There seems to be a general feeling in some levels of theological Academia (or at least those represented by the Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine) that the postmodern era has allowed the church to relax against some of the heresies of the enlightenment engendered by its singularly rational mindset - that a postmodern culture is inherently more friendly to the Christian church by virtue of being pluralist or relativist. From what I’ve seen, however, it doesn’t look like the church is in any better shape now than it was during the enlightenment, for several reasons that I’m surprised aren’t more publicized.

The Enlightenment period was by no means a walk in the park for the Church. The World at that point learned what Newt Gingrich calls Framing the Debate: It’s not important to win or lose an argument - what’s important is being the one to define the terms of the debate, and this is what determines the winner and loser. The Church in the Enlightenment era let the World define the terms of religious debate: deductive reasoning as the final authority. In Enlightenment thought, reason was the one absolute truth - what one can perceive and the conclusions one can draw from that. Several prominent theologians of that time even tried to prove the existence of the Christian God through these manners - by personal revelation and feeling, for example, or by natural observation and general revelation. Yet the specifics of the god deduced from these generalities always came up short: for the former, what if one does not “feel” God at a certain moment? And for the latter, deducing a God from science can affirm only the vaguest conception of God. The defining religion of the Enlightenment was in fact Deism, in which God created the world but does not interfere with it at all. These arguments for God may have been logical and may have arrived at the desired conclusion, but by submitting themselves to the World’s terms - by looking at the world and arriving at scripture from that rather than the other way around - they lost the debate before it had even begun.

Postmodernism with its plurality of voices - none necessarily “reasonable” in the Enlightenment sense of the word - then gives the Church the opportunity to frame its own debate, the Cambridge argument goes. Yet below even this seemingly benign concession that reason is not necessarily the end-all-be-all lies exactly the same sort of debate-frame as before in much subtler form: the one rule of postmodern pluralism-relativism is coexistence and coequality of ideas. Any idea, especially religious, (provided it isn’t completely out of the realm of reality, i.e., the Greek pantheon, though the ludicrous is becoming increasingly acceptable: the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult could be considered as much of a satire on religious pluralism as it is on Intelligent Design theory) is not only entitled to respect, it is entitled to be correct in its own domain. While this shields the Church from some degree of outside attack, bringing the Gospel to the world becomes that much more difficult - a trade I’m not sure was entirely advantageous in the long run. The importance of the question of religion has been diminished from a problem of eternal destiny to one of cultural expression or personal choice, even in the minds of believers who begin to doubt the imperative of the Great Commission.

By rising to the challenge of framing the debate itself, the Church opens itself back to renewed attacks from without, a challenge that postmodern pluralism-relativism has left us ill-prepared to accept. Yet if anything, a renewed core of the Christian church would shake off the complacency of those set in a view of religion as inconsequential - something that must happen eventually if there is ever to be mass-affect by the people of God on this Earth again.

Last month I was talking with a Divinity student about various theologies of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Though these are all big umbrellas with countless divisions within them, I find myself aligned most often with Protestant thinking. He then pointed out what I’ve come over this past month to think of as a grave yet hardly ever thought of oversight in mainline Protestant practice and theology today.

Besides a few smaller sects, hardly any serious Protestant would deny the existence or importance of a trinitarian view of God: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Certainly no Catholic or Orthodox would deny it - one of the main reasons for the Catholic/Orthodox split was in fact a debate over the nature of the Trinity itself: the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It may seem like a minor technicality, but so important was Trinitarian integrity to both sides that they could not make amends.

Yet today, modern Protestant worship services and sermons seem to focus largely on Jesus, to the exclusion of the Father, and especially of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Jesus is central to Christian doctrine, but so too are the Father and the Holy Spirit. One’s glory cannot come at the expense of the others - in fact, being triune, it should be a collective worship and emphasis rather than separating them at all. The Charismatic and Pentecostal movements are almost reverse of this: emphasis is placed to a large degree on the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of Jesus and the Father.

This sort of exclusivist thinking can lead to all sorts of problems with our understanding of the nature of God. Christianity is by no means tritheistic as is a common perception by outsiders, but separating out the trinity in this manner can lead to a subtle shift even in our own minds towards that end. At the same time, however, Jesus as the intercessor between us and the Father, and the Holy Spirit as our paraclete, each person has a distinct role from the other, and attributing the Holy Spirit’s actions to Jesus as modern Protestants are wont to do, by blurring the lines among the persons of the Trinity, does an injustice to the nature of God Himself.

