Skip to comments.Six Cultural Trends that Challenge the Modern Evangelizer
Posted on 10/18/2016 8:17:33 AM PDT by Salvation
It is critical for us who would preach the Gospel to ponder what sorts of presuppositions our listeners bring to the conversation. Today, sadly, there are many trends that have poisoned the culture and thus make our task much more difficult.
But difficult does not mean impossible. It helps to describe modern mindsets, not to despair of them, but rather to look at them with some insight rather than being only vaguely aware of them. If we are more clear on the presuppositions that people bring to the table, we can better direct our message to them and ask them to consider whether or not these notions are helpful or even right. For indeed, most people carry their preconceptions subconsciously. Bringing them to light can act as a kind of medicine or solvent, which will assist us in clearing the thorns so that the seeds of truth can be sown.
I list here six presuppositions; Ive tried to avoid an overly philosophical analysis, instead using a more descriptive approach. The first few may be familiar to you, but the last three are less often discussed. Feel free to add to this list in the comments box. I will discuss a few other presuppositions in tomorrows post.
I. Secularism The word secular comes from the Latin saecula, which is translated as world, but can also be understood to refer to the age or times in which we live. Secularism is excessive concern about the things of this world and the times in which we live to the exclusion of the values and virtues of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.
Hostile It is not merely a matter of preoccupation with the world, but often of outright hostility to things outside the saecula (world or age). Spiritual matters are often dismissed by the worldly as irrelevant, naïve, hostile, and divisive. Secularism is an attitude that demands all attention be devoted to the world and its priorities.
Misplaced Priorities Secularism also causes those who adopt it to put their faith beneath worldly priorities and views. In this climate, many are far more passionate about and dedicated to their politics than to their faith. Their faith is tucked under their political views and made to conform to them. It should be the oppositepolitical views should be subordinate to faith. The Gospel should trump our politics, our worldview, our opinions, and all worldly influences. Faith should be the doorkeeper. Everything should be seen in the light of faith. Secularism reverses all this and demands to trump the truths of faith.
Secularism is the error through which one insists that faith give way when it opposes worldly ways of thinking or worldly priorities. If faith gets in the way of career, guess which one gives? If faith forbids me from doing what I please and what the world affirms, guess which one gives way? The spirit of the world often sees the truths of faith as unreasonable and unrealistic, and demands that they give way, either by compromise or a complete setting aside of faith.
As people of faith, we should put the world and its values on trial. Secularism instead puts the faith on trial and demands it conform to worldly thinking and priorities.
Secularism also increasingly demands that faith be privatized. Faith is to have no place in the public square of ideas or values. If Karl Marx said it, thats fine, but if Jesus said it, it has to go. Every other interest group can claim a place in the public square, in the public schools, etc. But the Christian faith has no place. Yes, God has to go. Secularism in its purest form demands a faith-free, God-free world. Jesus promised that the world would hate us as it hated Him. This remains true, and secularism describes the rising tendency for the world to get its way.
To make this world our priority and to let it overrule our faith is to board a sinking ship with no lifeboats. With secularism, our loyalty is primarily to the world. This amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If the world is really all that matters then we are the most pitiable of men, for everything we value is doomed and already passing away.
II. Materialism Most people think of materialism as the tendency to acquire and need lots of material things. It includes this, but true materialism goes far deeper. In effect, materialism is the error that insists that physical matter is the only thing that is real. Materialism holds that only those things that can be weighed on a scale, seen in a microscope, or empirically experienced (through the five senses) are real. The modern error of scientism, which insists that nothing outside the world of the physical sciences exists, flows from materialism. (You can read more on that HERE.)
In effect, materialism says that matter is all that matters. The spiritual is either non-existent or irrelevant to the materialist. This of course leads to the tendency to acquire things and neglect the spiritual. If matter is all that really matters, then we will tend to want large amounts of it. Bigger houses, more things, and more creature comforts are amassed in order to give meaning and satisfaction.
In the end, however, it is a cruel joke, because All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccles 1:7). Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. [It] is meaningless The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep (Eccles 5:10-12). But never mind that; the materialist will still insist it is the only thing real or relevant.
