Prompt: transformation, with lions, vast lush valley flowers, stream, sunrise, god's rays highly detailed, vivid colour, soft clouds, floral sunset, cinematic lighting, perfect composition, 8 k, gustave dore, derek zabrocki, greg rutkowski, belsinski, octane rende
This is the continuation of what I wrote yesterday. I mentioned yesterday about the differences in perspectives between the two missiologists under study. I also mentioned about the importance of community support and eight different interpretations about the essence of mission. In this post, I just want to share how Andy Hartropp views secularisation as a threat not only to Christianity and the existence of the church, but also its mission. In presenting his article, Hartropp argues for two points:
That secularization made the church weak through the influence of materialism and prosperity.
That secularization works with privatization and pluralisation to accomplish the same goal.
After presenting his arguments, Hartropp provides us the concrete ways in which economic and materialistic factors undermined the church in the West. He then concludes with some lessons for the church to avoid similar failure that happened in the West.
Hartropp defines secularization as the withdrawal of religious ideas from the public sphere. As such, Christianity is considered irrelevant. He gave us the United Kingdom as the concrete example of the success of secularization. Generally, people in the UK think that life is all "about work, leisure, family and friends, holidays, social media (Twitter, Facebook, and so on), trying to keep healthy, having a good time, music, films, following celebrities, and other activities of these kinds" (p. 343). You will notice that God is not included in the list.
Following Os Guinness' analysis, Hartropp argues that secularization is the offspring of modernity. The ironic thing is that Christianity played a vital role in the emergence of modernity and yet modernity itself is now undermining its roots.
Reading this section, it appears to me that Hartropp is equating modernity with materialism with his idea of "material-economic dimension" which influence is pervasive even within the church. The quote from David Wells captures what Hartropp wants to emphasize:
The public sphere, dominated as it is by the omnipresence of bureaucracy, systems of manufacturing, the machinery of capitalism, . . . makes it virtually impossible to think that in this world God has any meaningful place. He may have a place somewhere, but not here, not in the the public square! (p. 344).
What I find curious in the above quote is that both Wells and Hartropp agrees to place both bureaucracy and capitalism in the same category as products of modernity that undermine religion and Christianity in the public arena. Though I could not deny such an identification with enough basis, but knowing the basic difference in the character of bureaucracy and capitalism, I don't think that the accusation is fair. It is as this point that I think economic ideology plays a major influence in the mind of Hartropp rather than biblical theology.
Here is another quote from Hartropp himself that proves his anti-market stance:
Market forces, economic forces, play a highly significant role in permitting a thoroughly secular culture to push Christianity right to the margins (ibid.).
If this analysis is accurate, a missiologist, theologian, and Christian economist has no choice but to oppose the market forces. However, I doubt the accuracy of the interpretation. I find this reminder from Ludwig von Mises always relevant for economists, missiologists, and theologians who love to talk about economics:
People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler (The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, 2008, p. 47).
In addition to materialism and prosperity, two other processes collaborate together with secularization in undermining religious ideas and the church in the West. These are privatization and pluralization. By privatization, Hartropp defines it as the confinement of religion to the private and personal lives of individuals. It is interesting that for Hartropp freedom can only be found in the private sphere and not in the public arena where large corporations and politics dominate.
Moreover, Hartropp understands pluralization as the multiplication of ideas in the private sphere. For the missiologist, Christians in the first century encountered the same challenge. But in contrast, Christian response is widely different. In the early church, the challenge of pluralization made Christians more convinced about their faith. In our time, such certainty is considered taboo.
This is the section in the article that I don't like the most. Instead of judicious and critical assessment, what I read is an anti-capitalist ideology. The author is so opposed of market's growth, the consumerist mindset, and the absolutizing of choice and freedom. According to him, this kind of trend gives people numerous options that the emphasis now is more on personal decision that take responsibilities for granted. Most people in the UK don't understand the meaning of commitment. Furthermore, he is also hostile against what he describes as the secularized large corporations due to their influence in shaping the values of the people.
Reading this portion of the article confused me. Though I agree that there is a seed of truth about the danger of consumerism and the making of choice as absolute, I wonder how does he proposed to solve the existence of numerous options. And besides, I thought in his mind freedom only exists in the private world. In what way such absolutizing manifests in the public sphere? I also don't understand how the focus on decision contributes to the lack of commitment. In my mind, decision is inseparable from responsibility. Decision and commitment go together.
Hartropp calls for two types of response:
One, Christians are called to fulfill their intellectual task. The evidence of this will be the existence of literature on the subjects such as secularization and materialism. Moreover, this British economist-theologian is looking for Christian institutions, which view of mission is social transformation.
The second type of response he wants to see is Christian engagement in the public square. He is no longer satisfied to dismiss Christianity as a private religion. He wants to see its impact in the market place. Christian discipleship to him entails a change in mindset, taking economic decision different from the prevailing consumerist trend.
I see no problem in Hartrop's call to thought and action. What I worry is the direction of such intellectual task and Christian activism in the public sphere. If I may add something to change such a direction, I would suggest to Hartropp and all other missiologists and theologians out there who are really into public engagement of the Christian faith to listen to Margit von Mises' special dream to see that those holding public office (engaging in the public sphere) should make it their priority to inform themselves about social issues like interventionism, socialism, inflation, and free market. With this kind of preparation, instead of seeing freedom as a threat, one will agree with Francis Schaffer's revelation to R. C. Sproul before he passed away that Statism is a far more serious threat not only for the future of the church in the West, but also for society in other parts of the world.
Reference:
Ma, Wonsuk & Kyo Seong Ahn, editors. 2015. Korean Church, God's Mission, Global Christianity. Regnum Books International.
