Last in a Series
If the modern mind (with its Reason and Patterned Reality) is being replaced by a post-modern mind in which Reality is Self and Unpattern, then the Church now faces a problem for which she is little prepared. She must now proclaim the Truth not against Rationalism but against Irrationalism. She must now proclaim the Faith not against Reason but against Faith-in-general.
Consider the place of religion in the post-modern mind. In one of its moods, “God” becomes an objective Reality which is Unpattern (as in Zen Buddhism or Hinduism), a Reality which is Love and Hate, Meaning and Non-meaning, Good and Evil—or rather, a Reality which is beyond such categories. In another of its moods, “God” becomes the Free Self, creating all values in freedom, fighting always against the blind and determined Unpattern. But these two moods of the post-modern mind influence fewer people (at least so far) than a third mood, the Conformist.
THE GROUP AND ‘GOD’
What, then, would be the place of religion in the “faith” of the typical junior executive living in suburbia, and in the “faith” of his high school children? On the basis of our previous analysis, we might expect that “God” would become “that which helps give the Self emotional security.” Since the Self and the Unpattern are the only Reality, “God” cannot, if he is to be Personal (neither Self nor Unpattern) be Real. What Reality “God” has will come about through his connection with the Self, which is Real, or, indeed, through connection with the Group (which is a collection of Selves). What the Self (or Group) is and creates is the only Reality (outside of the Unpattern). Thus, if the Self creates “God,” or if the Group creates “God,” he therefore is “Real.” His reality is, however, secondary, and dependent on the Self’s creation of him.
Thus it becomes perfectly consistent to say (as a student recently said to me) that God created the world, but that if there were no people, God would not exist. This is a shorthand way of saying “God is something I have created, or my Group has, and is thus Real; my Group believes in a God who created the world; but if my Group did not believe in him, he would stop existing, since his reality is secondary and derived.” Or, as another student put it, “God is not Real, but I believe in him.”
Why believe in “God”? Obviously, to help give the Self emotional security. What sort of “God” should we believe in? The kind that will give us the most emotional security. Thus God will be a Kind Friend, the Protector of Our Group, the Man Upstairs, the Someone Who Likes Me. Which religion is true? Well, the question can only mean which religion confers the most security on the Self, since that is what “true” means (and this is indeed correct, if Self and Unpattern are the only Reality). The implication is that any religion which gives the Self emotional security is “true.” It further implies what might be called a “plurality of religious truths.” For what gives the most emotional security to one Self need not provide emotional security for another Self. How do we decide which religion to “believe in”? By testing. To begin with, try the one your Group believes in, and see if it is “true” (that is, if it furnishes emotional security for the Self).
‘FAITH’ AS AID TO SECURITY
If the analysis is sound (and it is, if our observations on the post-modern mind are correct), we may expect to discover a pattern in the making. “God” will be viewed as an aid to emotional security; new “faiths” promising emotional security will spread rapidly; religion will be increasingly tied to security-giving symbols (which, considered from the standpoint of the modern mind, would be irrational). “God” would become “the protector of American values,” the Guardian of “our way of life.” There would be increasing “recognition” of the “fact” that all religions are equally “true.” (As teen-age idol Tommy Sands put it, “I believe all religions are the greatest,” Time, May 13, 1957.) There would be increasing syncretism and blurring of faiths; there would be mounting appreciation of the “truth” of non-Christian faiths; and so on.
Consider, now, some relevant news items:
Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, former president of the National Council of Churches, fears that “the old question ‘Can I believe?’ has given way to the new ‘What shall I believe in?’ ” (New York Times, Mar. 23, 1956).
W. L. Miller of Yale Divinity School, in part of a study sponsored by the Fund for the Republic, says American religion is apt to be “belief in believing” which may produce “a shallow and implicitly compulsory common creed” of “religion-in-general” (Time, Aug. 4, 1958).
