After reading Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and trying to offer a kind of 30,000 foot view of his observations and arguments, a feeling of sadness or even a bit of despair may not be entirely unexpected. After all, our society has embraced a world view of radical autonomy, that says we create our meaning and purpose in life by giving full expression to our feelings and desires. Our shared value system is centered on personal authenticity rather than on objective truth or even the well-being of the community. And this has led to a series of revolutions which continue to shape and transform Western culture at an ever-increasing rate.
In short, the world we now inhabit looks and feels radically different from the one which we inhabited only a few years ago. Previous generations would likely find much we take for granted to be unintelligible, not just because of advancements in technology, but because of the values and thinking which have become the norm today. Many would say that we have simply moved to the “right” side of history, but as Christians who are bound to an ethic expressed in the unchanging truth of Scripture, we receive such a claim with more than a little bit of skepticism.
Mourning may be its own form of worldliness; believers may take a perverse pleasure in “always decrying the times and the customs of the day.”
How then should we respond? And what conclusions should we draw from this brief historical sketch? Our first instinct is probably to lament how far we have come as a society away from a biblical ethic. And while it is natural for Christians to feel out of place in this world, we must exercise caution. Mourning may be its own form of worldliness; believers may take a perverse pleasure in “always decrying the times and the customs of the day.” We must recognize just how much of a part we play in Western culture, and how our thinking has been conditioned by the same social imaginary as our secular friends and neighbors. “We are all part of that revolution, and there is no way to avoid it” says Trueman.
Expressive individualism has not been an unmitigated disaster. Indeed, there have been positive contributions, for instance, in the area of religious choice. Throughout much of history, the whole concept of voluntary religion and religious choice was simply nonexistent. If we lived in Western Europe in 1500 we would have been baptized Catholic at birth, and there would have been no other church to which we could belong.
Today things are radically different. Individual choice in matters of religion is foundational to our society. As Trueman puts it, “We can choose our churches as we choose a house or car. We may not have infinite choice and may still be subject to some material restrictions, but the likelihood is that we have more than one church option with which we can choose to identify.” While this freedom has its downsides, most would agree that it marks a significant improvement by recognizing the dignity and agency of each individual person. As Baptists we affirm that each person has a fundamental liberty to worship as he sees fit (or not to worship at all), because God has made us and we are ultimately accountable to him.
The downside to the affirmation of universal individual dignity comes when it is divorced from a healthy biblical foundation. When we do not see man as created in God’s image, we have no real idea of what makes us human and therefore no basis for morality. Questions about right and wrong devolve into moral chaos where everything boils down to personal taste. But how do we decide when tastes differ from one another? And who is the final arbiter in such cases? When the state steps in on the side of the individual expressing his “authentic self” (the transgender person claiming specific gendered pronouns, for example), we end up with what Trueman calls “a kind of totalitarian anarchy.”
When we do not see man as created in God’s image, we have no real idea of what makes us human and therefore no basis for morality.
This has significant implications for personal freedom, especially in the areas of religious liberty and freedom of speech. Since sexuality has been equated to identity, anyone who rejects or even questions the modern sexual ethic is seen as attacking or at least threatening another person’s true self. Here’s how Trueman puts it:
To allow religious conservatives to be religious conservatives is to deny that people are defined by their sexual orientation, and to allow that people are defined by their sexual orientation is to assert that religious conservatism is irrational bigotry and dangerous to the unity of the commonwealth. That would seem to make the free exercise of religion, in terms of the individual’s right to apply his beliefs to life outside the Sunday worship service, something that can no longer be assumed. It seems that religious liberty and expressive individualism are on a collision course in the West.
Another point of consideration is that the very categories we use in speaking about ourselves and these issues are determined by our society, and we must question whether these categories are appropriate or helpful. For example, we may think of the use of the term “cost” in Christian circles in relation to sex and sexuality. Trueman notes, “Traditional Christian sexual morality calls for celibacy for all who are not married and chastity for those who are. It is, strictly speaking, no more costly or sacrificial for a single person not to have sex with something than it is for a married person to be faithful.” However, he says that the moral framework of our society makes it seem as though celibacy is a greater demand than any other moral choice, such as not stealing or not slandering someone else’s good name. Why is this? Because to abstain from sex in today’s world is tantamount to denying one’s true self. If we accept this category of the high “cost” of celibacy (which is deemed especially high for those who are non-heterosexual), we will struggle to be able to help those who feel they do not fit into the traditional categories.
We must address these issues in a more holistic fashion by acknowledging the reality that some, perhaps many, persons do not fit easily into the traditional roles and offering them a genuine community built around our shared faith in Jesus Christ. We must maintain our commitment to a biblical sexual morality, no matter how much such a stand costs, and be prepared to offer hope to those disillusioned by the ever-changing narrative of the revolution. Let us be good citizens to the extent that we can, while also being faithful to the Lord Jesus.