The Worst Idea Ever: The “Catastrophe of…”
Yes, I left the title incomplete because I wanted to “hook” you into reading this. I consider what I have to say here absolutely essential—for anyone who wants to understand a very basic philosophy that underlies and influences everything I say there. That people do not know this philosophy, misunderstanding and miscommunication are almost inevitable. I find myself often sitting back bemused by many of the responses I read here because, I realize, they are coming from an entirely different view of reality from my own.
No, right now, here, I’m not talking about belief in God versus atheism or Baptist versus Catholic or anything like that. I’m talking about what I will call here, for lack of a better term, “essentialism.” That word has many different meanings. Don’t bother looking it up in a dictionary. Here I will defined what I mean by it.
“Essentialism” (here, for me) is belief that some things that appear abstract to others appear real to me. And by “real” I mean—actually existing and not capable of being understood properly only as constructs of minds. They may have begun their “lives” as constructs of minds, but they have taken on independent reality which means they are not endlessly changeable without becoming something other than they were and are.
And in that case, in my opinion, they should be called something else—than they have always been called before.
*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*
I have lived and worked in the world of ideas for forty plus years. But I can trace my own essentialism-philosophy-“blik” as far back as I can remember. Of course, I didn’t know what it was; I just knew that many people thought differently about things such that our conversations often were like ships passing in the night.
Almost all the ancient philosophers were what I am calling here “essentialists.” No doubt there were individuals and perhaps even some groups that were not essentialists. But Western civilization was built on essentialism and its opposite, commonly known as “nominalism,” arose during the high middle ages in Europe. The person usually credited with being its most influential thinker and promoter was William of Ockham (or Occam). However, some scholars trace it back to Peter Abelard.
Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar called it “the catastrophe of nominalism” because of its pernicious effects in late modern and postmodern culture. He said that his whole project in theology and philosophy was to rebuild the world from the ground up. He meant to revision reality along the lines of what I am calling “essentialism” and some would probably call “realism” (with regard to universals).
Recently here a very astute, extremely bright, highly educated interlocutor said that if the majority of members of a certain fraternal organization commonly known as “the Lodge” were to be Baptists, then the Lodge itself would be Baptist. That is a perfect example of what I cannot think because of my essentialism. “The Lodge” (in its various manifestations) has a definite history, a definite set of beliefs (even if not well-known or well-understood by most members), and a definite tradition. It (commonly known as “Masonry” or “Freemasonry”) has an essence—not up in some cloud or some “Platonic realm of the forms”—but in its history and traditions. Of course it can change and has changed some throughout that history, but it is not endlessly flexible without becoming something other than it always has been and remains. At some point it would have to be called something else.
A classic example of what I am talking about is the famous (or infamous) book Christianity and Liberalism by Princeton Theological Seminary theologian J. Gresham Machen (published in 1923). There the author argued quite cogently that the liberal Protestantism of his day (commonly known among theologians as “Ritschlianism”) was not Christianity—whatever its proponents and defenders might say. Most surprisingly, America’s most influential non-Christian social and cultural commentator (of that time) Walter Lippman agreed with Machen! Both argued that liberal Protestants should stop calling themselves “Christians” and take on another label.
Although he was not an essentialism, of course, philosophy Antony Flew famously argued in New Essays in Philosophical Theology (1955) that anything that is compatible with everything is meaningless. I will argue that if Freemasonry is compatible with (true) Baptist belief and practice and if (true) Baptist belief and practice is compatible with Freemasonry, neither one is as meaningful as it needs to be for it to be understood as something. It doesn’t matter to me one bit that “the Lodge” welcomes Baptists into membership. As a Baptist theologian and someone quite knowledgeable about (true) Freemasonry, I believe the two essences (there, you have it!) are incompatible. But the same is true of (true) Baptist faith and practice, tradition, essence, and, say, Roman Catholic. One cannot be both without radically redefining at least one—to the point that it becomes meaningless.
Now, this is my settled belief and it underlies everything I write here. That should be clear by now to all of my intelligent, faithful readers! And it explains why many of my interlocutors and I are like ships passing in the night. They are not essentialists. Apparently, they think that categories with long traditions of meaning are endlessly flexible; they “mean” whatever the majority of people say they mean.
This is why I struggle so much to make myself understood about the category “evangelical.” I am a scholar of the type of Christianity commonly known as “evangelical” and I resist any idea that if the majority of self-identified evangelicals suddenly became atheists (for example) “evangelicalism” would include “atheism” as part of its definition. It might in some people’s minds, but not in reality. Historically, theologically, in terms of its traditions, evangelical Christianity has no particular political or economic posture. It is a spiritual-theological type, not endlessly flexible depending on what people who happen to call themselves “evangelical” mean by that. True evangelicalism does not change; it is defined by its prototypes, two of whom were Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Yes, there have been minor alterations of inclusion throughout its history. For example, dispensationalism came into it in the 19th century. But dispensationalism is not part of the essence of evangelicalism.
That is just one illustration of what I mean by “essentialism” here (whatever it may mean elsewhere). If you don’t understand this about me and about what I write here and why I say here what I say, then you will misunderstand me.
I could go on and on explaining my “essentialism” but I’ve said enough for you, my dear readers, to get the gist of it. If you understand what I am saying, you may think I am crazy and there’s no point in even attempting to have a conversation with me! I understand that. It is a burden I have had to live with for decades. It has led into numerous attempted conversations that went nowhere because my conversation partner and I did not share my essentialism.
Now, finally, back to the title of this blog post. The “worst idea ever” is nominalism—the idea that universals are only names or concepts and have no reality other than as names or concepts. Truth, beauty and goodness are only what cultures or even individuals say they are. Commonly this is called “social constructivism” and I run up against it all the time, every day. This causes me tremendous cognitive dissonance, but I have learned (mostly) to live with it. For some decades now I find it difficult to encounter anyone who is not a social constructivist. Social constructivism—all the way down—is the primary academic manifestation of nominalism. Most Americans are brainwashed into it. The result is a disintegrating culture where any meeting of the minds is impossible so power is the only way to settle “big disagreements.” Truth itself is largely gone, so what takes its place is what works to promote “my empowerment.” (“My” here stands for “mine alone” or “mine and people like me.”) Even the whole idea of “America” is now lost; there are only competing visions of “America”—except perhaps as a geographical entity.
The same is increasingly true of “Christianity.” Because even Christians have almost no understanding of Christianity it is endlessly flexible and compatible with almost anything and everything. This really became clear in the 1960s with the rise of “Christian atheism.” Now, theologian Michael Horton has identified “Christless Christianity” and I agree with him (for once)—that this whatever-it-is is “there” even though it is not, of course, real Christianity. But I can only say it is not real Christianity because I believe real Christianity exists and is not just a social construction.
*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In