by Paul Eliefrom Georgetown University
Emanations from a Penumbra
Ross Douthat’s column on the paradox of “the Christian penumbra” has picked up plenty of approving commentary, from Michael Sean Winters in the National Catholic Reporter to Rod Dreher of The American Conservative, who does what Ross failed to do, namely, defines the term:
that is, life in the murky space where many, many Americans dwell: between unbelief in Christianity and committed belief in Christianity. Douthat characterizes the Christian penumbra as life lived by people who have the memory of Christian ideas, without the intent or capability of fully realizing them in one’s personal life, or in social life.
The paradox at hand (“seeming paradox”—you can feel the hand of the copy editor there) is that social science says religious belief correlates with all sorts of social goods, but these goods seem in short supply in the areas of the country where Christian belief is strongest.
What to make of this? Well, my first instinct is to challenge the social science: for one thing, its categories are usually vague to the point of imprecision, and for another, the strong religion Douthat is drawn to has as one of its core beliefs the conviction that social goods can’t be understood (or fostered) in a general sense, social science-style – can’t be understood apart from particular traditions with specific conceptions of the good, conceptions that are meant to challenge our common-sense, social-science-y ideas of what social goods are.
Ross goes on to propose that the paradox he has set up reveals the roots of a culture war – a k a “an ideological battle.” The argument goes like this: If the churches can’t promote social goods – can’t take care of their own – then it’s only right that they forfeit their role as promoters of social goods and let the government take over. Their ideology is only as good as the social science says.
That seems right – but it seems to me that following the ideological-battle train of thought leads Ross to miss his own most provocative point:
It’s better to regard these [social] problems as a partial indictment of America’s churches: Not only because their failure to reach the working class and the younger generation is making the penumbra steadily bigger, but because a truly healthy religious community should be capable of influencing even the loosely attached somewhat for the better.
Amen to that. But what’s easy to miss is the (seemingly) obvious point that the most powerful and effective way to promote a social good is personally, not culturally – for individuals or communities to reach out to those in their midst who are in need and try to hear them, and help them. Call this virtue, or kindness, or charity, or love – but this, and not promoting social goods as a means toward the maintenance of the community and the strengthening of its position in an “ideological battle,” is the heart of the matter, isn’t it?
The photograph – by Sam Fentress, from Bible Roads – is of a barn near Fayetteville, Arkansas.