Category: Disenchantment

Living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge we face in seeking a relationship with God

Continuing to share my thoughts on disenchantment, the next two posts will focus on areas in my personal experience that, for me, illustrate the power of disenchantment to shape our lives spiritually and physically. Today’s post will address the disenchanted church. The next post will examine work in a disenchanted age.

My church heritage is the Church of Christ (CoC). If you are unfamiliar with CoC, you can read a synopsis from Wikipedia HERE which will provide context.

Members of the church of Christ do not conceive of themselves as a new church started near the beginning of the 19th century. Rather, the whole movement is designed to reproduce in contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 33. The strength of the appeal lies in the restoration of Christ’s original church.
—Batsell Barrett Baxter

55 of 65 years my church experience have been in the Church of Christ.  Nearly a decade ago we moved and began attending a Christian Missionary Alliance congregation. For that reason, my thoughts on disenchanted church will relate to a Church of Christ context. If you read the synopsis of the Church of Christ, it is clear that there are many unique and occasionally bizarre aspects of that fellowship. I would argue that there are unique/weird characteristics in most, if not all, Christian fellowships. It just depends on the lens through which they are viewed. 

Although I do not have a thorough knowledge of other fellowships, I do believe the COC is uniquely different in its origin and can provide valuable insights into the influence of disenchantment on identity and beliefs.    

The COC has its roots in the American Restoration movement that began in the late 18th century.  That movement produced at least three distinct fellowships, Independent Christian Church, Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ. 

Born  in the midst of the enlightenment, which was shaping the cultural contours of the newly born United States, the Restoration movement was profoundly influenced by the burgeoning confidence in science and reason to achieve human progress. Rationalism, the idea that humans are capable of using their faculty of reason to gain knowledge, was a shift away from the prevailing idea that people needed to rely on scripture or church authorities for knowledge.

The religious landscape was fraught with division following centuries of wars in Europe over religious disagreement. There was a hunger for peace and unity. To that end, the Restoration movement was centered in the belief that peace and unity could be achieved through the restoration of the New Testament church. An idealized understanding of the New Testament church as depicted in the book of Acts became the vision of the movement.

Evidence of success in applying enlightenment principles to achieve human progress abounded. Scientific progress in medicine, industry was solving/improving the condition of humanity in unprecedented fashion. The promise of the future was endless.

 “The successful application of reason to any question depended on its correct application—on the development of a  methodology of reasoning that would serve as its own guarantee of validity. Such a methodology was most spectacularly achieved in the  sciences and mathematics, where the logics of  and  made possible the creation of a sweeping new cosmology.”

Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander were the most prominent personalities in the beginning of the COC.  They were Presbyterians and proponents of rationalism. Deeply concerned about divisions and dissensions in Christian religion, they yearned for unity.  To achieve the vision of a restored New Testament church, they believed the application of scientific methods and rationalism to understanding the Bible would result in agreement. The conclusions of logic and reason applied through the correct methodology could not be refuted. I would say it was on the basis of those premises (and others) that the COC became a disenchanted movement. An uncompromising reliance on an enlightened approach to scripture and the derived ecclesiology fashioned the DNA of  the COC which remains, although much less, to this day.

The story of the COC is much more than can be related in this post. For the purpose of this writing, the COC uniquely demonstrates possible outcomes when Christians, or for that matter any human enterprise, surrenders to disenchantment. More on other enterprises in the next post.

Rather than recount the details of the COC and its unholy alliance with disenchantment, I will relate my personal faith journey in a disenchanted church.  

The following descriptions are drawn from past decades and do not reflect the nature and character of my faith today.

My early understanding of God was primarily deistic. He was concerned but remote. Residing somewhere in the heavens. He (always he) hated sin and promised punishment (hell) for sinners. His qualities of mercy and grace were secondary to his judgement and wrath. Fear was the emotion I most often experienced when thinking about God. Throughout my spiritual journey, I have struggled with a subtle but nagging temptation toward deism. 

