Culture As The Platform For Economic Development
©Phillip A. Ross, May 2006
Introduction
My friend Hyppolite Pierre has written an interesting article (Culture, Development, and Changing Politics in Democratic Haiti) about Haiti's need for culture as a prerequisite for economic development. This essay is a response to Pierre's article.
The concern is close to my heart for several reasons. First, it is a family matter. My brother has adopted two Haitian girls, which makes them my nieces. Second, I live in Appalachia, a broad section in the American heartland known for its poverty. We, too, need economic development, and there are many, many organizations and institutions in our area working toward that end. They have been doing so for generations. However, what they are doing is not working. Consequently, I believe that Haiti and Appalachia have some common concerns.
I understand that there is a world of difference between the poverty in Haiti and the poverty in Appalachia. If we could transpose a section of Appalachia into Haiti, we Appalachians would suddenly be rich by comparison. The point here is not to vie for poverty bragging rights. Rather, it is to examine Hyppolite's article for broader application. If he is right that culture is the foundation upon which economic development is built — and I believe he is, then we both may benefit from intellectual cross pollinization.
At the outset, however, I have a problem that I must confess if I am to approach this subject with any degree of honesty. My problem is that I have a particular perspective that effects my entire process of thinking and evaluation. Everything that I think, say and do is colored by my particular perspective. All incoming information is filtered through my particular perspective and all outgoing information is correspondingly shaped by it.
There are three aspects or poles that contribute to my particular perspective. The first is my own personal history. I am who I am in great part because of the experiences I have had in my life. This aspect of my particular perspective has been shaped by my family background, my upbringing, my education and my work experience. This pole could be called the personal pole of my particular perspective. I am a white (Scots/Irish to be specific), middle class, college educated, American baby boomer. Let us note that these things will effect my perspective.
The second pole that needs to be taken into consideration was mentioned previously. I am a Twenty-First Century American. I mention this because my national culture has a tremendous effect upon my particular perspective, as does everyone's. I am a product of American culture, and everything that I think, say or do will reflect that fact. While the previous pole can be considered to be individual and personal, this pole is decidedly social and public, and could be called the social pole. Every human being is both personal and social. These two poles are necessary constituents of every human personality and of every human perspective.
The reason that I mention these things at the outset is that I believe that no human being can ever escape the influence that these factors have in terms of shaping human character, understanding and perspective. Every human being has a particular perspective that is different from every other perspective. People are unique. No two people share the same history. At the same time, people who live in the same culture have many common experiences. While their histories are not identical, they are in fact similar in many regards. But they are not similar in every regard. And that insight brings us to the third pole that I need to confess so that you will understand my bias.
Preamble
I am a Christian, which means that God Himself through the power and presence of His Holy Spirit has called and empowered me to be more than I am in and of myself able to be. I have been a Christian pastor for 25 years. As I say this I am aware that a wall of misunderstanding has been erected by this simple confession. What I intend for the purpose of clarity all too easily becomes a source of confusion. Yet, the failure to disclose this bias would be dishonest on my part. So, there it is.
Yes, I have a bias, but so do you. So does everyone. There is no such thing as a person without a bias. For the sake of clarity let's define bias as "a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." That's the dictionary definition, and we'll accept it. But it begs a question: Is it possible for any human being to make impartial judgments? Aren't all human judgments made from particular, personal perspectives that are effected by various aspects of a person's own particular history and culture? I ask this question because Christians have a particular perspective that necessarily effects the answer to this question. Christians and non Christians have historically differed radically about the answer to this question, and the nature and extent of those differing answers suggests that being a Christian is a watershed issue.
I know what being a Christian means to me, and I know what it means historically, but I don't know what it means to you. The first difficulty that we have is that everyone already has an idea of what it means for a person to be a Christian, but closer examination reveals that those ideas are not the same. In fact, they differ widely, radically. There are a million different ideas about what it means to be a Christian from a Christian perspective, and another million from a non Christian perspective. You see the difficulty? I have an idea about what it means to be a Christian, and you have an idea about what it means to be a Christian, but the two ideas may have little in common.
Communication requires that people have the same definitions of words. To communicate we must share a common lexicon, a common understanding of the meanings of words. Conversely, communication is impossible if words have different meanings to different people. If I use the word "blue" and you understand it to mean "gray," then the idea of the color in question has not been correctly communicated. When one or both of us is color blind we talk past one another about the color blue. Those who are not color blind share a common experience of the color blue. Apart from that common experience there is no way to accurately describe the color blue. Communication appeals to a common experience or common understanding and without it communication fails.
Are Christians the only group of people who have a bias? Not at all. Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, indeed every religious person has a bias. What about people who aren't religious? There aren't any. How so? Everyone is religious. To be religious is to have a belief about God, and even not believing in God is still a belief about God. It is the belief that God is not real, or that God does not exist, or that God does not matter. This is much more than a linguistic or logical game of playing with words. It is a true statement about the reality of being human. To believe in God is to have a bias in one direction, but to not believe in God is to have a bias in a different direction. Neither belief is objective because belief about God is about the standard for objectivity itself. If God is real, then objectivity requires belief and to deny Him is to be blinded to reality. And if God is not real, then objectivity requires unbelief and to believe in Him is to be similarly blinded to reality.
