Interaction and review: Mary Eberstadt’s “How the West Really Lost God”

November 8, 2013

It's not a conspiracy that things fall apart in this world—it is just entropy driven by the force of our sin. We see it everywhere; we walk among the ruins: family, marriage, faith, education and so on. But this decline doesn't happen in a vacuum. For years now, scholars have tried to understand and explain our culture's “slouching toward Gomorrah,” as Robert Bork put it.

Mary Eberstadt's (Senior Fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center) book, How the West Really Lost God, livens up the prosaic statistics we've read and heard repeatedly, injecting fresh insight and humility into the conversation about secularization theories. But unlike other works, it goes beyond the critique of these theories to a thesis which should move this important conversation forward: Family has just as much influence on religious beliefs and practices, as faith has on family formation and value. Moreover, the decline and fracturing of the family has fed the decline of religion, and Christianity in particular. Eberstadt's succinct statement: “family illiteracy breeds religious illiteracy,” should in my opinion become a driving force and the rallying cry for family oriented institutions. A force driving us to breathe deep and dive back into pouring ourselves into the war for the soul of the family in our nation. 

Eberstadt's thesis is that not only does faith drive people to family but that family drives people to faith. Her metaphor is that family and faith are the two strands of a DNA-like double helix, with the rods bridging the spiral being doctrine or the Church. She gets there by first re-examining secularization theories. Some of those theories include the claim that the comforts of religion are imaginary and that they are lost upon education and prosperity. Others blame the secularization of culture on the Enlightenment, the rise of science and rationalism, the wars, material progress, urbanization, or the industrial revolution. 

In refuting and debunking these secularization theories Eberstadt shows, through the historical record, that conventional accounts have been wrong, and that even in America these patterns undermine the idea that higher education and higher socioeconomic classes are natural enemies of religion. Moreover, and contrary to secularization theory's view, secularization is not a linear process where religion disappears slowly but surely over time; these predictions have been wrong about the decline and death of religion. In actuality, as Eberstadt demonstrates, the rates of religiosity and corresponding rates of secularization wax and wane in particular cycles. So if conventional accounts have been wrong about what is driving people away from the church; if these theories are wrong about the 'what' and the 'why' of religious decline, then what is going on? As Eberstadt has asked, what happened to take a civilization from widely respecting and believing in God to a “civilization that widely jeers him?” Her answer is the Family Factor, “a variable so humble that it has been overlooked.”

She defines the variable of the Family Factor as the effect parents in intact marriages have on religious beliefs and practice. This is what is missing, Eberstadt says, from the scholarly studies on the decline of Christianity in the West. She proceeds to draw out the connection between the health of the family and the health of religion. These, she shows, go hand-in-hand—hence, her double helix imagery. The helix ties the family to faith such that a rise in one gives rise to the other, and a decline in one creates a decline in the other. 

We can all nod in agreement that family plays a role in religious formation, or lack thereof. But what are these driving factors, which act within the family structure and function to propel parents toward faith, and to the Christian faith in particular? One of those factors, Eberstadt says, is that the Christian story tells itself through the prism of the family. Therefore, those raised in fractured or non–traditional homes will have difficulty grasping the holy family and the storyline of the gospel, there is an extra hurdle, so to speak, in their path toward the Christian God. The family teaches us values such as self-sacrifice and service for the good of others—concepts that drive people to better grasp and relate to the Christian religion. Moreover, as she points out, the birth of a child has great potential to drive parents to church—this transcendent experience alone sends mother and father searching for God. There was a time when the need for baptism sent parents to the church doors where they were embraced and taught the Christian faith. For many parents, church was an entity that catechized its young in the moral grammar necessary for participation in civil society. It could also be that parents are seeking a like–minded community within which to raise their family. The need and desire for parental support leads families to church. Perhaps even more, the effect of bringing new life into the world causes parents to probe the deeper, transcendent aspects of life.  Practically speaking, life changes and markers like marriage, birth, communion, catechism and death all used to lead families to the church. With co-habitation, out-of-wedlock births, burgeoning single parent and non-traditional households, even mixed-faith marriages, this family factor has driven the decline in religiosity.

