Current-Day Literalism: The Accusation of Antinomianism Never Dies

On Papers, I write about certain tendencies in our culture that, these days, arise often from the left. I stress, however, that I've encountered many of these trends in my relatively conservative church. That is, the right bears responsibility.

Those trends include the following:

 

1. Doomsdaying: the end of times is nigh, right now, right around the corner!

 

2. Body versus spirit: the body is sinful and disgusting and utterly malleable (it can be hacked up) while the spirit--the true "I"--is noble and free and sinless.

 

3. Conflation of "know" and "believe" so that debatable claims become entirely undebatable.

 

4. Lack of context, not only for historical events but for current statements--hence Coleman Hughes's difficulty in explaining the not difficult concept of "reasonable doubt" to offended pundits.

 

5. Utopia as the immediate end goal: WE will get you into heaven (or what constitutes heaven).

 

I am adding a sixth:

 

6. Literalism.

 

The bravest woman in the universe, J.K. Rowling praised the book Lolita at one point for being a well-written masterpiece. I don't care for the book myself but lots of people enjoy books I don't care for. However, in the world of "I'm not safe until others conform," apparently a bunch of "youths" have gotten all freaked out. How dare she!

 

Kat Rosenfield from The Free Press describes these youths as "utterly confounded not just by the difference between depiction and endorsement but by the expression of any thought that contains two or more moving parts."

Rosenfield's quote reminded me of a fantastic quote from Andrew Doyle's The New Puritans:

 

Good criticism, on the other hand, is able to balance the subjectivity of personal temperament with the objectivity of professional experience. To put it another way, a critic who is offended is unlikely to offer much in the way of insight. According to Vyvyan Holland, Oscar Wilde's second son, his father's novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890), was universally condemned by critics on the basis that it was 'prurient, immoral, vicious, coarse, and crude'. When the novel was republished, Wilde added a preface as a form of rebuttal, which should be required reading for all critics today. In it, he explains that vice and virtue are simply 'materials' for artists, reminding us that the depiction of immorality is not necessarily an endorsement of such behavior. Even if it were, why should it matter? 'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book,' Wilde proclaims. 'Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' (my emphasis)

 

The inability to separate "that book states that/that person states that" from "how horrible is that book/person!" has a long history that likely goes back to the beginnings of speech, maybe earlier. In my research on religious concepts in early American history, I have encountered the term "antinomian" again and again and again. Although there were actual Antinomians, the terms was generally used as an attack word (rather like "fascist" these days and making that point does not mean I favor fascism). "Antinomian" was used against theologians/religious groups that apparently had a flexible morality.

 

What is so fascinating is that term had almost nothing to do with how God actually might operate.

 

So if some Calvinists argued for unconditional election, the response was "but you're letting sinners off the hook--they will carry out numerous degenerate and bad acts because they are already saved. Antinomians!" 

 

And if the Methodists argued for universal salvation, the response was "but if everyone is saved, what kind of community are you promoting? What will you end up accepting? Thin end of the wedge! Antinomians!" 

 

If one responded, "We are talking about God. Can't God save people however God wants?" the response (post-Enlightenment) would be "but God is reasonable!" 

 

And if one responded, "Why does God have to be reasonable? I mean, yes, I like the idea, but who are you to tell God what to be?" the response would be...

"Antinomian!" 

 

That is, the human condition seems to entail entire groups of people who perceive any statement not in terms of its topic, its arguments, its context, its ability to generate ideas and lead to contemplation but as a moral argument that indicates not only the future morality of the human race but the actual morality of the person who dared say it.

 

It's very hard to talk about just-stuff with people these days.

What About Religion?

 

As I mention in the longer post, I have encountered the above listed positions/behaviors at church--though, in fairness, the church of my childhood was LESS PRONE to 6. Debate without an automatic moral indictment was not unusual.

 

By the time I hit my 20s, however, I was encountering "if you said that, you must be implying that you are morally like this" alongside arguments praising relativistic emotion-laden reactions to scripture. It was all very ironic (in fairness, the Calvinists had the same difficulty resolving the tension between "proper" trained responses and idiosyncratic responses). At one point, a Sunday School teacher tutted my mother not for the content of her statement but for making it in the first place (and yes, he had a label ready).

 

As in the longer post, I address why religions have some justification for the behaviors I've listed. Regarding literalism and accusations of antinomianism, religion is to a degree focused on moral codes. My entirely personal view is that the purpose of a religion is to aid humans in getting closer to god/gods/God. The purpose of religion, in other words, is NOT to get people into heaven (and yes, one can believe in heaven and still believe that heaven is God's territory, not the territory of mortal institutions). 

 

But history is filled with many thoughtful theologians who would question my position (and theologians who would agree with me). In the nineteenth century in America especially (post-1776), religion as the training ground for citizens of a relatively free society was something of a given. Whether or not it worked--since plenty of people went on believing whatever they wanted--is debatable. But preparing people to be well-behaved social creatures was perceived as one of religion's purposes.

 

Unfortunately for religion (and current-day conversations), within that mindset, theology often becomes not what God is/does but what God OUGHT to be/do:

 

God (utopia, the "right side of history," righteousness) in our pocket.

 

I'm not a fan of that mindset. 

My point here, however, is that both the right and left (all human beings really) need to take responsibility for the tendency to equate "you pointed that out" with "that means you are morally degenerate" and desist in order for conversations to actual be about things themselves.

You know, in order for conversations to be actually interesting.