It will not do to say that my belief is okay for me, and the belief of an atheist or a Buddhist, etc., is okay for someone else. Nor will it do to say that God exists for me but not for an atheist. God either exists or He doesn't, and human belief does not call God into existence. More to the point, it is specifically the God of the Bible that makes the problem the most difficult because the God of the Bible claims the entire human race and the entire world as His own creation and property. To accept the God of the Bible is to accept a particular belief that necessarily effects every human being in every nation in every time of history. That most certainly qualifies as a bias. But the denial of the God of the Bible also qualifies as a bias that has the same scope of historical application. The only reason to think that objectivity requires not believing in God is that such a person denies a priori the existence of God as the fundamental presupposition that establishes the criteria for the definition of the meaning of objectivity.
Indeed, belief in God is not about some bearded ancient in the sky, but is about the criteria that establishes what we accept as truth or reality itself. When you say something is true, how do you know it is true? When you say something is false, how do you know it is false? This area of inquiry is the primary ground of religion. Religion is about presuppositions — faith, and all human existence and communication require the making of presuppositions of one sort or another. It is inescapable.
What does this have to do with my being a Christian? Everything. By confessing that I am a Christian I confess that everything I think, say and do is effected by the fact that I am a Christian. And at this point, I have another serious communication difficulty to deal with.
Many people say that they are Christians, but there is no discernible difference between what they think, say or do and those who say they are not Christians. George Barna, a popular Christian sociologist, has established that there is no significant sociological difference between contemporary Americans who go to church and those who don't. Both groups share similar statistics with regard to the practice of premarital sex, abortion, smoking, drinking, divorce, etc. In other words, there is no significant moral (behavioral) difference between those who say they are Christian and those who don't. So, how can I say that being a Christian effects everything I think, say and do?
I must further qualify my Christianity by noting that there may be a real difference between those who claim to be Christian and those who actually are. This means that not everyone who is self-identified as a Christian actually is. This fact is verifiable in the Bible itself. Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 2:21). Self-identification is necessary but not sufficient to establish one's identity as a follower of Jesus Christ. There is another element that is required.
While self-identification corresponds to the personal pole of human character or personality, group-identification or community membership corresponds to the social pole. There is no such thing as a completely isolated human being. Human beings are necessarily communal beings. And every individual human being necessarily belongs to various groups and is excluded from other groups. For instance, I am white not black. I am American not Haitian. I am male not female, etc. The point is that being a Christian requires acceptance by other Christians. But this begs the question, how do Christians know if someone else is a real Christian or not?
The answer is that Christianity is communicated from one person to another via the Holy Spirit. However, in order for communication to be successful a common experience or understanding is required. There are two elements of that commonality, and as you might expect one pole is personal and one pole is social. The personal pole or aspect of Christian commonality is the experience of being born again. Jesus said that regeneration is a necessary part of being a Christian.
One night a man named named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:1-5). I pray that you will hear what Jesus has said here. Apart from being "born again" people cannot even see the kingdom of God. Apart from being born again, the reality of the God of the Bible does not even show up on someone's radar. In other words, like the color blue, it cannot be known apart from a direct experience of it. The implications of this are very important.
Such an experience is essential for a person to be a Christian, but it is not sufficient. To illustrate this Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness'" (Matthew 7:21-23). Jesus rejects these people who thought that they knew Him, but were mistaken.
The people who came to Jesus in Matthew 7:21 claimed to know Jesus. They even claimed to have worked miracles in His name. Yet, Jesus rejected them as being true disciples. This means that there is more to being a Christian than simply having an experience and claiming Christ.
The other element corresponds to what I have called the social pole of human personality or character. Just as no one is human in and of him- or herself because we necessarily exist in community with others, no one is a Christian in and of him- or herself. Rather, being a Christian necessarily requires recognition by the historic community of faithful Christians. In other words, Christians share an experience of being born again personally, but they also share a common Christian lexicon, a common vocabulary that is both social and historical. It is social because it belongs to a group of people, and it is historical because that group of people has existed in continuity over many generations.
At this point, yet another communication difficulty arises. I apologize for what might seem like a mass of difficulties, but life is complex. There are many trees in the forest and they are not all alike.
The next difficulty that I must point out is the fact that there are many Christian communities, all of which claim to be faithful to "true Christianity." Please understand that the fact that there are many pretenders who claim the thrown does not invalidate the fact that the throne is real. But neither does the reality of the throne justify the veracity of all who claim it. Again, we are faced with the epistemological problem of discerning the criteria by which to evaluate the definition of truth and faithfulness. How can we know what we think we know to be true? On what basis is something true or false? By what standard do we evaluate truth and falsehood?
The question deserves an answer, but it is a very complex and difficult question. However, it is not that truth is complex or difficult to understand in and of itself. Rather, it is complex and difficult because many very smart people have denied and denigrated the truth for eons and have poisoned the well of conversation about it. Many people find the truth to be threatening. Many people find that truth stifles the imagination. Why? Because if you know the truth, you don't have to imagine what the truth might be.
Allow me, for the sake of time, to provide a simple answer to the complex question of how to know what is true and what is not. My underlying presupposition is that truth is necessarily objective and eternal. What is true is true regardless of what you or I might say or believe about it. We might misunderstand the truth, but our misunderstanding does not change the truth. Think of math. Two times two is four regardless of whether I think it is five or six. Human error does not change the nature of truth. If I witness an automobile accident, my perception of it does not change the truth of what happened. I cannot see everything that happened from my limited perspective, and I may misperceive something for a number of reasons. But none of that changes the truth about whatever happened during or preceding the accident.
