As the Christmas season draws to a close and the return of regular blogging looms, I’m looking back over my short life as a writer on religious matters and thinking about how writing on religion is and is not like writing on other controversial topics.
There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s important to write about religion. Many people, both religious and non-religious, are affected by the religious beliefs and cultures around them; few of us know enough about how religion works and how different religious faiths and traditions shape the world views of the people and nations with whom we interact.
But it’s also true that writing about religion has its perils. One, which should be evident to anyone who has followed the comments to my Christmas posts, is that religious writing stirs up powerful and sometimes angry feelings. There’s a reason why our grandmothers told us never to discuss politics and religion at the dinner table.
And perhaps more dangerous still, there’s the hypocrisy charge. There is nothing our society likes better than to mock the pretentiously self-righteous when the lies come unglued and the feet of clay are laid bare. The famous televangelist caught in a No-Tell Motel with a lady not his wife, the family values spokesman caught in a pay to play tryst with a person of an inappropriate gender: our whole society dissolves into gales of laughter and malicious glee as yet another saint gets revealed as just another sinner.
Your jittery blogger, no freer from the Seven Deadly Sins than your average aging American Baby Boomer, can’t help but feel a bit nervous stepping into this dangerous space. What gives me the right to tell others what is true, or beautiful, or good? Is my own conduct so exemplary, my spiritual development so advanced that I should be telling everyone else how it’s done?
There’s an instinct to answer all of these questions in the negative, and to just shut up about religion and morals. And that instinct has some backing. Take for example the words of Jesus as reported in the King James Version of the gospel of Luke (6:42), “How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”
Clean up your own yard first, then join the neighborhood improvement committee.
Fair enough, and a casual glance around my moral front yard reveals a couple of dumpsters worth of rubbish that needs to be cleared away, but there’s a problem here. If only perfect people were allowed to write about faith and morals, nobody will ever say anything on the subject. Parents wouldn’t try to teach their kids right from wrong, teachers wouldn’t try to help students build moral character, sponsors in 12 step programs wouldn’t give advice to their sponsees about how to avoid that next drink or pill. No minister, rabbi, imam or priest would stand before a congregation to preach a sermon. No Buddhist monk would give advice to the faithful; no Sufi master would counsel disciples on how to approach God.
For some, like the group of atheists renting billboards this holiday season to denounce all religions as scams, this would sound like excellent news. But before too much time, even the most violent atheists would begin to notice that something was wrong.
Society really does depend on the virtue of its members. Self restraint and moral behavior really are the foundations of liberty. If people don’t behave right, nothing can protect us from the consequences.
The weaker the hold of virtue on a people, the stronger the state needs to be. If people don’t voluntarily comply with, for example, the tax codes, the enforcement mechanisms of the government need to be that much stronger. If more people lose their moral inhibitions against theft, and against using violence against the weak, then society has to provide a stronger, tougher police force — and give them more authority under less restraint.
Yet at the same time the state becomes stronger, it loses control of itself. When the moral tone of a people declines, bureaucrats and the police are not exempt from the decay of morals. They steal; they abuse their authority; they manipulate the processes of the state to serve themselves and their favored clients. The courts become corrupt; the security services link up with the crime syndicates. Night falls.
This is not some abstract fear; history and the world today are full of places where the collapse of moral values blights daily life and undermines the prospects for development. I’ve been to many countries where nobody trusts the courts, the police, the politicians or the journalists. None of them are nice places to be.
Sadly, people do not spontaneously choose to behave like angels. Virtue has to be cultivated and developed. Young people have to be persuaded, cajoled, admonished and above all inspired to seek wisdom, self control, a life of service and all the other virtues that are necessary for our civil lives as well as for the fullest development of our true selves. Older people have to be reminded of their ideals, encouraged to live up to them and to continue fighting the good fight through the long years of adulthood and middle life.
