Why doesn’t the church have influence any more?
Religious news and events used to be important.
by Peter Davison
Q: Why doesn’t the church have influence any more? Religious news and events used to be important.
A: Perhaps we should begin by distinguishing between influence and formal power. The late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was said to have asked contemptuously, "How many divisions has the Pope?" While Nikita Kruschev in similar vein reported that Russian cosmonauts had not met God in outer space. Both, of course, were dictators who saw the world in terms of ideological and military warfare — though both were reported to have requested, and been granted, Christian burial. There is currently much debate within the Roman Catholic Church over the power of the magisterium, the teaching authority controlled largely by the Pope and the Curia cardinals. Many Roman Catholic bishops have complained about their diminished authority under the last two popes, and their church's retreat from the more open conciliar methods, which emerged from the Second Vatican Council. One item that has made the news lately is the conversation between the Vatican and the heads of Roman Catholic women’s religious orders — seen by many as part of an attempt to bring all religious orders into line. It should be noted that this tension is not new. Religious orders (both Roman Catholic and Anglican) have always had a certain degree of autonomy, and have been major sources of reform, while the institutional church in general has long been suspicious of mystics and other enthusiasts.
Critics of Anglicanism have long complained we are too wishy-washy and permissive, though the strength of our tradition has always been its willingness to embrace divergent, and seemingly contradictory, points of view. Our system of government has also been more democratic, with bishops in synod and an unwillingness to concentrate too much power in too few hands. It may be worth noting that much of the schismatic movement in contemporary Anglicanism has been led by autocratic clergy and bishops, and enabled by people who like being told what to believe and how to behave in black-and-white terms. At the 2008 Lambeth Conference, many bishops from the global south just couldn't understand why North American bishops, among others, said they had to consult with their synods, and couldn’t issue edicts on their own.
Even in countries where mainstream Christianity appears to be in decline (and that includes Canada, the United States, Britain and Italy) popes and archbishops continue to make the news. It seems that even people who reject their authority want them to speak out on issues, if only to be able to criticize and even ridicule them afterwards. Perhaps this is because of the large spiritual void, which many feel in a secular world where all authority is being questioned. Many still look to seemingly discredited religious authorities and institutions for meaning and hope.
A parallel phenomenon in all this is the increase in voter apathy, and the decline in numbers of people voting in elections. Raw power, whether in church or state, flourishes when people live without hope that their participation will be allowed, or will make any real difference. The church at its best has always stood against tyranny and for the empowerment of all persons. It has been content with positive influence rather than formal power. Our task today, even with diminished numbers, is to inspire and encourage people by living faithfully in a cynical world, by standing with "the least, the lost and the last," and by calling to account those who abuse power for their own ends. If we do this, we may lose some of our privileges, but we may once again discover that our counsel and our influence will be sought.