Sociologically, then, I will categorically state that the truest things in the world are the things that have lasted the longest. This is based on the fact that truth is objective and eternal. This is an historical argument for truth. Because truth doesn't change, that which persists in stable continuity for the longest period of time is the most true. The Bible and the community of people who believe in the reality of the Biblical God and who are associated with the preservation and proclamation of the truths of the Bible constitute the longest lasting continuous human community in the history of the world. I know that is a big statement and that defending or establishing it will take a lifetime of study, but it is important to get it on the table for consideration so that you will understand my bias. I've been working on it for 40 years.
Part of the difficulty of making such a statement is that many historians do not recognize the element of continuity that runs through the various groups and communities that have defended and proclaimed biblical truth. For instance, distinctions between the Old Testament and the New Testament are often understood as discontinuity rather than continuity. There are subgroups of both Jews and Christians who argue for the discontinuity of the Old and New Testaments. Nonetheless, faithful Christians believe that the same God is behind both the Old and New Testaments and has been working over a very long period of time, but always teaching and utilizing the same method of salvation — by grace through faith in Christ alone through Scripture alone. Again, the fact that some people don't see something doesn't mean that it isn't there. But when a group of people do see something significant, and that group has continued to proclaim the same truth of that fact throughout history, and that community has been responsible for the most significant developments of history, it suggests that something significant is there. And the prudent person will investigate it.
Calvinism
This brings me to my final confession. I am a Calvinistic Christian. I am convinced after 40 years of wide-ranging religious studies that John Calvin was essentially correct in his assessment of God and Scripture. That does not mean that he was right in everything that he said. But it does mean that he was more right than he was wrong, and that he was more right than most other Christian scholars. What made him right was not his keen intellect or any other human ability he may have had. Rather, what made him right was his simple faith that the Bible is true in all that it says, and his unwavering consistent application of that belief to his study of it. As such, should you be interested in understanding the truth of Christianity, you will find no better exposition of it than his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion. You will find no better or more faithful and comprehensive treatment of Christianity or the Bible in print. To engage the Institutes as an introduction to Christianity will save countless hours of wasted time trying to sort through the mass of material that is currently available.
Now that I have confessed my own bias in an attempt to put my so-called cards on the table for the sake of honesty and clarity, allow me to interact with Hyppolite's article in order to demonstrate how all of this applies to what he has said. In what follows I will be arguing in agreement with the fundamental insight of his essay, that culture is indeed the true foundation for economic development. But I will disagree with several of his definitions and use of various words and ideas — and in particular his total disregard (and probable ignorance) of genuine Christianity in general and it's role as a viable cultural engine for economic development. It is my intention to provide a wider and deeper understanding of culture in order to apply Hyppolite's fundamental insight more broadly in the hope of establishing a stronger, broader and clearer foundation to support his fundamental insight that culture is the essential foundation of economic development.
By any measure the Bible — and in particular Reformed Christianity (another term for Calvinism) — is the single most historically effective cultural and economic engine [1] in history. Yet no mention of either is found in Pierre's essay, not even an intellectual nod in passing.
It must be noted that the history of Haiti is an extension of the culture of modern France, a nation that has attempted to completely disengage itself from all expressions of Christianity because of abuses, both real and perceived, prior to and during the French Revolution. Indeed, one of the primary consequences of the French revolution was the national repudiation of Christianity.
John Calvin, a Frenchman by birth, found it necessary to leave France because of the cultural forces arrayed against genuine Christianity in France two centuries prior to the historic French revolution. It may not be too strong a statement to suggest that France as a nation has never known genuine Christianity, by which I mean Protestant Calvinism, to effect its national life. And if this is true for France, it is most certainly true for Haiti.
Haitian patriots, identified here as the indigenous Haitian ruling class, many of whom according to Pierre have interbred with the French [2], have been educated by the French during the Modern and Postmodern periods. I mention this because it is very unlikely that any correct, orthodox understanding of Calvinism would be taught in such a milieu. The combination of slavery, no doubt associated with the name of a faulty expression of Christianity, and the modern education of Haitian nationals into the culture of France appear to have eclipsed any expression of biblical Christianity in Haiti. Christianity appears to have played no significant role in Haitian history, which, I believe and will try to establish, is the primary reason for the fact that Haiti is the most impoverished nation in the Western hemisphere.
It may be argued that there are many Christians in Haiti. Census reports suggest that as many as 80% of Haitians are Roman Catholic. Others suggest that a similar percentage of the people practice Vodou. Contrary to what may be popular opinion, genuine Christians will not practice Vodou or any other religion. No doubt there are Christians in Haiti, but I am suggesting that very few of them in terms of the overall population will be true Christians, by which I mean orthodox in their beliefs and practices (without being effected by Vodou). In any case, my point is not simply about Christians in Haiti, but about the influence of Calvinism in Haiti. Christianity was present in Western Europe for a thousand years, but only when the Reformation recovered orthodox (or true) Christianity did Europe begin to flower culturally and economically.
Pierre, in another essay, Building a Democratically Structured State: Challenges for the Next Administration (April 25, 2006), makes exactly this point. He writes in the conclusion, "Any chart that one looks at and which displays results of studies on kleptocratic governments (institutionalized theft in the name of government), shows the nasty correlation between corruption, poverty, and underdevelopment index. Nations that are otherwise rich in human and natural resources are behind and stay behind because of the effect of corruption" (p. 22).
