• You can purchase a spiral backed copy of  this dissertation for $33.00  through Paypal.                                                                              

OWNING ONE'S FAITH AND BELIEF

Dissertation by Dr. Bill Spencer

Web Presence sponsored by Joan Spencer & Associates

© 2002 J.S.& A. Pty Ltd.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THEONOMOUS SANCTIFICATION AS A PROCESS OF AWARENESS ON THE WAY TOWARDS OWNERSHIP OF ONES FAITH.

Because this dissertation has been posited in Tillich's Cultural theology as its theological foundation, and at the same time has sought to discover the implications for the individual person arising out of Tillich's's theology, it has of necessity needed to alternate between matters of culture and individual development. Inevitably there is an exchange between the cultural processes and the reasoning of individuals. If culture is studied in isolation from the individuals that comprise that culture, important insights relating to both individuals and their culture are forgone. Cultural process, such as the development of autonomy take on a momentum of their own, individuals are drawn into this momentum, and short of some catastrophic event, it is unlikely that such momentum can be stopped, let alone reversed.

As I write a Constitutional Convention is in progress in the old Parliament buildings in Canberra. The delegates and elected members of the convention, Monarchists, Republicans and others undecided, are being asked to develop some consensus on the nature of a proposed Republic in Australia, as a basis for a future referendum on the issue. The move toward a republic has been slowly growing in popularity in Australia, although the latest polls are supposed to be claiming that as yet only 53% of the population are in favour of a republic. Yet in the media, the inevitability of a republic is almost universally and constantly maintained. It remains to be seen, what will eventuate. When the Prime Minister, an avowed monarchist appears to acknowledge the inevitability of republicanism it could be that the momentum has already reached the unstoppable stage. Central to the push for a republic is the perceived concept that while the Queen or King of England remains technically the head of state of Australia our autonomy is compromised. That the English monarchy have in practice, if not in theory, ceded to their appointed Governor General-appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister-the duties and responsibilities of the head of state, does not appear to diminish the perception in some quarters that Australia as a Nation State is not fully autonomous. Thus the concept of autonomy, at least nationally, is very important, at least to a small majority of Australians. It does not follow that enthusiasm for national autonomy translates into enthusiasm for personal autonomy, however the expectation of individuals to be consistent in all dimensions of their lives is nonetheless strong. Its strength can be observed in arguments that are put forward for overall personal consistency from time to time, and evidence that reveals lack of consistency can be used effectively in an endeavour to tarnish the credibility of individuals, as has already occurred rightly or wrongly in the present debate.

Such an argument was espoused recently by Ken Davidson, an Economic writer and committed Keynesian in "The Age", a daily newspaper circulating in the State of Victoria. Davidson has challenged the consistency of conceivably the strongest proponent for a republic, Malcolm Turnbull. Davidson refers to this inconsistency as cognitive dissonance. Mr Turnbull is in his private life a merchant banker, and Davidson claims that Turnbull is also in his professional life a compradore. Davidson explains that compradores were Chinese nationals who opened the door to foreign interests in the Chinese treasury ports at the turn of the century. Davidson argues that Turnbull is a compradore because in his professional life he was one of the leading locals to get the Fairfax group of papers (which includes "The Age:) into the hands of the Canadian and British media baron, Conrad Black. Davidson's argument is that if constitutional monarchy is an affront to Australian Sovereignty, then the loss of Australia's economic sovereignty is also an affront.

Davidson claims that democratically elected Australian governments can choose to sell off public assets to foreigners, or they can put restrictions on such sales in favour of local interests. It may or may not be in the public interest, but the right to impose them is an essential precondition of economic and cultural sovereignty. The context of Davidson's argument is that he believes that Australian Treasury officials are secretly negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment under the auspices of the OECD, and that the agreement is designed to prevent signatory governments discriminating against foreign investment within their borders. Davidson quotes Wolfgang Reinicke, a supporter of the M.A.I. and a senior scholar in the Washington-based Brookings Institute. Quoting from the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, Davidson claims Reinicke wrote that governments must strive to avoid the

"pitfalls of territoriality, forming global government is unrealistic... it would require states to abdicate their sovereignty...in a formal sense. A more promising strategy differentiates governance and governments. Governance, a social function crucial for the operations of any market economy, does not have to be equated with government."

