Can the Church really be in terminal decline, when it has lasted so long, and was founded by the Son of God himself, so it is said? Well if one goes to church, as likely as not, one will have to endure a sermon of inordinate length, telling the congregation what Jesus said and did 2000 years ago, ranging from the unlikely story of his walking on the water to the equally unlikely suggestion that he will always save you if you try to imitate him, and then find that your actions were overconfident. Inspiration is dead, the illustrations have nothing to do with contemporary life; and the best you can say is that the churches are keeping the flag flying in the centuries when there is no prophet. But that is exactly what the Pharisees were doing in Israel 2000 years ago; and one of the messianic prophets at that time, whom we colloquially call Jesus Christ, excoriated them, if the report in Mathew Chapter 23 is anything like accurate. And one is faced with the invidious situation that the very person whom the Churches eulogize as “Saviour” would probably savagely denounce these people, unless he has learned to be more tolerant since those days. The mildest conclusion is that it is not enough to be waiting for something to turn up. The Church must bestir itself.
But equally, if you find yourself in a hole, it is one of the elementary principles of life that you should stop digging, and ask what went wrong, and why? Activity for its own sake is not likely to solve anything. To get a measure of the situation, one only has to look on the Internet to find there are endless books on science and religion; some saying they can be reconciled, others saying they are at war and can never be reconciled. So in these circumstances what is the harm in saying that both may be true, but in their very different ways? And then attempting to create a synthesis that respects the truth of each, and afterwards looks to see where this compromise leads to? But just as the misunderstandings of love are always complicated by the arrival of others who get in the way of any reconciliation, so any attempt to create a utopia or beatific vision in the mind is always interrupted by the threat of war. If you do not take account of the real threat of war, you either have very little experience, or frankly you are a coward. The Rules of Conflict are written deeply into human nature; and you must either turn the other cheek to conflict, or be willing to fight.
An individual may decide to turn the other cheek; but then he must accept the consequences, which may mean ending his days in an hygienic gas-chamber. The rulers of a country are not free to decide to turn the other cheek. They have a duty to protect the citizens for whom they are responsible. They must learn to fight; I mean to fight and win, not indulge in the puerile aggressiveness of governments which do not seem ever to appreciate the consequences of their actions.