For some people, reason, commonsense and a strong innate moral constitution makes it possible to live a decent and useful life without the comforts and restraints of religion. But for many more, only the feelings of awe, gratitude and fear occasioned by the awareness of a Creator can give them the strength and will to set out on the earnest and difficult road of struggle on the path to a moral life. More, that inner sense needs to be refreshed: people need to hear the message expressed in compelling terms, and they need to hear it again and again through a lifetime.
All this can only happen if a lot of people who are still fighting their own private moral battles stand up on their hind legs in public and praise those virtues that they have not fully attained. The recovering alcoholic has to tell the newcomer that there is hope for a better future — even if nobody knows better than a recovering alcoholic how easy it is to take that beckoning drink. The pastor has to encourage the couples in the congregation to strive to fulfill the ideal of a faithful marriage even if his or her own marriage hasn’t been spotless. The intellectual, struggling with questions and doubts about the meaning of faith, must share the best case for faith with a wider audience — or no one will benefit from a lifetime of study and reflection.
Does this mean that I’m arguing for a world of morality based on systematic hypocrisy? GK Chesterton’s father, I once read, never went to church himself but always carried a Prayer Book on Sundays to set a good example for the lower orders. Would we be any better off if we added hypocrisy to the lengthening list of our social sins?
It’s not that bad. There is a line, I think, that separates the posturing hypocrite from the honest (but flawed) advocate for morals and faith. There is a difference between the honest advocacy of hope and the self-glorification of a moral poseur.
In any case, developing a sensible, honest and penetrating discourse about corrosive human failings and their social consequence is a job that simply has to be done, particularly in a society like ours where the cultures of desire and indulgence run so rampant. I’m not thinking just or even primarily of sex, though this riveting Atlantic Monthly essay on the effects of internet pornography on our society provides much food for thought. It is a culture of restraint and virtue that prevents (at least some) bankers from ripping off their clients and the government, that holds politicians back from the worst kinds of demagoguery and dirty tricks — and that punishes those who break these unwritten rules.
Let’s not over dramatize or fall into moral panic. Our national culture is not going entirely downhill. The wide and deep hatred of racism that exists in our culture, for example, is a real improvement over the past. There are some other ways in which we seem to be a less brutal, more caring society than we once were. But the signs overall are not good. The social tolerance for greed and self-indulgence that we’ve developed, the prevalence of materialism, the debasement of popular culture, the unscrupulous exploitation of human sexuality for commercial purposes: these are not making us happier, more free, or, as a society, more just.
A twelve day stint as a faith blogger has left me morally challenged by the complexities and the ambiguities this work involves. But it’s also left me feeling that this kind of work, somehow, has got to be done. If we leave religion out of our national conversation about values, politics and culture we end up with a vapid conversation that doesn’t address the deepest realities that move most of the people in this country. And the problems we face today can’t be addressed constructively without getting into the deep stuff and asking the hardest questions about the things that matter most.
You can’t talk about U.S. History or our political dynamics without understanding religion. Of the two surviving English-speaking colonies — Plymouth Rock and Jamestown — one involved religion right from the get go. The other involved money initially but then also got religion. And, as a result, the two third rails in American politics are money and religion — and they’ve affected a lot of American life.
Good luck to you. I hope you tackle these topics and don’t shy away from becoming edgy.
Needed saying and you did it well.
God and religion are social constructs – let’s not confuse religion with morality or virtue. Religion, with the excepton of the deeply humaniterian work of missionaries in some third world countries, has not been a force for good – in fact just the opposite.
I have a problem with these sociological defenses of faith and morals. What about God? Does it matter if we please or displease Him? Can he do us any good or harm? Does the possibility of gaining His blessing or the fear of inciting His wrath enter into our thoughts at all? Discussing religion as a purely human phenomena seems strange to me. When is the last time yousaw a serious commentator say “We should make our public policy X in order to be pleasing to God,” rather than “in order to cut down on teen pregnancy” or something.
