The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, by Carl R. Trueman

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: 

Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism and the Road to Sexual Revolution,

by Carl R. Trueman, Crossway, 2020. 434pp, Kindle edition 

The other week Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick was interviewed on Times Radio. It's the job of journalists to put government Ministers on the spot by asking them tricky questions. But the nature of what constitutes a 'tricky question' changes. In this case Jenrick was quizzed on whether he agreed with his colleague, Liz Truss, the International Trade Secretary that you need to have a vagina to be a woman (see here). The Housing Secretary replied, 'I think there's a matter of biology, of course, what is a woman. I mean absolutely, I agree with Liz Truss. That's the point that she's made in the past.' Given the constraints of collective responsibility, how could Jenrick say otherwise? He knew, however, that a trap was being set and not wanting to offend the perpetually offended trans lobby, the minister qualified his words saying, 'Undoubtedly, of course we want to ensure that those people who are trans can live their life comfortably. I want everyone to be able to live their life the way they want to and be happy and to find love wherever they can do.' 

Expressive individualism 

You may be wondering how on earth we got ourselves into a position where journalists put government ministers through their paces by asking them whether women have vaginas. Since when did the basic facts of biology become a matter of political debate? Charles Taylor speaks of the 'social imaginary', a set of underlying assumptions that make beliefs plausible at any given time. In a less secular age faith in God was part of the 'social imaginary'. While a minority may have dissented, most people assumed the existence of a divine being and lived their lives accordingly. Now, not so much. These days the 'social imaginary' is limited to the immanent frame, haunted only on occasion by the sense of a transcendent realm. Similarly, the idea that a man can become a woman and just as much a woman as someone who was born female would have been regarded as nonsense until relatively recently. But now it is part of the 'social imaginary' and to dissent from that view is to attract accusations of 'transphobia', which Robert Jenrick for one was so keen to avoid. 

In this book Carl Trueman sets out how the 'social imaginary' of the Western world lent itself to the belief that a man can become a woman, or vice versa. Transgender ideology didn't emerge from nowhere. The writer traces its roots back to the 18th-century Romantic movement. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the father of Romanticism. He held that people are born free and innocent, but are corrupted by society which imposes its oppressive values on the individual in order to force to them into conformity with accepted standards of behaviour. English Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley agreed. He wanted to break free from from societal norms that were based on monogamous marriage so he could practice sexual self-expression. That was the only authentic way to live, free from outward constraints. The Romantics expected society to uphold basic moral values for the good of everyone concerned, but the emphasis was on the psychological fulfillment of the individual. 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson might call it 'cakeism', a case of  'having one's cake and eating it'. The Romantics granted the benefits of Christian ethics for society as a whole, but reserved the right to transgress the elements that hindered their self-expression. Friedrich Nietzsche saw things more clearly. If God was pronounced dead, then faith-based values ceased to have any validity. Heroic self-invention is the only way forwards. Add Karl Marx and Charles Darwin to the mix and all sense that human beings are distinct creatures with a nature bestowed upon them by God is lost. We are plastic people in a fluid world. 

Then along came Sigmund Freud to sex things up a bit. He basically thought that everything is about sex. Society enforces the suppression of the sex drive of the individual by insisting that desire is channelled through monogamous marriage. That may not necessarily be a bad thing, but if marriage is simply a social construct, people are free to deviate from its constraints if they wish. Freud had no time for belief in God, rendering marriage as a 'divine ordinance' meaningless. Taking their cue from Freud, Marxist thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse began to see patterns of oppression more in psychological than economic terms. People with sexual proclivities that deviated from the norms of society weren't so much 'depraved deviants' as victims of heteronormative oppression. 

The Romantics taught the primacy of psychological self-expression over and against the norms of society. Freud emphasised the primacy of the sexual in the realm of psychology. Marx argued that rather than being a fixed entity, human nature is shaped by the economic tides of history. Industrialisation had a profound effect on how society viewed the role of women. The rise of the machines meant that women as well as men could be employed in factories, eroding traditional gender-based distinctions. Modern medicine has made further erosion possible. Men may be given female sex hormones. They may submit to sex change surgery so that the body of a natal male is refashioned to resemble that of a woman. (DNA and internal reproductive organs aside). Expressive individualism demands that if a man feels he is really a woman, but trapped in the wrong body, his psychology trumps his biology and his gender identity must be validated by society. 'Trans women are women', get over it. 

