So we have the two created worlds side by side: the world of science with its mechanical models, which may be illuminating, and the world of the human mind in its infinite variety, confident that it will never again be overawed by science. A new beginning is possible; and looking round at the contemporary scene, it looks very much as if a new beginning is necessary.
Things are in a bad way for religion. The C.of E. is marching majestically towards terminal decline, although its members seem remarkably nonchalant about it. The situation is brought home to them by ever more strident calls for money from ever smaller congregations; so their nonchalance is probably due to their knowledge that they have no idea what to do about it.
The political scene is as bad. For nearly a thousand years Christendom has fought to keep Islam out of Europe. After their astonishing initial success in overwhelming the Christian kingdoms of Egypt and Syria, the Arab generals were first checked at Constantinople in 718 AD, and at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732 AD. But a Turkish invasion got as far as the gates of Vienna in 1683. And Prince Eugene, the friend and comrade in arms of the Duke of Marlborough, spent twenty years campaigning in the Balkans to drive the Turks back, crowned with success at his victory at Zenta in 1699. Ignorant of nearly a thousand years of European history, the EU politicians in Brussels have welcomed millions of Muslim refugees into the heart of Europe, where they will (unless returned from whence they came) replace the Christian tradition of the native inhabitants, which in the modern world rests on a precarious basis. The EU politicians have no idea what they have done, no idea what to do about it, and are unfit to rule.
It is not for me to offer political advice. But I will comment on the present disastrous religious situation.
This was triggered by the insane German attempt at world conquest between 1914 and 1945, which involved in their Belsen and Buchenwald camps obscenities which sank to a depth of depravity lower than that of Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. Rather naturally the Muslim world awoke to the folly of so-called Christian countries, and to the dream of a Muslim Caliphate.
But the trouble began much earlier. The Risen Christ is supposed to have said after his resurrection, which we celebrate at Easter, that all power in heaven and earth had been given to him. And we do all pray, day in day out, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven...” Yet as we look at the contemporary scene, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that however much consolation Christianity has given to countless individuals, it has had remarkably little impact on the way the countries in the world are governed. Indeed Gibbon’s view was that Christianity was a subversive influence, rather than a beneficial one, and a principal factor in the decline and fall or Rome. And one does tend to conclude, either that it was a vain, foolish boast on the part of the Risen Christ, or that the efforts of his followers must have been remarkably inept. How could anyone, for instance, think that it was sensible to try to apply the gospel of someone who resolutely refused to get involved in secular affairs, to mould secular institutions? And to go on doing it for 900 years?
Some people think that to go on trying to solve a problem, by a method that has failed many times in the past, is a sign of madness. But I think that would be a simplistic view to take of the history of the Church. It was not as innocent as madness. It is not necessary to go further back than the claim first made by Hildebrand, or Pope Gregory VII, in the 11th century, that the Church was the supreme political power in Europe. He ought, of course, to have said he was the chief servant of the various Kings of Europe; but in fact he said that in the name of Christ he was their Master. Hildebrand was no fool; he was a stern and implacable idealist. With imperious courage he conceived of the world as a single Christian polity, governed by an infallible Pope. This claim continued to be made all through the Middle Ages, all through our Tudor period, all though the Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, and was still alive at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. In all the centuries when the Church should have been working out the correct relationship between church and state, its thought was ruled by this theocratic philosophy. Is it any wonder that a reaction set in?