Anyone choosing to dispute Doug Page’s point to understand Americaa one must grasp the essentials of religion, speciffically, of Christianity. Howard Dean’s not knowing which books of the Bible set in the OT or which in the NT is not only a lack of knowing thing one about Christianity, it’s also blindly deliberate cultural ignorance of an aspect central to American history, culture and character.
I don’t care if Howard Dean’s ancestors came over on the Mayflower or if they came here at Ellis Island, such ignorance brands him not an American culturally, regardless he’s an M.D. & was goveernor of a state.
He’s just not one of us. Even perhaps foreign-born [disparaging reference to the President of the United States --ed], is more American in character than Dean.
Leftist secularists such as the usurper in the WH, [repeated disparagement of the President -- ed], may whimper about Americans being religious, but it isn’t to do them a whale of a lot of good. Despite claims that Christianity is in decline in the USA the fact remains that, at last count, 76% of us self-identify as Christian.
Atheism is an affliction of the snobbish half-educated.
Mead writes, “It is a culture of restraint and virtue that prevents (at least some) bankers from ripping off their clients and the government, that holds politicians back from the worst kinds of demagoguery and dirty tricks — and that punishes those who break these unwritten rules.”
Maybe. I’m not a fan of cultural explanations for political or economic outcomes. I’d rather examine the costs and incentives that bankers or politicians face, and try to explain their behavior in these terms. It’s damn near impossible to define or describe a culture, let alone change it. But it is often rather straightforward changing incentives so that outcomes change.
Mr. Mead, I appreciate your willingness to takle a sensative subject. After 30 years in the Marines my friends ask me about DADT. My response is based on scripture. The emotional responses are many. Instead of discussing differences, or examoining the source of their convictions, they want to add labels – it is easier to dismiss the opposite view if you demean it.
My response to them is : your argument is NOT with me. Your argument is with God. Jesus told us that it is not our job to water the seed but rather to plant the seed. Some seed with grow and flourish while others will wither an die.
I particularly enjoy the hypocrit example. My question is, “Are there hypocrits in the grocery store?”
I believe this one of the best articles I have ever read. I also believe it should be mandatory reading in all schools of higher education.
an extremely moving article. I myself am an unabashed atheist, but I always find myself disturbed when other atheists attack religion so venomously. I think religious is inherently a good thing for humanity, and I would not wish atheism upon everyone.
Your analysis of the interplay between loss of virtue and the rise of government is preceptive.
And, as to the hypocrisy issue, my wife and I have raised five children in a religious home. At the same time, my actions fall short of my beliefs at times–yet I’ve tried to continue to teach my children the right way (and have tried to be up-front whenever I’m telling to do what I say instead of what I do). I then try to mend my ways so that they can see that even dumb old dad can change. If we have to attain perfection before commenting on religious/ethical topics, we would all stand mute.
“”And the problems we face today can’t be addressed constructively without getting into the deep stuff and asking the hardest questions about the things that matter most.”"
This is the reason progressives, and all secularists, have proven lately that they cannot solve political and social problems and instead rely upon ad hominem in their struggle to remain in power. They have only rehashed, unworkable ideas from the past, or “new” ideas that sprout from the effect of redefining, distorting and/or neglecting honest first principles (which they abhor in the first place!). For instance, if political parties relied on the Constitution and the Federalist papers for solutions to political and social problems, but merely had differences of perspective, degree or intent among them, much would still be debated but would then “progress” Constitutionally. What we have now, in one party, is ad hoc, ad hominem and no depth.
America is beloved because we have a deep attachment to first principles, not because we are “politically correct”.
Wow, those atheists had better watch it. By saying that all religions are scams, they are ridiculing Islam. That is a good way to find yourself dead and mutilated.
Good post- I believe de Tocqueville said it best – “Freedom requires morality, and morality requires faith.”
Good article. In practical terms “only the feelings of awe, gratitude and fear occasioned by the awareness of a Creator can give them the strength and will to set out on the earnest and difficult road of struggle on the path to a moral life” is true.
