(On March 20, 2014, Erin Lane published an essay called “Why So Many Young Christians Are Leaving Their Churches — And Coming Back Again” in The Washington Post. Sean McGinty wrote the following response.)
“It’s all so strange –
and beastly,” said Jane. She liked these people, but her habitual inner
prompter was whispering, “Take care. Don’t get drawn in. Don’t commit yourself
to anything. You’ve got your own life to live.” – C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
In addressing the apparent lack of commitment among
Millennial Christians to a particular church or creed, a recent Washington Post editorial makes the
claim that, rather than viewing the matter as a failing, it should actually be
seen as a successful attempt in “re-imagining the structure of belonging.” As
is fitting an article so skittish about the notion of commitment, author Erin
Lane never goes on to define exactly what this new structure of belonging looks
like. We can, however, parse out a few elements of her vision.
It seems the foundation consists of selecting bits of
theology from the various traditions one is familiar with. From there, a person
should find an environment where he or she feels most comfortable, recognizing
that no place will hold to the exact doctrinal stew one has cobbled together.
Finally, commitment can be given, not to the particular church one winds up in
or to a church’s particular confession of faith, but rather to its people or
members.
We’re encouraged to view this as a new approach for a new
(and very special) generation, but both the ideas and the anxieties that have
produced them have been around for some time. Ms. Lane’s suggestions really
only amount to a type of less-engaged liberal mainline Protestantism, and all the
weaknesses of that theology. A prime example of such weakness is the suggestion
that one might pick and choose the parts of theological traditions one likes.
The idea sounds very open-minded and inclusive, but the whole effort falls
apart the moment any serious attention is given to those traditions. To say
that one holds to the Catholic theology of the sacraments while rejecting the
Catholic understanding of Church authority undermines the very structure that
Catholic Sacramentalism is based on. One quickly finds oneself holding a host
of contradictory positions.
The thought that Scripture might actually be a source of Objective
Truth that coheres into a logical whole never comes up. Indeed, theology as a
whole is really treated as a secondary issue. It is chiefly the notion of
comfort that drives the author’s opinions. She cannot bring herself to think
that one theology may be wrong, while another may be right—simply because of
the perceived insult this would cause. But this immediately begins to vindicate
the view that a general lack of commitment pervades the millennial generation.
In an attempt to combat this, the author insists that generational commitment
can be found in relationship to people, if not to institution.
That, however, is a mere dodge.
True commitment can only be found when Christ unites
individuals into one people through the divinely established institution of the
church. To say that one wishes to commit to people but not to a church denies
all Christian understanding of what the church is. Ms. Lane subsequently finds
herself in the same position as Jane Studdock in That Hideous Strength. She is pulled in two directions, unable to
wholly commit to either. In order to avoid this embarrassment, she tries to
cover it with semantics. But that will only work for so long. Sooner or later,
Ms. Lane will realize, like Jane—like all of us—that there is ultimately no
neutrality. There is only a “for” and an “against,” and there is no more
important commitment one could possibly imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment