Cardinal Newman
Catechist Consultants
13th
January, 2016 — HANDOUTS n. 129
“Clear, brief and
easily assimilated by all”
Sociologist Fallen
among the Secular Theologians
Download this document as a PDF
David Martin spoke on the BBC Third Programme in 1968,
shortly before demythologizers of 1972 began their corrosion of the
Catholic Church in Australia. It was in The Listener of 25th
April, 1968, and has been printed twice before in our Catechetical
Newsletters, nn. 11 & 161 (1987 & 1999).
He was a lecturer
in sociology at the London School of Economies, an Anglican
layman, and author of Tracts against the Times.
One of the persons whom secularising theologians most delight to
honour at their conferences is the sociologist. They believe that he is
one of those ‘modern men’ with whom and about whom they wish to
discuss. And they have a fair expectation that he will have something
pretty funereal to tell them: why the Church is dying and must die. No
doubt he can also be prodded into dilating on the character and dilemma
of modern man, confirming in his own inimitable sociological jargon the
pregnant obscurities of Tillich and Bonhoeffer. However it has not
escaped my notice, moving from conference to conference, that 1 am
usually the next-but-one most conservative person present. Maybe the
theologians who picked on me were just unlucky, and it is indeed true
that with more care they could have lighted on plenty of sociologists
capable of fulfilling their most masochistic anticipations. But if I
have been something of an atypical mistake, there is no doubt that
there is nearly always one person present more conservative than
myself; and he is generally a physical scientist, a biochemist perhaps,
or worst of all a physicist. I don't mean politically conservative; I
mean theologically conservative. So it would seem that while the
theologians joyfully proclaim the death of God and the death of the
Church in the name of ‘modern man’, the only two modern men present
watch the whole exercise with sad and wondering eyes.
MODERN MAN
— A FIGMENT
No one need doubt that man’s rational control of the environment
is vastly increased, and maybe this magnificent creature of the
theological imagination does exist, or at any rate scattered fragments
of his body. Nevertheless he is barely know to empirical sociology. He
makes only a marginal impact on the Gallup polls, which more usually
document gullibility, illogicality, insecurity and rank superstition.
Hence I am encouraged to carry my vulgar empiricism not only to the
point of asking, “Who is modern man?” but in addition; “Where is modern
man?” I even asked one theologian just how many examples of modern
secular man were extant. “What,” he said, “in a percentage?”
Yes, I
replied, confirming his worst suspicions. The incident confirmed mine
as well. Theologians never lose their habits; not anyway, their habits
of mind. They know modern man exists de fide. Who so gross a
sceptic as not to believe in modem man? In a style reminiscent of
Marxist theology, all who do not confirm to the thesis are suffering
from ‘false consciousness’: they are just behind.
I said just
now that theological habits do not die, even when God and the Church
have been safely buried. Secularising theologians are still preachers
and do not bear genuine contradiction. They have asked for signs of a
secular society and signs have been given than. That means gathering
evidence, like a music-hall comedian gathering jokes on the way to the
theatre. “A pop star said the other day...” “A little boy of my
acquaintance said...” And “Don’t you think it significant?” Or, “I saw
an operation on TV the other day and it brought home to me...” and so
on. Evidence en passant. As a Cambridge don neatly put it,
“Modern Man is a clergyman's friend who has just lost his faith."
STATISTICS
Above all, they make mincemeat with statistics about the
Church. Don't bother them with complicated facts; let’s get on with
dismantling obstreperous institutions or celebrating the arrival of the
secular city. Of course there are statistics which document certain
forms of institutional decline, but the central point is that the
secularising theologian often just doesn’t like institutions. Like most
of us most of the time —- indeed like the typical ‘modem man’ he
decides what he likes and then rustles up the evidence. Show him any
evidence on the other side and he flatly tells you the polls must be
wrong, people must be lying. He knows the Churches are dying, and he is
still a clergyman, and should know. Sociologist, stick to your last!
I am
talking about a small group, however widespread their journalistic
éclat, and not all the attitudes described apply to all of them. The
common Existentialist theme, however, is there and it links itself to a
whole group of progressive middle-class attitudes.
