3 minute read
These days there doesn’t seem to be much atheist progressives on the Left and fundamentalist Christians on the Right agree upon. Since launching The Sacred Humanists this past summer, however, I’ve stumbled upon a point of convergence. Based upon a fair bit of private feedback that has come my way, it seems both sides agree that the term “humanism” has a connotation of being anthropocentric rather than theocentric; this is, humanism implies a worldview of being man-centered rather than God-centered. Therefore, isn’t sacred humanism an oxymoron? Isn’t it an internally contradictory name that’s confused at best and nonsensical at worst? No doubt it is unsurprising that I would answer these questions with a resounding “No.” I think I have reasons for that perspective, but will let readers be the judge.
Humanism first arose within a distinctly Christian cultural-historical context. While humanism has philosophical predecessors going back into ancient India, ancient China, ancient Greece, Medieval Islam, and the Icelandic Sagas, as a distinct intellectual movement it dates back to the late Middle Ages and early Modern period of the European Renaissance. For example, one of my favorite figures from this period is Erasmus of Rotterdam, known to history as the “Prince of the Humanists.” He was a brilliant 15th and 16th century Dutch philosopher, theologian, and priest. There are literally hundreds of notable Christian humanist scholars from the Renaissance era, including Catholics and Protestants alike, to say nothing of the obvious humanist influence upon artisans. This origin story most certainly does not invalidate secular humanism as a philosophical perspective, but it does make it untenable to suggest that being a person of faith and a humanist are incompatible positions. The often forgotten history of humanism proves otherwise.
The truth is, secular humanism is actually a fairly new philosophical movement. As the Wikipedia page on Christian Humanism states, “Though there is a common association of humanism with agnosticism and atheism in popular culture, this association developed in the 20th century…” This is why the adjective “secular” in secular humanism is so important. Building upon the conceptual distinction of sacred and secular where the former refers to matters of religion and spirituality whereas the latter refers to a non-religious perspective that is unconcerned with metaphysical spirituality, this critical adjective serves to pivot a particular expression of humanism away from its spiritual origins. That’s perfectly fine. I’m certainly not doggin’ on secular humanists for this perspective. As the kids say, “You do you.” They don’t get to anachronistically claim humanism in general as their own intellectual property, though. Obviously many people now assume just that, but the most pointed I will get in my criticisms is to say such rhetorical maneuvers are either ignorant or disingenuous. Humanism, as such, simply is not and never has been inherently secular. Instead I would suggest both sacred humanism and secular humanism are equally valid.
Unfortunately, today many Christians of various stripes simply don’t understand what humanism is. Knowing little to nothing about Renaissance philosophy, they hear the word “humanism” and are culturally conditioned to assume the tenants of secular humanism where humanity puts itself at the center of its life and meaning. This is then rejected off-hand as being the antithesis of Christian faith where humanity accepts its Creator at the worshiped center. The thing is, this superficial understanding actually rejects one of the most important theological beliefs that comprise the Christian faith. Namely, the imago dei, or image of God, which is the bedrock doctrine that humanity is unique among the rest of creation in having been made in God’s own image. This convictions holds that we are divinely made as His image-bearers so that we reflect our Creator. Because of this, we have immense potential to love deeply, think critically, serve others, create art, enjoy sex, revel in the beauty and wonder of the natural world, and so forth. Sacred humanism, then, is not anti-Christian. From my perspective, it’s about truly embracing the imago dei–consciously striving to live into the fullness of our humanity. It’s restoring God’s original purposes for His beloved children.
In closing, some might be wondering, ‘Why not just use “Christian humanism” instead then?’ There are three reasons. First of all, Christianity is not the only faith to believe humanity is uniquely made in God’s image. Within the Abrahamic religions, this is also affirmed by adherents of Judaism and Sufism of Islam. I don’t know if any other major world religions hold a similar belief, but I don’t see why it would necessarily be incompatible with certain others. Second, this opens The Sacred Humanist website to a diversity of religious perspectives. From the beginning I’ve been open and honest about the fact that most of our contributors profess to be followers of Jesus, but in time I hope to broaden that out and have this platform host civil interfaith discourse. Lastly, the language of “sacred humanism” is meant to subvert of the entrenched cultural expectations of those on the far Left and far Right. The very wording seems to make both sides squirm a little bit and open up new possibilities for discussion. Nothing could make me happier.