He acknowledges that corruption is the culprit, but again fails to define the term. We turn to the dictionary to define corruption: "marked by immorality and perversion; depraved; v. tr. to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of." Clearly, corruption is an expression of rampant immorality, perversion, depravity and deceit.
The question that Pierre needs to look into is whether the institution of government is able to remedy personal and social corruption without the enforcement of strict totalitarianism. Can government correct personal corruption? Pierre argues persuasively for a broad-based development of democratic freedom in Haiti. He is not arguing for totalitarianism in any sense and does not want to see such a development. I have introduced the idea of totalitarianism into the discussion because I believe that a governmentally based solution to the problem of personal and social corruption will require oppressive governmental enforcement of moral behavior as the only cure for corruption. The problem is that civil government can only impose legislation upon its people. Corruption is a personal problem and government is an social institution. All government can do is impose and enforce its recommendations upon people and institutions. Neither legislation or education can change human character.
The difficulty is that the enforcement that is needed to control corrupt people stands in stark conflict with the personal freedom that is requisite for the flowering of a successful democracy. In other words, the democratic government of a corrupt people will insure corruption, not remedy it. Why? Because corrupt people love corruption. They know nothing else, and believe that corruption is the nature of reality itself. Please understand that love of corruption is not unique to Haiti, but is common to all humanity. Those who benefit from corruption love (or prefer) it, and will not voluntarily abandon it apart from a change of personal character, a change of values, a change of heart.
I will argue that there is a better solution that does not require totalitarianism, that does not further the causes or practices of corruption, and is built upon the foundation of a representative government like that of the United States. It should be noted that the United States is not now, nor has ever been a form of pure democracy but is, rather, a democratic republic. The difference is important with regard to the improvement of a corrupt people.
Let me also note that any effort to merely educate morally corrupt people results in only in smarter people who are morally corrupt. This has been documented in American prisons, where there have been significant efforts to redeem criminals through education, but have only produced a lot of smart criminals. I am not saying that moral redemption doesn't happen in prisons. It does, but it is not a function of governmental education. Neither am I discounting the importance of education, only the fact that education doesn't change character, it only helps people to become more effective. Thus, criminals become more effective criminals through education. What is needed to change morally corrupt people is a radical change of heart, a change of mind, a change of character, a change of values, a change of perspective. And this is precisely the purpose and specialty of Christianity. The impact of genuine Christianity on both individual aspects of character and the social aspects of culture is very significant.
Culture
Pierre begins by quoting a 1992 Patrick Buchanan comment about the cultural war raging in America. Unfortunately, this paragraph is filled with confusion and contradictions. We read that liberals and conservatives alike agreed that Buchanan's observation that America is caught in a cultural war is "heretical." However, such an idea is impossible apart from some agreed upon doctrine(s) deemed to be orthodox by both groups. No such body of doctrine exists. Heresy is a meaningless term apart from Christian doctrine. Therefore, the term heretical cannot apply. Usually, when non Christians apply the label heretical to something it just means that they don't like it.
In addition, the charge of Buchanan's so-called heresy is followed by the admission that Buchanan was in fact right according to both Time Magazine and the success of George W. Bush's presidential 2004 win. Pierre said that Bush "won on cultural issues, exactly those that Patrick Buchanan related to in his 1992 speech: religious convictions with Christian values as corollary."
The problem with Pierre's essay from the outset and as found in this example is that he has failed to define or adequately understand the idea of culture. To work toward a remedy for this problem we again turn to the dictionary, where we find the following: Culture:
- The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
- These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
- These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
- The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
Properly defining exactly what culture is will help to put Pierre's idea on a better foundation and clarify the confusion. And, by the way, the confusion regarding the nature and meaning of culture is not entirely Pierre's fault. It is a very difficult idea to understand.
For instance, in 1828 Webster defined culture as "any labor or means employed for improvement, correction or growth." This is an excellent working definition of culture
A confusion exists with regard to determining the extent of culture. How can it be identified and measured? The contemporary definition begins by suggesting that culture is the totality of all human work and thought. The problem with this definition is that to say that something is everything is to say nothing distinguishable about it. In other words, this definition is too big to be of any practical use, except obfuscation. In light of the amazing diversity and complexity of human societies any definition of culture that encompasses everything the entire human race does will be so broad that it will essentially mean nothing. Any meaningful definition of culture must recognize that human society is a complex of cultures, many of which exist in stark contrast and conflict with others. The history of human warfare stands as a testimony to this fact.
Everything hinges on the correct definition of culture because to fail to define it will result in a failure to understand it. Wikipedia (an Internet encyclopedia) provides a cogent definition: "The word culture, from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning 'to cultivate', generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of 'culture' reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Anthropologists most commonly use the term 'culture' to refer to the universal human capacity to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically." Theologians, on the other hand, find that the job of classification, codification and communication of what is found on the earth has been given to humanity by none other than God Himself (Genesis 1:28, 2:19-20). It is a religious activity.
The Wikipedia goes on to say, "This capacity is taken as a defining feature of the genus Homo." This is quite true. However, it is significant to note that this defining feature of humanity is not a natural proclivity, but has been given by God. In other words, God Himself has provided the defining feature of the genus Homo. This fact of biblical history is very significant, though it is generally ignored by most anthropologists. The point is that the different theoretical bases for understanding and the differing criteria for evaluating human activity not only produce different definitions and understandings of culture, but they actually produce different cultures.
