Why We Needed Rules-Based Faith. And Why We Need to Move Past It./ Charles Park

In his recent book, Future of Faith, Harvey Cox laments how the Roman Empire co-opted Christianity and pushed the ‘Age of Belief’ onto us.  He looks to the spirit-filled Pentecostals of the developing world to usher in the ‘Age of the Spirit.’
 
I find much to agree with him about the coming age of the spirit.  However, the Pentecostals of the developing world tend to be fundamentalists, the very group Prof. Cox opposes.  If he’s looking to them to bring us out of the fundamentalist colors of the age of belief, he will be disappointed.
 

I also disagree that the ‘age of belief’ was a historical accident that did not have to happen as he contends.  The historians talk of ‘Axial Age.’  It brought us out of the ‘Mythic Age’ when even the gods were criminals.  Think of Greek myths where Zeus does crazy things.  The first emperor of China tried to ‘bury every scholar and burn every book.’  He killed people in truly epic scale.  Jaw dropping things happened back then.
 
In that context, Confucius came talking about the ‘will of heaven.’  He located authority higher than the people in power who were acting like criminals (stage 1).  He built an elaborate and very rigid system of code of ethics and honor where everyone had their place, and everything had it’s rightful use.  Confucianism is a bounded set on steroids.  It was a much needed antidote to the chaos of his times.
 
He was not well received in his life time, but in a few generations, Confucianism became the ruling philosophy of East Asia for 2,000 years.


The ‘Axial Insight’ or ‘Axial Revolution’ refers to this period two millennia ago, in the span of several centuries, we see Confucius in East Asia, Doctrine of Karma in India, Rise of Islam in Middle East, and the Rise of Judeo-Christianity in the West.
 

Virtually every advanced civilization today owes it’s existence to one of these systems of ‘way of life.’  The Axial Age brought human civilization out of the chaotic, stage 1, criminal ‘mythic age’ to the stage 2 ‘age of belief.’  So, it was the historic imperative necessity that drove the development of belief-centric, code-centric, bounded set approach to faith in Christianity.  I see it as inevitable development.  In other words, the need to establish ‘law and order’ beyond capricious human authority was the need of the time.  What makes the West so unique that they could skip this stage of development?
 
But since the reformation, the West has been moving towards the next age, because the struggle to establish law and order has been largely resolved without having to resort to ‘higher authority.’  But, in the developing world, the struggle continues as is evident in places like Libya.  But in the West, we are experiencing the next great shift.   We live in interesting times.
 
This might explain the great schism in the Anglican world today.  The Anglicans from the developing world cannot compromise on the source of their authority in a code.  The Anglicans in the developed world live in a different reality.  The two are living in different ages.  Therefore, it is not likely they can be reconciled.
 
But, this shift in age is not a bad development for Christianity.  Of all the religions that arose out of Axial Age, only Christianity has the potential to break free of ‘code’ as the source of authority.  We follow the risen Christ as the perfect revelation of God on earth.  But for example, Islam considers a book, Koran, as the perfect revelation of God on earth.  This is why the West must re-discover the stage 4 faith taught by Jesus.

Comments

[brian]

Super interesting post, as usual.

Your statement about the "Pentecostals" of the "developing world" being "fundamentalists," however, strikes me as probably wrong in some important ways. Historic Pentecostalism, of course, *should* have almost nothing to do with historical Fundamentalism, strictly defined. Where these two movements intersect, and why, is a very intriguing issue, though. True, in the United States, modern Pentecostals have often merged with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, in the same way that nearly all Protestants have basically adopted certain Evangelical models of doing church in the past 20 or so years. But I'm not sure what exactly makes, say, modern African or Eastern European Pentecostals "fundamentalist." Maybe you could say what you think it is?
Whereas Fundamentalists, in the classic sense, were sometimes rigorous (even if wildly wrong) in their appeal to "facts" in opposition to "liberal" church movements that did the same thing--thus making early 20th century liberals and fundamentalists two sides of the same coin, as many people point out--Pentecostals made direct appeal to experience, to the Spirit, to practice, to prayer, and so on. This is a big deal, and a big difference. And I think real (?!) Pentecostals and charismatics in the developing world and elsewhere are likely to follow more in this older Pentecostal mode and not in the "fundamentalist" mode at all.
A Fundamentalist is not just someone who says they believe certain identifiable faith tenets. And a Pentecostal (with a capital "P") is not just someone who does exuberant worship.

Anyway, I'm just sayin': I feel uncomfortable with tossing around this categorization of Pentecostals in general. Partly because I know so many Pentecostals who are trying really, really hard (perhaps against the words/actions of many of their compatriots!!) to dissociate Pentecostalism from Fundamentalism. So that's just a personal thing, maybe.

[Brian Odom]

I have some Pentecostal friends in Peru, which I'll actually be visiting again in a few months. I'd classify them as Fundamentalists--Truth has no shades of gray worth considering and much of their leaders' efforts involve getting people to stop drinking (period, not just in excess) and to stop sleeping around. (Is that an OK anecdotal definition for Fundamentalist?) That focus on Truth and rules seems appropriate for their part of Peru--lots of people there break the rules and wreak havoc on their families, etc. I'm quite a ways from Fundamentalist, but I still get lots of benefit from our friendship and my visits.

Anyway, Charles' characterization of Pentecostals tending to be Fundamentalist in the developing world matches my experience in Peru. I did, however, a few years back also visit Iris Ministries in Mozambique. The few church services I attended there didn't strike me as being Fundamentalist. The focus seemed to be more on where the community was going and how they could keep in line with God's plans in the process--not really material for Stage 2 sermons. Anyway, maybe Iris is the exception that proves the rule...I don't know.

[Brent]

My experience in African churches (which is limited, to be sure - I have more experience in African mosques) is similar to Brian's in Peru. If by Fundamentalist what is meant is a strong emphasis on absolute truth and a strongly literal interpretation of an inerrant Bible, then most African independent church I know are fundamentalist. Throw in an emphasis on political change for moral reasons and a tendency toward a version of the prosperity gospel to boot.

Obviously, this is an over-simplification, but I think its clear much of the evangelicalism on fire in the developing world is an export from the US (hence the connection to the US Pentecostal/ fundamentalist syncretism) that is in process of taking on its own local shapes. A good recent book on the topic is Mark Knoll's 'The New Shape of World Christianity.'

Thinking more about Charles' main points...may have something to offer later. I think there is a lot to think about here in terms of a truly 'progressive' theology.

[brian]

Thanks for these anecdotes, both Brian above and Brent below. What you say may very well be true. Even if the faith expressions you describe in these developing countries were not "fundamentalist," however, it's still hard to see how they would lead a revival of faith such as described here in Western/Northern urban environments.

[Jeff]

{stares off in th distance trying to think of some comment to add}

Got nothing. I'll be chewing on this for weeks.

[Brian Odom]

"Of all the religions that arose out of Axial Age, only Christianity has the potential to break free of ‘code’ as the source of authority. We follow the risen Christ as the perfect revelation of God on earth. But for example, Islam considers a book, Koran, as the perfect revelation of God on earth. This is why the West must re-discover the stage 4 faith taught by Jesus."

OK, so this statement sounds too easy. I don't think people devoted to other Axial Age religions would buy the argument. But, why not? Because they don't agree that the 'Age of the Spirit' is the right ultimate goal, or because they think their faith does in fact offer a way to get there?

[Brent]

yeah, i was gonna nit pick on that one, too (but decided it was beneath me :)

I get the logic of the argument - because we follow a person rather than a book, we can go 'beyond a code' laid out by such books. But I agree with Brian that it doesn't hold water. Muslims will tell you they also do not follow a book, but they follow God. The Koran is a perfect revelation, but it requires human interpretation and human interpretations differ. Therefore much Islamic jurisprudence and theological reflection strives to determine not just the 'correct' interpretation, but the 'spirit' of the laws that God has given, much like Jewish scholar, much like Christian scholars. They do not see the Koran as an inflexible code, but a living revelation. So, I don't think being a religion 'of the book' rather than of a person is necessarily a barrier to 'breaking free' from stage 3 faith to stage 4.

[Paul G.]

I have always felt mildly uneasy around the stage concept. Although helpful for me -- of course, an achievement-oriented, Stage 4 believer! -- I'm unsure that the entirety of movements can be easily classified.

For example, much of the last 2,000 years of Christendom was overseen (and still is) by the Catholic Church, including the axial age noted above. I can buy that the infallibility of the Pope and the God-ordained kingship is no longer required for civil obedience but how that ushers in a new age is lost on me.

If you read Luther et al, they *all* strike me as hardline stage 2. If I read the Pentecostal/fundamentalist leaders, they range from anti-intellectual to anti-worldly. Hardly Stage 3 or 4.

I ask as I'm curious why is it that the most enduring and mystical works of faith are largely written by Catholics? (And frankly, those referenced in our dear own Greater Boston Vineyard which meets in a reformed Catholic building?)

Honestly, go read "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" again. Here's the ending to remind you: The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

Yikes!

Charles references Anglicans, but let's step in front of the obvious bus: the vast majority of Christians in the world are Catholics. So what stage is the Catholic church? 1, 2, or 4? Or is the movement so large, it encompasses many stages?

[Jeff]

Err, perhaps a plurality, possibly a majority, unlikely vast, and probably almost as diverse as Protestantism in reality.

[Paul G.]

To get particular, if you count non-Protestants (Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Christians) by population of Christians worldwide, you achieve 65% but only if one includes Seventh Day Adventist et al as Protestant or Independents.

Subtracting those, the numbers skew greater with Catholics being a vast majority -- the only group which composes greater than 50% -- versus the splintering of Protestant sub-groups: e.g. Methodists vs. Lutherans. Orthodox Christians are the second closest group at 11%.

That doesn't obviate much of what I said, however, except to give me the chance to quote statistics, which I'll always take. :)

[Joshua]

Hey Charles,

Thanks for your post. It is very thought provoking. I've noticed that you and the NRI have recently begun to juxtapose this stage 4 faith with Islam, specifically with differences in how those groups approach their sacred text. How did you arrive at this strategy? Do you think its too simplistic given the interplay between the Quran and Hadith and the effort for modern interpretation of the Quran among scholars? Lastly, is that a wise move given how divisive these statements may appear to folks?

[Otto]

Great post. I was not familiar with the "Axial Age".. Actually I think this post has shifted my thinking about the inevitable evolution Christianity through stage 2. This makes sense, the need for order during this time in history.

I wonder how the rapidly developing world plays into this theory though. With countries like Brazil and China rapidly developing and coming out of poverty, I think a shift in consciousness could accelerate in these parts of the world. So while there does seem to be a lot of chaos in Africa and the Middle East, I'm not so sure about parts of South America and Asia!

Also, I think there's a lot of compelling stage-4 spirituality that is steeped in eastern tradition. I think that saying only Christianity has the potential to make this evolutionary leap (break free of the "code") might be a narrow perspective.

I also think Christian and eastern philosophies can be blended in good ways. I don't think they are as irreconcilable as is often assumed.