He, Reinicke predicts that;

"The nation state as an externally sovereign actor in the international system will become a thing of the past.... this requires polity elites to dissociate themselves to some degree from territory and create more dynamic and responsive institutions of governance...the nation state is a relatively recent form of governance and has no claim to perpetuity."

Davidson concludes that if democracy must give way to multinational enterprise, democracy is already decaying. That concern over the absence or loss of sovereignty (autonomy) excites Davidson and other opinion makers is indicative of the importance of autonomy within our society, and inconsistency as mentioned above is taken so seriously as to referred to as cognitive dissonance. The concept of individualism as being prior to society appears to have shifted to include economic entities as well as individuals, at least in regard to multinationals in Reinicke's thinking. Clearly such thinking come out of an adherence, conscious or otherwise to Bellah et. al.'s utilitarian individualist tradition. The affinity of this latter tradition to individual autonomy is self evident. The theologian, Langdon Gilkey acknowledges and takes as granted, the mature autonomy of modern culture. Although not sufficient as empirical data on the prevalence of autonomy in modern Western Democracies, there does appear to be sufficient consensus to take as granted that both personal and national autonomy is valued highly in these cultures. It should also be evident that autonomy without restraint can be quite threatening both to individual and national sovereignty, and that this fact adds credence to Gilkey's concern, shared by Tillich in his day, that modern Western democracies are in the process of unravelling. It should be remembered that autonomy without constraint has aborted the logical synthesis of heteronomy and autonomy, theonomy, choosing instead a demonic autarchy.

I have claimed in the chapter dealing with Bellah et. al.'s sociological analysis of the United States that the Expressive Individualist tradition as an expression of autonomy provides the most hope for the future as it seems impossible to stop the momentum of the Enlightenment and go back to their preferred options encompassed in the Biblicist and Republican traditions. Given the observations above, the impossibility of simply returning to a predominance of these latter traditions is unrealistic. However as stated in the chapter above, the psychological assumption in the Expressive Individualist tradition has an affinity with Tillich's category of theonomy, as well as the first stage in his process of sanctification. In the chapter concerning the project associated with this dissertation, I claimed that in hindsight the project would have been more helpful had it been conceived as basically educational, and the content had been endeavouring to make explicit Tillich's concept of Sanctification. The heteronomous implications of intentionally trying to create a theonomous parish have been discussed in the above chapter. However, as stated there, an educational project on Tillich's concept of Sanctification could set in place a parish environment conducive to the development of a theonomously based parish without falling into heteronomous traps.

If modern Western democracies are not to regress to an oppressive heteronomous culture, a growth in awareness of these dangers associated with demonic autarchy is needed. A study of Tillich's concept of sanctification can be one way of addressing this need for awareness, in the hope that some form of gestalt will ensue. From the perspective of the individual it can also constitute a way of "owning one's faith" with integrity. I refer the reader to the exposition in Chapter Four, page 97 and following, on Tillich's understanding of the holy and of sanctification as an indication of one way forward for the church.

