Carl Trueman's House of Cards
This weekend a friend sent me this fascinating discussion between the historian Carl Trueman and Andrew Sullivan, a gay atheist. It's worth your time.
It's also a perfect illustration of why Trueman's approach to history and culture is deeply flawed.
Two years ago, when Trueman’s “Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” was all the rage, I felt I was a lone detractor. I found Rise and Triumph to be incredibly lopsided in its retelling of western "secularization". It was void of any sense that Christianity itself - not just the "secular world" - deeply forms the way we Americans conceive of the world (equality, individuality, etc). It seemed, to me, to cater to evangelicals’ desire to be victimized…which is why I think it was such a huge hit.
I probably found Trueman's doom-and-gloom viewpoint especially weird in light of having just read Tom Holland's "Dominion", which makes just the opposite point (from a secular historian's perspective)...essentially, Holland realizes he needs Christianity to maintain his western view of the world. Every major movement we see today - including Black Lives Matter, individual rights and “Me too” - he traces back to the protestant Christian tradition. Without this, he argues, we would not value equality or justice. It’s no coincidence that Augustine was the first person in history to write what we would call an autobiography: his sense of being a self comes straight from the Christian philosophical tradition.
Yet, in 600 pages, Trueman does not once mention the way the Christian tradition influences the way we talk about “the modern self”. The ease with which he could have done this is evident in the podcast above. Thankfully, in one short sentence, Trueman acknowledges that the idea of “individualism” is partially an acknowledgment that we are created in God’s image. But nowhere is such any such acknowledgment found in Trueman’s book. Why not? I suspect it’s because publishers know how to cater to the evangelical crowd. Nietzsche figured this out a century ago, by naming the ways Christians love to “ressentimize” reality. Christianity, he argued, needs to be victimized, or it doesn’t work as an ethical system. I don’t agree with this, but I can see why folks like the evangelical rightwing crowd make it feasible.
In short: cynicism sells.
Trueman’s “Rise and Triumph” is a virtual buffet of cynicism, handed to us in what feels like a tightly argued package. But the problem with cynicism is this: it always shoots itself in the foot. In the podcast above, Trueman’s feet are virtually spewing as he tries desperately to clean up the mess he’s made with his book. It’s painful to listen to, but it’s also a chilling picture of the ways evangelical cynicism is going to fail us in the coming decade.
When I first wrote about Trueman, plenty of people felt surprised that I was so impassioned about Trueman’s book, going so far as to question my motives, my “Daddy issues” and my fidelity to the gospel. Several folks pulled their support from my college ministry, thinking I somehow had a conspiratorial kinship with Karl Marx and the ever-elusively defined “social gospel” (which implicates a denial of the divinity of Christ and atonement, things I’ve written extensively in support of!).
Truth be told, my objection to the book was - ironically - an evangelistic one: Trueman's retelling leaves us with virtually nothing to say to a non-Christian. Cynicism might sell, but it’s a poor witness to the kingdom of Christ. This is made clear in a painful moment in the podcast where Andrew Sullivan says outright (I’m summarizing): “What I loved about your book is how honest it was. You essentially said that you’re losing, and the biblical view of the world is no longer working. So I’m just wondering: why do you still believe in it?” In other words, you’ve told me a story in which your view of the world is outdated, overruled and irrelevant. Please tell me again why this should be attractive to me?
Trueman, here, has nothing to say. He is, frankly, not very interested in engaging folks outside of his Christian bubble, which is fine so far as it goes (from an academic discipline standpoint anyway…not from a Christian standpoint). But had he been, frankly, a more honest historian, there would be plenty to say to Andrew Sullivan in a conversation like this. Had Trueman written an honest history, he could have easily pivoted to the very obvious historical objection to Sullivan’s worldview: "Actually, here are some ways your worldview borrows - historically - from Christianity. Are you ready to abandon those?"
