Not everyone who should know the truth, appreciates it best. The old simplicities of the New Testament, I’m afraid have gone; only the memory of their enthusiasm remains.
Historically the best known attempt to run a community on Christian lines was the attempt by William Penn and the first Quaker settlers to run Pennsylvania along purely Quaker principles. It was called “The Holy Experiment”, and was an attempt to bring at least a corner of the “Kingdom of Heaven” down to earth. Two recent articles in the Quaker Friend record how it was severely criticised by many at the time, from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin downwards, for putting their own purity of conscience above proper administration of the country, so that others had to pay the price of their scruples. A respected Quaker in London told them they were unfit to govern; they accepted a public trust, which they acknowledged they could not discharge, and instead of protecting the people, prevented the people from protecting themselves. For a time there was an uneasy compromise, when a congenial non-Quaker was appointed the deputy governor, who was able to maintain law and order, hang the robbers, and do their dirty work for them. The C.of E. is in a similar position today. Unfit to govern, or even offer wise advice to the secular State, it has made itself irrelevant to ordinary life, as the man-in-the-street understands only too well. It is in danger of being swept away by any religion which does make itself relevant to ordinary life.
Yet I am still convinced of the need to marry the sacred and the secular. But the way to begin is to recreate the vision of a God-created Universe, which commands respect. Merely to prove there is no incompatibility between science and religion will not do, because it is seen as an attempt to shore up the discredited medieval system. The old patterns of thought are changing, just as the old relationships of pastoral care are changing, not least because there are not enough new clergy being ordained. Christ himself was against “the world” or mammon; but I do not believe that attitude is practicable in the modern world. If you tried to insist on it, you would have to reconcile yourself with empty pews, the disintegration of the C.of E. and with seeing Christianity being practised only in a few religious houses. It would be swept off the streets. The C.of E. is kept in funds by the generosity of those who work in the secular world; and if you tell them the whole time they are working for the “great harlot”, their generosity will dry up! You have to accept that the truth of science has equal validity with the truth of religion, because science has changed the way we think.
So I am convinced the future development of religion is to marry the sacred to the secular; not in the sense of absorbing the sacred into the secular, but in Jesus’ metaphor of yeast leavening the whole loaf. I see an indwelling between people, not as an over-precious intimacy between them, but as a disciplined willingness to co-operate based on the clearest perception of the others’ thoughts and intentions.