If family drives people to faith, and faith drives people to family, where is the breakdown? The breakdown is in family formation, namely—marriage. Marriage has unraveled. It is here that Eberstadt lays out the reasons for the decline of marriage and family (e.g. easy divorce, the Pill, etc.) At one point she states that the “fallout from the centuries–long tinkering with doctrine that began with the Reformation has had one clear consequence: it has weakened the churches that attempted it. It weakened them demographically, as removing the emphasis on the family and the injunction to be fruitful and multiply has resulted in graying parishioners and empty pews across the Western world.” Although a Protestant myself, there is much to agree with in her critique of Protestant and evangelical culture; though some of her criticisms are hardly endemic to Protestantism alone. Protestant differentiation on certain sexual ethics, coupled with a Catholic laity’s lifestyle rejection of its church’s teaching has moved people away from the traditional moral teaching of the Christian faith.. This breakdown of Christian morality can be seen in people embracing pro-choice, the Pill, and varieties of adultery—“whether same-sex, opposite-sex, multipartner, or interspecies.” And she does a superb job in the beginning of the book to point to statistics both within the Catholic and the Protestant faith showing the decline in faithfulness in both camps. As she says, “there is abundant evidence that religious practice is declining among the West's Catholics as well as among its Protestants—an empirical outcome contradicting the idea that the decline of Christianity in the West is somehow just a Protestant thing.”

With regard to her critiques of the Protestant world, I agree with her assessment that the Protestant church, especially over the last century, has made many concessions to the surrounding culture. She says, “They initiated one doctrinal change after another that further weakened ties between family and church—a process that surely accelerated decline even more.” These changes or “reforms” include loosening the moral code on divorce, contraception—namely, the Pill, ordination of women and other areas of traditional moral doctrines. Eberstadt is also correct to say that much of the movement toward secularization began with countries that were primarily, if not through and through, Protestant (e.g. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and so on). But the slow creep of liberalism and doctrinal shifts have run roughshod over the Christian conception of the family all over the West. Certainly there are swaths of the Catholic Church where divorce and birth control, for example, are soft-pedaled despite official policies that insist otherwise. And the blame for watered–down doctrine on the traditional moral code of Christianity lies equally in both camps of Christendom, whether Protestant or Catholic. Protestants may have shifted their theology, but lay Catholicism bucks its own magisterium, where now, a great number of ordinary Catholics ignore its church’s teaching on sexuality, particularly regarding contraception. After all, it wasn't long after Humanae Vitae that some in the Catholic Church voiced their dissent (e.g. the Winnipeg Statement).

We can take Eberstadt's work in How the West Really Lost God, and use it to move the conversation forward by exploring questions on the historical tides of the Church. I think the variable of the Church itself should be researched as it relates to the family's sway and influence in society. In other words, at which historical points has the Church contributed stronger families to society and at which historical points has the Church allowed the weakening of families? How can Eberstadt's Family Factor help us re-build the institution of marriage and families?

Overall, How the West Really Lost God was a fantastic book with a lot to contribute to our current discussions of faith, family and culture. I highly recommend it. Since finishing the book and contemplating Eberstadt's ideas, my thoughts have turned to Monica, the mother of Saint Augustine. She was a woman in a mixed-faith marriage—her husband was a pagan. A devout Christian woman and a great intercessor for her son, she had the support of Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. We know that Augustine eventually became a Christian under the teaching of Ambrose and was baptized by him. We see, as Eberstadt rightly claims in her thesis, that faith and family are intertwined. Whether in the year 387 or the year 2013, God indeed uses the family to bring mothers, fathers, sons and daughters to the Faith. 

This gives me hope—hope for the future of the family and the Church. After all, the family was created by God for the flourishing of humankind. 

Luma Sims

Luma Simms is an associate fellow of the Philos Project, whose mission is to promote positive Christian engagement in the Middle East. Her work has appeared in First Things, Public Discourse, The Federalist and many others. Her educational background includes a Bachelor of Science Degree in physics from California State Polytechnic … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24