A million and a half persons yearly visit Forest Lawn cemetery near Los Angeles, where all faiths including atheists (but not Negroes) can be buried, where Christmas toys are placed on graves each year, and where infants are buried in a special Lullabyland section (Time, Dec. 7, 1959).
There are more faith healers than doctors in modern France (Time, Mar. 17, 1954).
A church in London installed a jukebox with rock-and-roll spirituals; at the service a rock-and-roll singer sang about “Mary’s own blue-eyed (sic) boy” (New York Times, Dec. 15, 1959).
Among best-selling Catholic religious items are Sacred Hearts which glow in the dark (Time, Nov. 8, 1954).
Dr. Ivan London, Russian expert, says that religious belief is spreading rapidly in Russia, but it is a belief in a Supreme Being rather than in the Christian God (New York Times, Mar. 23, 1956).
A Christ-like portrait of Fidel Castro, being widely distributed, is described by a Cuban magazine as a symbol of God’s “tremendous hope when he wanted to make man in his own image” (Time, Aug. 21, 1959).
Brazil’s fastest-growing cult, spiritism, had over half a million devotees meeting in wildly emotional rites in Rio. It features a mixture of Christianity, paganism, and spiritualism (Time, Jan. 12, 1959).
Faith-healer Zarur, in Rio, claims 250,000 followers for his new religion, claims to be a reincarnation of St. Francis, uses Prayer Chains in his radio broadcasts, says that “bad things were said against Christ and me” (New York Times, Mar. 23, 1956).
Rock-and-roll idol Elvis Presley has released an album which includes “Silent Night” and “Santa Bring My Baby Back to Me” (Time, Nov. 4, 1957). Such reports could be multiplied, but these are adequate to confirm the impression that some sort of pattern is emerging. Perhaps two additional items may provide an intimation of what lies ahead. The first is from London. When the TV and radio idol Liberace played to a packed house at Royal Festival Hall, and was denounced by English columnist “Cassandra” as an unpleasant sign of the times, Liberace answered: “Everyone has to expect a certain number of nonbelievers.… I suppose that’s why they shot Lincoln and crucified Christ” (Time, Oct. 15, 1956). The second is from Los Angeles, where plans were announced for a “religious” amusement park (“Bible Storyland”). Built in the shape of a heart (“symbolic of God’s love”), it includes “The Ride to Heaven,” the “David and Goliath Slingshot Galleries,” the “Shrine of Faith Plaza” (which, with Ur and the Caravan Route, are laid out to “form the cross of Jesus Christ”), and much more. Backers of the $15 million project include Hollywood comedian Jack Haley and Yo-yo magnate D. F. Duncan. The promoters assure all that “above all, Bible Storyland will be a happy place” which “will not offend the sensibilities of any faith” (Time, Feb. 1, 1960). Opening date is Easter, 1961.
If one grants the presuppositions of the post-modern mind, do not the foregoing behavior patterns appear eminently “sensible” and “realistic”?
A CHECK ON THE CAMPUS MIND
As a rough (and admittedly unscientific) check on the conclusions tentatively reached regarding the post-modern mind, the writer polled some of his college classes. These students, largely from suburbia, were enrolled at an engineering school. The poll was taken over several semesters.
In each question, students were asked (in effect) whether the post-modern mind had in fact replaced the modern mind on a given point:
The first question asked whether man should be defined as “basically Reasonable and knowledge-seeking and freedom loving” (a modern definition), or “basically technological and machine-using and security-seeking” (a post-modern definition). Of 169 answering, 111 said the second definition has replaced the first.
Should society “be based on Reason, promote Freedom, encourage Science” (modern), or “be based on technology, promote a high standard of living and emotional security” (post-modern)? Of 161 answering, 93 declared for post-modernity.
Should religion be “mildly Christian, but kept apart from important affairs—that is, should it be Reasonable” (modern), or should it be “any type the group approves of, important because it gives emotional security, not important whether true or not”? Of 157, 82 said the post-modern has replaced the modern.
