Sprinkled throughout his critique of the Canadian Protestant church of the ’60′s, Pierre Berton implies possible solutions to what he sees as the sorry state of affairs in the Christian institutional life of his day.
It seems to me there were at least twelve things Pierre Berton hoped the church of his day might do to overcome its perceived malaise:
1. speak out loudly, boldly, publicly, and often, and act decisively, against war
2. condemn in no uncertain terms the doctrine of nuclear deterrence
3. advocate for full racial integration for all people in every aspect of the social structure
4. teach stricter ethical practices in the conduct of business and hold the business world accountable for their conduct
5. liberalize sexual ethics
6. liberate church leaders from the need to build “a successful church” that “is like a successful business”
7. reject any hint of church as a status symbol used to establish respectability and to support the prevailing elites of the community
8. reject religion which is “the cult of the establishment” and embrace “Christian radicalism”
9. recover Christianity as “a difficult, dangerous, radical, uncomfortable, shattering, but also vastly stimulating and exciting way of life.”
10. use “modern electronic devices and modern communication techniques to breathe fresh vitality into a message that has lost much of its sting through familiarity.”
11. abandon any commitment to dogma in favour of “reverent agnosticism”
12. “declare a moratorium on all pulpit preaching” allowing “some time and thought to be spent on non-pulpit sermons”
Berton imagined a church able to take a prophetic stand in the face of the prevailing culture of his day. Not surprisingly, the positions Berton longed for the church to champion, sound suspiciously like a typical left-leaning political ’60′s agenda. For Pierre Berton, the ideal institutions of his day were “the press and the labour movement…” which “were well ahead of the established Protestant Churches in calling for a change in attitudes and a change in the law.”
The journalists and the trade unions have been well ahead of the major Protestant Churches in attempting to outline a course of conduct based on the Christian heritage. They have been perceptive where the Church has been myopic, bold where the Church has been timid, specific where the Church has been vague. 51
Berton was eager for the church to speak out courageously when he could be assured that the stands the church would take supported his own social and political agenda. When any church position might challenge Berton’s stand he was quick to label it reactionary, complacent, and compromised.
Most troubling of all in Berton’s critique and his proposal is that he appears to have had absolutely no concept that the church might be concerned about things of the spirit. The spiritual dimension of church seems to have been swept overboard for Berton when, as a child, he learned that Santa Claus “was nothing more than the figment of a pleasant adult conspiracy” and that the stork did not bring babies, and when God refused to heed his pious plea to produce for him and his sister “two small, self-propelled automobiles.”
No doubt many of the problems Berton saw in the church of his day were real and many of them were seriously detrimental to the proclamation and embodiment of the Good News of Jesus Christ. The church has not infrequently operated in the past hundred years as a special-interest religious club constituted to cater to a select group of people who find themselves inclined towards a vague sense of spirituality. But, it seems unlikely that Berton alternative the vision of church as political agitator is likely to effectively address the church’s challenges.
The Sierra Club, The United Way, Amnesty International, Doctor’s Without Borders, and a host of other activist organizations are far better equipped to address current political and social issues than the church has ever been. This is not to say the church should not have a voice at the table when social issues are in debate, any more than it is to suggest that the church should not teach and act in favour of a more just and life-enhancing global community. But it is to recognize that social activism is not the primary nor the unique contribution the church has to make.
The church exists, before anything else, to encourage and enable people to open their hearts to the ineffable mysterious reality we call God that in the Christian tradition we see embodied in the person of Jesus and working in our lives and in the world as the Holy Spirit. This is not a function we can anticipate will be fulfilled by Mr. Berton’s favourite Labour Unions or by the journalists of our day.
As the church encourages its members to open deeply to the presence of God’s Spirit at work in their lives and in all the world, each person and whole church communities will find themselves drawn into particular was of embodying and living out that Spirit’s calling. This is the only way forward for a church that longs to be a living testimony to and embodiment of the reality of God’s work in all of life.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 6, 2012 at 7:37 am
jaqueline
“Not surprisingly, the positions Berton longed for the church to champion, sound suspiciously like a typical left-leaning political ’60′s agenda”
Obviously Berton’s the opposite advice was taken, considering the rise and influence of the far right in religious circles.
I am concerned that the things that Berton describes are considered left wing. Can any of argue that…..
“1. speak out loudly, boldly, publicly, and often, and act decisively, against war
2. condemn in no uncertain terms the doctrine of nuclear deterrence
3. advocate for full racial integration for all people in every aspect of the social structure
4. teach stricter ethical practices in the conduct of business and hold the business world accountable for their conduct” etc etc.
