|   Click here to
  | Humanism in Scripture
    and CultureRecovering a Balance
Dennis Bratcher In much of evangelical Christianity, the term "humanism" or "humanistic" 
    has come to mean nearly the opposite of "Christian," indicating a person or 
    an attitude that leaves God aside in favor of elevating human reason as the 
    measure of all truth. "Secular humanism" has been associated with the almost 
    totally rationalistic mentality associated with the ascendancy of scientific 
    methodology and naturalism in the first three decades of the twentieth 
	century, a 
    perspective that often did tend to leave God out of consideration.  The term 
    has more recently been popularized by Jerry Falwell in the latter part of 
		the twentieth century who used it to refer to 
    a whole segment of culture that he understood to be in direct opposition to 
    Christianity. However, totally apart from the existence of such a segment of 
    culture, this use of the term "humanism" is not only imprecise, it does not 
    do justice to a balanced understanding of both the Old Testament and the 
    historic Christian faith, as well as an important dimension of Wesleyan 
    theology. To use the term humanism in this way 
    reveals a misunderstanding of the term and confuses it with secularism       
    or atheism. The term humanism is not 
    interchangeable with either secularism or atheism. To avoid confusion, we need to nail down some basic meanings. 
    Secularism       
    is the "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious 
    considerations" (Webster’s). This, by definition, is what would 
    stand opposed to Christianity. Atheism 
    takes this a step further is maintaining "the disbelief in the existence of 
    deity" (Webster’s). Secularism simply does not consider religion or God as a 
    factor in human affairs, while atheism actively denies the existence of God, 
    which would render religion irrelevant (this is slightly different from 
    agnosticism, which holds that we cannot know whether there is a 
    God or not). Although these two terms are of different degrees, in relation 
    to the Christian Faith they mean virtually the same thing: a perspective 
    that does not consider God to be of any concern for how people live their 
    lives. Humanism, however, in its basic 
    meaning has nothing to say one way or the other about God or religion. 
    Humanism is simply a concern with things human, especially with literature, 
    the arts, and the humanities ("the branches of learning, as 
    philosophy and language, that investigate human constructs and concerns as 
    opposed to natural processes, as physics and chemistry," Webster’s). The 
    emphasis here is "human concerns," which would certainly include religion, 
    but also include a wide range of other endeavors that relate to human 
    existence. In this context, even the study of Scripture and theology are 
    humanistic endeavors, which is why Religion departments in universities 
    often come under a division of humanities. Humanism arose as a concern and a discipline largely as a reaction 
    against the medieval period in which almost all the emphasis was on the 
    supernatural, mostly in the form of magic and the demonic. (I find it 
    interesting that many of the very people in modern Christianity who want to exclude 
    any humanism, also tend to want a great deal of emphasis on the demonic). 
    Humanism became a central principle of the Renaissance by the fourteenth century 
    and helped foster the Enlightenment in Europe. In fact, it helped lay the 
    foundation for the sixteenth century Reformation, as Luther began to see that 
    people could themselves read and understand Scripture and think 
    theologically apart from the divine authority of the church. In this sense, a person can be a devoted Christian and be a humanist, as 
    was Erasmus of Rotterdam (late fifteenth century), credited with being one of the 
    first Christian humanists of the "modern" era. Among other things, Erasmus 
    wanted to study the Greek text of the New Testament on the basis of the 
    texts themselves apart from how the church said they ought to read. He was also a vocal opponent of tradition as truth. Erasmus represented a new 
    concern with history and language that focused on the human dimension rather 
    than trying to explain everything in terms of divine decree or by the 
    authority of the church or prevailing political powers. But even though humanism was a new intellectual movement in the fifteenth 
    century, it was by no means a new perspective on how to view the world. 
    There is a great deal of humanism in Scripture, for example in the Wisdom 
    traditions of Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Job, and Ecclesiastes, as well as 
    in some sections of the torah that deal with social relationships.  We are so used to taking a prophetic perspective in thinking about 
    Scripture, in which a prophet simply speaks for God, or using the authority 
    of Jesus or Paul as the model for the authority of Scripture, that we forget 
    there are other voices and other perspectives in Scripture. The wisdom 
    traditions operate on a different level than a "God said" approach to life 
    (see The Character of Wisdom: An Introduction to Old 
    Testament Wisdom Literature). The basic perspective of Wisdom is that 
    God created the world as a place for human existence. As such, all of human 
    existence is lived under God, under a "sacred canopy." This is simply a 
    metaphor to describe the essence of the theological theme of wisdom: "The 
    reverence of God is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov 1:7). Since God is 
    Creator, there is nothing that falls outside of God’s domain. Therefore, a concern with things human, such as literature and poetry, 
    the socialization of children, public manners, propriety and prudence in 
    conduct, the training of public leaders, even human sexuality and family 
    relationships, were important aspects of living in God’s world. Wisdom does 
    not address the human condition from the divine perspective but rather from 
    the perspective of human needs and concerns. It gives expression to the way 
    things are, not how they should be. It is descriptive not prescriptive. 