ROLES AND RITUALS
There is a fear of stereotypes and of images, and a
sensitivity to the restricting power of roles, as well as to the
rigidities of structure. The word ‘structure’ is as frequent as the
word ‘secular’. Above all, perhaps, there is the search for
authenticity, based on a feeling that middle-class existence just isn’t
real. Put on your tie or your clerical collar and you become
ontologically deprived. Only a man in dungarees bouncing a pneumatic
drill into the concrete has ‘ultimate reality’.
Almost all
the conferences have suggested to me that certain clergy do indeed seek
to be engaged in something ‘real’, not perhaps with a pneumatic drill
but with an occupation embodying ascertainable results. They are
anxious to step outside the restricted roles a parson is allowed to
play, particularly perhaps to a female-dominated milieu. As one young
chaplain burst out: “The Women’s Bright Hour is the dregs of the
Church.”
The horror
of roles, and of the repetitious rituals (religious and other- wise) to
which they are embedded, was nicely illustrated in an incident
occurring at a conference especially convened to announce the death of
the Church. This same incident also illustrated the importance of
roles. It happened like this. Some of those really determined to finish
the Church off attacked a proposal to celebrate Holy Communion at the
conference. The arguments proceeded merrily and violently until two
coloured delegates rose, arguing in favour of a celebration, and
incidentally, dropping the reminder that they happened to be the
servers. The progressive mind agonised, caught between the desire to
eliminate a ritual and the patent illiberality of depriving coloured
persons of an honourable role. It was decided to celebrate, but at the
same time to de-clericalise the occasion: the officiating minister wore
an open-necked shirt — just to give it that necessary touch of ultimate
reality.
BUREAUCRACY
OF course, there were those ready to go further than
celebrating in open-necked shirts. Their aim was continuously to mint
fresh symbols: in short, to translate Holy Communion into a
once-for-all ‘happening’. Much of the same impulses arise to relation
to ‘structure’, particularly bureaucratic structure. The outcry about
bureaucracy arises from every part of the political and religious
spectrum — though most of the complaints I hear in my institution come
from what I can only call the anarcho-Buddhist Left.
But the particular complaint of the secularising theologian is
paradoxical, because what Max Weber called “Rational Bureaucracy” is
not only highly secular but also a necessary aspect of modern social
structure. To object to it is to assert a radically religious drive
which refuses to come to terms with the world. Genuine human existence
and authentic personal life in modern communities depend on
bureaucracy. Bureaucratic structure is an essential precondition of
authenticity, not a barrier to it.
This
radically religious attitude is partly suggested by the Bishop
of Woolwich's demand that structures must be ‘stripped’ for action,
because 90% of current effort is spent on mere maintenance, and the
other 10% on real activity. Yet 90% of effort in most organisations is concerned
with maintenance, and the other 10% depends on it to exist. He has a
point in that some structures are maladapted, but one just cannot be
doing ‘real’ things much more than 10% of the time. I work in a
university and by comparison the Church shows up quite well: one-tenth
inspiration and nine-tenths bureaucratic perspiration is quite a good
ratio. Conspicuous ‘waste’ is inherent in productivity, even scientific
productivity. Perpetual agape in the Church is about as
possible as perpetual eros in marriage. Only a clergyman — or
an actor or a London School of Economics student — expects that much
‘reality’.
CONFERENCES:
A NEW RITUAL
A related point came up in an interesting way at a conference
organised by the Methodist Renewal Group. This was the second such
conference and it occurred to some that there might easily be a third.
Conferring has acquired its own momentum; it was now an annual ritual.
However, others saw conferences as a necessary means for promoting
their viewpoint as a definite pressure group within the Methodist
Church. This meant not only a secretary, but organisation, perhaps even
officials. Bureaucracy! Immediately heated discussion ensued as to
whether or not purity would be compromised by an attempt to organise,
pressurise and promote. So the conference divided into two mildly
acrimonious halves. Divisiveness had definitely made its appearance:
the snake was in the grass.
My most
recent conference was with the Dutch Catholics, and they have the
Methodists outstripped for radicalism every time. In their case one
must reckon not only with Tillich but also with the French theologians
and Vatican II. Not, indeed, that they lack secular theologians of
their own, but whereas elsewhere the effects of Vatican II sank in but
slowly, in Holland the internal communication lines of Catholicism were
so good (they even have their own TV) and the level of understanding so
relatively high that a trickle turned into a flood which hollowed out
vast chasms in traditional orthodoxy. The Dutch Catholic level of
intensity contrasted quite noticeably with the Anglican level of
intensity. I can only suppose that we in England have abandoned
dogmatic theology for so long and are so used to the vagaries of
conscience and experimental religion that the Existentialist mode makes
a much smaller ripple on an ancient tide.