….aren’t simply right and peaceful and just?
And so what if Unions and Journalists were ahead of the church? they were in the 60′s…not so much anymore, Unions are either worn out and ineffective or so stupid that they shoot their own workers. And journalists in the mainstream media can hardly be called left leaning these days.
The thing is….when we criticise the Germany of the 1930′s and 40′s we are not at all uncertain that ordinary Germans should have obeyed the call ( which we send to them from our nice future advantage point ) to stand up and speak up for values very similar to what Berton recommends. And people who did were harangued and described as communists, and sent to concentration camps…hmmm
July 7, 2012 at 11:48 am
jaqueline
I came across this interesting comparison of tax rates of the various presidents over the last 90 years.
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449
Is it co-incidence that the increase in tax rate also equates with the years of better wealth and health of the general population?
What is of further interest is that the presidents who instigated the high tax rates. in the 30s and 40s were 2 Republicans and one Democrat.
Under Eisenhower, a Republican the ‘rich’ tax rate was at 90%!!
July 7, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Steve
Jaqueline, The important thing is not tax rates but revenue. In the face of all the heated rhetoric about increased taxes increasing or decreasing revenue it turns out both sides are wrong. Tax receipts have remained about the same over the past 60+ years regardless of marginal tax rates. I myself would support higher taxes on the rich if it actually resulted in them paying more in taxes but history shows they do not end up paying more because they find ways to shelter their income. I think the way to go is to eliminate loopholes not raise taxes. In my opinion too much wealth is getting concentrated in too few hands, that’s the real problem.
July 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm
John
Christopher, I must agree with you that the church is not meant today to serve a primarily political role. As you note, there are already multiple organizations designed to meet this purpose, and I would add that in democratic societies (let’s assume that they still exist, for the sake of argument!), where the state is technically an instrument of the people, this should continue to be the principal means by which we seek to address political issues, including social justice. In modernity, we have a right to expect the state and other related institutions to deliver the goods, when it comes to justice, and the right to bring governments that fail to pursue this end and to replace them through democratic means. Sometimes the church may need to pick up some of the slack left by irresponsible governments, but this should not become its central reason for being. Far be it for me to say definitively what the purpose of the church ought to be – I’ll leave that to the better-informed. But I think it’s fair to conclude that the Church – whichever sect or variant – exists to provide a living organism, centred on the Christian mysteries/sacraments that individual Christians can participate in, contribute to, and derive essential nurture and sustenance from during their sojourn on Earth. While Christianity is a profoundly personal concern, it is also a fundamentally communal phenomenon – it is a path walked in and through community. I know much more could be said about this, but that’s as far as I can go today.
July 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm
John
Sorry, typo: “In modernity, we have a right to expect the state and other related institutions to deliver the goods, when it comes to justice, and the right to bring DOWN governments that fail to pursue this end and to replace them through democratic means.”
July 7, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Steve
“Berton was eager for the church to speak out courageously when he could be assured that the stands the church would take supported his own social and political agenda. When any church position might challenge Berton’s stand he was quick to label it reactionary, complacent, and compromised.”
The following is written from my point of view as a U.S. citizen and in reference to the church as I know it as an (reluctant) evangelical Christian.
I read a quote not long ago that went something like this: You know you have created God in your own image when it turns out God hates the same things you do. I think that applies to Berton as well as many contemporary Christians who seem to be of the same ideological mindset.
I can find much to agree with Mr. Berton on but even more to disagree with, specifically when he advocates what I perceive as sort of Christian activism. In my search for truth, I have found clarification on this matter in the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Oz Guinness and I will have to give them credit for much of my thinking.
It is true there have been times in history when the church has remained silent in the face of atrocities against man, when it has not come to the help of the weak and defenseless, in the face of the infliction of suffering, oppression and exploitation. For fear of reprisal the church has looked the other way, it has withheld compassion it owes to the despised and rejected. It is the very act of putting our personal welfare at risk for the love of God, for the sake of Gods children that we most glorify God. Jesus was clear in defining this as the highest form of love. That is our calling. In such cases we do not care who we offend because we offend Christ if we do not. I can make a distinction between being sentinel and activist.
