs that cannot be scientifically tested, but which ultimately comes down to a matter of faith, i.e., that the universe consists of matter and energy in a time-space continuum and nothing else. Having a faith, including an atheist faith, is nothing to be ashamed of - it's just part of how the human mind works. However, this is the essence of the Fundamentalist mind-set. No Fundamentalist thinks he has a faith; he thinks he has THE TRUTH.

[Michael]

"it is a literal and unchangeable adherence to beliefs" Sounds like most bloggers on politics and economics. Also sounds like many of the people who post to Slate's Fray, and a few columnists I've read.

Think about it? Ever see someone argue that if something isn't explicitely laid out in the constitution, it's not allowed? Ever see someone dismiss a health-care or education solution solely because it istn't free-market or socialist based? Some people take their favorite books literally! Some people DON'T change their beliefs!

[Christopher Thompson]

"i.e., that the universe consists of matter and energy in a time-space continuum and nothing else"

I am not even sure what that means (nor do I think you do) but I am sure that no scientist thinks that our current understanding and models of the universe are the truth (or the all caps kind). I am just as sure that no scientist would accept the "and nothing else" part. And again you mix the use of the word belief, comparing a faithful certainty with an uncertain understanding. Scientists believe in their current model of the universe, but with neither faith nor certainty. Try as you will for argument's sake to make things like science or atheism into faiths, by definition they cannot be.

Some people DON'T change their beliefs!

While that may be true and some people in arguments may take an apparently intransigent stand, you ignore that most people (in fact humans in general) do change what they believe about the world around them -- always have and always will. You again attempt to mix the idea of stubbornly holding a view with a mindset that denies the possibility of changing a view. The latter is fundamentalism.

[stuart abrams]

Mr. Thompson:I am not referring to all scientists, I am referring to the recent crop of writers like Dawkins whom I call "Atheist Fundamentalists." I don't know if you have read them. Dawkins may not claim that he understands everything about the universe, but he certainly claims that he has the framework for understanding everything. That is faith (by the way, it may even be a faith that I share), and the refusal to recognize that one's beliefs are based on faith is the essence of Fundamentalism, and my basic point is that Fundamentalism always asserts itself for socio-political reasons when it feels threatened by people who have different beliefs.Unlike Dawkins and the others, many scientists see no contradiction between science and religion, because they believe that science can provide understanding as to the nature of the material universe, but there remains a spiritual component of existence that is not susceptible to scientific analysis. As an avid reader of this blog, I find Dr. Barnett to be a keen intellect and an insightful social scientist. He also is an outspoken Christian. I assume he follows that faith because, in Jimmy Buffet's words, it gives him "answers to questions that bothered him so". If that works for him, more power to him - so long as he doesn't insist that everyone share his beliefs (which he doesn't). But when Dawkins describes his beliefs as "delusions", I find that deeply offensive, and even dangerous, regardless of whether I happen to share the beliefs of Dawkins or Barnett.

[Anonymous]

very well put, stuart.

i thought this Wired article by a non-religious-believer provided interesting insight into the ardor of Dawkins et al.

[Christopher Thompson]

All scientists claim to have the framework for understanding everything -- it is called science. The few scientists I know andmany more I have read have the ability to entertain almost any idea while at the same time having deep skepticism and requiring much more in depth proof that non-scientists. I have not read Dawkins' books, but from what I have read and heard from him, he seems to be much like other scientists I read and hear.

The fact that you find it deeply offensive, and even dangerous when someone describes your beliefs as "delusions" makes me wonder why a word would be so disturbing to you. Especially when you claim that your beliefs give you answers to questions that bothered you so. If your beliefs truly answer your questions then you could not offended by anything anyone said about them.

... the refusal to recognize that one's beliefs are based on faith is the essence of Fundamentalism

No scientist says that their beliefs are based on faith. You continue mixing uncertain knowledge-based belief with certain faith-based belief. Try as you might, they are two different things. Nor do I think that scientists, including Dawkins from what I have heard from him, deny that humans have a spiritual component. I think that scientists would increasingly disagree that it is not susceptible to scientific analysis. Out-of-body experiences are latest in thousands of years increasing understanding of the spiritual aspects of humans.

That you consider the march of rationalism to be deeply offensive, and even dangerous is clear. I believe you are in the majority. But that still does not mean that you can mix the several meanings of belief and expect them to be taken as all equal. I have covered the word fundamentalism above. You latest statement is that "the refusal to recognize that one's beliefs are based on faith is the essence of Fundamentalism". That makes very little sense. People who claim to be fundamentalists definitively state that their beliefs are based on faith. Once you accept that your beliefs are an understanding based on the current state of knowledge -- you lose that fundament that is so big in fundamentalists.

Finally, I find your presumption to know Dr. Barnett's mind and heart inappropriate. Using your presumption of Dr. Barnett's beliefs or faith to oppose either my or Mr. Dawkins arguments is even more inappropriate. I represent only myself and my beliefs in this discussion.

[Anonymous]

since the ongoing discussion isn't about Tom's ideas, i'm going to cut it off here. thanks for your comments.