Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition)

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition) | Nancy R. Pearcey | Much needed in a confusing world

books:

Total Truth: Liber...

	Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition) Nancy R. Pearcey Crossway Books, 2005 - 512 pages average customer review:based on 78 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Total Truth: Or How to Consciously Turn Christianity into the Secular Ideology that it Already is.

I read this piece with the thought that here at last is a serious piece of Christian analysis about the world, one that is not weighted down with more religious propaganda, but something that a "thinking Christian" can wrap his mind around. I thought this is real analysis that makes sense beyond the force-fed Christian fare. I was eager and willing to listen with an open mind, suspending my normal "skeptical attitude" towards religion so as to better give this new viewpoint my full attention, and where necessary, the full benefit of doubt.

But alas, this was not to be the case. Ms. Pearcey, despite pretenses of objectivity and academic seriousness, has continued to hew closely to the old demagogic Christian line; and even though in a less obvious and in a slightly more sophisticated way, has set up yet another questionable "secularized boogeyman," as the foil for ignoring and then projecting the problems of Christianity outward, rather than inward where they more appropriately belong.

After reading this book, I now believe more firmly than ever that the war between the Christian worldview and the secular one, between Evolution and Intelligent design, Science and religion is a contrived one. It is a foil that allows religion the opportunity to claim an undeserved sense of equality and unearned legitimacy by the fiat of divine authority.

Once again Christians, with Ms. Pearcey as their point man, have circled their wagons as far away above reality as possible. Her guiding principle remains hidden in the subtext, untested and un-critiqued, but nevertheless asserted as a divine given: that being a god-fearing person in itself makes you a morally superior person. This is the fatal flaw lying in the subtext like a snake coiled to strike, and which once is recognized for what it is, destroys Ms. Pearcey's carefully constructed worldview expansion project.

Her special pleading for an expansion of the Christian worldview into non-religious realms, begs an important question: Why, given the current chaotic state of Christianity, would anyone ever want to expand it into other areas?

The answer is: for secular and non-religious reasons only.

This attempt at expansion has nothing at all to do with religion, but is a cold-blooded power play that would make the likes of Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell dance in their pulpits. If we ARE what we DO -- and even the most lowly of Christians believe this to be true -- then the Christian worldview should not be given a free pass. It must live and die by the same criteria it demands of other worldviews. Otherwise, how indeed can a Christian in good conscious speak of expanding the Christian worldview without taking into account the deep moral weaknesses inherent in Christianity as it has been practiced in the past and as it is practiced today?

And here I mean the very checkered history of Christian brutality, Pearcey's own admission of deep Christian hypocrisy, the consistent association of Christianity with unsavory characters, thoughts, movements and mean-spirited ideas, both past and present? Perhaps if Pearcey had suggested that we first clean up Christianity, and then consider expanding its worldview, her expansion ideas would sound a bit more palatable. I certainly would have had more sympathy for her project. Predictably, she does not address the issue of why a questionable institution, resting on questionable beliefs should warrant a worldview expansion?

Leaving aside Christian theology -- which whether one believe in it or not we must agree that all religionists are entitled to their own specific beliefs and worldviews -- yet, when inspected carefully, Pearcey's whole worldview construction project is a house of cards pasted together mostly from Christian self-deception - that is to say from a false but self-serving image of what a "true Christian" SHOULD BE, rather than WHAT HE IS.

Taking this bit of built in self-deception to its logical conclusion, one discovers that there is scant evidence that Christianity itself has improved civilization one iota, and tons of evidence that it has done a great deal of harm. Under such circumstances it is not unreasonable to ask: How can a serious theological scholar "take as a given," that Christianity is by definition, good for the world, and then proceed to seek to expand its boundaries into the non-religious sphere as if such an assumption were a solidily established fact?

Does this not sound exactly like what any old garden variety bare-knuckled politician would do? Or, is this not exactly what Pearcey herself has accused the Secular Humanist of doing? Is the value of Christianity to humanity itself, no longer a debatable proposition? Is it not a fact that resolution of this unasked question must rest on demonstrated empirical evidence of the moral value of Christian institutions and the value and worth of Christian practices, rather than simply by invoking divine authority and relying on pious insinuations and assertions?

If Christian belief and faith, unaccompanied by deeds is all there is, and all that is needed, then there really is no need to make a case for the Christian worldview at all, not to mention making a case for expanding its purview. If Christian deeds are out-of-bounds, then upon what grounds and against what criteria does Ms. Pearcey then justify such an expansion?

