The American Academy of Arts and Sciences devoted the Winter 1966 issue of its journal Daedalus to a symposium on “Religion in America.” Thirteen contributors, chosen from a fairly broad spectrum of our American religious scene, attempt to assess the status of both institutional and “spiritual” Christianity and Judaism, with a view to a possible projection of the nation’s religious future.
Giant problems stalk the terrain these authors seek to cover. These problems touch the center of our national scene: the relation of the Church to society, the inter-relationships among major religious institutions themselves, and the tendency of the Church to “establish” itself, whether legally or sociologically. Although the writers address themselves to many issues, they seem most concerned with the emergence of what may be called a “folk religion” and with the several elements that may combine to produce this. The tension between the sacralism of such a culture-religion and the New Worldliness appears in many guises and elicits a variety of responses.
A pivotal question is whether American culture is to continue to be shaped without reference to God. If so, then what will occupy the role theism left vacant? What symbols will replace the concepts of divine sovereignty, providence, redemption, and judgment? Some suggest that the figure of Jesus (often regarded as a paradigm for the Church, or for social service) will afford an integrating center, so that “God talk” will yield to a bold new symbolism in theological language, a symbolism deriving its content from secular and sociological sources.
It is suggested that the existential mood, which tends to be psychologically oriented, is giving ground to a new mood related to current social crises—race, economics, law enforcement, sexual morality, and the like. If this is correct, what shape may theological formulation be expected to take? There is no lack of contenders. Some, disillusioned with institutional forms of Christianity, will follow Bonhoeffer in his insistence upon some such category as “worldly Christianity.” Others will propose a sharpening of the now-blurred categories of classical theological liberalism, so as to afford a framework for a new formulation in which the frank involvement of theology with cultural surroundings will be accepted as given.
Looming large in the discussions is the alleged irrelevance of the churches to modern life, particularly in its urban form. The classic explanation is that traditional supernaturalism is alien to the thought-modes of modern man and that irrelevance thus lies in a failure to shed the trappings of historical Christian theological language. But one author ventures to quote the view, expressed recently by a critic of the God-is-dead movement, that ‘much of the churches’ social irrelevance stems from their tendency to dilute the categories of Scripture in a mindless accommodation to society.” To this the evangelical can assent heartily.
Major problems of approach concern the panelists. Most of them reject the view that the task of the churches should be understood chiefly in terms of the preservation of stable institutions. The choice seems to be between the activist minority, bent on revolutionary change, and the melioristic majority, more grateful to the past than the activists. No one seems willing or able to propose a final answer at this point.
The recurring question is, however, to what extent the Christian Church should try to adapt its theology to the kaleidoscopic movements in the current social scene. Those favoring a thorough accommodation seem to opt for the more promising path of conformity. Those contending for the validity of the essential core of Christian confessional truth face the staggering problem of teaching the thoughtful part of our world to understand the language in which this truth is expressed. Few, it seems, are willing to undertake this bold task.
A generation ago, a symposium of this sort would scarcely have included such a chapter as “Is There a Third Force in Christendom?” By a religious “third force” the author means an agency that is either indicative of or (possibly) causal to a significant shift in religious alignments. On the whole, this chapter is balanced in its treatment of the movements that stand between the avant-garde of the radical theology and the melioristic standard-bearers of the religion of the major denominations. What is new here is the stress upon the pluralistic quality of the “Third Force,” especially the inclusion within it of the younger and restless elements in the Roman Catholic Church.
The chapter contains its provincialisms. It mentions Wheaton (Illinois) College as “one of the very few accredited fundamentalist colleges” and makes no mention of accredited theological seminaries of evangelical commitment. Its author identifies—too easily, we think—the evangelical movement in America with the 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater, and speaks from a very limited inductive base when he writes that “the new evangelicals are the spiritual hard-core of the radical right.” It is the experience of this writer that his colleagues were far from being of one mind in October/November of 1964; and further, that thoughtful evangelicals today are far more charitable in their treatment of President Lyndon B. Johnson than many of those who in 1964 evangelistically endorsed his platform as embodying the Christian ideal.
Again, it appears naive to write, as the author of this chapter does, that the priority given by evangelicals to foreign missionary endeavor “unquestionably results from their alienation from their own culture.” One wonders whether this writer has any acquaintance with the biographies of such missionary leaders as J. Hudson Taylor, Charles Cowman, or C. T. Studd—to name a few.
The attempt to sever the motivation of the evangelical missionary societies (especially the “faith missions”) from that of the nineteenth-century missionary endeavors is related to a more general tendency—that of portraying the evangelical cause today as unrelated to the major evangelical trends within the established denominations prior to the period of the dominance of theological liberalism.
What is the probable future shape of religion in America? None of the authors ventures a definitive reply. Some see it shaped, in some part at least, by a rising pietism, derived from impulses parallel to those prevailing in evangelical Christianity, if indeed not in some measure determined by them. Some see activistic participation (perhaps identification) as the wave of the theological future. Yet others see the emergence of a sort of social-establishment Christendom.
Only one author seems to regard as a live option the possibility that the Holy Spirit may operate instrumentally to bring new light—and with it, new forms—to the spiritual life of the nation. It seems clear that, should this occur, the Spirit’s moving will come upon many who at the moment show little acquaintance with him.
