Ceci n'est pas un blog
Spiritual reductionism
Something has been bothering me about the evangelical church in the UK. It's certainly an issue elsewhere, and it's nothing new, but, as an evangelical Christian in the UK, I'm most aware of it in that context. It shows up to a greater or lesser extent in different parts of the evangelical church. I'm going to call it spiritual reductionism. It goes like this:
The only things that ultimately matter are God and human souls.
Reductionism is when you say X is really nothing but Y. In the evangelical church, it shows up in this kind of attitude:
- This world is nothing but a stage for the real spiritual action to take place.
- All the details of our lives are nothing but opportunities for us to grow in holiness and to share the love of Christ, so that people's souls can be saved for eternity.
- Nothing matters in life but our personal, spiritual relationship with God and his people.
Now, you might not hear that expressed in so many words, but what would the Christian life be like if someone believed those things?
- While the Bible speaks of the future in terms of God coming to set his creation free, to restore all things and to raise the dead to physical life, the spiritual reductionist would speak about the future simply in terms of believers spending eternity in the presence of God. The other details don't matter.
- While the Bible speaks of godliness in terms of both inner and outer transformation, the spiritual reductionist is really concerned only with inner transformation: how much you love God, how satisfied you are in him, and how pure your thoughts and attitudes are. Good works are of no value in themselves, and their real value is as a window into our inner, spiritual state. Hence the evangelical emphasis on those good works that show most clearly the state of our personal, inner, spiritual relationship with God: reading the Bible, prayer, going to church, talking to people about Jesus, and not having lustful thoughts.
- While the Bible gives plenty of examples of God's concern for people's material needs, for issues of social justice and the like, the spiritual reductionist would speak of people's needs almost exclusively in terms of their need for a personal spiritual relationship with God. Any other needs are barely even real in comparison.
- While the Bible gives plenty of accounts of God's dealings with his people in terms of their physical dwelling places, and in terms of their relationship to the land, the spiritual reductionist would receive those accounts as nothing but images for us of our spiritual relationship with God.
- While the Bible gives plenty of examples of God's concern for physical health, and even for a reversal of physical death, the spiritual reductionist would understand those primarily to be illustrations about our spiritual health and our spiritual life.
- While the Bible speaks as though all aspects of our lives really have significance, the spiritual reductionist will think that the only aspects of our lives that really have significance are those that contribute to the saving of souls and our spiritual relationship with God.
Does that sound familiar?
The problem is not that the spiritual reductionist emphasises the importance of having a right relationship to God. The problem is that this relationship is limited to some invisible "spiritual" dimension. But what the Bible teaches us, from Genesis to Revelation, from generation to regeneration, is that all dimensions of human life are important aspects of our relationship to God, because all dimensions of human life are part of how God made us to be, and all dimensions of human life will remain significant and important in the coming age, when the eternal reign of Christ has been established on the earth. Let's try to recover a sense of that in our churches today.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 8 May 2012 at 12.19 pm, and is filed under Christian. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
I live in York and I 
Loading ...
about 1 year ago
Very helpful Anthony. Where do you think this "spiritual reductionism" comes from? I've been wondering recently why there's a tendency among some Christians (and I've sometime felt its pull myself) to see the created dimensions of our existence as distractions from, rather than enrichments of, our relationship with God.
I think it partly comes out of being influenced by an abstract, philosophical idea of God as distant spiritual "supreme being" rather than really grasping who Jesus reveals God to be - triune and incarnate, superabundant in love and creativity. What do you think?
about 1 year ago
I think it tends to come from a "Conservative" (note the capital "C") view of Christianity. This is taken from Margaret Thatcher's address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (which has since been dubbed "The Sermon on the Mound"):
Perhaps it would be best, Moderator, if I began by speaking personally as a Christian, as well as a politician, about the way I see things. Reading recently, I came across the starkly simple phrase:
"Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform".
Sometimes the debate on these matters has become too polarised and given the impression that the two are quite separate. But most Christians would regard it as their personal Christian duty to help their fellow men and women. They would regard the lives of children as a precious trust. These duties come not from any secular legislation passed by Parliament, but from being a Christian.
But there are a number of people who are not Christians who would also accept those responsibilities.
What then are the distinctive marks of Christianity?
They stem not from the social but from the spiritual side of our lives, ....
.. goes on to talk about the freedom of choice to choose between good and evil etc. Full text of speech at:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/Speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107246
about 1 year ago
I would also add that I encountered this when I was at University (Cambridge, 1977-81) in the Christian Union. I felt it was an important component of one's Christian duty to work out in society and help people practically. So I set up a small group within the college CU to do just this, and gave out notices at the Christian Union Lunch on Sundays at College. However, after a few weeks the College Reps clamped down on this and said I couldn't do this any more because what we were about was spreading the Good News and preaching the Gospel.
Perhaps I am revealing a bit of a political bias in revealing that both College Reps were Etonians ...
about 1 year ago
Thanks for the comments. I suspect the roots of this kind of thinking lie further back than Thatcher, though clearly she was influenced by it. My hunch is Platonism, which seems to have had a deep influence on Western thought and Christian spirituality. But I say that not because I know anything about Plato, but because I've heard other people say that kind of thing.
There's also a lingering reaction to the "social gospel" movement of the early 20th century. This reaction led to the formation of the Cambridge CU (CICCU), and the influence of CICCU has been huge (leading to UCCF, for example).
I have some sympathies with the restricted nature of CUs. There is a place for sharing the gospel, and there is a place for societies to exist that devote themselves to that one task. But the problem comes when that narrow focus becomes the only focus in a Christian's life. So if the only Christian activities a student is involved in are through the CU (apart from church on Sundays), and if that CU has a very strict focus on proclamation of the gospel, then that can lead to very lopsided growth and discipleship.
about 1 year ago
There's a helpful table here, listing bits of reality under the headings of "nature" and "grace". This can be linked with the earlier Greek dualism of "matter" and "form". The items under the "grace" heading would be considered "spiritual" by a spiritual reductionist.
about 1 year ago
Hi, Anthony. I agree it almost certainly goes back further than Thatcher - as I recall my clash with the CICCU college reps was just before Thatcher came to power.
However, it does seem to be reflected in "conservative Evangelicalism", and seems prominent in those of a right wing persuasion. The idea being (as expounded by MT in said Sermon on the Mound) that we should be allowed the freedom to choose between good and evil - to use our hard earned money to help others, but to have the choice to do this rather than be selfish. Another prominent MT quote was something to the effect that the Good Samaritan would not have been remembered if he had had good intentions - he also had money. I've seen this kind of idea used by "Religious Right" folk to argue against Obama's health reforms - the government taking your money away to do the healthcare rather than you being able to be generous with it yourself.
I had always thought the two denarii was a particularly minor part of the Parable, the main point of which was to ask the question "Who is my neighbour". But no, apparently it's all about having your money and not having the government mess with it....
about 1 year ago
Iain - thanks for that. Indeed. I think (from experience) that a spiritual reductionism can lead to a reactionary conservatism in political matters. If godliness necessarily leads to political apathy (as would be the case with spiritual reductionism), then those who are out to change the political climate must be the ungodly and should be resisted. I think that helps to explain the (small-c) (political) conservatism among (biblically-)conservative evangelicals. Though that's not to say that all political change is change for the better—that is, that all (small-c) conservatism is bad—or that (big-C) Conservatism (which also predates Thatcher) is nothing more than (small-c) conservatism...