By definition, then, belief — another word for the theoretical basis for evaluation — is the engine of culture. In other words, the definition of culture is a product of one's theoretical basis for understanding human activity. A theoretical basis for understanding is always a product of assumptions and speculation — or belief. And different beliefs produces different cultures.
Thus, to speak meaningfully we must speak of cultures in the plural, not of culture in the singular. Even the contemporary Free Dictionary is confused about the definition of culture, though the Wikipedia returns to the definition of culture as a verb. But this confusion should not surprise us if we understand Buchanan's insight that there is a culture war currently in process as being the simple realization that such a conflict is not unique to our time in history, but that such conflict has always been an essential ingredient of human history — and our time is no different. Again, the evidence is the history of warfare.
Buchanan was not so much calling for a culture war as he was simply acknowledging that cultural conflicts do exist in America. Given the current state of the world and the so-called "War On Terror," it will be better to describe the situation on American soil as a cultural conflict rather than a cultural war. Of course, this is only a difference of degree. Nonetheless, I pray that this conflict will find a peaceful resolution and not escalate any further. This essay is an attempt to bring clarity to this confused topic in the hope that clarity will facilitate understanding and understanding will facilitate peace.
Webster's definition of culture is concrete, simple and elegant. Consequently, it is also superior in that it is more discernible, practical and useful. Culture is, then, best defined as any labor or means employed for improvement, correction or growth. But while this definition is sufficient it is not complete or comprehensive.
There is more.
Van Til
Henry R. Van Til said that culture is religion externalized (The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Henry R. Van Til, Baker Academic Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1959.). In other words, culture is a product of religion, of beliefs and values. A correct understanding of Henry Van Til requires familiarity with the writings of his cousin, Cornelius Van Til (www.vantil.info), a modern Christian scholar who stood on the shoulders of John Calvin. It should be noted that the basic idea conveyed in Henry's insight is readily available to the most uneducated person apart from all the background reading. However, anyone who is serious about understanding the nature of human culture will find the reading to be most helpful. I recommend reading Calvin's Institutes first, unless you are unfamiliar with the Bible. In that case, start with the Bible.
The reading of the Bible is not a minor recommendation, but a major concern. Familiarity with the Bible is a requisite for understanding this essay and/or the role of culture as the foundation for socioeconomic development. Apart from biblical familiarity it is impossible to make an intelligent comment, much less enter into critical evaluation of the present thesis.
In addition, understanding Henry's insight requires a definition of religion. Again, The Free Dictionary tells us that religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, and/or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." It needs to be emphasized that religion is an activity that issues from a belief, or an activity that issues from a presupposition (Presuppose: To believe or suppose in advance; from the Free Dictionary). Like culture, religion is not an abstract thing but a concrete activity or process.
The Free Dictionary calls religion "a personal or institutional system." A system of what? A system of human organization. In other words, religion is the organizational engine for human activity — culture. It provides the subjective motivation for cultural activity — moral and cultural improvement. It provides the context in which individual activity makes comprehensive sense. It allows individuals to understand their lives and their purpose in a context that is greater than themselves, which in turn provides the glue of human community. Community adhesion can also be defined as love, and is often described as the impetus for social interaction. It also provides the teleological purpose or end for which both individual effort and social structures exist in a comprehensively meaningful way. Through cultural expression (or the expression of belief or faith) human activity is integrated into a meaningful, purposeful goal of cultivating what is best for all humanity and for each individual member of society. In precisely these way we see that religion serves human improvement and growth, which is the definition of culture.
One of the problems found in any attempt to define culture is that people with different belief structures use different criteria for organization and evaluation. As a result, discussion moves into the philosophical area known as epistemology. "Historically, epistemology has been one of the most investigated and debated of all philosophical subjects. Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, and belief. Much of this discussion concerns justification. Epistemologists analyze the standards of justification for knowledge claims, that is, the grounds on which one can claim to know a particular fact. In a nutshell, epistemology addresses the question, 'How do you know what you know?'" (from Wikipedia).
The most significant division in epistemology results from whether or not a person accepts the Bible as a valid and reliable source of genuine knowledge. There are two important concerns here: 1) the grounds upon which the Bible is either accepted or rejected as a valid and reliable source of knowledge, and 2) the consequences of that belief? This is why being a Christian is watershed issue.
American Culture
According to Pierre, Bush won the presidency in 2004 on the basis of cultural issues — "religious convictions with Christian values as corollary." Exit polls during the same election attributed the win to the large number of people who cited moral values as the key election issue. They chose Republicans across the board on the basis of moral values. But I suspect that they voted more in opposition to Democratic moral values than they were actively embracing Republican moral values. These insights are related because while not all moral values are religious, all religious people espouse moral values of one sort or another. The clear implication is, as Pierre acknowledges, that not merely religious values but Christian values in particular determined the outcome of the vote. Bottom line — American Christianity is a major political player because it is still a major cultural influence.
The larger question that is still vehemently debated in this regard is whether the United States of America was or is a Christian nation. Unfortunately, the question is more difficult to answer than we would prefer. Evidence on both sides is voluminous.