Put another
way, most Protestant countries in the Anglo-Saxon ambit have been so
used to religious vacuity that another cloud of Existentialist dust
barely distorts the clarity of their theological vision. But for those
only lately inured to clear and distinct ideas like Thomism, or to the
firm exercise of authority, the effect is startling. Just as Catholics
who cease to be conservative often become Marxists, so those who cease
to be Thomists easily embrace the most extreme Existentialist fashion.
They are experts at excluding the middle.
MODERNIST
REVOLUTION
Just how extreme, I
intend to illustrate. I began by a polite peripheral inquiry as to how
a modern Catholic might view a pious practice in indulgences: so many
days’ remission of purgatory and so on. My Dutch friend listened with
unfeigned surprise and then said: “Don't be ridiculous.” I murmured
apologetically. He went on; “Maybe there are such practices but they
are of no interest to us.” “But,” I said, “in Rome there are many
churches which proclaim indulgences to a dozen or so languages, at
least three of which I can read.” “Oh,” he said impatiently. “I don’t
know what they do to Rome.” Another illuminating instance arose in
relation to demons and angels. An exegete was asked whether or not he
believed in demons. He replied that he did not because it was possible
to locate the point at which demons enter the Jewish world-view from
external sources. Somebody, almost certainly an Anglican, rose to say:
“You can’t do that with angels.” “Oh yes, I can and I do,” came the
answer. Of course he could “do that with angels,” but the principle of
exclusion is plainly perilous in the extreme.
A
comparable radicalism exists with regard to the central mysteries of
the faith. Some have given up confession. And one said: “Maybe two or
three of us should just meet in the street and break bread together.”
Maybe. Inevitably the ancient strategy of redefinition is brought to
bear in the service of radicalism. For example, the vow of ‘poverty’
was defined as “not living above the average standard of living of the
country in which you happened to be.” In such an atmosphere it seemed
improper to ask about Papal infallibility. Nevertheless 1 did use a
relaxed moment to inquire in what the magisterium of the Roman
Church consisted in these modern days. “Oh,” said a young priest, “in
the reasonableness or otherwise of what the Holy Father says. When he
is sensible we are pleased; when he is not we are anxious. He is very
good on Vietnam but on theological matters like celibacy most
unfortunate. On this kind of issue we can only hope he says nothing at
all: silence is better than a mistaken pronouncement.”
This
disintegration is a reaction which may settle at a less extreme level.
Clearly one cannot easily anticipate what a Dutch Catholic is likely to
believe. One almost feels sympathy with those humanists who love to
insist all Christians believe in absurdities so as to bolster their own
feelings of security and intellectual superiority. Just how far things
can go may be seen from a mild joke indiscreetly perpetrated by an
Anglican participant to the dialogue. He asked if the Catholics
intended celebrating the 450th anniversary of Martin
Luther’s nailing 95 theses on the door of the church to Wittenberg. “Of
course,” came the reply. You can either regard that as the only
possible answer to an impertinent question or the soberest expression
of intent. I think it was the latter. At any rate a solemn remembrance
of those 95 theses could do no harm. In a sense it was undeniably
Luther who started it all.
EDITORIAL
COMMENT
Theological
Modernism matches the post-Modernist neo-Marxist Freudianists in their
‘long march of the Left’ through Australian universities, social and
mass media, polities and courts (judge-made law), cf. TakeDown:
From Communism to Progressives; How the Left has sabotaged Family and
Marriage, by Dr Paul Kengor, 2015.
“Yet the
lies of Melchor, the mighty & accursed Morgoth Bauglir, Power of
Terror & of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed
that does not die and cannot be destroyed, and ever and anon it sprouts
anew, and will bear evil fruit even unto the days;” The
Silmarillion, by J.R.R. Tolkien.
© The Rev.
B.J.H. Tierney. Handouts are free and may be copied
for any non-profit teaching purpose. However, donations to defray costs
are welcome and should he made to the publisher and distributor, the
Cardinal Newman Faith Resources Inc. PO Box 359, St Marys NSW 1790;
phone 02 9673 2235; fax 02 9623 3181; email <fr@cardinalnewman.com.au>
|
