… to any and every attempt simply and solely to equate humanism with atheism. I can entirely understand (and disagree) with atheists and agnostics who want to claim the name “humanist’ for a God-free world as a positive description of their views. I cannot understand why so many of my fellow-Christians (to say nothing of those from some other faiths) are willing to let them get away with it. For many conservatives, in particular but not exclusively so, it seems as if “humanism’ has become a term of intellectual abuse.
I want to affirm that if it is anything, Christian faith – the faith of Christ the full image of God in humanity – is meant also to be a vision of what it is to be truly human:
- not a random product of cosmic improbabilities, but a reason the cosmos is created
- not an accidental assemblage of molecules shortly to be recombined in some other shape, but a personal identity invited to share an eternal life of love
- not an inventor of pretend meaning in a meaningless universe, but a discoverer of the truth and meaning that is already there to be disclosed
And I could go on, but these are at the heart of the matter, although it would be possible to write volumes exploring, defending and explaining this idea.
To be human is not to be self-made and often shoddy workmanship that may for a while seem useful to someone. It is not for legislators and cultures and local political systems to give or take away rights or dignity or worth, because the Creator of the universe has already given infinite value and worth to human beings, blessed them with the gift of his creating, restoring and empowering work, and summoned them to the calling of creative, truthful, joyful and loving life.
This, I suggest, is a humanism that merits the name, that places humanity in the heart of a purposed and purposeful cosmos, rather than on the periphery of an improbable and accidental universe.
For the glory of God is a human being fully alive, and the glory of humanity is the vision of God. (St Irenaeus. Adv Haer. 4.20.7)
Now, I think there may be a more fruitful conversation to be had with atheists and agnostics and believers about visions for human flourishing than simply indulging in knock-about arguments about God. I think it may commend faith in God more if our vision of God is seen to be a vision for the worth and glory of the human calling, and not abstracted talk about religion as though “God” were in a separate box from “human life”. From the believer’s side, surely a first step is to stop using “humanist” as a dirty word.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 9 comments }
Thanks for reclaiming a perfectly good word.
That’s why they call it “secular humanism”.
Sorry, that last comment escaped before I completed editing it.
I think there is a distinction between “humanism” — which is what you are talking about — and “secular humanism” — which is a different term altogether.
I take the point, Theo, except I do think “secular Humanism” and “humanism” are now being effectively equated in controversy and rhetoric
I can’t think when I last saw someone setting out to distinguish “secular humanism” from “Christian humanism” say. The contrasts instead seem to be between “secular humanism” and “faith” or “orthodoxy” or whatever. Hence my plea.
one of my college profs always took great pains to draw the distinction between christian humanism and secular humanism. i’ve heard no one do it since him. till you. kudos, doug.
Anyone who mentions Erasmus must make this distinction.
A fine book by John Spencer Hill is entitled “Infinity, Faith, and Time: Christian Humanism and Renaissance Literature” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s, 1997).
He uses the term “Christian humanism” in a broad way, of the whole fides quarens intellectum tradition: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa, Pascal, Shakespeare, Herbert, Donne, Traherne, and Milton, Bergson. I recommend it.
An interesting appendix: Notes Toward a Protestant Poetic. Is it possible to separate “Puritan” and “Anglican”?
I’m surprised by the question, “Is it possible to separate ‘Puritan’ and ‘Anglican’?” My understanding of English religious history from the Supremacy Act to the Restoration, was one in which ‘Puritan’ was, if anything, _antithetical_ to ‘Anglican.’ Maybe this comes from 1) living in the U.S., where ‘Puritan’ was something that we inherited because England (quite understandably) wanted nothing to do with them (also, he Puritan colonies were the ones where Anglican churches were prohibited), and 2) my experience of Anglican worship is a post-Oxford Movement one…
Even if those factors are coloring my interpretation, I still understood ‘Puritan’ as referring to the groups who could not under any circumstances reconcile themselves to the concessions of the Elizabethan Settlement.
That would be my understanding also, Jason. Perhaps John can summarize the main line of this appendix?
Comments on this entry are closed.