Gilkey has argued convincingly, based on Tillich's cultural theology that since the High Middle Ages, Western Culture is unravelling, and that the autonomy within that culture-that I identified as a factor in the young couples attending pre-marital counselling both at Ballarat South parish and the Alphington-Fairfield parish-is evidence of that unravelling. The concern is that the next stage of the unravelling will reveal unambiguously, only the heteronomous threads still present in the fabric of that culture. If this should be the case, then the Churches must themselves be able to exhibit, even if ambiguously, that theonomy from which the surrounding culture has fallen and is entering free-fall. The church really is placed in a very awkward position. In order to be theonomous it must allow as wide as possible, without being so broad as to deny its Christian heritage, the freedom of its people as individuals to be autonomous, just so long as this autonomy is not expressed in an autarchical fashion. The latter would deny the church's commitment to theonomy. This however must be accompanied by a recognition that as the church it can never be the pure and unambiguous expression of the Christian faith that only and rightly belongs to the Spiritual Community. It is possible that the identification of the church with the Kingdom of God is so entrenched, even in bodies such as the Commission on Doctrine in the Uniting Church, that this is a forlorn hope! Of course, in so far as the church participates in the Spiritual Community it will decrease its ambiguity. Yet, at the same time the church must address those areas within its life where its fabric has so unravelled as to reveal only the heteronomous fibres that remain. Instances, such as the situation this thesis addressed at Skipton Street come to mind. But others concern the possible heteronomous nature of the Charismatic movement and fundamentalism where evident. How then does one address and attempt to stop this unravelling and yet at the same time honour the autonomy of those concerned? This is the dilemma. I consider that the only answer lies in a readiness to accept such diversity in the name of the God who accepts the unacceptable. This would entail a real pastoral care towards such people that honestly addresses the concern that their actions are causing damage to the fabric of the church, but also accompanied by an assurance that as people they are acceptable to God and the church even though their actions may not be. Pastors in this situation are placed in a position where their very livelihood is placed in jeopardy. That is one of the reasons, along with the uncertainty that must follow the lack of financial commitment inherent in "autonomous" parishioners why I consider that the concept of a full time ministry must be challenged in favour of a trained, ordained but financially independent ministry. The practical expression of the latter is too complex to be considered here, but it may be expressed in ministers being engaged in some form of self-employed activity, with much that now is assumed under pastoral care being the responsibility of professional counsellors.

The current situation within the wider Western culture however, urgently calls for the church to challenge, arising out of its theonomy, the empty and anarchic autonomy so evident today. Given Tillich's commitment, arising from his cultural theology, that religious socialism can address this situation, the apparent lurch towards an economy that embraces utilitarian individualism, a radical interpretation of the autonomous attitude towards market forces-an attitude that is responsible for the drive towards privatisation of publicly owned utilities-it would appear that the church can no longer afford the luxury of not being party political. Tillich in his response to the national Socialist Movement in Germany in the 1930's did not take this attitude. It is often claimed that one is not able to make a political comparison today with Germany prior to the 2nd World War, however if the underlying ideologies are similar, a comparison can and must be made. If Gilkey is correct in his assertion that the deterioration of the Western World since Tillich's death is the most telling evidence for the truth of his system, then the churches must take a political stand against those economic forces-whether found in the right wing of socialist parties or implicit in conservative parties-that view the world in one-dimensional economic terms. It would appear that such forces are at the leading edge of the great unravelling. In Australia in recent years, many thousands of people have been left unemployed as the utilities or firms for which they work have applied the principles of economic rationalism. No longer personnel, they are considered in terms of human resources-terminology that reminds one of a lump of coal- and treated as objects rather than persons. It is difficult to imagine a more effective illustration of Tillich's category of the demonic than this. They are sacrificed to the new one-dimensional religion of economic rationalism that has filled the religious vacuum in a secular society.

As mentioned on page three of this study, ideally the church ought to be as Tillich envisaged, the place where there should be nothing heteronomous in contrast to autonomous, theonomy should pour out into the whole of cultural life. However, because, again following Tillich, the church is immersed in the conflicts of existence, which subject it to an irresistible temptation of becoming heteronomous and suppressing autonomous criticism, its appears fragmented and ambiguous, and thus its task of enabling theonomy to immerse the whole of cultural life is severely limited.

The religious and cultural interface that is explicit in Tillich's theology naturally leads to what Gilkey describes as, "The divine power surging in and through the creature", and, "the creature remains the medium of the divine power". The current situation within the wider Western culture however, urgently calls for the church to challenge, arising out of its theonomy, the empty and anarchic autonomy so evident today. Given Tillich's commitment, arising from his cultural theology, that religious socialism can address this situation, the apparent lurch towards an economy that embraces a radical interpretation of the autonomous attitude towards market forces-an attitude that is responsible for the drive towards privatisation of publicly owned utilities-it would appear that the church can no longer afford the luxury of not being party political.

The husband of the secretary of the St. Andrew's Kindergarten, Ian Christie, affiliated with the Alphington-Fairfield parish, and therefore on the fringes of the parish as well as within the target group mentioned earlier, has recently had a letter published in "The Age," the only Melbourne Daily paper that is not a tabloid. He addresses his letter to the conservative Premier of the State of Victoria. His letter is typical of the hurt that the young parishioners in, and those on the fringe of the Alphington/Fairfield parish are experiencing. He writes;

" I am one of those who should be a natural supporter of Jeff Kennett and the coalition government. I am a partner in a small retail business with two employees. I have a young family and a mortgage, I am one of those classic middle Australians, from a conservative, rural, English-speaking background.

