How The West Lost God

I have had my eye on this book for some time, and when a friend kindly gave me money to purchase a book, I snapped this up quick smart. The central thesis of the book is that just as religious decline leads to a decline in the family, so too, the decline in the two-parent nuclear family contributes to the decline of the church. Eberstadt describes family and faith as ’the invisible double helix of society – two spirals that when linked to one another can effectively reproduce, but whose strength and momentum depend on one another.’

In the first chapter, Eberstadt turns her attention to whether there has been a decline in Christianity in the West. There are some who argue this decline is itself an illusion. Although I didn’t need convincing of this fact, she argues fairly convincingly that there really has been a decline.

Eberstadt moves on to outline the conventional views regarding how the West lost God. The first view she investigates is that people stopped needing the imaginary comforts of religion. She spends time reviewing this theory but dismisses it because the demands of Christianity do not make it some crutch that makes life easier.

The second view she deals with is that Science, the Enlightenment and rationalism caused secularization. This is an extremely widely held view, but it just doesn’t fit the evidence. Christianity does not wax and wane in the way this theory predicts it should. Interestingly, in this section of the book, she highlights some interesting research on education and faith. The Enlightenment theory teaches us to expect that the more educated and wealthy people are, the less likely they are to have faith in God. This is precisely the opposite of what we see in a number of cases, and ‘contrary to popular belief, literacy and money do not drive secularism.’

Next, she moves onto the theory that the two world wars caused secularization. This is the view of Peter Hitchens in “Rage Against God”. While admitting this theory is not totally wrong, she highlights the fact that nations with disproportionate burdens of wartime all experienced a decline – Switzerland along with Germany and Great Britain. Furthermore, she wonders why later generations have not returned to the faith since they have known nothing by postwar prosperity. The next theory she addresses is that material progress caused us to realise we didn’t need God any more. But this theory is contradicted by the fact that religion seems to increase as the social ladder is climbed as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, faith has existed with great wealth throughout the ages. Why should this change now?

It seems that the believers of the secularization theory assumed faith was on its way out. They didn’t believe religion could wax as well as wane. It clearly has and does, so a theory is needed that can take this into account. This leads Eberstadt to explore the circumstantial evidence for her theory in chapter 3. She points out that sociologists have assumed that secularization and human development impact negatively human fertility rates. But this is an assumption. Perhaps the relationship goes the other way.

She notes that married people with children are more likely to go to church and be religious than single people. But why is this? Does faith drive family, or does family drive faith? Again she points to a link between faith and fertility. Those who are religious tend to have more children than those who are not. Eberstadt argues that instead of this being a one way street with faith driving family, at least some of the time, family drives faith, and sometimes this makes better sense of the facts.

Next, in chapter 4, Eberstadt moves on to consider some snapshots in the demographic record. Here she shows that family decline accompanies religious decline. Secondly, she notes that the trends of industrialization and urbanization mesh nicely with the decline of the family and faith. Both of these trends led to family decline, which in turn caused people to reject faith. The third piece of data she points to is the clear link between the most irreligious parts of the West and those that have the smallest, weakest and fewest natural families. A final and most interesting piece of evidence she investigates is the link between ‘family boomlets’ and ‘religious boomlets’. One example she highlights is the post-war mini religious boom, which overlay the better known post-war baby boom.

In chapter 5, she demonstrates how her theory answers the problems that the current theories of secularization have been unable to answer. It answers the problem of ‘American exceptionalism’. Why is America so religious, despite being one of the most advanced nations on earth? In America, there are more families following the traditional model, more marriages, and more children per woman than there are in Europe. According to Eberstadt, it also explains the male/female religious gender gap. She speculates that perhaps ‘women who are mothers tend to be more religious because the act of participating in creation, i.e., birth, is more immediate for them than that of men. Perhaps that fact inclines women “to be more open to the possibility of something greater than themselves.” The family factor also helps explain why 1960s was a pivotal year in secularization. The birth control pill approval changed relations between the sexes – and thus altered the natural family. Extramarital sex became much easier, and that has had a seismic impact on family formation and strength.

The Church has not helped, and according to Eberstadt has participated in its own downfall by ignoring the family factor. Here she explores reformist efforts in the church which made divorce more acceptable and allowed contraception and homosexuality. She sees these efforts as undermining the very thing the church relies on – strong families.

Chapter 7 ties all that she has written together. She points out that the experience of the natural family drives some people to religion. In addition, the Christian story is itself told through the prism of the family – without family, it makes less sense. For instance, God himself is described as our Heavenly Father. But for those who have not had a dedicated and loving father, this makes little sense. Moreover, the Christian code ‘becomes a lightning rod for criticism’. None of us like to be told that the way we do things is wrong. In an age of non-traditional and anti-traditional families, more and more people will take offence at the Christian message and its teachings on the family.

The book concludes with two chapters on the future. The first is a case for pessimism. Here we see that fewer people are getting married and having children. Fewer of those who are having children sustain a two-parent home. This is bound to negatively impact the church. But in chapter 9, we are presented the case for optimism. In essence, great catastrophes often lead to religious revival. The situation of the Western world, might be the decline necessary for faith to rise from the ashes. Secure and wealthy societies have been able to bankroll the decline of the family, but this might not be able to go on indefinitely. 