You may wish also to consider that major religions recognize both the individuality and fallibity of human beings and the common theme and potential transendence of humanity. A bridge betwen the obviously real and the known ideal.
Also the basic two commanments are explained so many different ways that we sometimes pick up clues both to understanding them and to trying to practice them in our real lives. I refer to knowing right from wrong (“thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength”), and to becoming one’s best, happiest self through service (“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”).
1. “Religion” is not a synonym for faith or for God or for Christianity. You use as if it were.
2. Nowhere do I see the word “humility” .which essential to belief in God. We live in an age of arrogance top to bottom and on every side. More humility, I say
Respect brother! I’m tickled that you reference G.K. Chesterton. A giant among religious philosophers in every sense of the word. His Christian apologetics has been confounding atheists for more than a century. One of my favorite points that he made about “moderns” as he called progressives and liberals still comes up in every debate on religion and society is that the one point that the “moderns” never dare approach with any honesty is whether what is written in the Bible (or other religious texts) is in any sense “The Truth”. For that possibility has implications that are extremely uncomfortable. The arguments usually devolve into denunciations of the religious establishments, self-proclaimed religious people and their negative impacts on societies. As if proclaiming or teaching a belief in a God is somehow supposed to imbue perfection on that person or else the lack of perfection is somehow a negation of the existence of a God.
Please press on. This is a vital and noble effort you have undertaken.
I have enjoyed reading your essays for a long long time. I coached intercollegiate competitive debate for a couple of decades before “retiring” into a professorship. Almost every debater in the US has a favorite “Mead card” to use in debates: a quote of yours which helps them make an argument well.
I have been sharply critical of a couple of your other “Yule Blogs”. I enjoyed this one.
An intimation of this essay is that religion is a force for morality, or at least that it serves as an incentive for ethical behavior. This is a claim oft-repeated but seldom demonstrated. Is there good evidence for it?
I have read the Heritage Foundation’s joke of a literature review of the benefits of religiosity: it is a bad joke of cherry-picked and spun results. Comparing secular European nations and Japan with a religious United States (or the much more religious developing world) clearly points to the importance of atheism in societal well-being. Atheists in America have among the lowest divorce rates of any “religious” group. Atheists are under-represented in prison populaitons while Christians are not. Atheists don’t strap on explosive vests and blow up cafes full of believers…
So… is there any good evidence that religion generates virtue rather than vice?
Another entailment here is that even if it is a scam, we ought to spread religion because believing the lie is good. This view dehumanizes us: it treats us as tools for social ends rather than as ends in ourselves. I thought we learned from the catastrophes of Communism and Fascism the folly of using persons this way.
Excellent article!
Please write more on this topic.
The only caveat I would have to your really excellent article is that it casts the worship of the Creator in a somewhat utilitarian light, i.e. “We should go to Church because it is a good social glue.”
I worship God because God is Goodness, Truth and Beauty! God is Love! If we come to get even the briefest glimpse of God, we can’t help but fall in love with Him. This is the gournd truth of all true religion. Let’s not forget it.
Something essential is for Americans to look critically at the fields of child emotional development and psychiatric diagnosis in order to be more conscious of the moral content there. Secular psychologists presume, with varying degrees of deliberateness, to tell the rest of us what it means to be a good or happy (“responsible” or “self-actualized”) person and how to raise our children accordingly. Increasingly, especially in the realm of sex and the family, Leftist values dominate. Leftist psychologists and their ilk dictate morals to the rest of us in the name of “current science.” Matters of homosexuality, transgenderism, teen and subteen sex, abortion–psychologists pontificate on these all the time. They throw their weight around through professional ethics codes, amicus briefs in court cases, and probably (though I don’t know of a particular instance) testimonies at congressional hearings. We citizens have got to get control of the discourse. We’ve got to make it public in a way that allows us all to really participate in it.