My salvation became possible by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ that satisfied the wrath of God, provided I took the 5 steps necessary for salvation. Hear, Believe Repent, Confess, Be baptized. No more, no less. At the appropriate age of twelve (age of accountability), over whelmed by the terror of hell, I responded to the invitation song on Sunday morning and was baptized (immersed) for the remission of my sins. 

I found salvation to be tenuous. It was contingent on continued sinlessness. There were sins of omission and sins of commission, any of, which were not repented of would negate one’s salvation. Of course, after my baptism sin remained a constant companion. The remedy for such apostasy was to ask for God’s forgiveness. 

For private sins that was doable, just pray to God and  ask for forgiveness and salvation was restored. Public sin was a bigger problem, its remedy required public confession for forgiveness. Public confession meant going to the front of the church and asking for the prayers of the congregation, usually during the invitation song at the conclusion of the sermon. If I died on the way home with unforgiven sins I faced eternal damnation in the fires of hell. 

That created a significant problem. 

Sin, for me, was regular and often public. The prospect of responding to the invitation Sunday after Sunday admitting sin was not an attractive proposition. I was quickly forced into a mental calculation of the risk of dying on the way home verses banking my sins for a more reasonable time frame, perhaps every six months or so. Of course, that schedule could be accelerated by revival services. Gospel Meetings (revival services) provided some cover because a lot of others responded to the impassioned pleas of gospel sermons. In any case, relief from fear was elusive, The demand for personal righteousness became exhausting.  

How I experienced worship (church services) did not change after I was baptized. More than a century of bible study to understand and restore the New Testament church had resulted in absolute conclusions about the form and content of worship in the New Testament church.  Any deviation from accepted norms (biblically approved) would result in apostasy. The challenge of worship for me was to understand and follow the rules.  The basic rules of worship were as follows:

Sunday morning services were regarded as primary.

Sunday school preceding or following.

congregational a cappella singing only.

worship order:
prayer
3 songs
prayer
song
communion
prayer
contribution
sermon
invitation
dismissal prayer

Deviation from the above order was acceptable within reasonable(?) bounds. Provided the revised order contained all the essential elements of New Testament worship, i.e. singing, praying, communion, giving preaching, invitation. All the elements of worship were essential, but communion was the most important. Missing communion was considered by some to carry the same risk as unforgiven sin. 

Attendance at Sunday morning services was the hallmark of faithful Christians. Evening services were held every Sunday. Those services required the inclusion of all the essential elements. Interestingly, communion and contribution was often offered in an ad hoc setting for those unable to attend the morning services. Clearly, Sunday evening was second class.

Under pressure of performance my religious life evolved into a dichotomy that would prevail for decades. Religion was mostly confined to church and good moral conduct. The rest of my life was largely immune to religion with the exception of a desire to be a good person. There was not a red line between the two spheres and that created a constant tension between  my “is” and “ought”. Of course, I could find relief from that tension by confession and repentance, but that was only temporary. As  I came to learn, “sin is always crouching at the door”. 

There was another method of  absolution which prevailed in the COC and that I found personally attractive. Because our beliefs were based on the Bible they were unassailable. Any and everyone who disagreed was in error and destined to eternal hell. There could be no exceptions or deviations, within or without. Our theology was a balloon that if pierced at any point, would disintegrate and therefore had to be protected at all costs.

As a result, the emphasis of teaching and preaching was affirmation of our correctness and the error of dissenters. The only resolution was conversion to the truth, of which we were the sole possessors. We were the only true church and all others were doomed. The highest calling was to convict sinners they were lost outside the true church. To ignore that responsibility would put our salvation in jeopardy. “You can’t go to heaven without taking someone with you.” 

I began to understand the advantages of legalism. Get one convert and I would be good to go. Take care of the really important sins and maintain outward piety, good to go.  Follow the rules and embrace the correct doctrine and do not compromise your faith (correctness). 

Doctrinal purity was the go to refuge. It was pretty clear that there were people all around who where better people, morally and other wise. That reality would have decimated our self-righteousness except for our belief that their doctrine was wrong. We could take solace in our doctrinal correctness, without regard to any comparative moral or ethical failures. Personal absolution from a contradictory life was found in the doctrinal error of those outside our tribe. Most often in the context of a eulogy: “He was such a great person and a good Methodist (et al). Too bad he was never baptized by immersion.“ Mother Teresa was no exception. Of course, there was always some despicable person to whom we could compare but doctrinal error was the handiest.  