That's what you get when the 'social imaginary' is the product of expressive individualism. Robert Jenrick's nod towards trans ideology cited earlier is a perfect case in point, 'of course we want to ensure that those people who are trans can live their life comfortably. I want everyone to be able to live their life the way they want to and be happy and to find love wherever they can do.' In this context the idea that sex is immutably rooted in biology and that biology should have something to say about sexual expression is regarded as oppressive. 

Tensions 

And so it is that in England the LGBT pressure group 'Educate & Celebrate' seeks access to schools so it can advance its mission to 'smash heteronormativity' (see here). Children are taught they can choose whether to be a boy or a girl, based on how they feel inside. Expressive individualism for kids. But there are pushbacks, especially from feminist groups whose whole outlook is based on women being oppressed by a patriarchal society on the basis of sex differences. Feminists resent the downgrading of their biological reality by men who demand to be recognised as women. They are also outraged that biologically intact males who identify as female are given access women's toilets, prisons and refuges. Parents are alarmed when it becomes apparent that their children have been exposed to the kind of trans propaganda promoted by groups such as 'Educate & Celebrate'. Even that bastion of 'muscular liberalism', Ofsted is now concerned about the influence of lobby groups on sex education in schools (see here). 

Adding the 'T' to the LGB lobby has also resulted in tensions. The gay lobby traditionally fought for rights on the basis that people don't choose to be gay or lesbian. Sexual identity, they claimed, is fixed and society should't regard same-sex attracted people as deviants who should be made to conform heterosexual norms. Trans ideology promotes the idea that sexual identity is not fixed, but fluid. If they wish, people should be able to identify as a gender that is different to their birth sex. 'Trans women are women' and woe betide anyone who says otherwise. But lesbian sexuality is based on attraction to people of the same sex, not male-bodied people who identify as women. The LGBT lobby group Stonewall is being dropped by government departments because of its attempts to silence gender critical voices and the misleading advice it gives on the Equality Act with regard to female-only spaces etc. (see here). 

True identity 

In an Unscientific Postscript Trueman looks at how things may pan out in Western culture, captured as it has been by expressive individualism. With the trans lobby labelling gender critical feminists as a bunch of no good 'TERFs' (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists), intersectionality isn't exactly providing a recipe for a more harmonious society. Free speech and with it freedom of religion is likely to come off worst when Christians voice their opposition to the LGBT agenda. After all, the 'heteronormativity' represented by traditional Christians is part of the problem and we can't have people voicing opinions that would disturb the phycological wellbeing of others. But we must stand firm and not allow the world to press us into its mould. Contra expressive individualism, people are not free to create their own identity. Human identity is a given thing, rooted in our being made in the image of God as male and female. Marriage can't simply be redefined so as to ignore that reality. The identity of the believer is not located in their sexuality, or gender identity, but in Christ. Our task is to preach him and all things in relation to him, Colossians 1:28-29. 

Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative by Carl R. Trueman

Back in the dim and distant days of the 1980's, when Mrs. Thatcher held sway over Britain, I was something of a lefty. I used to attend meetings of the local branch of the Labour Party. Together with my comrades I tut-tutted  at the "police brutality" inflicted on heroic striking miners. I felt bitterly disappointed when Neil Kinnock failed to beat Margaret Thatcher and then John Major at successive general elections. At around the same time Carl Trueman was a young Tory, which would explain his liking for Dire Straits and other awful yuppie bands.  Musically it was Billy Bragg and The Jam/Style Council for me, not Dire Straits and Duran Duran. Becoming a Christian in the mid-80's didn't alter my basic political stance, although, over time my views became more centrist, or at lest centre leftist.

Living in south Wales and witnessing as I did the drastic decline of the UK's industrial base under Thatcher and the mass unemployment caused by the closure of factories and coal mines, I was never going to fall for her "there's no such thing as society" laissez-faire capitalism. But I also realised that old-style socialist economics, with the State propping up inefficient nationalised industries like British Leyland was hardly the way forward. Despite its harshness, Thatcherism had become the new economic orthodoxy. There was no going back to the cosy, post-1945 world of the Keynsian interventionist State.