On the other hand, if her hidden foundation premise (that being Christian somehow makes you morally superior without any demonstrated practice) can be asserted without evidence, without verification, without discussion, and without being critiqued. If it simply can be promulgated under divine authority and empty piety, without a track record of good deeds, what indeed does this say about the integrity of the institution of Christianity itself? If neither logic, nor morality rooted in everyday deeds, can serve as the standard against which Christians judge themselves, how then are they to be judged by others? By a kind of theology by bumper sticker sloganeering such as: God said it; I believe it, and that settles it, etc.?

At the risk of belaboring the point I believe that the main fallacy in Pearcey's worldview construction project is setting up a false dichotomy between the secular and Christian worldviews, when in fact the more urgent dichotomy is that in the implicit split between Christian practice and morally empty unverifiable Christian self-righteousness. Said another way, the real dichotomy is between the false way Christians see themselves, versus the way they really are. Arguably Christian actions and practices are so un-Christian like, that Christianity has acquired not just a bad name, but also leaves a bad taste in the mouth of any one truly concerned about making our world a better place to live. Even beliefs and dogmas based exclusively on religious faith and that deal mostly with salvation in the next world, must have clear verifiable standards for moral practice in this world -- the very thing that Pearcey accuses secularists of not having when they rely on their post-modern moral relativity.

But is this not precisely what Pearcey herself does when she allows special pleading for wayward Christians, and when she tries to stratifies the so-called bad Christians out of existence? According to her calculus, only the good Christians really count as real Christians. But even this restricted group is not to be judged by their worldly deeds and practices, or by what is in their hearts, only by the narrowest tenets for practicing their faith: blind belief in Christian theology, consistent practices of Christian rituals, prayer and reading the scriptures, but apparently not living a life that emulates that of Christ. Only this latter criteria -- living a life that emulates that of Christ -- could represent a revolution in worldviews, but this is precisely the one criterion that scares the bejesus out of most Christians.

I am afraid that piety without deeds, beating the old "secular strawman" to death, feigning a pious attitude while practicing as much hypocrisy as the moral traffic will bare, parsing Christianity into its good and bad parts, and then beating the secular world over the head with Bibles, does not quite qualify as a serious enough faith to justify expansion into other human realms. It is difficult to overcome the fact that the most devout Christians, however defined, are still also counted among the most narrow-minded, the least tolerant, and the most un-Christ like people one is likely to find. Somehow, despite their dismal track record of deeds, most Christians, including Ms. Pearcey, seem completely oblivious to the un-Christ-like reality practiced by Christians themselves. This is so curious for theologians considering a worldview expansion?

In the end, Christian weaknesses have nothing at all to do with secularism or a secular worldview. The argument between Darwinism and Intelligent Design is a contrived one. It is a smoke screen for Christians, who are failing on their own self-defined turf: morality and how to make this world a better place to live. The Christian worldview has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with the historically internally inconsistent practice of Christianity itself; between the hypocrisy of Christian talk and the empty proselytizing that is companion to everyday Christian practice.

In sum, the problem with the Christian worldview is that, leaving aside theology and religious dogma, the Christian worldview is superfluous. It remains indistinguishable from a mostly mean-spirited secularized ideology posing as theology. Until actual moral deeds begin to replace empty piety, the Christian worldview has nothing new to offer. The Christian emperor will remain without clothes. Until religious practice begins to catch up with and overtake religious self-righteousness, there is no justifiable need to expand the Christian worldview into other areas.

Under such circumstances, Pearcey's move amounts to little more than an empty political move, not a religious one. It is an attempt at a power grab under unearned divine authority. In any other arena but the religious one, this would be interpreted as unwarranted arrogance -- that would itself be deemed very un-Christian like.

Christians have always had a final test to arbitrate the worth of their religion and their worldviews if they would only use it: It is, what would Christ do in the same situation? Would Christ be thinking about a political power move, or about getting the Christian house in order? I think the answer is obvious.

Five stars.

for more information click here

Much needed in a confusing world

Even if you're not a philosopher, you need to read this book. It's a careful look at the source of different attitudes and ideas that have developed over the centuries. It will help you understand a LOT of popular culture and thinking. If you feel a little lost after a couple of chapters, keep going; she explains everything further on. I think every parent and every teen should read this book and get the discussions going.

Brilliant Guide to the Modern Thought Battle

Pearcey provides a well-thought-through explanation of the contrast between post-modern thought and a Christian worldview. Each chapter contains numerous footnotes, which point one to source material and add to the book's credibility. It also contains a "further reading" section, which was helpful to me in knowing where to go to next. A study guide is also available on Pearcey's Total Truth website.

for more information click here

Truthfully? Definitely aptly put.

I found this book to be a very thoughtful and well presented synopsis of the prevailing condition of worldviews of religion and values. It touches the heart of creation, the fall, and redemption. The historical progression of the two tiers and the resulting implications though seemingly a heavy read are made understandable.

Pleased