Would human rights emerge from a civilization-scale Bible Belt? Does the Bible Belt represent the historic sweep of Christianity?
The answer is: No, on all accounts.
The Bible Belt would NOT BE a very nurturing cradle in which to raise human rights. In fact, they would probably die of neglect—or something worse.
But tragically, most in the Bible Belt don’t know this. And even professors of ethics and public theology in the Bible Belt don’t know this.
They don’t know this because they still don’t understand how much their own persistent “fundamentalism” continues to affect this variety of so-called evangelicalism, especially as it comes from the South—the Bible Belt.
Context: Trying to Score “Culture War” Points
Professor Andrew Walker of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) suggested that the Bible Belt writ large was the cradle for the doctrine of human rights.
Walker said this as a summary of secular historian Tom Holland’s reminder that human rights as an idea flows from specifically Christian commitments, commitments that the civilization of China and India don’t really share (on these points I agree with Tom Holland. I just disagree with how professor walk applies them).
Walker, no doubt, is attempting to score “culture war” points against progressive Christians who happily give upon the specifics of Christianity and against secularists hoping to rid the world of (backward) Christian values.
Reading between the lines, professors like Andrew Walker want to remind progressives that the church is not the bastion of bigotry bent on destroying human rights.
Instead, it is only a Christian civilization that has both imagined universal human dignity and institutionalized this idea as human rights. And they point to a secular historian like Tom Holland to prove their point.
Hot Take Critics Might Say…(Followed by what I think is the real issue)
Many would object that the Bible Belt is hardly an ideal example.
The Bible Belt has yet to fully separate itself from its racist past which emphatically did not respect the fully dignity or rights of enslaved Africans.
In fact, the idea of the Bible Belt as a distinguishable region (in the South) reflects commitment to ideals contrary to universal human dignity and rights.
David French has made this all painfully clear while talking about those who pine after “the good old days when we were a Christian nation.”
But this misses the point…
…because the values of Christianity spread through a Roman Empire that was just as dominating and terrifying as racism in the America.
So it is possible that human rights could emerge from the Bible Belt, just like through the ancient church a different value system emerged within the Roman Empire.
Is the Bible Enough to Grow Human Rights?
Basically, it seems that professor Walker was trying to show that a commitment to the Bible and the fundamentals of Christian faith would ensure the growth of human rights.
“It is not the inherent or historical virtue of the Bible Belt as a culture or civilization, it is the commitment to God’s word that makes all the difference,” some might say.
That is the point professor Walker was undoubtedly making.
Why A Fundamentalist Belief in the Bible IS NOT Enough to Grow Human Rights
The trouble with the Bible Belt as a stand in for Christianity (especially the more ancient and non-Western versions), is that the Bible Belt is DEFINITELY NOT representative of Christianity.
It is a particular product of modernity, born from and in response to the soil of Enlightenment liberalism, and for that very reason has lost the necessary nutrients to grow universal human rights.
The fundamentalism of the Bible Belt has (at least) 5 interlocking elements to it:
- Biblicism
- Independent Brain
- Anti-Science
- Substitutionary Atonement
- Culture War Mentality
(I cover this all in Deconstructing Fundamentalism without Destroying Faith).
Professor Walker’s claim is a move within #5 (Culture War Mentality) by valorizing #1 (Biblicism as the literalistic commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture).
But it is #2 (Independent Brain) which causes all the problems.
Independent Brian
Generally, the Bible Belt (its leaders and institutions) emphasizes the independent brain in that…
- Ideas are more important than emotions and bodies.
- Ideas are the standard of Christian orthodoxy.
- Individuals are more important that communities, institutions, and traditions.
- Individuals, guided by their individual consciences, can interpret the Bible.
- Individuals, guided by their individual consciences, are the standard for morality (not the government or tradition).
Anti-Sacramental, Anti-Institutional, Anti-Tradition
This “individual brain” focus, coupled with Enlightenment rationalism, flowed into an anti-sacramental, anti-institutional, and anti-traditions mindset.
Anti-sacramental means that the world (generally or specifically) does not mediate the presence or experience of God. God is only found in the Bible (or for some, in the church).
This anti-sacrament view is also an anti-institutional and an anti-tradition view.
Fundamentalists of the Bible Belt deliberately cuts itself off
- from an intimate experience of creation (affirming an idea about creation without allowing creation [and therefore humans] to be a conduit of divine presence),
- from the institutions of community (affirming that individuals interact in these institutions but otherwise don’t need them),
- from the past by endlessly reinventing the present (while pretending that it alone is faithful to God).
The Bible Belt is More Liberal Than It Knows
The irony is that so-called defenders of the Bible Belt remain blind to the fact that modern fundamentalism is so closely aligned to the modern, Enlightenment values even though fundamentalist feel like they are always fighting it.
Knowledge:
Like Enlightenment liberalism, fundamentalists value certainty through foundations (for them it is the Bible rather than human reason) and method (for them it is literalistic interpretation of the Bible rather than the scientific method).
Individualism:
Like Enlightenment liberalism, fundamentalists values individuals over all else. They critique all institutions and traditions as a potential (or actual) violation of individual sovereignty (the right to rule oneself in all things).
Rights (not duties or character):
Like Enlightenment liberalism, fundamentalists values the individual and social rights due to them (yes, “social” right, because “religious liberty” as applied to public gatherings is a social as well as an individual right).
What Can Save Human Rights (and Democracy)?
Walker might object that what I call succumbing to Enlightenment liberalism is actually the fruits of a Biblical worldview.
But this is not that case, otherwise Christians all around the world would look like the Bible Belt (and that is patently false).
Or Walker might say that fundamentalist shouldn’t be criticized for valuing human rights if it is Christianity that developed the very idea.
But I would say that the idea (and implementation) of human right was part of a Christian worldview that was sacramental, institutional, and tradition-based (it was an embodied faith). All these aspects worked together to craft the idea that individual human beings made in God’s image should be valued as such in all their relationships.
I could go on…
But it is enough to say that the Bible Belt would not be a very nurturing cradle in which to raise human rights.
Human rights would die of neglect, or something worse.
If you are in the process of deconstructing faith, please check out my 5 fundamental shifts to make while deconstructing.