Category: Books

Inner/Other

One of the most prescient books I read in my college years was the book The Lonely Crowd by David Riesman. Its main thesis was that modern man can be divided into two groups according to their social modus operandi. One group Riesman called inner-directed; for them, social interaction is constrained by their tendency to acquire early in life an internalized set of goals. The second group he calls other-directed; they have a social character whose interaction is driven by their tendency to be sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others.

One of the characteristics of a great social theory is its power to explain. I have turned to this division time and again to help me understand people’s actions. Lately, for example, I was contemplating why I (a strong inner-directed personality) seem to find it easier to go against the group in a committee setting, pushing a different course of action than a friend who is more other-directed can.

Many times I’ve wondered how Christianity will fare in a world becoming progressively more other-directed. Persuade an inner-directed person of the truth of Christianity and he will go that direction even if he has to go it alone. But an other-directed person, who takes his cues from the crowd around him, will struggle terribly in a secular world. Does that mean the Church should modify its approach to winning souls to account for this?

And what does the rise of the other-directed masses mean for politics? Years ago I wrote the following in the margins of my copy of The Lonely Crowd: By using one’s peer group as the basis for establishing norms, one opens the door to ‘tyranny of the group’ [i.e. despotic peer pressure.] This way, people end up mimicking an elite, including their personal ideas and actions. That’s a good explanation for people’s actions, from the oxymoronic ‘cookie cutter individualism’ of the 60’s to the mindless mobs of today.

While it was considered a landmark study in its day, one seldom hears any reference to the work today. (The book’s actual thesis is much more involved and complicated than I mention here!) But I thank him for his proposed explanation for people’s ‘guidance system’ because it has helped me understand events in my life.

Re: the Revolt of the Masses

Circumstances in an organization to which I belong were such that my mind went back to the book The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset to help understand the situation. It is one of the most prescient books of the last century. In it, Ortega seeks to understand the cultural implications of the rise of what he calls “mass man.”

“Europe is suffering from the greatest crisis that can afflict peoples, nations, and civilization….It is called the rebellion of the masses. … This fact is the accession of the masses to complete social power.”

The ‘mass man’ “does not want to give reasons or be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the ‘reason of unreason.’” As he said elsewhere, “the vulgar proclaims and impose the rights of vulgarity, or vulgarity as a right.” The spirit of the masses “inevitably leads it to one single process of intervention [in social affairs]: direct action [i.e. violence,] … the Magna Carta of barbarism.”

What happens when mass man takes over the state? The mass “has a deadly hatred of all that is not itself. … When the mass acts on its own, it does so only in one way, for it has no other: it lynches.” Ortega goes on to say, the mass man “sees it [the State], admires it, knows that here it is, safeguarding his existence; but he is not conscious of the fact that it is a human creation invented by certain men and upheld by certain virtues and fundamental qualities which the men of yesterday had and which may vanish into air tomorrow.” Eventually, this lack of consciousness will strangle the state.

A similar process spells the end of science. And civilization dies.

Ah, the wonder of democracy as a philosophical ideal!

[Quotes from chapters 1, 8 and 13]

Christianity And Our Founding

I’ve recently finished reading several books that, broadly speaking, focus on the question of the relationship between Christianity and our nation‘s founding. For my own curiosity, I’ve decided to express my beliefs on the question. The three books I’ve read recently on this were: Defending the Declaration by Gary Amos, Reading the Bible With the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach, and Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? by John Fea.

Defending the Declaration was interesting in the way it traced the wording of individual phrases of the Declaration to a long history of Christian thought. The author’s conclusion? “The American Revolution … was ‘Christian’ in that all the principles included in the Declaration of Independence agreed with, and probably grew directly from, the Biblical teaching about revolution as formulated by major Catholic and Protestant theorists over a span of seven hundred years.” (p. 149)

Reading the Bible was interesting because it is one of the few books I’ve seen on this subject that is written by someone who appears to know the Bible. Many histories on this subject seem to overlook any reference or allusion that isn’t a direct quote. Many historians have noted the heavy influence of the Bible on 17^th & 18^th century American culture, but Dreisbach proves it. His conclusion: “From the Pilgrim fathers to the founding fathers and beyond, Americans have looked to the Bible for guidance in creating and administering a well-ordered political society. … [N]o source was better known or more authoritative and accessible in their culture than the Bible. Christianity in general and its Sacred Text in particular shaped many of the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions that informed their political thought and were vital to the construction and administration of their system of laws and civil government. ….[Also,] ideas derived from other sources were often evaluated in the light of Scripture, and the founding generation looked to the Bible to strengthen, validate, or sanctify ideas emanating from these other sources.” (p. 234)

But the most interesting book – because it is so infuriating – is John Fea’s book. The book purports to answer the question Was America founded as a Christian nation, but fails miserably. The first issue is that the terms are discussed, but never defined. Especially crucial is, what does Fea mean by a “Christian” nation? I cannot find a definition, which allows the author to denounce various actions and beliefs as not part of a Christian heritage. For example, he criticizes the colonists as not being theologically pure. But to what? To Calvinism, appears to be the answer at one point. But that means the Quakers in PA and the Church of England parishioners in VA both prove America was not Christian. Say what?

Fea also argues the documents of this era do not have Christianity embedded in them. These are political documents, and the Bible is sparse on details of the type and format of government God wants. When historians say a country is Christian, they mean things like what is the source of the ethical values underlying the laws, and what values are appealed to as the justification for the actions being taken.

Most of the evidence presented in this regard clearly shows that Christianity was the dominant world view of almost 100% of the leaders and people. This is done even when totally ignoring crucial issues such as the foundation of the Common Law (which formed the basis of all colonial law), the evidence of Christianity applied in people’s lives presented by commentators such as Alexis De Tocqueville, and the significance of the church service dedicating the nation to God performed on the first day of the new government in 1789.

Unfortunately, the author makes the mistake of “reading back” into history. Unfortunate though it may be, few Christians of that era understood that slavery and Christianity were incompatible. (Christianity and racism are also incompatible. Does that mean that no person who made a racist statement can be called a Christian? Obviously not.) Worse, the author appears to view history through Enlightenment eyes. Historians have tried mightily for a long time to prove that America was a product of the Enlightenment. To do so, they’ve associated ideas such as natural law and rights as Enlightenment ideas, ignoring the long line of Christian thinking, based on Paul’s writings, behind those concepts. Fea does not attempt to set the record straight.

So was America founded as a Christian nation (not a theocracy, but Christian), or was it a product of the Enlightenment? The answer is obvious to anyone who approaches the question in an open manner. When defined as above – as the ideal being sought, the source of the underlying values and justification for community/governmental actions – the answer to his question must be a resounding “yes.” That such an answer is not what the author likes, or is used by others in ways that cannot be justified, does not change the answer.

Parenthetically, it is both amusing and ironic that the author makes the claim he is both a “Christian and a Christian college history professor.” Fea is identified as a professor at Messiah College, a college that, at one time, was closely associated with the Brethren in Christ church. I know a little about Messiah. I would ask Fea in what way he defines “Christian” in this connection. My understanding is you will not find a monolithic doctrinal belief among either the faculty or the students. Nor do all practice the doctrines they speak. The driving focus of the school has long ceased to be religious in nature, and many documents coming out of the college scarcely mention God. Is he lying, or does his statement have validity? I think it does, but seeing that it does will illuminate the way America was founded as a Christian nation.