Without regurgitating the various arguments pro and con, allow me to acknowledge that it was the intent of the Puritans and Pilgrims who first settled in America prior to the establishment of the Constitution to create a Christian society. That desire was not unanimous among all of the inhabitants of the land, however. And the result was that the Founding Fathers implied a foundation of Christian beliefs and values in the founding documents, but did not explicitly reference Christianity or the Bible. Nonetheless, the fact that the laws of this nation were built upon the model and incorporated the values of the Bible as understood by the Early American settlers, who were overwhelmingly Calvinistic Christians, is indisputable.
Dr. Gary North suggests that there was an intentional effort by the Founding Fathers of the United States, several generations removed from the Early American Puritan settlers, to eliminate the references to and reduce dependence upon biblical Christianity — and in particular Calvinism — in the development of the U.S. Constitution in order to provide for a greater union, to get more people to support their effort to found a nation. It was an effort to develop a form civil government that was more universally appealing than Calvinism was thought to be. In other words, the Founding Fathers were more interested in growing a nation than in biblical fidelity.
Thus, while the Founders had the opportunity to write the name of Jesus Christ into the Constitution, they did not. Yet, they preserved many biblical phrases and words that would suggest the incorporation of Christian principles and values without the actual commitment related to naming Jesus Christ. Theirs was an effort toward the unification of the people residing here, and they were very aware that there were a plurality of views about Christianity and about the Bible. So, they sought a compromise, a middle way that would satisfy those who wanted explicit Christian references in the Constitution and those who explicitly did not. Their achievement dominates the world today in as much as America is the only remaining so-called superpower, and is the model for all current economic development. The American Empire and economy are unparalleled in world history, and are to some extent the fruit of biblical culture. I will argue that the socioeconomic success of America is the direct result of the values and practices of Protestant Christianity.
The point to notice is that Christianity was the civilizing force that settled America and gave rise to its Constitution, both in content and structure — and that early American Christianity was Reformed in its theology across several denominations (Congregational, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopalian)[3]. But for the sake of nation building, Christianity was not specifically referenced in the Constitution, which allowed for the more diverse forces — values, policies and procedures — of nation building to take the lead while the forces of Reformed Christianity took an increasingly smaller role in civil government over the centuries.
Today, American civil government — indeed, the bulk of American culture — is infected with a virulent strain of anti-Christian secularism that is bound and determined, not merely separate church and state, but to virtually eliminate all vestiges of Christianity in public life [4], and Calvinism in particular. I single out Calvinistic Christianity because, while all forms of Christianity are hated by secularists, none is more hated than Calvinism — and for good reason. None pose more of a threat to the secularist agenda than the Calvinistic strain of Christianity. Why? Because of its uncompromising and consistent commitment to the values, policies and procedures of the Bible for all of life. No theological position is more consistent or comprehensive, which means that no theological position is less tolerant of civil corruption than historic Calvinism. And that is the issue.
At the same time, there is no theological, philosophical or political position that is more suited to seriously address the concerns of individual and social corruption than historic Calvinism. I understand that this is a very serious statement. And I invite you to seriously consider it — not to shout it down in public discourse, nor to demonize it with a program of populist sloganeering, but to carefully and genuinely provide substantive intellectual and moral evaluation and criticism of this historic social movement. This cannot be done apart from serious study of Calvinism, and I believe that serious study — in conjunction with a genuine desire to solve the problems of moral corruption — will confirm its veracity [5].
Liberalism
Contemporary Christianity in America is decidedly pluralistic, so much so that it would barely be recognizable as Christianity at all to Christians of former generations. In fact, those who actually believe and practice Calvinistic Christianity in the contemporary world compose a very small minority within the Christian camp, and much smaller in the wider society. The dominant theological perspective in contemporary American Christianity is that of Liberalism. Virtually every church body has grown and is growing increasingly liberal over time, without regard for denominational or theological distinctives.
According to The Free Dictionary, Liberalism is "a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." It must be understood, however, that Liberalism did not just suddenly appear in full flower without any prior history. Liberalism is the theology of American Civil Religion. It may be impossible for non Americans to understand American Civil Religion because of its sheer vastness and its ability to absorb both competing and complementary ideas and forces into itself.
What follows is a brief introduction to American Civil Religion:
Civil religion is an often unstudied and unacknowledged topic. Like many things that are ignored, omitted or hidden, it has a way of being found; and once it is discovered, the floodgates open. Apparently, this has been the case for the many readers who are drawn to this topic.
The United States, which began as a few small colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia almost 400 years ago, is now the most powerful country on earth. Accordingly, "the eyes of all people are upon us." — These are the words of John Winthrop, leader (ordained Christian minister — ed.) of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who delivered his oft-quoted "city on a hill" (a reference to Matthew 5:14 — ed.) sermon in 1630 en route to the New World.
Winthrop's sermon turned out to be prophetic: The eyes of the world are on the United States; and from foreign shores, those eyes are often mystified, puzzled, or sometimes maddened by this creature known as the American. Americans themselves are often unaware of their own motivations, values and beliefs. It is impossible to look in a mirror and see oneself as others see you. Besides, as some might say, "What's there not to like?"
This study attempts to explain the American ethos, in terms of civil religion, for both Americans and non-Americans alike — journalists in particular.
As well as being the most powerful country, the United States is the most diverse country in the world — religiously, ethnically and otherwise. Americans are not defined by race, tribe or religion. The vast majority of Americans are not descendants of John Winthrop's colonists. Yet those first Puritan settlers began a notion — a notion greatly expounded upon by the nation's founders in 1776 and 1787 — that lives on one way or another in every person who claims "American" as his or her nationality. Echoes of this notion travel across time from Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, to Bob Dylan and George W. Bush. Some call it civil religion; some explain it in the terms of a "social contract"; some call it a "creed;" others say there's no such thing as any of it.