It’s said that those who don’t know the past are condemned to repeat it. Looking at church history, one can see two predictable patterns:

• The church flourishes under persecution
• The church becomes rotten when it ties itself to a dominant force (i.e., political or cultural)

History is generous with examples of this. The early church, persecuted under Nero and other Roman emperors, was forced out of Israel and Rome, and into all of mainland Europe and England. Martyrdom was an extremely common fate, but the Christians were devoted and multiplying.

However, that all changed with Constantine, the first “Christian Emperor” of Rome, converted after a dream and a battle. Constantine’s reign and influence on Christianity is the point to which much of Roman Catholic doctrine can be traced: the church gradually adopted a hierarchy, and pagan traditions began to seep in, especially after his sons mandated Christianity. Soon, the church and the state became practically inseparable - the “Holy Roman Empire” - a very corrupt system both politically and religiously, until the Reformation.

When Martin Luther came to his revelation about the book of Romans and ignited a sharp rift in the church, the Catholic church declared him a heretic and martyred many of his followers. Nevertheless, Protestantism continued to spread, and followers were particularly devout.

But soon, protestantism became a political tool in Germany and England to distance themselves from the power of the Pope. Henry VII, even though his personal sympathies were Catholic, converted because of a disagreement with the Pope, and after Anglicanism - with somewhat of a parallel structure to Roman Catholicism - became the official religion of England, complacency in the populace soon came about.

In America now, the church is perhaps farther rotted than it has been since immediately before the Reformation. America started out as such a “Christian-friendly” nation, that complacency was inevitable before long. But such a high standard of living as we have now only exacerbates the situation: Americans are consumers. The church, in this mindset, must meet consumer demands (more entertaining, less controversial, etc.), or die, like a business. Christianity is becoming trendy and hip, and has never been more “popular”. A.W. Tozer hit the nail on the head for modern America with his quote above, though it could be expanded into a more historical address to a more general, “Whenever the church succeeds in involving itself with the affairs of the world, nothing but corruption and rot can come from it”.

One last example: China’s Communist government had a quite ingenious plan for subverting the church - something I daresay was deliberately crafted to mirror the process of rot that has happened in America. In 1950, the government called 4 (theologically liberal) church leaders to a conference to draw up a “church manifesto”, essentially revoking rights to open proselytization and pledging loyalty to the Communist party. With the church now firmly tied to the government, they were then able to persecute Christians who openly preached the Word while still being able to maintain a “Christian-friendly” image, while Christianity as a whole stagnated in a remarkably American fashion. Having an official church gives the impression that conditions are not terrible for Christianity over there, but despite persecution of the more devout among Christians, missionary work (necessarily secret from the government) has been amazingly fruitful. Chinese are coming to Christ and away from the official church en masse, despite the potentially serious repercussions.

What then can be done to save Christianity as a whole in America? One can come to only one conclusion from looking at history: Christianity must be outlawed and ardently persecuted. Martyrs must be remade: the wheat will instantly separate from the chaff, and force the true believers closer to God, thus expanding itself in a much purer form. However, America’s political system is unfortunately set up in a manner similar to China’s, though more as an unintended result than deliberate machinations: immediate change like that cannot be made. If ever Christianity was to become outlawed, it would necessarily have decayed to the point that it is practically nonexistent at that point. We can’t fight for a more Christian-friendly environment, because that exponentiates church rot all the more, and we can’t fight against Christian-friendly politics, because any change would have to be eased in, and would have essentially the same consequence: by the time it passed, Christians would already be accepting of it (consider the issue of homosexual rights: as it gets closer to being codified in law, churches are becoming increasingly more accepting of it [An openly gay Episcopalian bishop, for example]. Just look at most of Europe where it’s already legalized: there is virtually no objection to it there anymore, even from the church), that being another conceded point.

Since an immediate illegalization is practically impossible, I believe the damage is irreparably done: some people will always have the wrong idea of Christ, and inoculation and decay on a further scale is all but inevitable. The only thing we can do is resist the rot in our own circles, and the only way rot can be reversed is to stop operating on the world’s turf: have them play on our ground, rather than conceding ground to reach them. Stop trying to make Christianity “cool” - stop trying to bring pop culture and politics into the church, and start bringing the church into contact with people by being different from them, not the same as what they already are.