From The Imaginative Conservative
By Fr Dwight Longenecker
Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West, by R.R. Reno (208 pages, Gateway Editions, 2019)
I admit that I am not what Flannery O’Conner called “one of them innerleckshuls.” My eyelids droop when I’m wading through dense sentences, verbose paragraphs, and long words. Footnotes make me drowsy, jargon confuses me, and technical terminology turns me off.
Although I am not a
thinker, an academic, or a reader of great tomes, I’m grateful for
people like Rusty Reno who are. Furthermore, I’m grateful that he does
the reading I am too lazy to do, sifts the knowledge, analyzes it, makes
connections and then writes a book for people like me to read, learn,
and inwardly digest.
In Return of the Strong Gods Dr.
Reno explains our present crisis in society, the academy, and the
church. The roots are in what he calls “the post-war consensus.” After
1945—suffering from a major societal case of post-traumatic stress
disorder, Western thinkers, politicians, philosophers, economists, and
internationalists all ended up feeling the same feelings and thinking
the same thoughts.
Put simply, the reason we
human beings end up killing one another on an industrial scale with
industrial efficiency is due to dogma. By “dogma” I do not mean only de fide religious
doctrines, but any belief or ideological principle which is held to be
irreversibly, obviously, intrinsically, and uncompromisingly true.
We then kill our enemies because they are wrong.
The solution to the problem is obvious. If dogma causes Auschwitz and Hiroshima—get rid of dogma.
Dr. Reno takes the first
half of the book to prove his point. Drawing from a range of
philosophers, economists, social theorists, politicians, planners,
theologians, sociologists, and journalists, Dr. Reno shows how, across
various disciplines, a consensus emerged that called for relativism
rather than revealed truth, situational ethics rather than the dictates
of moral theology, multiculturalism instead of nationalism, and
toleration rather than bigotry. The economic version was open markets
and the spiritual vision was the sentimental, pastoral, ecumenically
minded, interfaith religion that provides an accompanying spirituality
to the liberal dream.
Followers of this
philosophy endorse a soft, weakened approach to everything. One must
listen more than preach. One must accept, not judge. One must identify
with the victim, not the perpetrator. One must always take the side of
the underdog, the refugee, the poor, and the downtrodden . . . and we
will impose this philosophy of weakness with brute force if necessary.
While this has led to the
free, non-judgmental, affluent, technological society we all enjoy, Dr.
Reno argues that it has also led to the worrying backlash of nationalism
and populism. The “deplorables” who “cling to their guns and their
religion” don’t much like the principles of the liberal elite. So they
vote for Trump who promises to build walls and make America great again.
The postwar consensus has
become so orthodox among the American costal elite that they cannot
comprehend Americans who do not share their relativistic creed. Not only
are the Trump voters deplorable. They must all be angry white men who
are racists and fascists at heart.
Dr. Reno uncovers the
roots, therefore of the present division and crisis in every aspect of
Western society. His solution is not the whiplash reaction of unthinking
nationalism and populism. To go too far in that direction may indeed
lead to an uber-patriotic totalitarianism. When I see the Trump rallies I
shudder at the memory of reading somewhere a long time ago the
prophecy, “When fascism comes to America it will be clutching a Bible,
waving an American flag and singing God Bless America.”
Instead of such a
fulfillment, Dr. Reno says we need a return to the “strong gods” that
represent classic human values. The home, the country, and the religion
are the three strong gods that have been destroyed in the push for a
free, non-judgmental, and tolerant society. He calls for true patriotism
rather than nationalism, marriage and family instead of a sexual
free-for-all, and historic Christianity instead of do-it-yourself
“spirituality.”
I was enlightened by Dr.
Reno’s exposition of the sources and delighted by his proposed solution.
However, I wish he had gone on to suggest how the “strong gods” might
effectively return to their temples. It is one thing calling for their
return. Envisioning how that might happen is more difficult. Wishing for
the “strong gods” to strengthen our weakening culture is all well and
good. Figuring out how to get them to respond to the summons is another
matter that Dr. Reno leaves (I hope) for the sequel.
While the first half of Dr.
Reno’s book is chock full of cultural references explaining the absence
of the strong gods, I wish he had spent more time analyzing the effect
of the “postwar consensus” on the Christian religion. I was very
interested in his discussion of the theology of Karl Rahner. In concert
with the postwar consensus, Karl Rahner emphasized “the Christ event”
more than the historical Jesus. This subjectivism is the echo in the
Catholic world of Rudolph Bultmann’s campaign to demythologize the
gospels and the subtle push among theologians to replace “truth” with
“meaning.”
Liberal postwar
Christianity moved away from “doctrine which divides” towards an
ecumenical mish-mash. It moved away from dogma and moral theology
towards a “pastoral approach.” The present ruling elite, both in the
colleges and cathedrals of liberal Protestantism as well as the Catholic
Church, have embraced the postwar consensus and provided a spiritual
version that has decimated our churches and emasculated the gospel.
True, historic Christianity
is the pebble in liberalism’s shoe. This is because, by its very
nature, Christianity is dogmatic. It is dogmatic by virtue of the
incarnation and what theologians call “the scandal of particularity.”
Put simply, the big Creator
God who is out there in the cosmos as the “Great Spirit” actually took
human form from a particular young woman who lived in a particular
hamlet in a particular backwater of the Roman Empire on a particular day
in human history. That child grew up to be executed on a particular
Friday on a particular Spring day and he rose physically on a particular
morning a few days later. He established a particular church with
particular sacraments for the salvation of particular souls.
This particularity is precisely what the architects of the post war consensus saw as the enemy of humanity.
Dr. Reno’s “post war
consensus” can therefore be seen as intrinsically inimical to genuine,
historic Christianity and any version of Christianity that takes the
post war consensus as its foundational ideology is not Christianity at
all.
It is the Secretary General of the United Nations wearing a cope and miter.
Dr. Reno’s book was
especially eye opening for all Catholics who may have troubled
themselves to follow the proceedings of the Amazonian Synod. The working
document produced before the synod and the “Pact of the Catacombs”
signed by many of the participants could well have been the spiritual
manifesto of the “postwar consensus.” Both documents majored on
accompaniment, solidarity with the oppressed, ecological salvation, and
openness to other cultures with scarcely a mention of Jesus Christ and
the demands of the Christian gospel.
This trend follows the
leadership in the Vatican which consistently attacks nationalism,
populism, and all who appear “rigid” and “closed.” It fits consistently
with the present leadership’s move away from centralized authority,
clear catechesis and the preference of a “pastoral approach” to
morality.
Dr. Reno may wish for the
return of the strong gods of faith, family, and country, but under the
present regime he will be disappointed if he looks to Rome for
leadership in that restoration.
The featured image is “Aurora” (1621) by Guercino (1591-1666), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.