IS CHRISTIANITY LOSING GROUND ?
By KENNETH INGRAM
AT this stage of our inquiries I am starting from the assumption that we are entering a period of history similar in type to that of the sixteenth century, when feudal civilisation had begun to give way to the mercantile system. We can now see that the rise of mercantile capitalism involved much more than economic changes. It produced a new cultural outlook, it affected science and art, it transformed social conditions. No less profound changes took place in the ecclesiastical sphere. We label these changes the " Reformation."
We should expect to find, therefore, that the present period of history would be marked by similar religious activity. That certain developments in the ecclesiastical sphere are already taking place is evident. In the last five years, for example, denominational differences have lost much of their former significance. In some directions this movement has taken the form of actual schemes for reunion. Even between Catholic and Protestant there is clearly a desire for co-operation to an extent which would have been unthinkable at the beginning of the century. The mind of the churchman is concerned much less with sectarian disputes than with the defence of fundamental Christian doctrine against the threat of secularism.
The importance of this development can easily be over- estimated. Institutional religion has dwindled numerically and its members are a small minority. Even if the Christian bodies could form a United Front there is no reason to suppose that the bulk of the nation would thereupon re-enter the churches. Institutional religion would be organisationally strengthened by reunion, but this would not necessarily increase its numbers. This tendency to reunion may imply no more on the part of Christians than a sense of the gravity of the challenge with which all religious institutions are confronted.
Moreover, we must set against this trend towards unity the appearance of new divisions of thought which are cutting across the old denominational boundaries. Pacifism is an example. In the last war the Churches presented a common message, they encouraged recruiting and invoked divine blessing on the Allied arms. But in a future war there would be no such agreement. Many of the clergy and laity have signified their intention of opposing any • military enterprise on the part of the Government, whatever the circumstances. On at least one important political issue, therefore, the Christian witness would be entirely conflicting.
The impact of the world-crisis on religion is likely, however, to produce more important changes than these. It becomes necessary at this point to offer some analysis of the present situation so as to leave no doubt what is meant by a world-crisis. Generally speaking we may recognise the emergence of a new form of economic civilisation in Russia and the existence in other countries of a movement which seeks to effect a similar economic reconstruction elsewhere. The distinguishing feature of this economic programme is that the means of production are not to remain in private ownership. The consequences of transferring the machinery of industry from private to public hands would involve changes quite as radical as those caused by the breakdown of feudalism. It would produce intellectual and moral changes. That this is happening already few will be disposed to deny. The movements which advocate the newer economic order are provoking an attitude towards life which challenges many of the traditional conceptions. Those who uphold the old order associate the Left in their minds with a set of revolutionary values which would overthrow Christianity, democratic liberty and morality. How far these apprehensions are exaggerated or fictitious need not now concern us. They are relevant only so far as they point to the actuality of the cleavage between modern and traditional ideologies.
The immediate reaction of institutional religion to this situation is not surprising. The Church desires to avoid a violent clash, and is thus inclined to neutrality with a heavy bias in favour of the old order, for she suspects that the newer outlook is inherently hostile. This reaction is not surprising once we are ready to calculate the strength of idealist influence upon orthodox thought. From the idealist standpoint man belongs both to a spiritual and a material kingdom, and these two kingdoms are distinct. Religion is concerned mainly with the spiritual kingdom, with cultivating the spiritual nature of man in preparation for his life beyond the grave. For economic change in this life the Church does not con- sider herself responsible. The orthodox Christian attitude towards the various political issues which are now arising tends accordingly to be subjective in nature. The way, for instance, to preserve a lasting peace is to change men's hearts. From this standpoint it matters little whether the economic system is capitalist or socialist so long as the individuals administering the system are animated by Christian princi- ples. That the Church has done generous work in attempting to mitigate some social evils few will dispute. But that policy is quite consistent with the attitude of neutrality, with the theory that religion is not concerned with systems but with men.
The experience of reality lies for man in the world of nature. If religion therefore is divorced from the concerns of the natural world it becomes correspondingly sentimentalised. It is this suspicion of unreality and of sentimentality in religion which is at the root of popular indifference towards the Church. The feeling that official Christian utterances on public affairs are platitudinous, that the average clergyman is the last person to whom one would turn for expert advice in personal problems, the prevailing sense that religion is about a depart- ment of life which has no practical importance, are symptoms of the entirely dualistic standpoint into which all of us have drifted. The Church in her supernaturalist emphasis adopts this standpoint. The secularist adopts it, and, since he does not believe in a supernatural, imagines that religion is no more than a superstition.
Organised religion reacts to the world-situation by a deter- mination not to be implicated in any political issue, and this policy of neutrality is inspired by idealistic motives, in so far as the Church is actually accepting the dissociation of religion froth secular concerns. But this kind of neutrality will always in the last resort find itself on the conservative side. The Church will feel that she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by revolutionary upheaval. The identifi- cation of institutional Christianity with the forces which are resisting modern change helps to confirm the progressivist in his humanist, secularist, non-Christian professions.
Previous page