We who call ourselves Christian have a duty to be both sentinel and comforter but I can find no justification for social or political activism, the kind of which Mr. Berton advocates, in the teachings of Jesus. It would do us well to understand the differences of roles. Activism is based on a Christian ideal and confuses ideology with the reality of the living Jesus Christ. It is based on a confession of religion rather than a confession of faith. The word of God must be used to defend and comfort the helpless and suffering, not as pretense for the advancement of an agenda. We are sentinel for God’s children not of moral codes, constitutional rights, or egalitarian principles. The Pharisaical practice of creating and defending moral codes inevitably leads to condemnation and consequently alienation of the very ones Jesus would be most concerned for. Ultimately it creates an elite class of people. Did not Jesus preach against this very practice? Our profession of faith to the world must lie always in deed and not in the defense of ideas; anything else is hypocrisy and hatred for God. It is for us to know well 1 Corinthians 13 and leave judgment to the law of God.
All this is not to say as you pointed out that we who call ourselves Christian have a place in the public square of a constitutional republic such as we have in the U.S. But we should go to the public square as citizens first. We have to go with the recognition and respect for the fact we live in a tolerant and pluralistic society with religious freedom, a freedom based on inalienable rights many would argue was inspired by an evangelical Christian mindset. This one point may be the most important factor in determining the future of the western world in that it gives us a point where those who share no other beliefs in common to unite and live in peace.
Early American preachers and religious toleration
http://on.wsj.com/OH7fI9
On sustaining the ideals of the American experiment (which is the model most of the free societies are based on)
http://bit.ly/OH7vH5
July 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm
jaqueline
..”but I can find no justification for social or political activism,”
…”Our profession of faith to the world must lie always in deed”
Do those two stements no contradict each other.
“On sustaining the ideals of the American experiment (which is the model most of the free societies are based on)”
Now many societies outside of America might say that that is a typical thing for an American to say; and typical of the American mistake. A mistake that has at least contributed to the last decade’s wars. America’s democratic ideals are actually based on the hard work of those who established parliamentary democracy in Britain. Your battle of independence was yet another battle in the road by British subjects on a journey to refining the idea of a government by the people. The declaration of Independence was just that-. a declaration – that was not possible to even conceive of, if not for the gains of those in Britain which had gone before.
And as for democracy. It could be argued that the most thoroughly democratic country right now is Australia, which is not subject to the gross voter manipulation and ‘washing’ which the Canadian and American public have recently been subjected to…because there the vote is compulsory, just like education is compulsory. There the government actually IS a representation of the people, There a government cannot manipulate voters into not voting because they HAVE TO. The government really did get voted in by the majority of the population.
Australia, as does Canada does not take their parliamentary or societal model from America, but from Britain. And even then it introduced compulsory voting, I am sure, because of being too familiar with the failings of voluntary voting.
And as for Democracy’s beloved invisible ballot, that was given to the world by Australia…when it was introduced in America from there in the 19th century it was actually called the Australian ballot.
July 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm
jaqueline
And by the way It is only recently that American societal influence has been emulated, and NOT apparently, as it is obvious now, for the good of the world.
July 7, 2012 at 7:20 pm
jaqueline
sorry Steve, that was rather harsh, it is easy to forget that Americans are real people, and especially when one is so open to a new way of thinking as you are.
It is very hard to explain to an American how you guys are perceived. sometimes it is really hard to not want to push back as there feels to be such a push from Ameirca that we all become like you, an assumption that of course America has all the answers. That is not how we see ourselves …or how we see you. But still I could have been less direct. It is directness ( another Australian quality), not rudeness that motivates me…but it is hard to remember sometimes that that can come across as being harsh.
July 8, 2012 at 6:28 am
Steve
Jaqueline,
You are right, it is hard for us to imagine how we are perceived but please know the image we project is not a reflection of the individual beliefs of the majority of us. I would characterize my country as a system of controlled chaos. It doesn’t work well but it does work. Many of us think our past and present foreign policy stinks (for lack of a better word) and seriously needs a complete overhaul. You are also right to say we are no longer looked to as a model to be emulated. I don’t share the sentiment in your remarks but you would find kindred spirits in my two sons.
Speaking of kindred spirits, I also tend to be direct and for me you can add to that sarcastic and confrontational. Not unsurprisingly, most people don’t understand my remarks are not personal.
We in the U.S. have become very polarized along party lines and for me to express any political or religious belief is to risk creating a contentious atmosphere which cuts me off from that person spiritually. I have become personally convicted that I have to “put a lid on it” when it comes to my political and religious beliefs and in that regard my comments are like a letter to me. That you and I can be civil towards each other in my opinion is a testament to the love of God. No offence taken.