Should government “be run by the educated, or the property holders, or by the actively concerned majority” (modern), or should it “be run by a small group of experts appointed by the majority, with the average man taking only a passive part” (post-modern)? Of 162, 84 said that the opinion of most people today is post-modern rather than modern.
Is “good” better defined as “that which helps freedom, reason, democracy” or “that which raises the standard of living”? Of 165, 68 took the second alternative (which omits any mention of security, which might have been an additional attraction).
Is culture better regarded as “valuable though not basic” (modern) or “of little or no value”? Of 165 answering, 84 said that the post-modern attitude has replaced the modern.
Such results, in a poll not scientifically controlled, can be regarded at most as showing a rough trend, but are perhaps of interest nevertheless.
THE TASK OF THE CHURCH
The problems faced by the Church attempting to communicate to the post-modern mind may perhaps be sharpened by considering a series of questions addressed to a typical though imaginary representative of that mind. The answers are a composite of those actually given by college students.
Q: What is the purpose of education?
A: To enable the student to adjust to the group and thus gain emotional security.
Q: But to what group should the student be trained to adjust?
A: To the dominant group in this country.
Q: And what does it want?
A: A high standard of living.
Q: Is this good?
A: Obviously, since the group wants it.
Q: Is communism good?
A: Not in this country, since we don’t think it is. It is good for the Russians, since they believe in it.
Q: Is science true?
A: Yes, since it raises the standard of living, which the group believes in.
Q: Should Latin be taught in high school?
A: I don’t think so, since it doesn’t give me emotional security nor does it help raise the standard of living. But if students want it, they should have it.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because it bolsters my emotional security.
Q: What is God like?
A: Whatever you believe he is like, if you believe strongly.
Q: Do you believe in the Trinity?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Why?
A: I was brought up in a group that did.
Q: Is the Trinity a true view of God?
A: Yes, because my group believes in it.
Q: Is Buddhism true?
A: Oh yes, but not for us, but it is if people believe in it, for them.
Q: If your group believed in Buddhism, would it be true?
A: Of course, for us, if we believed.
Q: Would it be objectively true?
A: Huh?
Q: Is Luther’s view of grace correct?
A: It was for him.
Q: Is it objectively true; would it be true if no one believed in it?
A. Are you trying to destroy my faith?
Three remarks may be added in conclusion. First, if this analysis is correct, the situation the Church faces is not really new. For the Church in the Roman Empire had, as its main enemy, not the dying rationalism of the Graeco-Roman mind, but rather the active and expanding irrationalism of the Oriental cults. Second, even from the viewpoint of the Christian mind, the emergence of the post-modern mind is not all bad. Existentialism and so forth have valuable insights, often expressed movingly and forcefully. The post-modern mind is aware of several facets of the human condition which the modern mind tended to forget. Third, of course, it remains to be established that the foregoing analysis is correct. The analysis, in our opinion, has some truth, and might at least be considered as an hypothesis. A sweeping renaissance of an informed Christian faith throughout the Western world—a rather dim prospect at the moment—could replace these emergent patterns, taking away their potential domination of culture and life in the coming generation. It will take courage for the Church to leave her peaceful cloisters, and preparation to face the resurgence of irrationalism and blind faith represented by the post-modern mind. But there is hardly a greater challenge to the cause of Jesus Christ in our generation.
Funeral
O Lord, the gate that leads to life
Should laughter make as it springs open;
Yet oiled with tears its hinges are,
And framed by sorrow its tight sealed door.
Give us this day the power of grace
To see behind the darkness of the night,
The beginning of the dawning’s glorious light,
And beyond the death’s head, the Saviour’s face.
Let the flowers on the bier more than beauty show
And in the colors of their leaves, the Resurrection glow.
Let not the dirt that fills the grave
Be wretched salt on open wounds,
But let the glorious reddish sod,
Show hope of life, of growth; the Womb of God.
JOHN C. COOPER
Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.
