The Mystery Behind Philosophy

A Reflection on Christian Leadership

The demands of Christianity are offensive today. And they are offensive on several grounds.

A Christian leader wishes to avoid the offensiveness of Christianity because it “turns people off” before he can give the message of love “at the center” of Christianity. That is, even if you have a Christian leader who personally believes in all the things people today find unbelievable and objectionable (offensive) he still wants to begin with the message of love and then show his listeners how all those other things they supposedly cannot believe and especially all those other things they find objectionable are actually matters that are for their own good. God is “tough” because he loves you. God is miraculous as well if you can believe that.

Let us take a moment and consider the Christian leader who denies many Christian beliefs. He denies the offensive morality of Christianity or he denies the miraculous content of Christianity because he thinks such things are not necessary and get in the way of the basic message. This man is left with a dwindling flock. Except that is wrong isn’t it? Don’t we hear about churches growing precisely because they leave out or actively deny aspects of Christianity? Things Christians have always believed are denied: the world was created; man is distinct and not an animal; there is a soul; there is a standard of living and men are able to displease God if they act in unjust or perverse ways. A Christian leader who edits these things out of Christianity and sells a God of love who is both scientific and accepting… I have heard of such churches gaining more members, especially when the music they provide is good and the young women are plentiful.

How many churches today survive merely because young women feel duty bound to go to a church but seek out churches with exciting music where they do not feel “judged”?

I don’t care how that question is answered. Even if a congregation thrives by shedding all the traditionally Christian dogmas and standards, I count it as a loss—churches that sell a “Gospel” of love without the dogmas and standards of the Faith are no different than a government printing money to get through a crisis. Sure, there are folks who are unwilling and too scared to deviate from the standard of value they’ve been told is dependable. They want to be “in a church community.” But they are simply less intelligent and unable to see that they are spending inflated currency.

A Christianity without its dogmas (mysteries) and standards (also a mystery) is no better than communism—everyone’s valuable, everyone’s equal, there is an ideal world waiting at the end of it all. The preacher offers nothing different than what the university professors offer except the preacher claims you get eternal life at the end of it all. But young people aren’t completely numb: they know, if two men tell them to live the exact same way, except one of them says “if you follow me and give money to me you get eternal life as a bonus” … if young people (or any person) hears that they rightfully suspect the man promising eternal life is deluded or a grifter.

Christianity without its dogmas or standards is not distinguishable from communism or some secular liberalism. Christianity without its dogmas and its standards is no different from the message preached up by politicians that we should all love and respect one another.

Christian leaders face this conundrum: if they are assertively Christian they will alienate many thoughtful people who simply cannot accept either Christian metaphysics or Christian morals. On the other hand, if they try to edit Christian dogmas and morality out of their teachings they will be ignored by the intelligent people who see no difference between what they preach and what the politicians promise.

There is no way out of this.

The only thing for a Christian leader to do is bellow and behind all the loudness go into the weeds and seek to refute all the modern “refutations” of Christian dogmas and standards. In other words: the only way for a Christian leader to succeed is for him (him) to be a full fledged Christian.

In sum: The Christian leader would like to not-lead, to “lead” by denying or by “not demanding.” Don’t mistake me on this point: I am not saying Christian leaders would like to be “soft” (though that is true), I am saying they would like to deny the need to assert the mysteries of the faith.

Denying the mystery of the faith means that men are both not responsible and also praiseworthy or worthy of heaven.

Men who preach this message have enemies. Their enemies are those who want to hold men accountable while retaining the justice of God. That is, some Christians want to prove the justice of God by proving that men are innocent of their misdeeds, while others want to preach a God who holds men to a high standard of conduct.

What unity in the church means: these two sides must understand each other and agree to hold men accountable.

Weak leaders hope for a way out: they find one through the Jesuitical “justice of God.” God would not be just if men were held accountable, so, they surmise, they do not need to hold men accountable and are better for not doing this; they think they are better for teaching men about this notion of justice whereby their failings are not their fault.

It’s incredible that this notion always ends up being, in the vulgar manifestations anyway, an indictment of “the system”--it’s not the sinner’s fault, but it is someone’s fault; it is the fault of the powerful! Only the powerful have the ability to choose and they choose to retain their power, but powerlessness is the cause of sin and so the powerful who make others powerless are the real sinners. The “leader” in this case is not a possessor of power; he is, instead, an “opponent of power.” The leader is the powerless opponent of power.

What is the mystery of the faith? Is it that a man can be a powerless opponent of power? Or is it that men are responsible for their thoughts and actions? A leader must always take up the latter mystery as his banner because only by it can he lead and inspire men to improve themselves. The former, though equally a mystery, is not only an obvious lie, it is also nihilism and harmful—it helps no one. The powerful are as determined in their course as the powerless and, in any event, only power can oppose power so the “powerless opponent of power” merely becomes the hypocrite. He becomes the hypocrite before he has won, but everyone can see the hypocrisy once he was won.

The standard of Christianity is everywhere believable. But such a standard requires a metaphysics and the Christian metaphysics is denied everywhere and few believe it. Such a metaphysics is needed because the mystery is always denied and even reproved. Men must hear how it is they are responsible and this always includes an explanation of the great rewards for being good and the great harm that comes from being bad. Men must believe they are responsible for their actions and that this is not tragic. Choice must be protected roundabout. The wagons must be circled. Unless the Christian faith can accomplish this it turns into “liberation theology.” Every dead faith is, at bottom, communist.