The Vice of Pride and the Culture War

Pride is at the root of so much that is wrong in us and in our world. It rears its head in so many different ways. And as I said in my last newsletter, speaking about pride, especially the pride of others, is a spiritually tricky thing to do.

But perhaps tricky is the wrong word, maybe spiritually risky, or even dangerous? I’m not sure, but I am sure that pride is an issue for us all, including me. It is easy to find pride in others, and easy to overlook it in ourselves. So, while I recognize the dangers here, and while I want pride to become more and more foreign to my character, I also believe that we must address pride individually and corporately. It is in that spirit that I offer the following thoughts about the vice of pride and the culture war.

Reinhold Niebuhr discusses several distinct types of this vice, three of which are exacerbated by adopting the culture war paradigm.[1]

The first is intellectual pride. This form of pride is related to our finitude as human beings and our susceptibility to ideological bias. This bias is rooted in our failure to account for our fallibility as knowers and the influence of self-interest on us in our quest for truth. We fail to see our own cognitive limitations, but we see them very clearly in others when this form of pride is present. We pretend that our own claims are the final and ultimate truth, while in fact they too are influenced by our perspective and ideological influences.

Consider how the culture war feeds into this form of pride. In recent years, you can find single individuals who have deep convictions about all of the following issues, often rejecting the consensus of experts: immunology, virology, the efficacy of face masks, 5G wireless technology, public health, international relations, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, voting machine technology, the results of the 2020 election, race and racism in America, critical race theory, Marxism, and global climate change. It is one thing to have opinions about all of these things, but it is quite another to have firm and deep convictions about all of them, especially when in many cases those convictions reject the consensus of experts and are consistent with one’s pre-existing beliefs. The culture war encourages—even demands—just this sort of thing, and therefore encourages the formation of intellectual pride in those who adopt this approach.

A second form of pride described by Niebuhr is moral pride. We exemplify moral pride when we condemn others for failing to live by our moral standards, standards which we take to be God’s and therefore beyond question. But there is an arbitrariness to these standards that we fail to see, according to Niebuhr, as a result of our human finitude and the stubborn pretension we possess as morally proud persons.

We see moral pride in the polarization that exists in American society, and in segments of the American church, too. Consider one Christian author’s criticisms of those who disagree with them on issues related to gender both in and out of the church. This person has claimed that using a person’s preferred pronouns – “transgendered pronouns”, as they put it – is sinful in many ways, and that at least some of those who disagree are heretics:

• Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against the ninth commandment.

• Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against image-bearing.

• Using transgendered pronouns discourages a believer’s progressive sanctification and falsifies the gospel.

• Using transgendered pronouns cheapens redemption, and it tramples on the blood of Christ.

• Using transgendered pronouns fails to love my neighbor as myself.

My point here is not to argue about whether or when Christians should use a person’s preferred pronouns. My point is that these words exemplify taking one’s own standards on something that has at least some shades of gray to be God’s standards and beyond question, and to condemn those who disagree as heretics. And while I find no joy in stating it, this approach arguably exemplifies the moral pride described by Neibuhr. This is only one example of many who have influence, with people following their lead in both the content and rhetoric of the culture war.

Moral pride can produce a third form of pride, spiritual pride. For Niebuhr, this is the worst form of not only pride, but of all sin, because it includes explicit self-deification. God is the “exclusive ally”[3] of the spiritually proud. In this form of pride, the individual believes that they possess revelation from God. But this alone is not sufficient for such pride. It is this, combined with the belief that one is better than, superior to, and more significant than others because they possess that revelation. In this form of pride, I see God as for us and against them.

One thing that is both a cause and effect of such pride is the use of dehumanizing and derogatory language about other human beings, disregarding their status as image-bearers of God. Consider the adoption of the language of “invasion” for immigration by many American Christians as one example. Worse, Houston megachurch pastor Ed Young, in a sermon about the parable of the lost sheep in Luke’s gospel, claimed that other countries are not sending their huddled masses longing to be free. Instead, he contends that they are sending prisoners and gang members, referring to immigrants as “garbage,” “undesirables,” and “raff.”[4]

While some think the use of such language is inconsequential, there are several reasons that it is significant, including many related to spiritual formation. First, the Scriptures are clear about the significance of speech and its connections to character (Luke 6:45; James 3:9-12). Second, the use of such language has important negative moral consequences. The use of dehumanizing language, language that minimizes or undermines the moral worth of other human beings, can yield a moral disengagement from others.[5] If my group is good, and the group we see as our enemy is bad, that enemy deserves to be harmed because they are seen as morally inferior, even dangerous, perhaps evil, and in some cases subhuman.

We see just these sorts of attitudes in American political discourse, including discourse by self-professed Christians. Such language undermines the human capacity for empathy, which is deeply connected to important Christian virtues like compassion, humility, and love. We need these, and many other virtues, not just as we engage others about hot-button issues, but more importantly as we go about our daily lives as followers of the Way.

The Way of Christ is about love, and it is about humbly putting the interests of others before our own. Some Christian culture warriors have genuine and important concerns, but mistakenly adopt a culture war paradigm of engagement. Some are simply grifters. Others seek the consolidation of power to maintain privilege. An extreme version of this is present in the thought of some Christian nationalists. At the far end of the spectrum, some Christian nationalists advocate imprisoning and even executing members of other faiths, under certain circumstances.

But the Way of Christ is about sacrifice, sometimes giving up power, and centering our lives on God, his kingdom, and the well-being of all. As George Marsden puts it,

“Christians of all people should not first be looking how to promote their own social subgroup or to promote only the welfare of other Christians, but should first be seeking how to address the common good.” [6]

Amen.

---

In my next newsletter, we’ll take a look at the problem of distraction and the spiritual life.

For more on these and related issues, check out my latest book:

---

[1] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol. I (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 186-203. See my Humility and Human Flourishing (Oxford University Press, 2018), 171-177 and Humility: Rediscovering the Way of Love and Life in Christ (Eerdmans, 2024), 64-68.

[2] https://www.reformation21.org/blog/why-i-no-longer-use-transgender-pronouns-and-why-you-shouldnt-either

[3] Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, 201.

[4] https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/ed-young-anti-immigration-sermon-18692233.php

[5] Franco V. Trivigno, “A Virtue Ethical Case for Pacifism,” in Michael W. Austin, ed. Virtues in Action (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 86-101.

[6] Jerry A. Pattengale, Todd C. Ream, and Christopher J. Devers, Public Intellectuals and the Common Good: Christian Thinking for Human Flourishing (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), ix–x.