In this post, I want to explore the various understandings of humanism, particularly Christian humanism, and mark the boundaries that define what we mean by the term, and ultimately, what we are attempting to recover.
In the first place, the kind of humanism I am not advocating for is the modern humanism which identifies as “secular,” or as Margaret King describes it, the kind that “dispenses with theism and replaces divine providence with the scientific method, social justice, and multiculturalism.”
Secular, or modern humanism, by virtue of its tenets, lacks the necessary tools to cultivate the imagination for the renewal of culture. The best this kind of humanism can do is exploit the volatile fractures within the culture by means of the inhumanness of the scientific method, the injustice of social justice, and the instability of multiculturalism.
Allowed to be carried out to its end, secular humanism–which really isn’t humanism at all–can only serve to blow the fractures wide open, instigating some form of totalitarianism that will be necessary to quell the revolutionary chaos this wrong-headed ideology provoked.
Another vision of humanism this paper does not seek to recover misleadingly identifies itself with the modifier, “Christian,” but at its core, is anything but.
This brand of Christian humanism was popularized by liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong and Anthony Freeman and seeks to use Christian terminology in its activities, but it boldly denies orthodox Christian doctrines like the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus. What this brand of Christian humanism truly seeks to do is substitute all forms of theism with less mystical, alternative concepts; and, as will be demonstrated later, because it denies orthodoxy, it fails to provide the redemptive basis necessary to facilitate real human flourishing, which is the primary goal Christian humanism seeks to accomplish.
Perhaps the best way to begin defining the affirmative boundaries is with a definition from The Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines Christian humanism as:
(a) a school of thought, esp. in the 16th cent., emphasizing the value of the study of classical languages and literature to Christian theology and culture; (b) the view that the principles of humanism and Christian faith are intrinsically compatible; practice or beliefs based on this.
Taking up the first entry of the definition, the kind of Christian humanism I believe we need to recover indeed values the study of classical languages and literature, but should not be misunderstood as a movement wherein the pursuit of classical languages and literature usurp or replace Christian theology and culture, as the definition seems to suggest.
Rather, in the spirit of the second entry, it would certainly view these as being intrinsically compatible. It seems the definition provided by The New World Encyclopedia might be closer to the idea we are looking for. It states:
Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.
The important terms to glean from this definition are “compatible” and “intrinsic.”
The kind of Christian humanism we want to recover indeed views the three listed tenets as compatible with, and intrinsic to, Christianity. But, perhaps the closest and most helpful summary definition is stated in the last sentence of the latter definition: “a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.”
While these definitions are certainly helpful in providing a basic orientation and roadmap, as is the case with most denotations, in their concision they fail to do justice to the many ambiguities and nuances that exist in this idea.
It is important that the various nuances be qualified so we can recover a vision that is faithful to Christian orthodoxy without diminishing the necessary tenets that comprise humanist principles. For example, in the latter definition, a qualification must be made about the nature of the “philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.”
The qualification must answer whether the union is one of an organic complementarian nature—a hypostatic union of sorts—or whether this is an artificial union where one part has preeminence over the other if and when they find themselves in conflict.
Said another way, it is necessary to determine whether Christian humanism is really one part Christian faith and one part principles of humanism or if these two concepts are really one, and in some way express themselves as the opposite sides of the same coin.
Other nuances that must be discussed are the differences between what many know as Italian Renaissance humanism originating in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and the Northern European Christian humanism that emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
This need to qualify distinctions brings to mind the proposition John Lukacs rightfully sets forth in his book, Historical Consciousness, that to truly understand the meaning of anything one must understand the history of the thing itself.
Thus, in a later post, I intend to explore a brief history of the roots and development of Christian humanism to help clarify the nuances and ambiguities that need to be addressed if we are to recover the kind of Christian humanism that promotes human flourishing.
Be sure to subscribe if you’d like to stay up with this series.
Are you saying viable success in humanism is not viable without Christian Orthodoxy? Not sure if I agree considering the subjective nature of the subject.
Indeed, humanism cannot be successful without Christian orthodoxy. Otherwise, it crumbles in on itself. It is too complex of a topic to elaborate in full here (Thus, I’m writing my dissertation on the topic), but in brief, think about how Greek and Roman philosophy sought to obtain happiness (eudaimonia, which means something closer to human flourishing that the modern definition of personal pleasure) through attunement to an impersonal logos of natural law and abstract knowledge. Or, think about how modern philosophers sought happiness through human reason and empirical data (i.e., scientism). Both examples failed miserably and brought about the very antitheses of human flourishing. This is not speculation but historically verifiable. In the former case, what was human was reduced to processes and laws that betrayed the dignity and personal freedom of human beings. In the latter case, what was human was exterminated. Historically, “humanism” is derived from Christianity. The terms are inseparable in medieval history. Secular and liberal humanisms are both unfortunate distortions of the Judeo-Christian belief. In sum, human flourishing depends on the Creator entering into fallen creation, sacrificing Himself for its redemption, then resurrecting and reigning over it (superintending the outworking of the new ethos i.e., the gospel).