July 8, 2012 at 5:40 am
Steve
”but I can find no justification for social or political activism,”
…”Our profession of faith to the world must lie always in deed”
I don’t see these two statements as contradictory at all. Activism is usually a group activity aimed at achieving a political or ideological goal or to get people to change their behavior. It is usually motivated by a cause, principle, ideology or agenda. Admittedly the causes are often motivated by worthy intentions but I have never found anything in the teaching of Jesus that would sanction that kind of behavior to a disciple. Were not His teachings and is not our relationship to the living Christ personal and individual? Is that not what distinguishes Christianity from all other religions? Deeds on the other hand are the product of devotion to God (as opposed to a cause or principle) and the relinquishing of our will and our rights to Him. We do that not as adherence to commandments, laws, doctrine, or any outside source but as He personally speaks to us through the Spirit. It is our individual actions, God speaking and loving through us individually and personally that constitute deeds. The impetus for my statement is based on my disgust with right wing politics as I experience it in the southern United States (often referred to as the Bible belt). Incidentally most of the things you find objectionable about America come from right wing politics. On the other hand the teaching of Jesus would not find favor with those on the left and in fact I would say it literally flies in the face of progressive liberalism.
I will say after thinking about your comment I have thought of some apparent exceptions to my comments namely the actions of William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. Rather than trying to reconcile the two I will just say God works in mysterious ways and every time I think I have a handle on His ways I get proven wrong so I will just have to say my comments are my personal convictions based on the specific environment I live in.
My comments are in no way in reference to present day politics. If you will read the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville you will get a better idea of my reference point. The concept of separation of church and state was born in the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, the U.S. was the first constitutional state and the precedent it set has become the model for at least 160 countries. If you don’t believe that, can we not argue the point and just consider the spirit of my comments?
July 8, 2012 at 7:13 am
jaqueline
“Were not His teachings and is not our relationship to the living Christ personal and individual? Is that not what distinguishes Christianity from all other religions? Deeds on the other hand are the product of devotion to God (as opposed to a cause or principle) and the
relinquishing of our will and our rights to Him. We do that not as adherence to commandments, laws, doctrine, or any outside source but as He personally speaks to us through the Spirit. It is our individual actions, God speaking and loving through us individually and personally that constitute deeds.”
Now this is a recent American Religion idea.It has it’s origins in the great evangelical movements of the 17 and 18 hundreds…in which people like Wesley would call individuals to a personal accounting with God…but it was not meant to do away with social identification, it was to renew the heart within it. But that proves my point, That movement arose in response to a watering down of faith because people were relying on their salvation simply by believing a societal construct. We have churches which are empty because Christianity used to be a societal phenomenon. America has “In God WE Trust” on it because Christianity was societal. Christianity used to rule the world.
I often think that that is why there is such a push in the states and elsewhere to become politically active because many Christians are not comfortable with not being society’s ‘boss’..I heard an Anglican Priest say as much a few years ago…bemoaning that Christianity which once was the judge has now become with everyone else simply a witness ( in the court of life ). I must admit that that is ironic when you contrast it with Jesus’ words ” Do not judge” and ” be my witnesses”
What do we really think “Go into all the world and teach all to be my disciples means?” It means the revelation of Christ is not just for ourselves.
July 8, 2012 at 8:04 am
Steve
I’m not completely sure I understand what you just said but I think I agree with you. The societal church, its place in society, and the whole concept (construct) is/was wrong. It is all invented by man, it is the social evolution of what men thought it was supposed to be. It is man. as we are prone to do, creating a system, a paint-by-the-numbers, step by step, got to church and feel good system, perhaps meaningful at its conception but slowly evolved into a dead empty shell, its main function being to give respectability to the upper and middle class, a social institution, a club, proof to the world of a persons righteousness and respectability. As soon as Martin Luther reformed the church it reformed itself back to being what he was trying to liberate it from.
Having said that, I don’t think any of that matters to God. There are true disciples of Christ, the real Church, in the Catholic church, the Anglican Church, the American Baptist church and across the board and many of them aren’t part of any church. God does not offer group plans.
Also, I think God has used the church nevertheless and it has served a function in His grand plan. The church worldwide is, always has been, and will forever be best described as just a mess.
As a disclaimer, these are just the thoughts and observations of a reflectively uninformed person with very limited knowledge of such things and I make no pretense of them being anything more. All I know is God has given me a glimpse of the Kingdom and what I see in the church bears little or no resemblance to what God has shown me personally, not through any other means but what I can only call revelation. I think constantly about if not this then what does the ideal church look like, how are we to worship and have fellowship, spread the message, etc? I don’t have any answers.
July 8, 2012 at 7:18 am
jaqueline
Having said that, I agree, there can not be any genuine action without it coming form the heart..but lets not forget the Biblical examples of how God used people who don’t necessarily consciously believe in him.