Comments on: Why Modernity is Not the Problem

By: R.O. Flyer

R.O. Flyer — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:56:19 +0000

I don’t know, James. That seems a little weird to me. “Christianity opposes worldliness as such?”

By: James

James — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:15:04 +0000

I think that Christianity, rightly understood–and that’s always the problem–is necessarily opposed root and branch to anything that can reasonably be called modernity. The person who embraces modernity, however casually, has taken a step, perhaps a small one, but real nonetheles, away from Christianity. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox should be able to see this fairly easily, although it may be harder for most sorts of Protestants, since the origins of Protestantism are so caught up in the emergence of moral, political, and cultural modernity.
I do not say that living out a choice against modernity is especially easy or pleasant, and very, very few antimoderns actually do it or even try it. However, this issue is not about the ease with which Christians are supposed to be able to ignore the world around them. I think the requirement to break with the world, which the Christian is obligated to try to honor, encompasses the rejection of any determinate form of the world, such as modernity. Christianity opposes worldliness as such, and modernity is simply one form of worldliness.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:26:19 +0000

Going back on modernity would be akin to trying to put toothpaste back into the tube – our basic assumptions have shifted far too much, and probably far more than most of us realize. The only thing about the post with which I’d quarrel would be the reference to pre-modern “fascism” – fascism is very much the sort of movement that could only be an outgrowth of modernity.

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:28:05 +0000

I heard Carter saying primarily that ‘modernity is essentially a Christian heresy.’ That doesn’t seem so far off the mark.

By: Brad A.

Brad A. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:02:19 +0000

Apologies, Halden. Read the post and totally missed that link. Thanks.

By: Halden

Halden — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:59:05 +0000

Actually, Brad, besides overconsumption of of ale, and the many deep fried German sandwiches I eat, if you click on the hyperlink in the post above you’ll find my more immediate rationale for this post.

By: Brad A.

Brad A. — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:19:38 +0000

Ah – that explains it.

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:42:31 +0000

Brad A-
Schnitzelwiches and beer.

By: Brad A.

Brad A. — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:32:41 +0000

I’m curious, Halden. What prompted this post?

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:05:10 +0000

I think Gordon Brown's point on diaspora is really good. But I just wonder why we feel the need to scholastically locate ourselves within the nearest expression of what it means "to do theology." It almost seems as if we are following a History of Religions (read evolutionary) model of doing theology; that places, chronologically, modernity over against premodernity or vice-versa. What if premodernity got it "more" right, on a particular theological point, than has modernity?

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:57:28 +0000

I agree, d barber.

By: d barber

d barber — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:36:29 +0000

Even granting that we distinguish modern technology from modern philosophy (something that’s not easily done in my mind, but granting it anyway for argument’s sake) … this line:

“Christianity and modernity cannot be disentangled as though one could be used to give critical leverage against the other”

this line definitely holds wrt modernity-as-philosophy. I’m not sure exactly what one might have in mind when critiquing modern philosophy, but broadly speaking what one seems to find in such critiques is the idea that modernity has a number of binaries — faith and reason, metaphysics and science, self and other, abstract and concrete, order and chaos, transcendence and immanence.

Importantly, all of these binaries are present in “Christianity.” Such that the most plausible narrative of Christianity and modernity would include two points: (1) Christianity is the progenitor of modernity, with all of its binaries, such that it shares in the fault, if there is fault; (2) Christianity failed to properly resolve (or mediate or whatever) these binaries, the “Christian” solution, if there is one, still needs to be invented.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:10:01 +0000

yeah, I was going to say that modern technology is not purely one with modern philosophy…

By: david

david — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:20:25 +0000

hi halen,

i think that you are right with most of what you have said. o. o’donovan has said some of the same things in his book “the desire of nations”. i am a little disappointed that you think long life is one of the benefits of modernity or christianity. it seems to me that the prolongation of life and the despising of death is at least one area where the church has failed and also an area which the church should address to regain its rightful position over against the world, death is not our enemy. i enjoy your posts – most often.

By: mshedden

mshedden — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:32:58 +0000

Halden,
For an interesting look at this in relation to solidarity you should check out a talk given at SPU by Ephraim Radner, Christian Solidarity: The Forging of a Modern Ecumenical Tradition.
It is available on iTunesU for free.