ARTICLE NAVIGATION: | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V |

The first two parts of this commentary were originally posted on the Catholica Forum on 24 and 25 March 2009. Overall the commentary is seeking to discern what the Church of the future might look like given some of the forces we see at work in society. This first part looked at the changing perceptions of the objective of belief. Part 2 looked at the consequences of the removal of a major incentive that operated in the past to draw people to Church. In this third part, Brian Coyne presents two arguments, one secular and the other spiritually based, that might be used to encourage increased liturgical participation again.

Some arguments why it might be worthwhile keeping the idea of church alive...

If you are able to accept the two core propositions I have explored in the first two parts of this commentary — i.e. (i) that the core objective of our faith endeavour has changed, or is changing; and (ii) we no longer have the strong incentives that existed in the past for people to make their way down to the local Church on a Sunday, or for an adult education session, at night — we might come to the conclusion that whether there are priests available or not, our churches are going to be a lot less sparsely populated in the future than they were in the past. Some might argue, of course, that the principal reason we go to church is to praise and worship God. While I'd agree that we all like to think that is an important reason why we go, the evidence of the vast exit out of pews in recent decades might suggest we believe it more in the sentimentality of the rhetoric than in the practical application.

Despite the unpleasant propositions I'm laying on the table for discussion and analysis here I personally believe it is important that we congregate and "come together in communion". What I am attempting to analyse in this series of commentaries are the forces in society that are acting against the idea of "congregating" and "coming together in communion" with a view to working out if perhaps we can come up with new incentives and arguments that might make the communal life of our Church vibrant again.

More than that though, I'd like to return to the core objective and argue there is a critically important reason why as a Church, and as a community, and as a civilisation, we need to keep alive the importance of "congregating" and "coming together in communion". Let's divert for a moment and then come back to consider what this central objective might be...

Does God, or Jesus, really need our praise and worship?

Does God, or Jesus, really need our praise and worship? I honestly think the answer is no — and almost certainly in the case of the praise and worship of any of us individually. Collectively might be a different proposition — and I'll come to that. The harsh reality is that God does not lose any sleep over whether any of us individually rock up or don't rock up to Mass each Sunday. Despite what we were taught in Sunday school, from an adult perspective we know the reality is that we cannot hurt God such is the magnitude of God's power to ours. What I am trying to get at here is that arguments that try to appeal to our individualist sense that God needs our presence at Mass on Sundays is a dumb argument. The vast majority of people will never be convinced of it in their heart of hearts.

I submit though there is a counter argument, one based in the collective rather than an appeal to individualistic self interest, that might be strong enough to carry more weight than the arguments we have traditionally used to appeal to encouragement of sacramental participation. We need to participate for our own collective self-good and welfare.

The secular argument as to why "communion" is important...

My own reasoning is actually drawn from a secular source — the book I mentioned at the end of the last commentary, Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive" — we need to remember our story … the story and the history of the social and other forces that created our civilisation; the story and history of the social and other forces that created our freedom; and which helped generate the prosperity that has given us freedom, and the educational opportunities that have enabled us to use our freedom in life-enhancing, morally-enhancing and human-nobility-enhancing ways. What I am proposing here is not the "abundance theology" so beloved of our evangelical cousins. No, instead I am picking up Jared Diamond's largely secular argument that the future and on-going welfare and prosperity of any community, society or civilisation is intimately linked to the ability of that community, society or civilisation to re-member its past. But we are not merely "remembering" pretty pictures of our ancestors, or "remembering" a string of important historical dates, what he argues we are called upon to remember at the peril if we do not remember we will perish, are the core ideas that made our civilisation, our society, or our community possible.

Jared Diamond's argument is powerful enough in its own right. What seems incredible is that a civilisation as technologically advanced as ours could forget. We only have to think of the sophisticated libraries, information storage and retrieval systems that are available to us today, and the widespread availability of education and it seems almost bizarre that our modern civilisation might "forget" like so many of the ancient civilisations he writes about in his book. All I can suggest is "don't fool yourself with your own cleverness, or our own cleverness". In fact, I think it could be fairly argued one of the conclusions Jared Diamond comes to is that when any of these ancient, and not so ancient, civilisations began to bask in their own "cleverness" that's precisely the point at which they started to "forget" an important thing or two. You might also temper your thinking about our "cleverness" by also recalling that our scientific experts are presently telling us that our human civilisation might be perilously close to having polluted our atmosphere that the habitability of our planet might be compromised for our children or grandchildren. Do you think we might have "forgotten" something? Do you think we might have "forgotten" that we have to use the resources of our planet in sustainable ways? Is it not at least a possibility?

Let me advance to an argument that I believe is even more powerful than Jared Diamond's largely secular argument. It's a spiritual argument...

A spiritual argument as to why "communion" is important...

Did not Jesus Christ himself tell us to "re-member"? Do you think he was telling us to remember him performing some magic trick turning water into wine, or turning wine into his own blood, or bread into his own flesh? Do you think he was asking us to remember him as depicted in Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni's famous picture of him at the Last Supper? Do you think he was asking us to "remember" him like we might remember the characters in some soap opera on television — conversations in one ear and out the other with a slight pause on the way through to provide some momentary distraction, or entertainment?

No, I would argue, what Jesus Christ calls us to remember is his story — his lessons — his "Way" of thinking and acting our way through the mountains and the valleys of life. How do we turn our moments of tragedy, pain and grief into "resurrection moments"? This is not "remembering" in the way we might learn some mathematical formula — nor some chemical equation or some law of physics in the way we learned those things at school. Very often the Christ stories — the parables and examples from his life — cannot actually "come alive" to us until decades into our own lives when some situation erupts in our own life which suddenly gives us an "ah-ha moment" — only then can we begin to see what Christ was getting at. But you cannot have those "ah-ha" moments if you are not as familiar with the stories and life of Jesus Christ as intimately as you know the moles and blemishes on your own face. To "re-member" Jesus Christ — to make his presence "real" in our lives — our life effectively has to become a constant meditation on the life of Jesus Christ.

But how do we do that without boring ourselves mindless? Is that not the great liturgical and educational challenge we face — both collectively as a community — as a "church"; and as individuals?

When I set out to write this commentary I thought I was going to be able to wrap it up today. I haven't been able to. There are still more thoughts to come in response to that last question. I'll think about them in the coming week and endeavour to complete this commentary next week.

ARTICLE NAVIGATION: | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V |

IMAGE CREDITS:
The image used in the headline is adapted from a graphic used in America Magazine, 26 May 2008, for s similar article exploring the future of the Church. The cover story, "A Church to Hope In – What should distinguish the future church?", by John McGinity, can be found at:
www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10845. I only came across that article and the graphic after writing this series of commentaries so you might like to see John McGinity's article for a further perspective.

Blessings, Brian

We welcome your thoughts in response to this commentary in our forum.

©2008Brian Coyne

[Index of Commentaries by Brian Coyne]