    Wisdom grapples with understanding the world, and is concerned with choosing 
    the proper course of action for well being in life ("the two ways," cf. Psa 
    1). From this perspective, Wisdom is humanistic, but it a sacred or 
    sacral humanism in which every aspect of wisdom thought is 
    undergirded with the fundamental assumption that we live in God’s world, 
    under God’s order, and toward God’s purposes. A modern expression of this, 
    although in a little different direction, is the saying "all truth is God’s 
    truth." So, while we can speak of a more rational approach of wisdom, even a 
    humanistic approach to truth (meaning "concerned with humanity"), it was 
    never secular. In wisdom thinking, 
    service of God comes by finding out how God has created the world to work, 
    and then living in harmony with that order of creation.  The wisdom writers did not necessarily perceive everything that happened 
    in the world as good. They approached the whole issue of human 
    existence from a different direction. They knew, for example, that a lot of 
    pain comes from interpersonal relationships, such as marriage. Something 
    needed to change to correct that. But their answer was not to impose law, 
    but carefully to instruct the young in what is involved in marriage, the 
    responsibilities it entails, and the consequences of not choosing wisely 
    (cf. Prov 1:8f). On one level, they did not need a "thus says Yahweh" for 
    this. What they needed was people who were sensitive to all those aspects of 
    life, who were willing to listen to the experience and wisdom of others, and 
    people who were willing to teach others. It is in this sense, with the 
    concern for human existence and for the things that affect human life, that 
    the biblical perspectives are humanistic. Now, as far as the relation between humanism and secularism and atheism, 
    this is where the confusion occurs. Almost all 
    secularism is humanistic; if one assumes there is no God or that 
    he is irrelevant in the world, they are left with only humans as a focal 
    point. But not all humanism is secularism.          
    Humanism can be sacral as well as 
    secular. It is not that humanism itself is bad; only that it can 
    be perverted into a perspective that eliminates God. There is always a 
    danger in humanism that the human can overshadow the divine, that human 
    endeavor and achievement can be seen as the goal of human existence, and 
    therefore the criteria of truth.  But that does not come because it is 
    humanistic. It comes because a secularist or an atheist, or even a Christian 
    who does not really understand the heart of the Faith, eliminates God from 
    consideration and uses it that way.  But when a Christian or a theist 
    who assumes God at work in human affairs from the beginning uses humanism, 
    then it becomes a sacral humanism that sees human life operating under the 
    sacred canopy of God as Creator. I think it is a mistake and a misreading of culture to label most 
    everything that does not fit within certain definitions of "religion" or 
    "truth" as "humanism." "Humanism" is not in and of itself negative, 
    especially since a significant collection of biblical material takes that 
    approach (Walter Brueggemann, one of Christianity's most well known biblical 
	scholars, entitled a book on the theology of the Wisdom 
    traditions In Man We Trust: The Neglected Side of Biblical Faith). 
    We could even track here the humanistic perspectives of John Wesley that contrast 
    so readily with his opponents, especially in the dimension of human freedom 
    and the responsibility to live out a holiness of heart in life. It is that 
    very kind of humanism under the sacred canopy that directs our attention as 
    Christians to the needs of the world around us rather than being content 
    with introspection and personal salvation in isolation from the rest of 
    humanity. So, to use the term humanistic to mean "not-Christian" reflects a 
    misunderstanding of some of the perspectives of Scripture itself.  And 
    even to tag the label "secular" onto humanistic concerns in order to 
    discount them reflects as much ideology as does agnosticism or atheism, or 
    even the misplaced mysticism of modern New Age culture.  It has the 
    effect of settling for labels rather than dealing with the more complicated 
    theological issues, and may even put some at risk of misunderstanding or not 
    being able to hear all of Scripture. At this point rather than simply using the word humanism as a way to name 
    the "demons" that threaten to posses our children and our culture, we need 
    properly to distinguish whether we are speaking about secularism or atheism, 
    or whether we are referring neutrally to humanism as that which is of 
    concern to human beings. Perhaps our named demons are not as demonic as we 
    like to think. It’s easier to deal with a complex world if everything 
    outside of our own "safe" environment can be named as demonic with labels 
    like humanistic. Recall the notation on medieval maps at the edge of the 
    known world: "Here there be dragons." Now, we know that what lay in that 
    demonic realm was the New World of the Americas. The same may be true with 
    humanism. Understood and used properly, with a proper balance between human 
    effort and God’s work, it may provide us more opportunity than it does 
    threat. -Dennis Bratcher, Copyright ©      
    2018, Dennis 
    Bratcher - All Rights ReservedSee Copyright and User Information Notice
 | Related pages Biblical Realism as Faith:
		The Wisdom and Psalms Traditions Character of Wisdom          
      
    Bible in the Church Issues in Ministry         
    The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers), 
    especially the section The Dangers of 
    Arminianism |