Having recently been accused of “fundamentalism” got me thinking: what is the nature of the main attacks on Christianity today? Are the issues the same as those of the “fundamentalist versus modernist controversy”? No they are not.
Early “fundamentalists” responded to attacks on Christianity by those influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and claiming that the “supernatural” teachings of Christianity were offensive to reason. Thus, fundamentalists went to war over dogmas such as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, etc. Today, the most important battlegrounds are not these “supernatural” dogmas, but Christianity’s teachings about “natural” realities, particularly those related to sex and gender. It is on these points in particular that today’s “modernizers” attempt to modify the teaching of the Church in order to conform to contemporary social dogmas and to affirm those that I describe as progressive sexual identities.
Today, the accusations are largely moralas opposed to rational. Our accusers attack us not to transgress reason but to transgress contemporary social dogmas. Traditional Christians are not considered fools because they believe in miracles, but like fanatics because they affirm that men and women are fundamentally distinct, that sex is reserved for marriage, that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman and that it is ordered naturally (with exceptions tragic) to procreation, and that a person’s gender corresponds to their sex. this is given by God and is unalterable.
In a way, traditional Christians constitute the last line of defense against these “natural” realities which have been conceded by almost all Westerners until very recently. Our adversaries attack the moral codes of the West shaped by Christianity; but they do so using Christian categories. This reminds us of the greatest modern critic of Christianity: Friedrich Nietzsche. It is revealing to see how progressive sexual identitarians mirror and invert Nietzsche’s logic in their attacks on Christian moral teaching.
For both Nietzsche and progressive sexual identitarians, traditional Christian moral teaching is seen as a threat to general social well-being because it is an enemy of life. With Nietzsche, the problem was that Christianity, with its concern for the weak and vulnerable, made society weak and prevented the strong from being able to do what is required to be great. Nietzsche promoted a humanist ideal that people live beyond the categories of good and evil; thus God must be “killed”. To unlock human potential, relativism is necessary. We must shed Christian morality to become all that we can be.
Progressive sexual identitarians also see traditional Christian moral teachings as the problem. These teachings are meant to hinder human achievement. But the problem comes from concern for the weak: unlike Nietzsche, these accusers maintain that Christianity is not sufficiently responsive towards those deemed weak. Traditional norms regarding sex, gender, and marriage are seen as privileging the powerful over those considered “marginalized” – who are allegedly prevented from living fully as themselves.
Nietzsche wanted to inspire supermen who would live beyond morality, who would write the rules themselves, without regard to the opinions of others – who would kill God to make their own way. Our contemporary critics want to rewrite morality so that society at large and the Church affirm them and their way of life, compelling God to label their choices as good. Recognizing this inversion helps us understand the inconsistency of combination of relativism and intolerant moral absolutism among these progressive identitarians. “Who are you to judge?” But also: “Make the cake, bigot!”
Progressive sexual identities don’t really want to get rid of good and evil. They want to redefine it. For them, traditional Christian morality is the enemy: it is bad. This presents a great dilemma for many Christians. Nobody wants to be among the villains. And when our principles are used against us, we are especially perplexed. Tom Holland explained how, in a West shaped by Christianity, even criticism of Christianity inevitably comes from Christian categories. Concern for the weak is one of them. But there is a danger in isolating these principles and using them as a weapon against Christians and other essential Christian teachings. Detached from the Christian everything, an underdetermined principle becomes monstrous. But since the terms are fundamentally Christian, Christians can easily be misled.
Fooling Christians brings me to my main interest: why do so many of these sex and gender dissidents want to change the Church, anyway? Why can’t they adopt a “live and let live” relativism? I believe it’s because they crave validation, even divine validation. The path traced by Nietzsche is not livable; the burden is unbearable. Even as they attempt to rewrite the code of right and wrong, they are unwilling to live beyond social and religious affirmations. The emancipated are still slow to be validated.
In his genealogy of modernity, Rémi Brague explains the “modern project” as the endless pursuit of progressively emancipating humans from everything that claims to stand above them – from God, from the law, from social customs, from nature, from bodies, etc. . The problem is that we are social and religious creatures. These sexual revolutionaries feel deep down that they need religion and society to bless them, and many will not let go until they obtain such a blessing. Possessed by a form of libido dominant, they aspire to live beyond limits and yet are paralyzed by the need to secure the positive regard of others and to eradicate disapproval wherever it may be found. The key target is therefore Christianity, whose moral teachings constitute the last defense of the natural order.
Our struggles are not the same as those faced by the fundamentalists of yesteryear. Beware of those who advocate doctrinal orthodoxy regarding “supernatural” matters of faith but promote moral heterodoxy. In fact, some revolutionaries flee to these doctrinal assertions in order to conceal their revolutionary and “unnatural” moral code and their corresponding attempts to change the Church. As our culture gradually rejects fundamental assumptions about nature and fundamental moral realities that were largely taken for granted until very recently, it may not be the worst idea to promulgate and defend a new set of ” fundamental principles” to safeguard the truth.