Painfully at first the Labour Party began to adjust its policies fit in with the new political climate.  Under Tony Blair, "New Labour" was launched. In a highly symbolic measure Blair had the party ditch its outdated "Clause 4", which, in theory committed a Labour government to achieving "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". New Labour embraced the power of the markets, but also saw a positive role for government as a facilitating "helping hand" for the people. This was the celebrated/much derided "Third Way" between dog-eat-dog capitalism and the common ownership of all dogs entailed by socialism. Blair made no secret of his Christian inclinations and some of New Labour's rhetoric sounded attractive to conservative evangelicals (at least this one), "rights and responsibilities", "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "education, education, education" etc. I well remember staying up late on the May 1997 election night, watching with wide-eyed wonder as Tory grandees like Michel Portillo lost their seats, helpless before the seemingly irresistible force of the New Labour electoral landslide. Ah, "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive". After the greyness and sleaze of the Major years there was hope that, in the words of Labour's election anthem, "Things can only get better." (Cue empty laughter).

For me, being "of the Left" involved wanting a fairer society, where the Government used its power to alleviate poverty and open up opportunities for the less well off to improve their lot. This was linked to a strong sense that people must take responsibility for their lives rather than live off State handouts. Thus social justice and personal responsibility go hand in hand. However, under New Labour the gap between rich and poor grew ever wider. The Government's "light touch" approach to City regulation helped to foment the casino capitalism that led to the Credit Crunch. Just read Who Runs Britain? by Robert Peston. During the Labour years family breakdown became endemic, thrusting even more people into poverty. Holding to the politically correct view that "families come in all shapes and sizes - and that's a good thing", Labour failed to recognise that stable marriages provide the glue that holds families and society together. The Government's answer to the social disorder caused by family breakdown was to slap ASBOS on tearaway teenagers and the widespread installation of CCVT cameras to keep an eye on unruly citizens. For an analysis of Labour's "Broken Britain" have a look at Red Tory by Philip Blond.

Many Christians who welcomed the dawn of Blair's New Labour project were thoroughly disillusioned by the end of the Blair/Brown years. However, it would be churlish not to recognise some of the Government's positive achievements; peace in  Northern Ireland, Tax Credits that make work pay (how many pastors would have to leave the Ministry if Tax Credits were suddenly withdrawn?), investment in public services etc. But by the end of the New Labour years Britain was a more difficult place to be a Christian. Christian adoption agencies were forced to close for refusing to place children with homosexual couples. The Government attempted to remove the right of churches not to employ gay youth workers. Why on earth did a left of centre Government seem more interested in championing "gay rights" rather than helping the poor?

Trueman provides the answer. Yes, this is ostensibly a book review rather than an account of my own political journey (if that doesn't sound too Blairite), so I'd better say something about Republocrat at this point. With the failure of Marxist economics signalled by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the consumer society, left-leaning intellectuals began to realise that what the poor wanted was not political liberation, but more stuff. Designer goods, cable TV, foreign holidays etc. In a fusion of Marx and Freud, Herbert Marcuse proposed that oppression be defined not simply as the poor being exploited by the rich, but also in psychological terms. The recognition of heterosexual marriage as "the norm" excluded gays, who then cried, "Help! We're being oppressed." Hence the Left's championing of "gay rights". This leads to perverse consequences. As noted, Christian adoption agencies, dedicated to helping some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in society had to close because their policy of only allocating children to heterosexual couples was deemed discriminatory and therefore oppressive to gays. Sadly, the Lib-Con Coalition is as committed to the cause of "gay rights" as the previous administration, with the result that Christians will not be able to decide their political allegiances on this issue alone.

As something of a lefty I've always been a bit baffled by the alliance between right wing Republicanism and conservative evangelicalism in the USA. One of Trueman's aims in this book is to pick apart the assumption that conservative evangelicalism and conservative politics are inevitable bedfellows. It is always dangerous for believers to equate their chosen political cause with the kingdom of God. Trueman rightly rejects talk of America's "manifest destiny" in world history. He denounces the so-called Patriot's Bible as a blasphemous identification of America with God's redemptive-historical purposes. Trueman warns against the slipperiness of secularisation. It may seem that America is a "more Christian" country compared with many European nations, but sometimes a veneer of religiosity is simply a cover for deeply unchristian values. What is Joel Olsteen's "gospel" of health, wealth and prosperity but a reflection of the materialistic goals and aspirations of Middle America? The Right isn't always right and (contra Max Weber) there is no necessary correlation between Calvinism and market capitalism. Capitalism may be better than Communism, but that doesn't mean that Regan and Thatcher miraculously happened upon the economics of the eschaton. Two words, "Credit" and Crunch" serve to disabuse us of any such notion.

