The Enlightened Christians: the Ego-Centric Christians of the 21st Century

Before I start, it must be noted that there are two types of religious people – those who do not impose their religious views onto others and those who do. By ‘those who impose their religious views’, I mean those who aggressively try to convert you as they are speaking to you, nor do I mean those who come to your door to preach to you. I primarily mean that those who do not take you seriously if you disagree with you on their basic assumption that there is such a thing as God the creator of the world. Having clarified this point, let me express that anything I write against them here is directed to to those who impose their religious views in the way elucidated above, and continue with my argument.

I say the ‘Christians of the 21^st Century’ but the kind of traits found in the modern sense, spiritual Christians, is already obviously expressed in the works of C. S. Louis. That is basically this: “I know God exists. I also understand there are people who do not believe in God. I am utterly aware that people have wronged in the past in the name of Christianity. I know that is why you believe Christianity is bad. I know that. But you see, Christianity is not in fact about wars and ugly fighting. Disagreement among Christian sects in the past, fights over what the Church said or did not say, having to come up with a clever rational argument about how God in fact exists, and so on… They do not reflect true Christianity. In fact, they are not about Christianity at all. You say you loath what Christians in the past have done. I agree with you. I loathe what these people have done in the past in the name of Christianity. True Christians are not like that. As a Christian, I know that for certain. You people misunderstand what Christianity is about. No, no, no. It is not at all Christian! Before I knew God, I too thought of Christianity as repugnant like you. But it is all misunderstood! You see, if you think there is an order in the world, if you think there is anything to be studied systematically in the world, if you think you can do good, you already believe in God. Because without God, there cannot be an order, there will not be anything worth learning, and you will not have inclination to do good at all. It’s easy to forget that you know God, because there is so much distance from the creation and you. But it is important to remember that you are thinking as you do now because of God.”

This is how the argument goes. I’ve come across this sort of argument more than frequently, and every time I hear it, a bundle of inconsistencies hits me. Perhaps I should explain what I mean. First, it completely ignores the history, hence the basis upon which Christianity is founded. It bypasses all the means to maintain the position Christianity has had in history and only accepts as the fact that God exists. In other words, it conveniently disregards how it came about, and it is applied to people in the modern world anachronistically. More significantly, it radically ignores the fact that had the Christians in the past not acted in the way they did , there would not be a Christian at present. This brings to my second criticism that modern Christians assume that than the Christians in the past to the extent that they Christianity in the truest sense to the past Christians. They create a clear break from the past Christians without breaking the link with the Christianity. This is perhaps a similar view with the one held by the Early Moderns who believed that they the life of the ancients after a long inactivity marked by ignorance during the Middle Ages. The Christians in the modern society often assume that the violence attached to Christianity their Middle Ages, and anything from the Crusades to the Iraq War is utterly dissociated. I call such Christians for obvious reasons. They live in peacetime, they are globalized in their thinking that they are willing to entertain distinct schools of thought as their own, and they believe they have wised up.

Anyone who studies history and history of ideas would understand that their view is unlike any other period’s. Descartes never claimed St. Augustine or St. Aquinas stupid who misunderstood God, nor Kant dissociated himself from the tradition of Christianity since antiquity. From the perspective of the history of ideas, this seemingly ego-centric view that ‘We are the one who knows God’ seems to arise from Hegel’s phenomenology in the 19^th century. I suppose this is partly the result of the progress of physics, science and global philosophy in general, as can be seen the interesting hybrid views of the creationist account and evolutionist account of the beginning of the universe (i.e., Intelligent Design) and the top-down Christianity and Spinozistic pantheism (i.e., God is the energy) which is further fueled by the acquisition of the Eastern philosophy, such as Taoism and Confucianism. Moreover, what was once a meaningful statement by Luther: “a personal relationship with God” is now taken to mean nothing more than “a personal interpretation of God.” Indeed, goes. I assure you, Christians who are reading this, that you cannot find two people who agree on the definition of what God is now. The notion of God has been reduced to nothing but a personal ‘gut feeling’. One fervent Christian told me once she does not believe in abortion on the basis of the Scripture, whereas another yet fervent Christian told me that it is not her business on the basis of the emphasis on the personal relationship with God. Such a disagreement would not have been fine before the 19^th century. But now, it is to be welcomed! Because Christianity is not about disagreement over some doctrines! All seems well, except that you have reduced God into a personal God, nothing more than a pop singer, a movie star or a politician, whoever it happens to be affecting your life philosophy at the moment. Very well, then. I do not care whomever you worship, but I do not care either to listen to what personal God wants from me.

The third criticism is that the view held by the enlightened Christians denies all learning unless you accept that God exists. Sure, Descartes would agree with you had it not been your own personal God you are worshipping. In fact, it is understandable that smart people like Descartes would say such a thing, but people like you and me, who have not the understanding of the past or philosophy well enough could not say “whatever you are learning is worthless unless you believe/do not believe in X”. What these people are saying is tantamount to admitting that they do not understand a thing, or they believe they understand things. This brings us to the fourth criticism that they evade objections easily. Because they suppose the role of the wise without being specific about what they mean by God (as they like to say God is an energy, God is the goodness, or God is the love, for instance), they can easily dodge the objections and reformulate their argument, very much like a pathological liar who is so convinced by his own lie that he comes to believe in it, and makes any necessary changes in his story whenever he is faced with inconsistencies.

These are some of the main criticisms I have of those enlightened Christians who speak down to you when it comes to understanding or learning. If you say that you are a deist, they will ask you, “What do you mean by that?” “I mean I believe in some kind of force or a principle of nature.” And he will say gladly, “Ah, then you do mean God.” These people do not know or understand deism was equivalent to atheism and a denial of God in the 18^th century. But again, as revisionists who claim to be open-minded like to do, they once again the terms used negatively favourably to their own liking, and argue that it meant all along exactly like they define it, like they did with Darwinism.