Review of _The Post-American World_ by Fareed Zakaria, Norton, 2009.
Fareed is an Indian who decided to stay in America after getting his post-secondary education here. His current job is with Newsweek magazine. He captures much about America's position within the world with regard to economics, foreign policy, politics, etc. His story paints a picture of progressive thinking, i.e., strong central governments which have firm control of the nation in those subjects mentioned above. He has an optimistic view of humanistic planning and downplays religion.When religious differences among nations surface he views that as being either minor or unnecessarily ugly.
His topic is huge. As a result, in one book of just under 300 pages he can include only the details which corroborate his views. Fareed does this well. Obviously, he overlooks many details which don't fit his own world-view.
Why did I take time to read a book written by a non-Christian? The short answer is because my son asked me to. However, after reading, and being inside the context of Fareed's worldview, I decided it was worth it.
What did I learn? Although Fareed never defines his own worldview, it appears to be secular humanism. Based on his writing he appears to be agnostic in his own belief about God. From Fareed I learned that it's hopeless to attempt to talk about morality as being a derivative of one's religion to someone of this worldview. In his thinking man interprets something (what that is remains subjective and undefined often involving compromise) as a definition of good an devil. In civil matters collective man (humanist) must come to some moral decision but it is a democratic process and thus subjective. What is good (or evil) today may not be tomorrow. What's good (or evil) in the Chinese culture may coexist with a different good (or evil) definition in America. A Christian may claim to have their morality based on the Bible but to someone like Fareed this is nonsense. Reading between the lines, perhaps Fareed believes the only role of religion would be that some religious (church) creed is the dictator of one's moral beliefs, i.e., an ecclesiastic humanist morality. Thus, in his belief someone who considers a religious moral belief to equal civil morality is delusional or certainly misguided.
Do Christians really expect civil morality to come from the Bible? Is there such a thing as a moral standard which God expects man to put in place within those (self as well as various civil) governments over him? These are not new questions. In fact, the strong 'yes' to the former question but the differing answers to the latter are what distinguished the 13 original colonies from one another in early America. But something happened over the years. Today most Christians in America don't take seriously Hebrews 5:14, which commands the mature believer to distinguish good from evil. Most Christians view civil morality as being secular "humanist" to some degree.There is no counting how many Christians I have heard repeat that phrase "separation of church and state" to justify having a secular civil government. Some may claim to want a biblical moral civil law, but (probably) not really. The immature Christian's action doesn't square with their stated belief. So, how should a mature Christian confront a humanist thinker such as Fareed, or even an immature Christian? An acceptance of Christ as (civil) King cannot begin with Matthew 28:18 or Romans chapter 13. Instead, the approach the Apostle Paul took (Acts chapter 17) to explain Christianity to the thinkers in his day is the right one. His discussion started with creation (vs 24) then went to the fall (vs 30), where good and evil fits in, then to redemption (vs 31).
I also understand a bit more of the squishy religion called Hinduism. Perhaps the best way to explain it is that Hinduism allows any and all religious views so long as they are not fanatical. In other words it allows, even encourages,inoculation(s) but don't ever get a particular full blown"disease". This explains why my conversations with Hindus often lead to how much my Savior, Jesus Christ, means to me but with a response of "yes, I believe that too" in reply.
Fareed reminded me of the ideal government, mentioning a benevolent King or dictator as the best form of civil government.
What did I learn from what Fareed *didn't* say? As a self-confessing non-Christian he denies the possibility of anyone having a personal relationship with the Divine. He doesn't come right out and say a belief in God is bad or dangerous but his discourse always suggests the avoidance of the Divine is the better choice. He suggests that neither Japan nor China is "immoral" but rather that only certain human rights maybe different from the West's. I suppose China's one-child policy or willingness to trade with governments known to murder their own people, e.g. Zimbabwe, which Fareed mentioned, is "moral". He mentions that Enlightenment philosophers had adopted Confucianism as a good thing but never discusses the bloodbath of the French Revolution that resulted from this line of thinking. Fareed quotes the Rig Veda, the Hindu Creation Hymn. In spite of God "creating" the human with a mind to understand "Creation", the Hindu tosses this ability and desire aside in an agnostic way. In contrasting this view with the Book of Genesis he claims "Hindus are deeply practical" when doing trade or commerce internationally. Thus, by extension, are those who take the Book of Genesis seriously then impractical in international trade?
Not giving a reason why, he does mention that in 1890, America had become #1 in the world economically. But, in all other categories he considered America a "weak" state as if this was a bad thing saying "the American state--Washington--grew, centralized, and gained unquestioned precedence over the states... and presidents ... began defining America as a world power." I tend to think the "weak" central state was a good thing where most civil power resided in the states or counties. But it was the self-discipline or self government which most Americans displayed which pointed to their true King over our nation. The role of our Heavenly Benevolent King as given in America the Beautiful:
America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
is nowhere to be seen within this book's pages.
What caused Britain's decline as a world power? He asks and attempts to give possible answers but neglects the obvious: as said by Ben Franklin, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” If there is one theme of the Old Testament which cannot be overlooked, it's that God corporately blesses nations which obey Him and punishes those nations which disobey. Again absent within this book.
Western Civilization started with the Christianizing of the Old Roman Empire. Christians rose to power because they could be"trusted". They were known to be "honest" and "fair". General Sada who served under Sadaam Hussain knows where these virtues come from. Fareed has yet to learn.
