Introduction

First of all, what an incredible name for a book. It calls to mind Neil Gaiman’s classic work, American Gods, and it deals with many of the same themes. Namely, the fundamental idea that humans are worshippers, and that even if we throw off the Old Gods, we end up embracing new ones—whether consciously or not.

The question, according to Reno, is who are the Old Gods that we cast off, what is the new God we’ve embraced, and are the Old Gods set to return?

Unlike Gaiman’s classic, Return is not a work of fiction but a piece of intellectual history. It traces the roots of a set of ideas embraced by modern Western elites, which Reno dubs the post war consensus.

Who are the Strong Gods?

According to Reno, the driving force among Western intellectuals after the devestation of two World Wars was how to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again. “Never again,” was the mantra of the time. And the conclusion among Western thinkers was that we had to exorcise the Strong Gods.

And who are these Strong Gods? Using Reno’s terminology, the Strong Gods are anything that commands loyalty, love, passion, sacrifice. It includes the Gods of religion, but it encompasses more than that. Deep feelings of national identity, cultural heritage, racial and ethnic solidarity, and even familial bonds, are included in the Strong Gods.

Exorcising the Strong Gods

According to Western thinkers of the time, it is loyalty to these Strong Gods that gave rise to the wars and conflicts of the 20th century. If we could somehow get rid of them, then we’d be able to build a more open, tolerant, and peaceful society.

These thinkers envisioned a society characterized more by self reflection and self criticism than by passionate loyalties to God, King, Country, and Blood. According to these philosophers, any metaphysical truth claims were dangerous because truth demands loyalty; truth demandsconformity. Instead of searching for truth, these philosophers suggested that we should instead look for meaning, which can be determined individually each in their own mind. Therefore, a virtuous person is not someone who feels any strong passions or loyalties or holds to any metaphysical truths, but rather someone who is open to everything, but settled on nothing.

The philosophy is best exemplified by Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies(1945), which laid out its vision for an “open society” in comparison to a “closed one”, and attacked the Western philosophical tradition’s search for truth as a barrier to creating an open society. Popper’s writings inspired many later works such as The Authoritarian Personality(1950), a pseudo-scientific attempt to identify the personality traits that give rise to an “authoritarian” mindset—traits like traditionalism and rigidity of thought, which must be opposed in order to create an open society. Although these thinkers did not advocate the forced removal of such people from society, they did believe that such people needed to be persuaded or re-educated. Interestingly, Karl Popper was George Soros’s teacher at the London School of Economics, and inspired Soros to create the Open Society Foundation.

A Real Consensus

It wasn’t just the precursors to the modern left who believed we had to get rid of the Strong Gods. Friedrich Hayek, a champion to modern conservatives, agreed with Popper and the two were good friends. The difference between them was not whether or not we should exorcise the Strong Gods, the difference was in how they believed society should be organized afterwards. Popper thought that society could be governed and steered by social scientists, dispassionate observers of empirical phenomena, whereas Hayek thought that society needed to be organized around the decentralized exchange of goods and services.

But the point Reno emphasizes is that the precursors to both the modern left and the modern right had roots in a philosophy that eschewed metaphysical truth and transcendent loyalty, and instead reduced all determination of value and meaning down to the individual. This explains why members of the Western establishment, whether conservative or liberal, tend to view religiosity, patriotism, and cultural pride as gauche–ugly relics of the past, unbefitting of a member of the open society.¹

Return of the Strong Gods

The problem with the post war consensus, as Reno diagnoses, is that a society allergic to metaphysical truth and devoid of social solidarity eventually develops neuroses which cannot be sustained. These neuroses are visible in the inability of Western elites to define manhood and womanhood, the inability of Western elites to speak rationally about immigration policy, and the inability of Western elites to conceive of their responsibility as being first to their own citizens, and only secondarily to the rest of the world.

The social ills and symptoms which gave rise to Donald Trump and populist movements across Europe are therefore, according to Reno, the inevitable result of the exorcism of the Strong Gods. He calls this process “societal weakening”. As the social bonds which would normally tie people together fray, people begin to feel more and more alienated from society. For the wealthy and successful, this is papered over by their ability to consume and to take pride in their own achievements. But for regular people, economic insecurity coupled by a sense that no one has any loyalty for them, nor is there any higher purpose, has them yearning for the sense of protection and loyalty offered by populists like Trump. They yearn for a Return of the Strong Gods.

Which Strong God?

Reno, who is Roman Catholic, admits that there is danger in the Return of the Strong Gods. The passions and loyalties which excited the Nazis are not preferable to the metaphysical weakness of the post war consensus. Reno’s goal is therefore not to advocate for a Return of the Strong Gods, but rather to point out that their return is inevitable, because a society built on weak metaphysical foundations will eventually crumble.

The pressing question, then, is which of the Strong Gods will return. Will it be Strong Gods that lead us down dark, dangerous paths? Or will it be Strong Gods that call us to a higher and nobler purpose?

Conclusion

This is certainly a thought provoking book. It touches on high and lofty themes. I find Reno’s analysis to be compelling, and probably true. It accords with much of observed reality. However, I did at times feel that he over-attributes a number of social phenomena to his thesis. I would have liked to see more discussion of how his thesis interacts with other themes from the 20th century, like globalization, the financialization of the economy, and technological change–particularly social media. I also would have liked to see more direct quotes from the authors he cites–he tends to paraphrase more often than offering direct quotations.

Still, one book can only do so much, and I think Reno did an admirable job laying out his thesis. I gladly recommend this book to anyone interested in our cultural moment.

(To view Part 1 of the discussion recorded on July 31, 2020, go here.)

Sit in on this hour-long discussion as they tackle these important questions:

1. What should churches of different ethnicities expect from one another during a time of racial tension?
2. How is your congregation being affected by the national debates about racism within and outside of the church?
3. What are the costs of your church engaging or not engaging in these debates?
4. How can we converse on polarizing topics like race without being judgmental?
5. When we witness injustice, what are some pitfalls we should avoid that cause division and disunity in church?
6. What biblical advice should we give our congregations to promote God-honoring communication?
7. How would you encourage your congregation to navigate through all the conflicting messages in the media?
8. What perspective should Christians have on current events?
9. How can pastors shepherd their congregations and encourage them to be salt and light in this fallen world?
10. How should we discern and respond to calls for social action?
11. What does the church need to do to preserve the unity we have in Christ?
12. How does our understanding of sin help us in our conversations on race and reconciliation?
13. Where do we start our conversations regarding these issues? How do we then bring the Gospel into the conversation?
14. What should the church be doing about racial injustice?
15. How should we approach issues of racism within our churches?
16. How does our Gospel identity help us approach issues of racism?
17. Is the Gospel enough to address issues of racism?
18. To what degree is systemic racism a problem in the United States? What should the church’s response be to these injustices?

Sit in on this hour-long discussion as they tackle these important questions:

1. Why should we have conversations about racial reconciliation?
2. Is it necessary for churches to address racism?
3. How can churches biblically approach controversial topics like racism?
4. What are some helpful ways to approach the topic of racism?
5. How has discussing racism affected your church congregation?
6. What does it cost a church to have conversations about racism?
7. What is an accurate definition of “systemic racism”?
8. How can we guard the unity of the church in the midst of conflicting perspectives?