Here are just a few:
1. Teleology - When Sullivan says he buys into the "teleology" of Darwin, there are a couple of ways Sullivan clearly doesn't. First of all, to even use the term "teleology" is to differentiate what is and what ought to be. That is a Christian impulse, leftover from our Judeo-Christian roots. There is no "teleology" in Darwinian thinking, only accidents of nature.
2. Ethics - The second move would be to say, "Do you really believe everything we see in nature is acceptable for human beings?" For example, take apes who maul other tribes to death in order to increase their territory...or male mammals eating their young. Sullivan doesn't believe the strong dominating the weak is morally acceptable because he is part of the Christian tradition. Greco/Roman society had no issues with this kind of brutal thinking.
3. Rationality - Or, take the fact that Sullivan believes he is a rational human being, having a rational conversation. That is a Christian assumption: if all of our lives - including our thoughts - are only intended to help us survive, they are not trustworthy or objective sources of truth.
4. Value - At one point, Sullivan objects that Trueman’s political vision “erases him” as a person. But the fact that Sullivan thinks he should be valued as a person - and not as someone who is contributing to the human evolutionary line - betrays the ways Christianity has infiltrated his thinking. In fact, if Sullivan is correct that the “teleology” of life is the passing on of our genes, then he, as a gay man, has zero value. He says it’s “a mystery” why homosexuality is part of the human species, but it’s not entirely honest: a more honest evolutionary perspective would say Sullivan’s situation isn’t a mystery at all. He has no value, and will eventually die out, and should die out, from Darwin’s perspective (actually, he’s misreading Darwin. Darwin never thought “survival of the fittest” had value as a theory-of-all-things the way Sullivan is using it). It’s his Christian impulse that tells him he has value even without the ability to procreate.
5. Cynicism - Sullivan says Christianity is outdated, which entirely accords with Trueman’s cynical retelling of history. But the simple fact is, it’s not true. Christianity is far more widespread and influential today around the world than it’s been at any time in history. The world is becoming more, not less, religious.
It doesn't take a genius to come up with these response. Just an honest historian. A more balanced view of history would tell Trueman, "Sullivan has been heavily influenced by Christianity. I need to find those places and reveal them." But since Trueman cuts any of this out of his retelling of history, he's left fumbling and stumbling over words, with a pretty weak: "Well, you should believe the Bible" kind of response. Plus some more embarrassing moments, where he admits he's confused.
I think Trueman has been teaching too long in a private Christian university, frankly. I don't want to cast aspersion on his motives, because I don't know them. But the fact that he thinks "The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self" is in any sense helpful to our modern conversations tells me he's been in a crowd - the evangelical right - that is like a moth to a flame when it comes to victim narratives for far too long. He knows how to talk to the far Christian right, and has no idea how to talk with folks outside of that bubble.
Cynicism sells, sure. It makes us feel justified, righteous and - in some perverse way - victorious.
It’s also a house of cards.
A Prayer
"He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules." - Psalm 147:20
Father, rule-maker. Shaper of geometries, squarer of squares. You circle the circle. You are the straightedge and plumb line. Forging depths into conformity, melting stars into being. You are granite, earth, element. You take the raw form, and breathe order. Life. You are maestro of the soul, taking disparate parts and harmonizing. You are Shalom. Lord, break me and crumble me, to be re-formed. Sink me down into your clay, heat your fire, spin me round until I am in the shape of you. You are artful in these things, the care and curation of souls. You are fine in your webbing, spinning things together, knitting the colors, fabricating the fibers. You have set your eyes on me as a lump and said, “Breathe.” Make me your masterpiece. A design among others’ designs. Bend, don’t break. Your church, Lord: square our corners, smooth the edges, blow the dust off the hatches. Give us Your tools to tinker, to snatch from the fire, to lay out in the sun the plot of earth You’ve handed us. Make us curators of souls. Jesus, Carpenter. Amen.
A Find
I think the podcast above is worth your time, but I'll warn it's like watching a train-wreck.
P.S. Did a friend forward this to you? You can subscribe to my weekly newsletter below, for free. No catch.