Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, two well known sociologists, proposed a new theory in 2004 for why religious practices are declining in the north Atlantic region and Australia.338 They claim that the data in the World Values Survey339 show a strong negative correlation between the existential security that a society provides for its members (i.e. social networks, education, life expectancy, personal income, etc.), and the popularity of religion: the higher existential security is in a country, the less religious the people are.
It is beyond the scope of this work to interact with the Norris‒Inglehart theory of secularisation, but a look at some theological responses to their views will be relevant for our subject. The theologian–sociologist Jose Casanova, for example, criticised the Norris‒Inglehart theory in a public debate as follows:
It is too simplistic a theory in terms of what religion is supposed to do. My response would be, first, that these scholars assume that people have religion precisely because they have existential insecurity, that religion is a response to material deprivation... My response is: Look at all the world religions... the great religions—Islam, Buddhism, Christianity—never appealed simply to the satisfaction of material needs. They have a completely different orientation. True, they are immersed in relatively poor, traditional agrarian societies, where only the elite, the literati, can practice a higher form of religion.340
Casanova speaks here about a ‘higher form of religion’ which goes beyond a simple ‘satisfaction of material needs.’ This, of course, presupposes that there is a lower form of religion, too.
Charles Taylor, although not writing directly on the Norris‒Inglehart theory, expresses a similar critique of some theories of secularisation. He does not think that religious motives are only
338
Norris 2004.
339
The data of the survey is available on-line: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/.
340
102
tied to the ‘misery, suffering, and despair of the human condition.’341 He claims that although earlier religion often focused on human flourishing, after the axial period (mid-first millennium BCE), that is, after the activities of Confucius, Gautama, Socrates, and the Hebrew prophets, higher forms of religion appeared, which focused on higher goals, leading to a transformation of the believer,342
...a transformation of human beings which takes them beyond or outside of whatever is normally understood as human flourishing, even in a context of reasonable mutuality (that is, where we work for each other’s flourishing). In the Christian case, this means our participating in the love (agape) of God for human beings.343
If religion is shrinking because of the higher level of existential security then this can only be true for the ‘lower’ type of religion, suggests Taylor. 344
Casanova’s and Taylor’s views of ‘higher’ religion are similar to that of Nicholas Lash, who sees (higher) religions as schools whose purpose is to purify human desire, mainly to purify love from egoism and to participate in the divine love.345
Now, this differentiation between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ religion poses a serious question to the theological interpreter of Proverbs: if we follow those who argue that the true essence of (higher) religion is that it points beyond existential security and human flourishing, then how are we to account for the heavy emphasis of Proverbs precisely on these ‘lower’ issues? One of Proverbs’ main aims is to encourage right behaviour. The first nine chapters contain very little practical advice; rather, they contain many and long exhortations.346 In chapters 10‒29 there are at least 171 sayings (a few of them comprising more than one verse) which speak about the bad or good results that follow bad or good behaviour347—often without 341 Taylor 2007:434‒435. 342 Taylor 2007:150‒151. 343 Taylor 2007:430. 344 See Taylor 2007:261. 345 Lash 1996:35‒38. 346
Most famously Prov. 8. Almost the whole chapter is a long exhortation, which aims to motivate the reader. Fox 2000:267. 347 10:2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 11:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 12:3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28; 13:2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25; 14:1, 3, 11, 14, 19, 22, 26, 27, 32, 35; 15:6, 10, 19, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32; 16:5, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 31; 17:2, 5, 11, 13, 19, 20; 18:6, 7, 10, 12, 20, 21; 19:2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 23, 27, 29; 20:4, 5, 7, 13, 17, 20, 21, 26; 21:5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28; 22:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 22‒23, 24‒25; 23:10‒11, 20‒21, 29‒35; 24:3‒4, 5‒6, 11‒12, 13‒14, 15‒16, 19‒20, 21‒22, 30‒34; 25:21‒22; 26:17, 24‒26, 27; 27:12; 28:2, 5, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27; 29:1, 6, 14, 16, 24, 25.
103
specifying the behaviour (like ‘what the wicked fears, that comes upon him, and the desire of the just will be granted’ Prov. 10:24).348 These verses aim to motivate the reader to behave well, thereby making motivation proportionately by far the most significant function of these chapters.349 The last two chapters do not contain any practical advice which cannot be found in the previous chapters, and they put a similarly strong emphasis on motivation, especially if we understand the last chapter as an allegory of wisdom.350 This means that, throughout Proverbs, the emphasis is at least as much if not more on the motivation for good behaviour than on actual practical advice.
Of course, this heavy emphasis on motivation should not be a problem in itself. The problematic feature of the motivation is with what these verses motivate the reader. At least one’s first impression might be that it is not that ‘if you are wise then you will be able to love the Lord and your neighbour better,’ but ‘if you are wise then it will be good for you.’ Is this not an argument which is built on ‘egoism’—precisely that kind of ‘egoism’ which is supposed to be ‘cured’ by higher religion? It is not just that Proverbs puts a heavy emphasis on human flourishing. More than that, it seems to use it as the basis of its argument.
In the light of the thoughts of Inglehart and Norris, can Proverbs still be relevant to a western believer in the 21st century, who lives in a materially secure society? In the light of the thoughts of Casanova, Taylor, and Lash, is it wise to read this book today in our self-interested, success-oriented society? Would it not strengthen the ‘lower religion’ and the materialistic features of our society?
My estimate of 171 is still very moderate. One should probably add those verses which speak about the people who praise or curse the good/bad people (10:6; 11:10, 26; 12:8, 9; 13:15, 18; 14:17, 20; 16:21; 18:13; 24:8‒9, 24, 25; 25:10; 27:2; 29:27); or verses about Yahweh, who watches, hates, or loves good/bad persons (11:20; 15:3, 8, 9, 11, 26, 29; 16:2, 5, 11; 17:3, 15; 21:2, 3; 22:12; 24:11‒12).
348
Biblical quotations are always my translations unless noted otherwise.
349 However, not all of these sentences are formally motivational. Nel counted 103 formal motive
clauses in connection with admonitions (that is, not counting the wisdom sayings) in the whole of Proverbs (Nel 1982:65‒67). Even this more moderate number is relatively high compared to other parts of the Old Testament. Deuteronomy, for example, which contains a high number of motive clauses compared to other legal materials in the Old Testament, contains only 60‒70 motive clauses (depending on how one counts some debatable cases; see Gemser 1953:51).
350
104