In a chapter entertainingly entitled,  "Not-So-Fantastic Mr.Fox", Trueman deals with the political bias of US news outlets, especially Fox News, which at least some conservative Christians regard as the neutral news that tells it straight. Er, no. Fox News, which is part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire has its own right-wing populist agenda. Perhaps American Christians will be surprised to learn that Murdoch's interests include that ardent promoter of Christian values in the UK,  The Sun newspaper, with its infamous Page Three Girls. No news media is free from bias, not even good old Auntie Beeb. As BBC political pundit Andrew Marr admitted,

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.

Christians should exercise discernment in their use of news media, and not blindly follow the line of their chosen newspaper, or broadcaster. Gospel Truth is found only in the Bible, not in the Daily Mail, or the Guardian for that matter.

In Republocrat, Trueman has given us a fascinating "outsider's view"on American politics. I suspect that with his questioning of the inevitability of the link between conservative theology  and conservative  politics, his book will cause something of a stir on the other side of the Pond. It also has something to say to our situation here in the UK. After all, we are not immune from the temptation to identify our favoured political party with the cause of Christ. Witness Spurgeon campaigning for Gladstone's Liberal Party. While many Christians might be mightily fed up with the Left in the wake of the New Labour years, we mustn't go thinking that  David Cameron's "Big Society" is a manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth.

After having read this review you might be wondering what exactly Trueman's "liberal conservatism" means in terms of UK party politics. You'll have to get the book to find out. You may well be surprised/shocked/laugh out loud.

Republocrat: Confessions of a Conservative Liberal, Carl R. Trueman, P&R, 2010, 110pp.

Carl Trueman responds to Iain Murray on Packer and Lloyd-Jones

In the March edition of the Banner Magazine Iain Murray takes Carl Trueman to task for his contribution to J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of his Life and Thought, (Baker Academic, 2009). Murray, Lloyd-Jones' official biographer charges Trueman with supporting slander against "the Doctor". Over at Reformation 21, Trueman responds to Murray's strictures, here.

Lloyd-Jones was one of the towering figures in 20th century Evangelicalism and his ministry did much to stimulate the recovery of Reformed doctrine in the UK and beyond. His writings had a massive effect on my own theological development. I believe that he was right to force Evangelicals to face up to the issue of ecumenical integration in 1966. But he was no infallible oracle whose every utterance may be quoted to end all argument almost 30 years after his death. One task that faces us is the critical appropriation of Lloyd-Jones' legacy. We need to learn what we can from him and press on to face the challenges of the present time. If the discussion between Murray and Trueman helps us to do that, all well and good.

John Owen; Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl R. Trueman

John Owen; Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl R. Trueman,
The Great Theologians Series, Ashgate, 2007, 132.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the Puritans over the last fifty years or so, encouraged by the ministry of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and fuelled by the reprinting of Puritan works by the Banner of Truth trust and other publishers. At their best, Puritan writers give us great theological wisdom wedded to a concern for practical and experiential godliness. One of my first major investments in Christian literature was the Banner's 16 volume Works of John Owen. I have read large chunks of Owen, but by no means have I finished working my way through the set. Owen's On Communion with God in Volume 2 of the Works showed me more of what it means to have fellowship with the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit than anything else I have read. If those green and white volumes are simply gathering dust on your shelves, remember that books are not status symbols. They are for reading. Why not start with On Communion with God?