This piece attempts to show American civil religion for what it is, regardless of what it's called, in its many contours. Civil religion is more easily understood though its direct expression than a dictionary-type definition. Throughout this piece, we attempt to reveal the meaning of civil religion primarily through the words of Americans as they speak — on issues ranging from war, culture, diversity to church and state.
You may want to spend some time reading the articles on the www.facsnet.org website to better understand the nature and extent of American Civil Religion. But don't let it distract you from our prior concerns here. I mention it because it plays a key role in the current American cultural ethos. It is religion without God. It could be called an atheistic religion or an agnostic religion. But regardless of what it is called it, its defining theology is Liberalism. And the defining characteristic of Liberalism is syncretism, which is a violation of the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3).
Is the theology of Liberalism Christian? Not according to J. Gresham Machen, a theologian of note who wrote Christianity and Liberalism in 1923, which is now in public domain and available on the web. Machen's conclusion was that Liberalism is not Christianity by any definition, but is a different religion altogether. Why is this important? Because contemporary Christianity is dominated by a theology that is not Christian. Most churches have not completely succumbed to Liberalism at this time. But the vast majority have accepted its fundamental presuppositions and are in the process of making accommodations to it. The implications of this insight are many and significant. In fact, this insight constitutes a very serious accusation in the life of contemporary Christianity.
Liberation
Pierre speaks of the role of Vodou in the liberation of Haiti from it's French colonizers as the organizing cultural force of resistance [6]. The spirit of historic Haitian liberation was, according to Pierre, full of violence and atrocity and was led by Vodouists Makandal, Boukman, Duvalier and others.
Christians are not strangers to oppression, but have a long history of struggle against the forces of oppression in many different cultures all over the world. The fact that French (and many other) colonizers abused and enslaved people in the name of Christianity (but not in the true Spirit of Christianity) does not negate the reality that no cultural force in history as done more to free oppressed peoples all over the world than genuine Christianity. I wish that I did not have to distinguish between genuine Christianity and fake Christianity, but history is replete with abuses of power by those who claim to be Christian but do not actually believe in or practice the most basic Christian values. As such it is an error to blame Christianity for abuses by people who do not practice genuine Christian values and are liars who falsely claim to be Christian.
A simple comparison of the methods of Christian resistance to oppression with the methods of Vodou resistance to oppression reveals a world of differences. Where Vodou leaders have taught people to respond with hatred, violence and rebellion, Jesus taught people to respond with patience, perseverance, humility and submission to God. Vodou culture continues to be dominated by ignorance, poverty and repression, where Christian culture has lead to education, widely shared economic development and political freedom. The fruits of Christian liberation stand in stark contrast to the fruits of Vodou liberation. The two religions and their respective cultures — Christianity and Vodou — couldn't be more different. Christianity has produced education, science, technology and economic development, where Vodou has left people in ignorance, superstition and poverty. According to Pierre, the values of Vodou encourage its practitioners to take selfish advantage of others for their own gain as a matter of principle — because Vodou actually teaches that might (or power) makes right, that power is itself an expression of righteousness. Christianity, on the other hand, could not be more different.
For example, in the modern era Duvalier "came to realize that in no way could a leader in Port-au-Prince effectively control the murky politics of Haiti until and unless such leader not only recognized, but also accepted the validity of Vodou. Years later after he had become president of Haiti and had begun his reign of terror (1957-1971), everyone would realize as he had made it known, that he was himself a practitioner of that faith" [6]. Pierre himself notes that the practice of Vodou has repeatedly produced political deceit and repression in Haiti.
"All in all, the ultimate goal in Vodou is power, not the improvement of the self for some higher moral reason." Compare this with the John Acton quote, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If Acton is right, and his understanding of power is generally held to be true by most people and more so by Christians, who understand the power of sin, then Haiti's quest for Vodou is a quest for corruption through deceit, greed and political repression. And to no one's surprise corruption is a primary characteristic of Haiti, as identified by Pierre.
Later Pierre opines, "For too long, Haiti's traditional community leaders have been wrongly used by individualistic and power-hungry individuals who only cared about themselves rather than the country." Yet, that is precisely the fruit of the teaching and ideals of Vodou. How can he identify the central teaching of Vodou as self-centered power grabbing and then complain that those who practice it aren't doing good for the country? He appears to be suffering from cognitive dissonance in this matter.
He acknowledges that the "difficulty is in processing the faith (Vodou) so that its positive figures can be acknowledged and used, while the negative ones are socially, morally, and intellectually discarded," but fails to understand that the dualistic character of the Vodou philosophy absolutely requires such opposites. The bad elements of Vodou cannot be cleansed from the religious and cultural practices because they are inherent to Vodou. Eliminate the duality and Vodou is no longer Vodou.
Rather, what is required is an entirely different philosophical and religious system. Contrary to Pierre's thesis that Vodou has benefited the enslaved people of Africa who were brought to Haiti against their will because it was the organizing force that led to the independence of Haiti, Vodou appears to be the force that has bound Haiti in continuing ignorance, superstition and poverty.
