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.