All of the above and other characteristics and beliefs of COC shaped both its appearance and reputation. Most COC church buildings were easily identifiable by their plain and functional appearance. Typically, one story rectangular buildings with an occasional addition on the rear or side.Steeples were rare and if one appeared they were never adorned with a cross. There was minimal exterior signage. Some churches built annex buildings to house kitchen/eating facilities, necessary to accommodate prohibition of eating in the church building. Over the years as congregation sizes increased, appearances changed and restrictions were modified. For the faithful, it was easy to identify congregations that were headed down a slippery slope to apostasy. 

The interior decoration style of COC church buildings could be be described as anti-style. Biblical authorization infused with functionality, eliminated any icons, stained glass, crosses, and early on, air conditioning was eschewed. As decades passed, functionality gradually prevailed and urban/suburban churches began to become more “stylish”. The most enduring features of COC auditoriums (only later sanctuaries) was a baptistery prominently placed behind the pulpit and a communion table properly placed in front of the pulpit. Both locations were determine from doctrine. The only permissible signage in the auditorium was a letter board on which the song book numbers for the songs to be sung were listed along with the previous Sunday AM & PM worship attendance and contribution amount. 

Worship decorum was important. No clapping, no spontaneous (out of order) speaking, no surprises, no deviation from the planned order of worship ( in decency and order). There were prescribed, biblical precedents for administering communion (Lord’s Supper), formulaic prayers with endorsed and possibly required phrases, i.e. “…guard, guide and direct …”, “..forgive our sins…”, “…guide the hands of the doctors…”, …in the name of Jesus…”. 

Women were not permitted to speak in worship, except for singing. Men, baptized believers, who served communion were required to wear a coat and tie.  Women were allowed to teach children and pray in Sunday school as long as there were no baptized males in the class. The typical attire for Sunday morning services was “Sunday best”, coat and ties for men, dresses for women, with gloves and hats optional. Women wearing pants and men with long hair was a serious violation of norms. 

A cappella singing was a doctrinal centerpiece. Four part harmony sung with shape note hymnals was standard. Non-instrumental became one of the most frequent descriptions of COC churches. Absolutely no instruments were allowed in the church building, with the exception of a tuning fork. The use of instruments was a defining issue in the split of COC churches from the Independent Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ. I never understood how I was to deal with sacred hymns played by instruments away from church. Following the usual advice concerning gray areas, I adopted a better safe that sorry approach. 

In my experience, the Holy Spirit was a no-show. The Holy Spirit quit working after the Bible was completed. Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, spirituality, charisma, et al, were not in my vocabulary. Ours was a bootstrap faith. All you needed to do was study the Bible and you would come to full understanding, of everything.  However, there were approved commentaries and study guides written by accepted authors. Since we were adamantly non-denominational, it was never clear who approved who to be authorized or credible. 

The non-denominational badge was worn with great pride. All denominations were apostate. Anytime there was some concern about a practice or different belief, the surest way to know if it was biblical or doctrinally correct was to check and see if any denomination approved or practiced it. If that was the case, you had your answer. 

Being non-denominational (sectarian) had its advantages, namely being true to the restoration of the  New Testament church. There were some distinct disadvantages that emerged with occasions of need to cooperate with other COC’s. Without any governing entity to facilitate or arbitrate, when differences arose, conflicts were difficult to resolve. Consistent with the  enlightenment approach in the Restoration Movement, the logical way to resolve conflict would be by debate. Where reason and logic prevailed and it was supposed, agreement would emerge. Debate proved to be as unsuccessful in achieving agreement as had been in restoring unity  in the New Testament church. COC became known for its debates. Debates rivaled the popularity of Gospel Meetings. Debates were the weapon of choice, externally or internally.

Eventually, the perceived necessity of maintaining each church’s autonomy would result in unresolved conflict and “disfellowship”. Disfellowship meaning a declaration that the other church was no longer a “true” church.  This recent quote from Richard Rohr regarding Christianity in general, captures the essence of the COC. 