The error of materialism is ultimately tied up in thinking that matter is all that exists and that man, a creature of matter and spirit, can be satisfied with matter alone. Materialism denies a whole world of moral and spiritual realities that are meant to nourish the human person: goodness, beauty, truth, justice, equity, transcendence, courage, feelings, attitudes, angels, and God. These are ultimately spiritual realities. They may have physical manifestations to some extent, but they are not physical. Justice does not walk through the door and take a seat in the front row. Transcendence does not step out for a stroll, give a speech, or shake hands with beauty. Such things are not merely material.
To deny the spiritual is to already be dying, for the form of this world is passing away. To deny the spiritual is to have little to live for other than today, for tomorrow is uncertain and one step closer to death.
III. Individualism The error of individualism exalts the individual over and above all notions of the common good, and our need to live responsibly in communion with God and others. Individualism exalts the view of the individual at the expense of the received wisdom of tradition.
Individualism demands autonomy without proper regard to the rights and needs of others. It minimizes duties to others and maximizes personal prerogatives and privileges. It also tends to deny a balanced notion of dependence on others for human formation, and the need to accept correction and instruction.
Individualism also tends to be defiant and declare, I will not be told what to do. Hence there is little notion of being required to conform to the truth or even to reality. The notion that I should live by the creeds of dead white men is rejected as absurd, repressive, and even unhealthy.
Most individualists think of themselves as having an intrinsic right to make their own religion, to invent their own deity, and even to craft their own reality. In the past these sorts of things were called idolatry, syncretism, heresy, and delusional thinking. But today many in our culture celebrate this notion as a strange form of liberty, not seeing it for the isolation that it is, and not recognizing that they are consigning themselves to the status of spiritual orphans.
Personal freedom and autonomy have their place and should not be usurped by government or other collectives, but freedom today is often misunderstood as the ability to do whatever one pleases rather than the abilitythe powerto do what is good. Freedom is not absolute and should not be detached from respect for the rights and welfare of others. Individualism ultimately scoffs at this idea.
Never mind that excessive and mistaken notions of freedom have caused great harm in our culture and that it is often children who suffer the most. Sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, abortion, substance abuse, etc. are all abuses of freedom and cause harm to both children and to the wider society that must often seek to repair the damage caused by irresponsible behavior. Individualism still scoffs at this, refusing to acknowledge any personal responsibility for societal ills.
Individualism, because it rejects the collective wisdom of the ages, also leads to the iconoclasm of the next problematic area: the hermeneutic of discontinuity.
IV. The Hermeneutic of Discontinuity The word hermeneutic refers to the interpretive key by which one sees and understands the world. Thus, the phrase hermeneutic of discontinuity refers to an interpretation that the wisdom of previous generations is flawed, erroneous, naïve, and so forth.
It is true that no past era was perfect or all-wise. Nevertheless, there is an accumulated wisdom that has stood the test of time.
But those possessed of the hermeneutic of discontinuity will have none of it. It is old, and therefore bad, irrelevant, unenlightened, bigoted, naïve, superstitious, backward, medieval, etc.
In the Church, we are just emerging from a time when anything old was dismissed as pre-Vatican II. There was a presumed break and a great chasm with the past that we ought to observe, that it was somehow wrong to quote St. Thomas or the Council of Trent.
There is a widespread, arrogant, modern notion that we have come of age. We confuse our technical knowledge with wisdom. But our arrogance cuts us off from the collected wisdom of our ancestors and we make mistakes that were long ago recognized as harmful and foolish.
Here, too, as the Church re-proposes the Gospel, she is proposing the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the ages. Yet a modern world, often locked in the hermeneutic of discontinuity, scoffs merely on the basis that what we propose is ancient rather than modern.
Regardless, we must continue to insist upon and preach the wisdom of God, in season and out of season. We must refuse to be swayed by false notions of and demands for relevance. The true meaning of the word relevant is not modern or hip. The word comes from the Latin re (again) + levare (to lift). And thus, it means to take up again what was dropped or which fell by the wayside.
