Too Much Faith in Faith

That is the title of a Wall Street Journal piece by Alan Jacobs, a professor at Wheaton College. He wonders if people put too much stock in the role of religion in current events. While many commentators differ if faith brings a net benefit or net loss to humanity, they all claim religion has a tremendous impact.

Is it, though?... I have my doubts, and they begin with personal experience. I am by most measures a pretty deeply committed Christian. I am quite active in my church; I teach at a Christian college; I have written extensively in support of Christian ideas and belief. Yet when I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is "not so much." The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day -- these are, if truth be told, far less indebted to my Christianity than to my status as a middle-aged, middle-class American man.

This is a striking confession, one in many ways I need to join in on. But is this lifestyle true to Scripture, which famously instructs us, "Seek first the kingdom of God" and "Whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all things to the glory of God" and "Take up your cross and follow me"?

That aside, Jacobs does a great job of illustrating the inconsistency in the new atheists' grumble. They are far more trusting of confessed religious sentiments than they are of other claims to altruistic motivations.

When people say that they are acting out of religious conviction, I tend to be skeptical; I tend to wonder whether they're not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all... Most of today's leading critics of religion are remarkably trusting in these matters. Card-carrying members of the intelligentsia like Mr. Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would surely be doubtful, even incredulous, if a politician who had illegally seized power claimed that his motives for doing so were purely patriotic; or if a CEO of a drug company explained a sudden drop in prices by professing her undying compassion for those unable to afford her company's products. Discerning a difference between people's professed aims and their real aims is just what intellectuals do.

A number of times, I have been faced with the task of reconciling Crusaders or Conquistadors with my Christian faith. It is one of the most frustrating ploys used by unbelievers, a magic "Get Out of Argument" free card. Jacob's argument is helpful at stripping this backhanded-complimenting ad hominem argument. And he concludes with a call to look beyond the religious claims to the deeper problem that needs answering.

Is religion powerful? I suppose it often is. After all, if people were not religious -- or, to take a Gibbonesque view of the matter, if people did not want to be thought of as so -- no one would use religious language to promote political or social or ethnic goals. That those seeking to acquire or keep power do use such language, and regularly, indicates that religion has influence. But the idea that without religion people would stop seeking power, stop manipulating, stop deceiving, is just wishful thinking of the silliest kind. Though it may seem ironic for a Christian to be saying this, it's time to talk less about the power of religion and remember instead the dark forces in all human lives that religious language is too often used to hide.