Though it's an aytipically slow response, in the realm of blogging, for me now to respond to Jeremy's post on Wednesday, this really represents great personal efficiency on my part, as it involves first, picking up the recent Harper's, and second, sitting down to my laptop.[1] But a Note first, about Jeremy's comment that "denizens here are attempting to chart, through the law and other avenues, some of the difficult path of non-belief." I am not one of Jeremy's fellow cartographers: neither non-beliver nor libertarian describes me.

Jeremy wrote:

Christianity is precisely about Christ's resurrection, that is to say the belief in divinity's presence in and rupture of the material world. This is not to argue, contra Ms. Welborn, that Christianity is about the miracles. There is a danger in monism of either flavor. But she has it eminently right when she points out that the Christian ethic is not particularly original or captivating. To be a Christian without believing in the Resurrection is to be a Good Samaritan. Which is of course perfectly fine (better sheep than goat); so why the need to appropriate Christ?

Whether a doctrine is captivating is a personal matter: it is as fruitless for me to argue with Jeremy about whether Christianity, or libertarianism, is captivating as it is fruitless for me to argue with a 6-foot-plus fellow whether 1995 Accords are larger than a car should be. To say that the Christian ethic is not particularly original is, what, to get into a discussion on Zorastrianism? Nor do I think a lack of originality is a fault if a millenia-old universal and fundamental ethic should be perpetuated on the basis of its truth. But on to Resurrection and Good Samaritans, and how to talk about Christianity.

By chance, my Metro reading last week included Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. I rely on that book for most of the ideas herein, and repeat what I've learned from it because I presume few of you will go in search of the book itself. There is a significant theological divide in Christianity about the location of Christ's kingdom (Reece's article in Harper touches on some of the same points). Postmillenial theology emphasizes the need for believers to create 'cities of God on earth' through their good works in order for Christ to reign for a millenia, and then return in judgment. Premillenial theology teaches that first, Christ will take the saints out of the world in the event publicized as the rapture; then Christ will have his millenial reign. In premillenial theology, there is no need to create a kingdom of God in this world, because it is located in the future; trying to create such a perfect world may indeed delay the coming.

I'm no Biblical scholar; I don't know where early Protestant traditions, such as Calvinism, fit within this dichotomy (and, apologies, I simply don't know much about Catholic theology beyond the Rule of Benedict). But this I think I do understand: postmillenial theology sees good works, including those undertaken outside of the church and focused on ends other than conversion, as acts undertaken in service of that greater, religiously-defined, faith-mandated good. The reason for undertaking these acts is rooted in religion.

The 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, in whom events have caused me to take an interest, preached the postmillenial theology: the act of conversion to Christianity, and of being a Christian, requires that one undertake good works for the benefit of others' welfare. These reforms of the world were a part of revivals, and conversions could be hindered if the church and those within it did not make themselves the church of those in need. Prominently at this time, evangelicals of this strain worked for abolition; poverty, feminism, and prohibition were other worldly political manifestations of this call. Finney also denied the Calvinist doctrine that only certain people are "elect": God is willing to save everyone who comes to him.

This is huge. This isn't a miracle-centered Christianity, but nor is it a moral or ethical system outside of Christ. Good works, charity, and benevolence can be justified on many grounds, both within and outside of religion. Postmillenial teachings unite faith and works, and say that either is incomplete without the other.

I don't know---that is to say, I have no idea what would count as definitive proof on this matter, and I haven't undertaken a serious course of study on this matter---whether postmillenialism or premillenialism (or none of the above) is correct. I have my hopes as to which one is, and I'm willing to try to act in service to some ideas and not others. There are some things that I doubt anything would convince me to endorse. But unlike Jeremy, I don't think fear of Revelation is required (threats of hellfire, like many of Posner's apocalyptic catastrophes, do not motivate personal action on my account.[2]). Instead, I see hope of a better world and a message of personal responsibility that can be accepted without religious grounds, but which gains additional purpose and purchase through religion.

* * *

[1] I am prompt with actual commitments--showing up reliably early for work---but a lackadaisical procrastinator when it comes to less required matters, like that pesky matter of doing something about dinner. If it cannot be read in a conveniently available form on the Metro, chances are I haven't gotten around to it yet. If it it requires the use of my computer, a post office, a shopping mall, or a camera, it's near-hopeless; the CD-burner is a lost cause.

[2] I spend 40 hours a week attempting to raise the fear of WMD proliferation in others, among other concerns. Nada. But I'm glad someone takes it seriously.