Whenever I read a description of the target of Mr Kennett;'s policies and programs, it seems that I fit the bill to a "T". Why then do I find it so hard to picture myself voting for anyone connected with the Liberal or National Parties?

When I weigh up the pros and cons of three years of Coalition rule, I find the cons weigh heavily on my social conscience and the pros seem only light in my pocket.

I see the heart torn out, (nay, cut out and sold) from public enterprises, I see the patients of our psychiatric institutions become the inmates of our penal institutions (and our morgues). I see the burden of public debt replaced by the burdens of public poverty and homelessness. I see the social fabric that holds us together unravelling as we cut, trim and slash our way through all the structures that made us civilised. I see Marvellous Melbourne becoming Miserable Melbourne.

Where is compassion in Mr Kennett's Cabinet? Who is the Minister for Caring? Where in this Public Service can I find a Department for Grace and Elegance? Where is the Department of Civic Duty? Do none of our "leaders" know what they are bequeathing to our children?

I can only hope that all those other ordinary middle-Australian (middle-Victorian?) citizens can see the same things and, when they do their democratic duty next year, they vote with their conscience as I shall vote with mine.

Unfortunately for Ian, the politicians that comprise the main alternative party, will, when in power be not that much different. The problem lies in the reluctance of his age-group, because of their autonomy to become sufficiently committed to a political party to join the party and enter politics. This same autonomous group is leaving the Trade Unions by the hundreds. Influenced by their overall autonomy they are reluctant to commit themselves to the collective principle inherent in the Trade Union Movement. They are also reluctant to commit themselves long -term to the historic religions and by extension to the Christian Church. Within the political parties is to be found a strong allegiance to conformism. This was always so in the socialist parties in Australia, but now, because of the religious dimension that has crept into the "liberal" parties to the right-religion that is expressed as an absolute commitment to new right ideology-that conformism appears endemic. The execution of those market driven ideologies requires an even greater conformism than that which applied before. Conversations with the 24-40 year olds in the parish confirm that they have to work long hours to the detriment of family life, in order to keep their jobs-at no extra pay. They have to be conformists to survive. The church has to address this situation, however given the powerlessness of its constituents, this demonic situation can only be adequately addressed at the political and cultural level.

By recognising the importance of autonomy as a preliminary stage to Theonomy (autonomous theonomy) the church can effectively address this situation and the overall unravelling of Culture. Such an action will inevitably effect the movement towards ecumenicity, as it will need to address the issues, as mentioned above, of Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism that Gilkey, basing his theology on Tillich, identifies as also being at the leading edge of the unravelling of Culture. It will need an aggressive enthusiasm for the melding of the Catholic Substance with the Protestant Principle. Such an action will need to face squarely the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, not just those things we have in common. It will need to address the historic place of Christianity in Western Culture, and seek to ascertain if a Culture that ambiguously embraces a multi-faith community can withstand, or be enhanced by a religious substance that includes such variety, particularly those faiths that appear to have no place for autonomy and therefore theonomy.

The experience of the Alphington-Fairfield parish of the Uniting Church in Australia indicates, that a parish prepared to be accepting, and ready to honour the autonomy of individuals in its surrounding culture, can offer an affirming, enriching and empowering experience of the faith. It is reasonable, as mentioned earlier to assume that a significant number of people in present day America and Australia appear to reason autonomously. This group, because of their preferred mode of reasoning consider that the church and the Christian faith have little to say to their situation.

The church must courageously "own" it's theonomous heritage, and in spite of ambiguity, be prepared to make the tough decisions, doctrinally, administratively and politically as it goes forward in the belief that "all culture is actualised religion, and all religion is actualised as culture" and "religion is the substance of culture and culture the form of religion" The church must do this however, with a "yes" and a "no"- the double demand of reservatum and obligatum religiosum in order not to reduce religion to cultural activity, and thereby forgetting that its import comes from the unconditioned. The Protestant Principle must be balanced by the Catholic Substance and vice versa.