An interesting article/book review the
Guardian (UK) - see below. Some may say what is described in the review isn't an encouraging phenomena, but for me I see it as the continued, subtle change beginning and progressing within the culture. The realization of the eventual outcome is still years off, I think.
As I continue to watch the forward movement of our culture (in all its current horrendous and glorious states), I can't help but notice subtle changes in the persistent assumption by so many is that religion is doomed, that it is only truly believed among the uneducated and emotionally challenged, or some such assertion. I can't help but notice signs that counter these anti-religious attitudes.
Taking a long view of history and trying to learn from it, there is always a waxing and waning of religious belief and action that involves that bastardization of and reclamation of honest Christian belief and practice. In places like the "Western" world, the active belief in and practice of religion in on the wane - we are in the midst of a period of bastardization of the Faith that has progressed in earnest over the last 100-years or so., and profoundly so in the U.S. over the past few decades. Much of the misgivings among the general population toward organized religion is the fault of those who claim to believe, even as their example fails terribly, say, of Christ's call to believe and live a certain kind of life reality.
Yet, here and there there are signs that this is changing, not because suddenly the example of Christians in places like the United States have suddenly become all virtuous and full of integrity - at least in this country we are at the height of religious hypocrisy and disingenuous-ness - but because people are beginning to look beyond the ridiculous people who claim they perfectly embody the Faith that God dictates. They are looking back to the historical figures of Faith who lived out lives that do seem to be examples of the kind of life and belief that Christ calls us to. They seek out current figures who strive to live out such lives, even as they don't gain headlines and notoriety. The current leadership in most Christian denominations, and this is a generalization, are now irrelevant to the furtherance of the Cause of Christ in the United States. The institutions will be reformed, but by the force of the "market place" - by which I mean people will vote with their feet and will be drawn to that which is authentic and real. Once the people leave and all the money is gone, things will change.
So, I came across this book review in the Guardian (UK) by
Terry Eagleton entitled, "Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton - review: A banal and impudent argument for the uses of religion". While the presumption of those who deign to the supposed usefulness of religion, yet do not believe, gain a little more attention it is a sign to me that the crass anti-religious force is waning. In its place will be a slow realization among many that religious faith, that the Christian Faith, may have something to offer other than social control of the masses. Anyway, here is a couple paragraphs from the review:
"God may be dead, but Alain de Botton's Religion for Atheists
is a sign that the tradition from Voltaire to Arnold lives on. The book
assumes that religious beliefs are a lot of nonsense, but that they
remain indispensible to civilised existence. One wonders how this
impeccably liberal author would react to being told that free speech and
civil rights were all bunkum, but that they had their social uses and
so shouldn't be knocked. Perhaps he might have the faintest sense of
being patronised. De Botton claims that one can be an atheist while
still finding religion "sporadically useful, interesting and consoling",
which makes it sound rather like knocking up a bookcase when you are
feeling a bit low. Since Christianity requires one, if need be, to lay
down one's life for a stranger, he must have a strange idea of
consolation. Like many an atheist, his theology is rather conservative
and old-fashioned.
"De Botton does not want people literally to
believe, but he remains a latter-day Matthew Arnold, as his high
Victorian language makes plain. Religion "teaches us to be polite, to
honour one another, to be faithful and sober", as well as instructing us
in "the charms of community". It all sounds tediously neat and
civilised. This is not quite the gospel of a preacher who was tortured
and executed for speaking up for justice, and who warned his comrades
that if they followed his example they would meet with the same fate. In
De Botton's well-manicured hands, this bloody business becomes a
soothing form of spiritual therapy, able to "promote morality (and)
engender a spirit of community". It is really a version of the Big
Society.
"Like Comte, De Botton believes in the need for a host of
"consoling, subtle or just charming rituals" to restore a sense of
community in a fractured society. He even envisages a new kind of
restaurant in which strangers would be forced to sit together and open
up their hearts to one another. There would be a Book of Agape
on hand, which would instruct diners to speak to each other for
prescribed lengths of time on prescribed topics. Quite how this will
prevent looting and rioting is not entirely clear."
(Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton - review: A banal and impudent argument for the uses of religion byTerry Eagleton of the Guardian UK.)
When I moved out of American-Evangelicalism and into Anglicanism (via TEC) in the mid-1990's, I recognized that there was a great deal in common between American-Evangelicalism and Anglican-Evangelicalism. One issue that wasn't really dealt with in my parish was the difference between the two. I've come to learn the difference. There was a real failure among priests to teach "Anglicanism" - whether Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, or Broad Church - and how it is distinct and different (yet similiar) to the other traditions. I think this is an underlying issue among a lot of folks who left, who stayed, who broke-off, etc. It is my opinion that this is a primary reason underlying the actions of Murphy and others.
Anglican-Evangelicals are Catholic! American-Evangelicals (within which I was raised) are not. As a matter of fact, they are often anti-Catholic (both in polity and with respect to the Roman Catholic Church). I think many American-Evangelicals who came into Anglicanism through the Episcopal Church, like myself, never learned the difference between Anglican- and American-Evangelicalism. When the going got tough within the Episcopal Church, many of us reacted just like American-Evangelicals, which means there was no issue or problem believing we could simply break-off and start our own thing, since to divide is the time-honored American-Evangelical way of "solving" or avoiding problems. They, we, I, didn't act like Anglican-Evangelicals, who because we are Catholic, simply don't separate, break-off, or form a whole new church. There are times when conservatives are in the ascendency and times when liberals are, but it seems to me that a fundamental difference within Anglicanism is that we suffer through if we have to because the Church is the Church Catholic, period, and cannot be divided.
Chuck Murphy and those of the AMiA who now spurn Rwanda are simply following the path they set out on and doing the very American-Evangelical thing. It is expected. That is how American-Evangelicals react to so many of the interpersonal and authoritarian problems. I say this not out of anger or bitterness toward my former tradition, because I am very glad of it, but out of a real desire to be authentically "Anglican."