In 1941 the novelist Dorothy L. Sayers read a paper at the Malvern Conference “dealing with the theological grounds for the church’s concern with politics and sociology, with the complementary dangers of pietism and Caesarian, and with the importance of Incarnation doctrine in this connection.” I mention this not because I’m interested in her paper, but because of what it says about the church in society in 1941, in contrast with the church in society only 82 years later.
Because Ms. Sayers mentions this topic because “some 250” words out of 8000 in the paper made headlines. The conclusion she draws from that fact doesn’t interest me here. What does is that such an abstruse topic gained any notice outside the room where the paper was read.
Well, that, and that people listened to anyone read 8000 words.
The 250 words “dealt with the connection between Caesarism and an undue emphasis placed on sexual, as contrasted with financial, morality.” Just to show you that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Also, as Ms. Sayers points out, “the reporters picked the only [word] they presumed their readers capable of understanding—to wit, fornication. (emphasis in original)” Again, the more things change…
So the church, in England, 81 years ago, was still an important enough institution in society that theological discussions merited news coverage. 9 years after that paper and conference, post-war America saw a resurgence in church attendance it hadn’t seen since the Great Awakening of the 19th century. The baby-boom generation was raised in that resurgence: everybody going to church became a norm it hadn’t been for most of the 20th century.
And now it’s over.
I’m not lamenting that, or arguing, even wishing, for the days of my youth to return. I’ve seen the world that’s coming, and I know the old one is dead. It’s that death I’m writing about.
We lament the changes that have happened in our politics, sure it has never been this way before, that we’ve never known such division, never been so near to the end of the Great Experiment. I submit we feel that way not because of a resurgence of racism (racism in America is as persistent as kudzu), or because of “economic anxiety,” or because Boomers are all assholes, or became assholes because that’s what old age does to you, as a generation. I submit the problem is that a pillar of society has fallen; and if one can come down, what do we need the others for?
This is not an argument for restoring that pillar; or even replacing it. It’s gone, and we can’t put it together again. There’s still the Roman church and the evangelicals (a travesty of a description), so the institution of churches remains; but the institution of the Church is over. We have to see that clearly. “ Whole sight,” as John Fowles advised, “or all the rest is desolation.” And desolation is not what I’m preaching; nor despair, either. I’m simply saying I want to look clearly at what’s going on. And it’s not because we lost God (I honestly don’t think “we” ever had God), or because we need to get “back” to God, or that we even need God (I am very jaded by my few years in the pulpit). I’m only trying to diagnose the problem. And the problem is, we’ve lost something and it has left a void we cannot yet fill.
I saw the void in the three churches I served. I was a student pastor for two years in seminary. When I left the church, they called a part-time permanent pastor. They had helped the larger church for years, training students. It was a ministry itself, but they retired from it.
My next two churches were dying when I got there. Both died absolutely after I left. Say what you want; I’ve said it all myself. But they were relics, populated by older Boomers and remnants of my parents’ generation, clinging to the idea they’d grown up with or accepted, that a “good” church was a “big” church, because growth is a sign of success. My first church actually told me I could, effectively, improve my pay by increasing the membership of the church. I was told, in short, I would be paid on commission.
Churches don’t function that way.
I would go so far as to say churches no longer function in society. I’d limit that to failing churches. There are churches that serve their congregations and communities, and these churches will keep “the church” alive (I don’t want to misunderstood as Cassandra crying “No hope!”). The church has a valuable function, but it must find that function again. The church we have lost, after all, looked nothing like Paul’s house churches; but then our social structure looks nothing like Paul’s Roman one did, either. Paul’s church was very much a fringe movement that so appealed to the populace a few centuries later (and we sniff at 80 years as “long ago”!) a crowd demanded Augustine (not yet “Saint”) be their bishop.
Maybe we’re re-starting that cycle. 🔄 Yeats might well think so.
In any case, a major social institution is not the pillar of society it once was, and society is suffering a reassessment and a realignment because of it.
If we can see the problem, we can understand the issues.
That’s the idea, anyway..
No comments:
Post a Comment