As a rule, Christians were more interested in the superiority of our own group or nation than we were in the wholeness of creation. Our view of reality was largely imperial, patriarchal, and dualistic. Things were seen as either for us or against us, and we were either winners or losers, totally good or totally bad—such a small self and its personal salvation remained Christianity’s overwhelming preoccupation up to now. This is surely how our religion became so focused on obedience and conformity, instead of on love in any practical or expanding sense.

Richard Rohr

There is much more that I could related regarding the COC, but this post has extend well beyond my original intention.  I believe what I have shared is sufficient to illustrate the impact of  disenchantment on the American Restoration Movement and the COC in particular. The commendable notion of bringing unity to a divided Christianity by restoring the New Testament church was thwarted by the belief that it could be accomplished through ration, reason and science. Enchantment was discarded, leaving a one dimensional material realm.  Religion, spirituality and scripture became the proverbial square peg, only useful to the extent that it  could be forced into the round hole of disenchantment. What resulted was not unity, but sectarianism, conflict within and without. 

My up bringing in a disenchanted COC resulted in a faith based upon correct doctrine, self reliance and justification by works. Legalism shaped my life and relationships for many years, and, more importantly my understanding of and relationship with God. By God’s grace, my spiritual journey has been redirected and I now live with confidence in God’s love. 

As a final point, my COC experience was not without some positive aspects. Emphasis on scripture and the value of study has served me well. The demands for obedience restrained me  in circumstances of temptation. Absent the chaffing yoke of legalism, I fear I would have simply acquiesced to a mundane, shallow disenchanted life devoid of enchantment. 

“All this is to simply say that meaning, purpose and significance is harder in a disenchanted age. And we feel a deep dissatisfaction with this state of affairs.  “

Richard Beck

.

Living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge we face in seeking a relationship with God

I have continued to ponder the challenge of understanding life in a disenchanted age and communicating those understandings in a way that will help clarify my conclusion.

The domination of disenchantment in our age is prerequisite to my conclusion.

Charles Taylor asserts the disenchanted age evolved in a slow but methodical process over the previous 500 years. This explains, at least in part, why there is not a general awareness or concern about our contemporary age being disenchanted. Like the fabled frog, we unaware we have been slowly boiled (disenchanted).

A second factor which I believe impedes awareness of a disenchanted age is the obvious existence of, and attraction to, enchantment in our age. Coincidentally, it also argues for the domination of disenchantment.
When we feel the pinch of disenchantment we can conveniently escape to a enchanted refuge (vacation, fantasy, sabbatical, meditation, yoga, religion, contemplation, prayer, daydreams, sci-fi , mystery (ad infinitum ). Such escapes are only temporary. If not temporary, people become, at best, weird anomalies or at worse, outcasts.

I think that it can be helpful to image enchantment/disenchantment as default modes. Humans like computers have an operating system. Before the disenchanted age, humanity’s operating system was enchanted. As characterized earlier, in the enchanted age the world had a vertical, spiritual dimension. Human events intermingled with spirits, God, and magic. It was the default mode for human interaction and source of meaning and purpose. Progressively, humanity searched outside their enchanted realm for answers to the mysteries of their existence. The example of Galileo, tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, and forced to recant, spending the rest of his life under house arrest, illustrates the dominance of enchantment and the impulse to default.

The default mode for the disenchanted age is reliance on human ability/reason and scientific laws as an ultimate source for answers to the problems of modernity. Utility, efficiency and production are our preimemmant tools to achieve full potential as human beings. Inherently, disenchantment rejects the transcendent. Mystery, fantasy, spirituality, faith, divinity, magic, art, namely, enchantment, is rendered irrelevant. our existence in a disenchanted age is reduced to one dimension, removing depth and meaning and distorting the purpose of our lives. Aas Beck describes, “When creation is stripped of its holy, sacred and enchanted character …it becomes–material. Raw, disenchanted material. Inert stuff. Piles of particles.”

In this disenchanted age we live in a paradox. On the one hand there is the reality of human progress and the optimism of an unbounded future, all attributable to human ingenuity and science. On the other hand, there is a transcendent reality. An awareness that we exist and recognize our need for meaning and purpose which is unfulfilled in a disenchanted reality.