As Trueman notes, however, post-Reformation orthodoxy is often dismissed on account of its supposed "scholasticism". Writers like R. T. Kendall have tried to drive a wedge between John Calvin and the Calvinists who followed in his wake. But scholars such as Richard Muller and Paul Helm have shown that Calvin was happy to build on the best aspects of Medieval scholastic theology. Later Reformed Orthodoxy simply followed in his steps. One of Trueman's aims in this book is to show that theologians like Owen made critical use of sophisticated scholastic methodology in order to respond to the fresh challenges posed to the Reformed faith by the twin threats of Arminianism and Socinianism. He also repeatedly nails the myth that post-Reformation theology adopted a wooden proof-texting approach to Scripture. John Owen was a careful exegete of the biblical text. His exegesis was often characterised contextual sensitivity, a nuanced understanding of the original languages and deep theological insight.

Owen was one of the greatest, if not the greatest Puritan theologian. Indeed Trueman insists that such was the breadth of Owen's theological vision that it is too constricting simply to view him as a Puritan. His concerns transcended the typical Puritan desire to see a remodelled Church of England. For Trueman, "Puritan" is at the same time too fuzzy a category, as it embraces semi-Arians like the poet John Milton. I think this is a little unfair on the Puritan movement. Milton's views on the Trinity were an aberration fas far as mainstream Puritan thinking was concerned. Owen was certainly happy to identify himself with the Puritan cause, especially as a leader of the Independents. His The True Nature of a Gospel Church in Volume 16 of the Works is the classic statement of Congregationalist Church polity. His piety is unmistakably Puritan with a strong emphasis on the ongoing struggle with sin in the life of the believer. But Trueman is right to place the theologian in the broader context of European Reformed Orthodoxy. In a helpful introductory chapter he identifies Owen as a "Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man".

Owen was a true man of the Renaissance. In his studies at Oxford University he was schooled in the rigorous methods of medieval scholasticism. His thorough study of the biblical languages was the product of the ad fontes agenda of the Renaissance was well as the Reformed desire for a direct encounter with the words of Scripture. Owen's library catalogue gives evidence of his broad interests. His theological section boasted works from patristic, medieval, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and heretical writers. He also studied both ancient and contemporary philosophy and linguistics. He even had books on magic and warm beer. Owen hardly conforms to the culturally disengaged Puritan stereotype. This is something of a challenge to many Reformed ministers today. Our library shelves may be heaving under the ever growing weight of books published by the Banner of Truth Trust, Evangelical Press and IVP. But are we reading "outside the box", giving attention to the wider theological scene and getting to grips with contemporary cultural trends? I sometimes get the impression we are a little afraid that heresy can be caught by reading the "wrong" books. But if we fail to grapple with what is going on outside the Reformed camp, how can we meaningfully respond to the challenges of today's world? We have a lot to learn from Owen, who put his wide reading to work in the service of Reformed Orthodoxy.

In the remainder of the book, Trueman devotes attention to three important features of Owen's theology, with chapters on "The Knowledge of the Trinitarian God", "Divine Covenants and Catholic Christology" and "The Article on which the Church Stands or Falls" - on justification by faith. Owen made an important contribution to the elaboration and defence of these doctrines from a distinctly Reformed standpoint.

As a Puritan, John Owen was one of history's "loosers." His work has probably not received the attention it deserves in scholarly circles. However, to neglect Owen is to needlessly impoverish our understanding of Reformed Catholic theology. We need his rich trinitarian focus. His discussion of divine sovereignty and contingency is of help to us in formulating a response to Open Theism. Owen's remarkable insight into the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit will repay careful study. Reformed Evangelicalism would do well to reconsider Owen's carefully constructed biblical case for imputed righteousness at a time when some are questioning the validity of that important aspect of justification by faith.

This book is not to be compared with John Owen on the Christian Life by Sinclair B. Ferguson, Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. Ferguson's larger work includes a broader sweep of Owen's theology, and as the title suggests, is more practical in tone. Trueman writes with the slightly different aim of helping us to read Owen with greater historical sensitivity. Some of the theologian's writing have recently been made available in paperback with modernised English and contemporary cover designs. This development is no doubt most welcome, but we need to remember that Owen wrote from a particular historical situation. Thankfully Lessing's "ugly ditch" is in no way so deep and broad as to prevent meaningful engagement with the great theologians of the past. We still have much to learn from Owen today. Carl Trueman was served us well in placing John Owen, the Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man in his proper historical context. Above all, this book enhances our appreciation of Owen's valuable contribution to Reformed theology and so enlarges our vision of the triune God of the Gospel.