Our job is to persevere and by our persistence to keep the wisdom of God ever before humanity like a burning torch. We must preach the Gospel in season and out of season and not confuse ephemeral notions with wisdom. But neither should we imagine that there is nothing good today or that something is bad simply because it is modern. Jesus says, Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old (Mt 13:52).
V. Neo-Nominalism There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universalsthings that can be illustrated by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects since they do not exist in space and time. Most nominalists have held that only physical particulars in space and time are real, and that universals exist only subsequent to particular things. The term nominalism stems from the Latin word nomen (name).
The modern and lazier version of nominalism, which I will here call neo-nominalism, holds that words (nomen = word) are simply arbitrary sounds we assign to things, and that they reflect us more than they reflect anything we call reality. In a more sweeping way, whole categories are also dismissed.
Thus, for example, words and categories such as male, female, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc. are just words we assign; they are mere human constructs that do not exist in reality. So, many claim the right today to move beyond human words and categories such as male, female, marriage, and so forth. They also claim the right to assign new words to describe these realties. Abortion becomes choice, reproductive freedom, or womens healthcare. Unnatural acts of sodomy are called gay (a word that used to mean happy) and anal sex is celebrated as an expression of love. Same-sex pseudo-gamy is called marriage. Suicide or killing of the aged or imperfect is called euthanasia (a word that mean means good death in Greek). Sexual identity is now called gender (a grammatical category of nouns in nearly one-fourth of the worlds languages, not a word for human sexual differentiation).
Neo-nominalism claims the right to define new reality and scoffs at the humbler proposition that we ought to discover reality and conform to it. Nominalism casts aside such humility and claims the right to merely define reality by inventing new words and thoughts and then imposing them on what really is. And thus we get endless absurdities such as LGBTQ (and Lord knows what letter will be added next). We have bizarre notions such as being transgendered, a concept that denies human distinctions that could not be more obvious and are literally inscribed in our bodies. But the neo-nominalists will not be troubled with reality.
The next and even more absurd edge universe for many of them is the so called trans-human movement, in which even the reality of being human is dismissed as a mere construct. People will claim the right to start calling themselves other species and (presumably) the right to engage in all sorts of bizarre consort with animals, the right to develop cross-cloning, etc. After all, who is to say what is human to these neo-nominalist iconoclasts?
For them, there is no reality per se, just human constructs that are fungible. So-called reality is merely to be toyed with and defined according to the latest whim and need for self-justification through the re-describing of what is actually happening.
Neo-nominalism gets dark and absurd very quickly, as we are observing every day in our increasingly indecipherable anti-culture.
VI. Hedonism This is the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the chief good in life. It comes from the Greek word hēdonē pleasure and is akin to the Greek hēdys meaning sweet.
Of course pleasure is to be desired, and to some degree sought, but it is not the sole good in life. Indeed, some of our greatest goods and accomplishments require sacrifice: years of study and preparation for a career; the blood, sweat, and tears of raising children.
But hedonism seeks to avoid sacrifice and suffering at all costs. Hedonism is directly opposed to the theology of the cross. St. Paul spoke in his day of the enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Php 3:1819). He also taught that the Cross was an absurdity to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).
Things have not changed, my friends. And thus the world reacts with great indignation whenever the cross or suffering is even implied. And so the world will cry out with bewildered exasperation and ask (rhetorically) of the Church: Are you saying that a poor woman who was raped needs to carry the child to term and cannot abort? (Yes we are.) Are you saying that a gay person can never marry his or her gay lover and must live celibately? (Yes, we are.) Are you saying that a handicapped child in the womb must be condemned to live in the world as handicapped and cannot be aborted and put out of his (read our) misery? (Yes we are.) Are you saying that a dying person in pain cannot be euthanized to avoid the pain? (Yes, we are.)
The shock expressed in these rhetorical questions shows how deeply hedonism has infected the modern mind. The concept of the cross is not only absurd, it is downright immoral to the modern hedonistic mentality, which sees pleasure as the only true human good. To the hedonist, a life without enough pleasure is a life not worth living. And anyone who would seek to set limits on the lawful (and sometime unlawful) pleasures of others is mean, hateful, absurd, obtuse, intolerant, and just plain evil.
