Moralistic Deism, or Deistic Moralism?

In listening to the panel discussion at The Gospel Coalition 2011, something struck me as of minor importance.  It has to do with Christian Smith's labeling of much of current religiosity as 'moralistic therapeutic deism'.

I fully agree with Smith's analysis of the religious views of many of today's teens and young people.  Their outlook is mostly moralistic, and its focus is therapeutic.  In this, their view of God moves from theistic to deistic.  That is, they view God as being detached, impersonal, uninvolved and aloof from their lives, with the exception of when they need help or feel bad about themselves.

The point of minor importance that came to mind was the grammar of the descriptive title, moralistic, therapeutic deism.'  I think it should be re-phrased as, 'deistic therapeutic moralism.'

Why?  Well, grammatical construction would indicate the last word (a noun) is the primary word, and is modified by the first two (adjectives).  So, in Smith's construction, the teens are primarily deists, who are both moralistic and therapeutic in character.  This isn't the best construction, in my opinion.  I don't think most American teens are primarily deistic, I think they become deistic by nature of their emphasis on detached therapeutic application of God, and in this, they are primarily moralists.  Thus, the better construction, I think, is deistic therapeutic moralism.

This isn't enough to lose sleep over, and certainly not worth an argument, though discussion would be useful. 

What do you think?

Finding Christ in the Old New Testament

I hope the title, 'Finding Christ in the Old New Testament', is catchy, because the irony there is important for understanding a subtlety we often miss.

My Sunday School class is going through the books of First and Second Peter this year.  We are still in 1 Peter 1, and have not yet reached verse 13 (that's next week).  The importance of verse 13 is that it is the first time a command is issued in the book of 1 Peter.  Peter spends the first 12 verses of his letter (I know he didn't write it in verses, but that's the easiest way to refer to it) proclaiming the glory of God and Christ, and our place in Christ.

I constantly remind the class that being a Christian is not about finding a way to write God into their stories, but about finding a way to write themselves into God's story.  We often hear about 'finding Christ in the Old Testament' but we take for granted that we'll find Christ in the New.  Not necessarily so...we can often too easily pass over the proclamation of the gospel to get to the commands (passing over the indicative to get to the imperative) since we want to put 'shoe leather' on the text.  That passing-over is a mistake, and a serious one.

I need to get a patent on a new line of wrist bands called, "WHJD" ('What has Jesus done?'), but I'm guessing somebody already has.  However, I have a funny feeling that they wouldn't sell nearly as many as the old WWJD bands, simply because the reality of the focus of the gospel isn't nearly as important to many people, believers or not, as is living a moral life.

And that's exactly why we struggle so much trying to live up to God's requirements for us...we take the focus off of Christ and put it on ourselves, as we are woefully bent to do.

Trivialization of Sin

One of the biggest problems of moralistic, therapeutic deism (or MTD, on which I've written in the past) is its engulfing power to trivialize our sin.  One of the key findings, if you read the book of Hebrews, is the danger of trivializing sin.  Sin was a big deal in the garden, it was a big deal in the Old Testament, it was a big deal at the time of Christ, but in recent days it has been turned into anything other than a big deal.  It has been called quite a few things less than it is, including a bad habit, an addiction, and even 'the way God made me'.  I can't think of a more egregious bit of blasphemy, but it is a common bit these days.

The answer isn't necessarily found in the fundamentalist/liberal dichotomy (as if that were an accurate description in the first place).  Fundamentalism reduces sin to certain behaviors.  Sin is what those other people do. Liberalism reduces sin to social structures (what others aren't doing).  Spiritualism reduces God to something inside us that simply needs enlightened, so that there is no such thing as sin, only 'inner darkness'.

Christian Smith (UNC, now at Notre Dame), came up with the term, MTD.  He has now published a follow-up to his 2005 book, called 'Souls in Transition'.  (Buy it here- http://fwd4.me/P0t ).  It looks at where they (the subjects of the 2001-2005 study) are now.  The statistics are fascinating, though too numerous to list here.  For a good overview, watch/listen to Michael Horton's speech at this years Christless Christianity: 2010 West Coast Conference, called Moralistic & Therapeutic Deism.  It can be found here-

  http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/christless-christianity-2010-west-coast/moralistic-therapeutic-deism/

This doctrine is the natural fallout of the idea that people are inherently good and the American corollary, "God helps those who help themselves."  (A majority of evangelicals thought that was a verse from the bible in a recent Barna survey.)  The problem is, it trivializes sin to the utmost.  Failure to preach about sin is pastoral cruelty (C Fitzsimmons Allison).  Eliminating sin by eliminating a holy God (which is what MTD does) is more than that, it is spiritual malpractice.  One of Smith's findings was, the more a person attended an evangelical church or youth group, the more likely they were to embrace MTD.  That's an ugly picture of what is happening in many of our churches and youth groups today.

When you hear sin depersonalized (it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's just a problem to your self-esteem), generalized (not a specific act, just a set of feelings or depression, etc.), and deflected to outsiders (those other people 'out there'), you know you are hearing MTD.  2 Tim. 3:2-5 is the biblical response to this kind of thinking.  Flee.


[Note:  I have not received any compensation for mentioning the book or the video above.]