The challenge is how do we live in this paradox. A default to disenchantment demands “either/or” and rejects “both/and”. Defaulting to “either/or” is the defining issue that leads me to my conclusion that living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge we face in seeking a relationship with God.
More to come.

n my last post, “Who Needs Mary Poppins?”I introduced the subject of disenchantment and its relationship to recent personal circumstances. That experience, coupled with the current challenge at our church to have a Deep and Wide relationship with God, has generated considerable thoughts and questions.

Let me begin with my conclusion:

Living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge  we face in seeking a relationship with God.

As I write that conclusion, I am struggling with describing a disenchanted age as “most significant”  rather than “a significant”. At this point, I am sticking with “most significant”, understanding that my continued study may change my opinion.

Disenchanted World

Relying primarily on Richard Beck’s posts regarding disenchantment and his references to Charles Taylor’s book “The Secular Age”, my understand regarding a disenchanted world is as follows:

In the enchanted age (>500 years ago) the world had a vertical, spiritual dimension. Human events intermingled with spirits, God, and magic. Over the last 500 years this vertical/spiritual dimension has collapsed, as a result, the world has become disenchanted.

In today’s disenchanted world, only human agency or scientific law can function for us as causal forces. As Taylor notes we now live in an immanent age. Only the flat, horizontal dimension exists for us.

Taylor notes that there are two major symptoms marking the transition from enchantment to disenchantment. First, is the collapse of the vertical, spiritual dimension, leaving only the flat, horizontal dimension.

The second symptom of disenchantment is the rise of the buffered self. In the enchanted age the self was at the crossroads of a great deal of spiritual traffic. Spells, demons, or God could penetrate the boundaries of the self. During the enchanted age the self was porous. But in an immanent age the walls of the self become firmer and clearer. The self becomes isolated and closed in upon itself. That is the buffered self.In the face of this “flatness” we struggle to find depth without recourse to the transcendent.

Beck point out two of the rebellions against the immanent order noted by Taylor. First, there is what Taylor calls “the Romantic protest,” the attempt of romantics of all eras to find a dimension of depth in communion with Nature and Eros. 

A different kind of rebellion against the immanent is to find depth by turning inward and going “deeper” into the self. We live in an age of interiority, where the dimension of depth is found by tunneling into the core of the human psyche. We find meaning in being true to ourselves, living by an ethic of autonomy and authenticity. During the enchanted age guidance was sought externally; depth of meaning was gained via transcendence. By contrast, in an immanent age I gain depth by going “inside” and consulting the inner light of “my true self.” Either way, internally or externally, a dimension of depth is created. The virtues of each approach can be, and are, debated. It is the need and desire for depth that is noteworthy.

With disenchantment we have lost a sense of depth. As Taylor notes, “There is a generalized sense in our culture that with the eclipse of the transcendent, something may have been lost.”

What, exactly, has been lost? Generally, in a disenchanted age we have more difficulty with issues of meaning: “Almost every action of ours has a point; we’re trying to get to work, or to find a place to buy a bottle of milk after hours. But we can stop and ask why we’re doing these things, and that points us beyond to the significance of these significances. The issue may arise for us in a crisis, where we feel that what has been orienting our life up to now lacks real value, weight…A crucial feature of the malaise of immanence is the sense that all these answers are fragile, or uncertain; that a moment may come, where we no longer feel that our chosen path is compelling, or cannot justify it to ourselves or others. There is a fragility of meaning…”

Because of this void of meaning, “…day to day life… is emptied of deeper resonance, is dry, flat; the things which surround us are dead, ugly, empty; and the way we organize them, shape them, in order to live has not meaning, beauty, depth, sense.”  We now experience “a terrible flatness in the everyday.”

In the face of this “flatness” we struggle to find depth without recourse to the transcendent.

It is obvious that this post has not addressed directly my conclusion that living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge we face in seeking a relationship with God.

My intent has been to establish some definition of a disenchanted age. Subsequent posts will, hopefully, make the connection clearer.