The Rise of a ‘New Tolerance’

The Rise of a ‘New Tolerance’ – your beliefs and my beliefs are equal and all truth is relative, however there are some exceptions!

The ‘New Tolerance’ movement, aka diversity and inclusiveness, has a religious fervour all of its own. There is a creed and those who refuse to worship at its altar are branded as intolerant, fanatical, bigoted people who are a danger to society. This new age tolerance goes far beyond the traditional definition and use of the word. The dictionary defines the word tolerate as ‘recognising and respecting others’ beliefs, practices etc. without necessarily sharing or agreeing with them. Another definition describes tolerate as ‘to allow something, even if it is not your practice or something you like’. Traditional tolerance involves respecting and protecting legitimate rights of others even those with whom you disagree and those who are different from you.

Today, however, ‘new tolerance’ teaches that all beliefs, values, lifestyles and truth claims are equal. Apparently it is now not enough to uphold another person’s right to believe or say what he thinks is true. It is not enough just to allow another person to disagree with what you believe or do. The new creed of tolerance demands that you must agree that another person’s beliefs are just as valid as your own.

According to this new doctrine, in order to be truly tolerant you must give your approval, your endorsement, your sincere support to their beliefs and behaviour. (Of course some people’s convictions don’t count, for example one particular rugby player’s views.) The agenda behind making all behaviours equally valid and praiseworthy stems from today’s current multicultural mindset. Today it is all about diversity and inclusiveness. The argument goes that there are a lot of people on the margins of society because of their ethnicity, class, gender or sexual orientation and therefore we must validate their experiences. This may mean endorsing homosexuality, abortion, misogyny, or other behaviours that might be abhorrent to you. Not to do so (particularly if you are a Christian) is to risk being labelled a narrow minded bigot, an extremist and hatemonger. Do you see the irony here? These adherents of the ‘new tolerance’ doctrine want us to accept that all beliefs and behaviours are equal; unless of course your beliefs and values are not part of today’s popular politically correct culture!

The ‘new tolerance’ has created an environment in which people can no longer express disagreement with others’ beliefs, for fear of being branded intolerant and promoting so called ‘hate speech’. We need to be clear about this: that there is an agenda, and it is important in a so called free society, to remove the veil that shrouds this dangerous cultural ‘new tolerance’ movement.

The real problem with ‘new tolerance’ is that it makes no distinction between who a person is and what a person does. Therefore ‘who I am’ is inseparable from ‘what I do, think and believe’. It is my identity, and if anybody expresses disagreement with my beliefs, they are judging me, criticizing me and disparaging me. They are criticizing my very identity, the core and essence of my being and who I am as a person. A classic example of this is the relatively recent dispute involving a Christian cake shop owner and a homosexual couple wanting a wedding cake for their upcoming ‘marriage’. Masterpiece Cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make a wedding cake saying “Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same sex weddings”. A lengthy on-going legal battle followed.

There are ominous implications that come with this ‘new age tolerance’. The first casualty is truth itself. We often hear, in today’s debates, such statements as; – “No one has the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong”, “It is wrong to impose your morals on someone else”, “Look … that is just your opinion”. Under this new regime all truth claims have equal merit; they are just relative and subjective. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ differ from person to person and from culture to culture.

‘New tolerance’ means we are witnessing the diminishing value of virtue. Such things as honour and integrity, respect, humility and compassion have become less important and without meaning in a culture dominated by individualism and the new creed of tolerance. If all truth claims are equal, who can say that humility is more acceptable than arrogance and that honesty is better than a lie?

‘New tolerance’ also leads to a lack of conviction. If you accept the mantra that everyone’s beliefs and truth claims are equal, that there is no truth more ‘true’ than any other truth, then you are just left shrugging your shoulders rather than standing up for your convictions. This is a sad state of affairs for New Zealand as a democratic nation, where we are supposed to value and protect the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I am like many New Zealanders; I have strong beliefs and convictions about right and wrong, truth and error. You see, I am a Christian and, like many Bible believing Christians, I feel marginalized under this ‘new tolerance’ creed. What am I to do? Well I am called to be ‘an ambassador for Christ’, sharing the truth of God’s love and forgiveness in Christ for mankind. I am called as a follower of Christ to imitate his example. Traditional biblical tolerance demonstrates a loving acceptance of people as individuals, while not necessarily accepting their beliefs or behaviour.

At the heart of the gospel message is God’s love and grace toward His creation and His call to repentance and faith for all people and all nations.

A Theory of Secularization

Recently I’ve been reading “How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization” by Mary Eberstadt. The central thesis is that family and faith are the invisible double helix of society – two spirals that when linked to one another can effectively reproduce, but whose strength and momentum depend on one another. Below is a short quote from the book:

“As secularization theorists correctly point out, urbanization is closely linked with smaller families. Following the industrial revolution, many Western people started having smaller families, and more chaotic families on account of their moves into cities.

Then came another series of shocks that further weakened family bonds: the legalization of divorce, the particularly momentous invention of modern contraception, the consequent increasing destigmatization of out-of-wedlock births…Many of these changes were then given even more force by related changes in Protestant theology…that unwittingly amounted to more blows against an institution already being roundly battered. Thus the severly weakened Western family ceased to transmit Christianity among its shrinking generations as it once had.”