According to Pierre, the Catholicism of Haiti blended with the African culture of the slaves very early in its history. He acknowledges, as do others, that beliefs and practices of the imported African slaves and the religion of Vodou were incorporated into popular Haitian Catholicism. Pierre admits that "most people who practice Vodou will also tell you that they are Catholics." This practice is called religious syncretism, and is forbidden in biblical Christianity by the First Commandment ("You shall have no other gods before me" — Exodus 20:3).
Unfortunately, Catholicism has a long history of religious and cultural assimilation (or syncretistic) practices as a means of expansion. Throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has incorporated various aspects of indigenous religions and cultural practices into itself as it has gone into new areas. As such, Catholicism has a long practice of "Christianizing" various beliefs and practices that are anathema to biblical Christianity. But because this practice is old and its history long, many people have come to think that these "Christianized" beliefs and practices are actually Christian. They are not. They undermine and corrupt biblical Christianity and have contributed greatly what I have called fake Christianity.
The intent of the Reformation in the 1500s (led by Martin Luther and John Calvin) was to reclaim the original beliefs and practices of biblical Christianity, which had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church and its program of assimilation. The Reformation recovered the historic gospel of Christianity, not perfectly, but enough to bring about a significant shift in Western culture. It is the Christianity of the Reformation that is defined here as genuine Christianity, and the engine of economic development. Yet, care must be taken because the contemporary world is awash again in same kinds of corruption that now taint the historic Reformed Christian denominations. However, it should be noted that such corruption — contemporary or historic — does not disprove the validity of the biblical teachings, but in fact provides significant evidence for their veracity.
Cultural Imperative
This has been a long diversion regarding my analysis of Pierre's article, and yet it is essential for an understanding of the role that religion and culture play in the social and economic development of a nation — any nation. In order to say anything significant about culture we must first understand what culture is and the role it plays in society. Because culture is the outgrowth of beliefs, presuppositions and values — in a word, religion — all cultural conflict is understood as the result of religious differences. And because Christianity stands opposed to all other religions, based upon the First Commandment and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), the resolution of religious conflict cannot be syncretistic. Christianity cannot be blended with or melded into any other religion, philosophy or belief system. Christianity is unique in the religious history of the world.
But Christianity has in fact been blended with other religious and philosophical beliefs, beliefs apart from those described as biblical faithfulness, from very early in its history. The work of Cornelius Van Til has established this fact, and it is common knowledge that the Early Catholic Church worked toward the accommodation of pagan beliefs and practices as a mode of evangelism. Its method was to absorb non-Christian cultural practices and to Christianize them over time. Van Til documents that the Roman Catholic church has accommodated pagan Greek philosophy into the theology of the church through the work of Aquinas and others. The celebrations of Christmas and Easter are examples of such accommodation. However, the result of this effort has only succeeded in spreading a version of Christianity that is itself syncretistic, and therefore not faithful to the God of the Bible.
The Reformation of the 1500s was an attempt to cure the Christian church of this syncretistic tendency, and was only partially successful. But it was successful enough to demonstrate the power of genuine biblical faithfulness and culture as Holland, England and later, the USA manifested sufficient biblical culture to ignite the scientific and technological development that gave birth to the Industrial Revolution and free market economies. Contrary to popular opinion, science, technology and free markets all have their origins in the Bible and the practice of biblical beliefs and values. Those not familiar with Scripture may doubt this, but only because of their lack of biblical knowledge. [7]
In addition to these difficulties, over the past hundred or so years there has been a systematic effort to dismantle Christianity and the biblical culture it has developed. [8] This effort has no doubt been driven by genuine fear of the power unleashed by science, technology and free markets. The various ecological and "Green Movements" are examples of this reactionary mindset. Without a doubt much damage has actually resulted from these forces, which have been dominated by the syncretistic corruptions of lust, power and greed that sometimes operate in the name of but not in the true Spirit of Christianity. Of this there can be no doubt. But what is yet to be discovered is that the abuses done in the name of Christianity have been done by those people and institutions that are the least Christian. In fact, we can say that they are not Christian at all, except that they have infiltrated and corrupted historic Christian institutions and operate from within those institutions.
Thus, those unfamiliar with the gist of this essay may believe that the contemporary corrupt and diluted expressions of Christianity are actually Christian. They are not! Any serious study of the historic Reformed branch of Christianity will bear this out. Whether or not you agree with the historic Reformed position, it will be undeniable that the contemporary version of Christianity is not the Reformed version.
It is the thesis of this author that all genuine socioeconomic development — sustainable development — must be built upon the foundation of genuine biblical culture, and that the most consistent and comprehensive expression of that culture is found to be in harmony with historic Calvinism [9]. It must be noted, however, that Calvinism has been under attack from within and from without for centuries, and that great care must be taken to avoid the natural human urge toward sin and syncretism. Indeed, modern education itself teaches and applauds the ability to synchronize various views, values, philosophies and religions, and has abandoned its historical Christian roots. As a result, the practice syncretism is widespread. In fact, syncretism is exactly the philosophical position of Liberalism and American Civil Religion — but it is not Christian!
Indeed, the only protection available from the acids of unbelief comes in the name of Jesus Christ and from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. The extent of human sinfulness is so great that it can only be overcome by God Himself, through what Jesus called being "born again" [10] And that is exactly what has happened and will continue to happen as God continues to unfold His story of the salvation of the world through His Son, Jesus Christ.
I pray that this essay may be used by the Lord for His own purposes in the hope that it may facilitate greater understanding of the concerns I have raised.
