DR MARTYN PERCY had a jeremiad about the Church of England in Prospect, whose new editor, Alan Rusbridger, was one of his most powerful allies when he was Master of Lady Margaret Hall, and Dr Percy was embattled at Christ Church, Oxford. It is difficult to argue with his pessimism about the Church, but I find his optimism about the world beyond rather unworldly.
“One has to start with the facts, and they are brutal. All Christian denominations in the northern hemisphere are continuing to experience numerical decline, according to best estimates,” he writes. “This now includes evangelicals and charismatics (whose numbers show distinct signs of falling into recession) and Pentecostals (stalling, though churches of the diaspora and global south continue to grow). Many churches have had to contend not only with fewer adherents, but also marked changes in intensity of belief and commitment.
“There is a generational crisis brewing too. Those under the age of 35 are less likely to believe in God or belong to a church. Many self-define as ‘spiritual, but not religious’. We are in the midst of a shift in the cultural climate.”
This is fair enough, if you exclude China and possibly Russia as well from the Northern hemisphere. Of course, many Western liberals would exclude the Russian Orthodox, or at least its Putin-loving hierarchy, from the ranks of proper Christians, but I think that shows the corruption of the good by the nice.
“Values may well be the new religion of the 21st century,” Dr Percy continues. “They are formed out of a simple equation: ideologies + passions = values. By values I mean integrity, transparency, equality, justice, accountability, kindness and honesty. Institutions and organisations that fail to exemplify these are unlikely to be trusted by most under-35s.”
That “Values are the new religion” was the theme of Professor Linda Woodhead’s Cadbury lectures last year. I didn’t think then that she addressed the question which values people act on, as opposed to which they profess. But Dr Percy’s list of professed values — and who could argue with any of them? — helped me to see how improbable it is that “values” can take the place of religion in binding a society together. This is because of the deeper shift that Professor Woodhead’s research revealed: a move away from duty and self-sacrifice as ideals into what she called “the Rihanna ideology”, where your purpose was not to live for others, but to live your own best life.
The fact that these two ideals are set in opposition to one another highlights the break with traditional Christianity, in which there was no opposition because your own best life was one lived in the service of other people and, beyond them, Jesus or God, “in whose service is perfect freedom”.
But we all know that in this world the two ideals are opposed. To live your life requires and even sacralises selfishness. “Integrity, transparency, justice, accountability, kindness and honesty” are all values from which we benefit when other people act on them; but it is awkward when they significantly constrain our own freedom of action, and awkwardness of this sort is best avoided if we are to live our own best lives.
Even if you don’t believe in original sin, elementary game theory will show that this is true. We can confidently expect that the cuddly virtues will all be professed, but will very seldom play a decisive part when there are hard choices to be made.
Dr Percy goes on: “In my view the Church of England consistently fails all tests on this. Its failure to address sexism and homophobia, its systemic opacity, the lack of clear and accountable governance — well, you do the maths. Few will join. The emerging generation will get behind movements that address the political, ethical and global challenges that society faces. This excludes most churches.”
But, if we look at how the younger generations vote, and the upsurge of support for far-Right parties across Europe and most of the rest of the Northern hemisphere, large numbers of them reject entirely this Guardian-flavoured world-view. To the extent that they get behind movements at all, they do so on the basis of self-interest and self-gratification. Rihanna rules.
WHEN the Church offers something from which people directly benefit, whether this is social, spiritual, or simply a physical foodbank, those who benefit will see the point and support it; when it does not, they will see its hypocrisies more keenly. See Kaya Burgess’s Times story — which required real journalism — about the way in which churches are installing gas boilers because they can’t afford green alternatives. This had a notable non-quote from a spokesman at the end.
“He said church commissioners have pledged £190 million to ‘support the church in the transition towards net zero’ over the next nine years and said it was ‘striking’ to see the target being considered by church courts.”
“Striking” is an extraordinary word in this context. Are we to understand that the commitment to net zero is merely a value?