The Gospel and Philosophy

A two-voice debate on Christianity’s role in society was published by the French magazine “ Le Monde des Religions” in its March-April 2008 issue. The position of Régis Debray, philopher and scholar, author for Gallimard of “ Un candide en Terre sainte “, was confronted with that of philosopher Frédéric Lenoir, editor-in chief of the magazine. “Once liberated from dogmas and institution, Christianity could be today what it was at the beginning: pure spirituality: a self-relfecting question, with no political involvement, with no social role, completely interior”. This, according to Régis Debray, is the thesis of Lenoir’s latest essay, “ Le Christe philosophe”, whereby Christianity “more than being a religion is a philosophy” and “modernity is the fulfillment of Christianity, ‘the religion of the exit from religion'”. A Perverse effect? For Debray this is not the case: despite “the ill fate that Christianity reserved to Christ”, what would we know about Jesus today without the Church, which made Christ a posteriori , and which has been for two-thousand years the repository of faith?”, he asks. “Jesus didn’t write the Gospels, nor did he speak of dogmas”. Having said this, Debray infers that “the capitulation of this religion revealed in philosophy, although personalistic”, “veils a regrettable perverse effect”. A philosophy – he explained – “may stimulate reason, but it doesn’t shape space or time, it ignores rites and gives no imperatives”. However, since “societies aren’t made by contrasting individuals”, a “constituting and architectural force is needed to ensure cohesion”.Economic fundametalism. For this reason, he argues, “our hyper-individualistic society found for itself a religion that Ruskin prophetically called mammonism. Now that money no longer has the decency which Christianity had conferred to it, it has the insolence of personifying the architect of the universe. Isn’t this new factor of cohesion, both our god and official idol, the value above all values, the object of adoration or hatred, capable of stirring panic and enthusiasm at the same time – according to the eternal ambivalence of sacrality?”. “Financiers in place of the clergy – is Debray’s provocative scenario – profit as grace, growth as salvation, private interest as the supreme law”: this is how “economic fundamentalism is modulated, undoubtedly it’s more Protestant than Catholic”. “A morale with no society on the one side, a society without a morale on the other?”. In short, a “new moral order”, “simultaneously gorging oneself on ethics and profit”, “Placing emphasis on the individual to the detriment of the community”, is Debrais’ open question, “doesn’t it give priority to the individual leaving the collectivity to cope with its own demons?” Emancipating the individual. “Should we then long for a society ruled by Christianity, as happens today in Muslim-ruled societies?” Should we long for a society on whose altars we sacrificed individual freedom and the right to freedom of thought and religion?”, is the reply of Frédéric Lenoir. “Societies defined as ‘Christian’, which did however create great things”, claims Lenoir, “weren’t completely true to Christ’s message which on the one side advocated separation of politics and religion, and on the other gave priority to individual freedom and human dignity”. “I’m not saying that Christ intended to suppress all religions with their rights and dogmas. I believe that his message focuses on emancipating individuals from the community, giving priority to individual freedom, inner truth and personal dignity”. Conscience revolution. “Like Buddha before him, politics isn’t Christ’s primary concern”. Christ proposes “an individual conscience revolution likely to conduct, on the long run, to a change in collective consciousness”. According to Lenoir, Jesus doesn’t call “a political revolution, he calls for individual conversion”, opposing to a religious logic “founded on obedience to tradition”, a logic based on “personal responsibility”. “This conscience revolution doesn’t oppose majority religious or political beliefs – the philosopher replies to Debray – nor does it institutionalize a message of which you highlight the inescapability. It will however set a limit regarding the respect of human dignity”. This, Lenoir maintains, “is the teaching of Christ. It doesn’t erase religion, rather, it places it within three intangible principles: love, freedom, laity”. It represents “a mode of sacredness which – in my opinion – may succeed in conciliating believers and non-believers”.