Ravi does a great job of reminding us how, in the middle of being engaged in a lovequest for those the Lord wishes to add to His family, we are very much at the same time entrenched in a battle with Satan himself (and the world of his inbredded soul), wielding pitfalls, preclusions, attempts at disarmaments, declarations of ridicule, defamations of Heaven and heavenly wisdom, etc. It is wise to always assess the environment and learn how best to approach it.
08/30/07Defining Secularization--Ravi Zacharias
One of the symptoms of modern and postmodern change is the large stock of new words, or certainly the new use of old words--terms such as "user-friendly," "downsizing," "multiculturalism," "politically-correct," "homophobic," "postmodern," "poststructuralism," and "deconstruction." If the cartographers of our time are working away furiously to draw up new maps as empires get further subdivided each day, our neologists (those who invent new words) are living at a boom time for their preoccupations. One such word that we are all now accustomed to hearing repeatedly is "secular," or "secularization." I would venture to suggest that we might find ourselves stumbling when asked to define what this word really means. The word itself has a broad sweep, and in differing contexts brings a different spin to the central idea. For our purposes we will concentrate on the term in its social implications, because it is the process of secularization that is one of the most powerful conditioning influences in cultural formation today. Virtually every major decision that is made, and that affects our mind-molding institutions--even in the highest offices of the land--is made on the basis of a secularized worldview. What does secularization really mean? A secular worldview is admittedly and designedly the underlying impetus that presently propels western culture. The central feature of that outlook assumes that this world--the material world--is all that we have by which and for which to live. How all this came about is a historian's challenge and a sociologist's occupation. The reality that secularism is the philosophy of choice is inescapable. Any view of a spiritual essence or of otherworldliness is by definition considered irrelevant or irrational. Secularism, or "saeculum," is implicitly "this worldly." Peter Berger, the renowned sociologist and Director of the Institute for the Study of Economic Culture at Boston University, defines secularization as "the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols."(1) The choice of words Berger makes is very interesting indeed, and the broad sweep that his words encompass is of enormous importance. Secularism is "the evacuation of the church...the emancipation of education." The former speaks of a fleeing body, the latter of a liberation of the enshackled mind. Simply stated, this definition of secularization asserts that public life is to be governed by laws that are not influenced by religion, or any transcendent sacred notion. Stated with the forcefulness by which the secular will is often carried out, religious ideas have been rendered senseless in the social arena by the gladiators of the intellect. The contention being made here--that this is not a mild-mannered drawing of the lines but, more accurately, a hostile take-over--is not even slightly overstated. No one with any real knowledge of our moral struggles today will deny this philosophical attack upon the moorings of contemporary society. The effect of secularization in rendering religious convictions inadmissible in the public arena is touted in vengeful terms. As a test of this thesis, imagine a scenario featured on a prime time television program. If a volatile moral issue that divides the nation was being discussed by a panel of experts--an educator, a philosopher, a civil libertarian, a politician, a lawyer, a journalist, and a minister--who would be considered by the listening audience to be the most "biased" or "irrelevant" on the subject, and therefore, the least credible? Without a doubt, it would be the minister. As much as one would seek to be irenic and conciliatory on this sad prejudice, it is fatuous to deny that in academia, and even more so in the media, the person in ministry today is often portrayed with ridicule or bias. At the same time, it is implied that it is only the religious who are bigoted and prejudiced, who seek to put culture's head under their tyrannical heels. This is a radical inversion, is it not? For at one time the educated were the churchmen, and the halls of learning were founded by those in religious leadership. It is important then to understand how this state of affairs came to be, to be able to see the evolution of secularism from being merely a voice among many vying for allegiance to becoming the reigning mind-set, having the power to grant or ban admissibility of all other views. It is equally important to examine where secularization leads in its logical outworking. To be fair and accurate, both aspects are significant if one is to counter the situation with intelligence. The causes and the results are with us today. Not only are they both important for understanding, but also for appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of a secular perspective. Furthermore, if a secularized worldview becomes sovereign in matters of moral direction, we must come to grips with that result. It will not do to cling to the cause and wish the result away. Reality does not play mind games. What is more, to anesthetize the mind in order to abort what comes to birth when wrong ideas are conceived and borne in the womb of culture, will only kill the very life-giving force of the nation that nurtures the idea. We must learn, in the words of one cultural commenter, to live as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Ravi Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. (1) Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 107.
2 comments:
very cool drawing, are you still actively doing new work, or is that an old piece?
"the evacuation of the church...the emancipation of education." The former speaks of a fleeing body, the latter of a liberation of the enshackled mind"
I found this quote to be very poweful.
I also thought about the point that in a panel of varied viewpoints the minister would be most irrelevant and simply blown-off. I wonder if we of the faith are somewhat to blame becuase of our retreat from intellect and from the secular fields of study.
The drawing is an old one. It seems that the computers I use now have mouses that are only able to draw in etch a sketch type curves, always straight lines, makes it hard to curve and frustrating to create.
There is an interesting balance to be found in regards to thinking about how the world treats and views the church. A good historian will have to agree that the church has quite often done things for which it should repent and reform. But, with many in this era of Christianity we are often too prone to focus on where we might have erred as Christians and too quickly forgetting that many of the unredeemed are willfully, by their own wills and by Lucifer's, choosing to cast blame for their resistant hearts upon the "lying", "failing", "hypocritical", "whitewashed", "judgmental" church. While it is very helpful--at times--to own our mistakes, to walk in humility, and to humbly re-serve the world in new and better ways, we must never give the world (or own hearts, which should often like to behave in the same rebellious, deceitful ways that the world does) a pass, and allow the idea to go forth that many are hating God because they have not been loved well enough, taught gently enough, or been treated tolerantly/tolerably enough. Each soul must do its own work, bow its own knee, find its own humility; it can not rightfully blame another for it's animosity or disbelief towards God.
I don't know the answer to the question about the church's retreat from the intellect. It certainly has been very intellectual at times, and still is in many places. But there is a wisdom of God and a wisdom of men.
Post a Comment