When pleasure is lifes only goal or good, how dare you, or the Church, or anyone seek to set limits on it let alone suggest that the way of the cross is better or is required of us! You must be banished, silenced, and destroyed.
And indeed many faithful Catholics in the pews are deeply infected with the illusion of hedonism and take up the voice of bewilderment, anger, and scoffing whenever the Church points to the cross and insists on self-denial, sacrifice, and doing the right thing even when the cost is great. The head wagging in congregations is often visible if the priest dares mention that abortion, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and so forth are wrong; or if he preaches about the reality of the cross. The faithful who swim in the waters of a hedonistic culture are often shocked at any notion that might limit the pleasure others want to pursue.
Hedonism makes the central Christian mysteries of the cross and redemptive suffering seem like a distant planet or a strange, parallel universe. The opening word from Jesus mouth, Repent, seems strange to the hedonistic world, which has even reworked Jesus and cannot conceive that He would want them to be anything but happy and content. The cry goes up, even among the faithful, Doesnt God want me to be happy? And on this basis, all sorts of sinful behavior should be tolerated because insisting on the opposite is hard and because it seems mean to speak of the cross or of self-discipline in a hedonistic culture.
Bringing people back to the real Jesus and to the real message of the Gospel, which features the cross as the way to glory, takes a lot of work and a long conversation. We must be prepared to have that long conversation with people.
I will discuss four other modern trends in tomorrows post (reductionism, scientism, designer religion, and arrested development).
Monsignor Pope Ping!
And Jesus Himself told us:
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
No, He wants you to be HOLY.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Actually, I think the secular, humanist world order is very inconsistent and hypocritical on this one. When it works to benefit forced socialization and conformity (ie. government power) the materialists are all for the concept of the common good but when it benefits to deconstruction of traditional social mores, traditions and culture then they are all for individualism ("if it feels good do", " That may be truth for you but that's not MY truth".) The common thread is the emphasis on forced control of the masses by a group of elites that "know what's good for us". Cultural Marxism.
Later, Rome squashed it.
Celts had to reemerge and save Europe.
After the Celts saved Europe, Rome squashed it.
Christians in this age - all kinds of Christians - must rediscover the Celtic way of evangelization.
VII. Bill’s girlfriend
Christians in this age - all kinds of Christians - must rediscover the Celtic way of evangelization.
Tell me more, please?
That stuff about buying beers for drunks in bars?
Not only is it a great summary that pulls together information from previous sources, it explains the similarities between what Patrick faced in a pagan culture and our own pagan culture.
A few questions for those that actually read their Bibles.
1) Are any of these cultural trends any different than when John preached, Jesus preached, the disciples preached, the apostles including Paul preached? or during the Old Testament?
2) What did John preach, Jesus preach, the disciples preached and the apostles CONSISTANTLY PREACH? Hint, this was also the main message in the OT.
3) What did Jesus say to do if they don’t like the message?
4) What are we suppose to do if they do respond?
5) What will they do to you if you preach the same message as the Prophets, John, Jesus, the deciples, and the apostles?
The Monseigneur is, as always, 100% correct.
This attitude allows people to be godless...rather make THEMSELVES "god." Not new. People have always had that attitude but it was more quiet and displayed mostly around one's family and friends.
Now we get to read, hear and see it in living color every waking minute of our life.
We haven't gotten ANY better or worse since Adam and Eve. Now, we are just vastly more public about it. I liked it the other way.
I guess I'll just have to keep reading Georgette Heyer and watching sci-fi, Blue Bloods, an occasional judge (Judge Alex ROCKS!) and movies that I know will be good.
Also called the anti-tradition, counter-cultural movement, the Hermeneutic of Discontinuity emerged out of the Renaissance when certain highly placed theologians, seminarians, intellectuals, and culture leaders rejected orthodox Christian theism in favor of esoteric Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and other Mystery doctrines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.