If however he was right, he convicts the clergy of a dereliction of duty; healing the sick was the greater part of Christ’s Ministry, according to tradition. In the Gospels healing and preaching go together.
So was Professor Eucken right to say the clergy have led us all down a cul-de-sac?
Professor Eucken was professor of philosophy at Jena in the 1900s, and wrote a book called “The Truth of Religion”, in which he said that though Christianity was much the best religion the world has known, the clergy had led it down a cul-de-sac in which ‘there was lost all inner relation to reality, all inner obligation, all hope of inner renewal, so that life loses all soul and value and becomes a mere appearance’. Well, there comes a time when fundamental beliefs matter; it is the same whether it is a political party or a religious church. If a political party does not do its thinking, and it becomes obvious that it no longer believes in anything or stands for anything, sooner or late the electorate throws them out. Religion is similar, except that people just leave. Religion is either relevant to people’s ordinary lives, or it is unsatisfying. Now the centre of Christian worship is the Eucharist, at which the congregation symbolically eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. At least if it is not symbolism, it is the most revolting metaphor and ceremony. It is supposed to symbolise Christ’s spirit coming to dwell in them: see the prayer of humble access. A child could be forgiven for thinking that this should result in tremendously creative action; Christ himself said it would. But in fact it doesn’t. Christians do not trust each other, and even find it hard to reach a common understanding on local church committees; at least that is my experience. It is as though the words of comfort in the Eucharist are just words, soothing us all to sleep, but empty of all meaning. It is an example of the confusion of substance with appearance, which lawyers are so familiar with; it is often what legal cases are about. It is a cul-de-sac.
To sum up, looking at things from the point of view of an impartial outsider, the present condition of the Church of England is susceptible to two interpretations. Put in extreme form, they are as follows:-
a) We are the faithful remnant of the Children of Israel, who are keeping the flag flying, the lamp burning, in a progressively pagan world; and we must look forward to the second coming of Christ to put all things right.
b) It is commonly said there are no bad regiments, only bad officers; and there is only one body at whose door to lay the blame for the present fiasco of the empty pews, and that is the clergy’s door.
The answer to this invidious choice, is to look at the ascent of man in evolutionary perspective, and then the life and Ministry of Jesus are seen in context. I agree with Professor Sir John Seeley that a prophetic tradition is among the greatest blessings a community can have. Similarly, I agree with Edward Gibbon that the worst curse is a priesthood who claim a superior knowledge. The prophets tried, without any knowledge of science still less of evolution, to peer into the future; and they saw dimly a world of righteousness, mercy, and peace. Their imagery was crude; most of them saw the future as the Gentiles paying tribute to Israel: a most unlikely prospect. But they tried to see. A priesthood claiming a superior knowledge is not trying to see. They have virtually ruled out the possibility of admitting they are ever mistaken. Now we all make mistakes; and if you do not admit it, you condemn yourself to ever increasing error. Like Hitler, after he took personal command of the Wehrmacht in Russia. It is for this reason that the laity have ten times more to teach the clergy, than the clergy have to teach the laity. The laity are by and large better educated; their experience of life is much wider; and relatively few clergymen have had a secular job long enough to know what the temptations are in the secular world, and how to cope with them. The position of the clergy of the C.of E. is remarkably like that of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus; to their great credit they had preserved the faith of their forefathers, but were themselves incapable of change.