Beginning to reflect, or allow myself to reflect on my Anglican journey as an ordained priest for the last almost 18 years…It is actually not a pretty picture I am coming to realize. For one thing, I’m seeing the Anglican Church is dying. It’s not so much sad that it is dying numerically, as it is that it is dying spiritually (which is actually worse and leads to the first symptom) and it has been going on for a while now…
It is also a sad state of affairs to watch a Church tradition dismantle itself. The Conservatives are gone, and the evangelicals are gone, and the Anglo-Catholics have either died away already or gone away for the most part…And so the ultra-Liberals are pretty well the only ones left or rather have they alienated everyone else! And what that means is there is no counter-balance to provide liberal secular Anglicans any semblance of reasonable accommodation (or accountability). And I’m not even mentioning those like myself who truly tried to live the real sense of a via media (not the false inclusiveness that passes for mediocre compromise of these same self-styled appointed spokesman for the extreme liberal agenda and its personal interest groups)…
United States Christianity may wrestle mainly with the abuse of the fundamentalist contingent agenda, but ironically, the Canadian Church society context gets to deal with the opposite extreme—a secular liberal humanism bereft of the Transcendent that masquerades as the ‘common good’ which in reality is ruled by society's majority determination as the lowest common denominator of political correctness…
It’s a very effective but destructive combination for the dismantling of a Gospel as merely a facsimile that may seem to be true on the surface, but is really quite empty on the inside. Our vested Anglican ecclesial authorities and most contemporary clergy cater to its creed, thinking they are so relevant to a modern or post-modern version of the Good News of the ‘special interest group’ that is put first actually, before the Gospel priority of Christian charity and unity of the Body of Christ—to what in the end, is in large part, only a secular counterfeit version of that same Gospel.
Let’s look at the basic tenents of this liberal secular agenda and why it is in reality so destructive of mainline denominational Protestant Christianity (for the most part). Sadly, it is what the Western Anglican Church Tradition has mostly bought into hook-line-and-sinker. (I must insist here, to say I am not in favor of the opposite extreme—a fundamentalist Christianity which is based as much in power, control and fear as well)…
I'm working with an article by Anne C. Daly on ‘Secular Humanism and Catholic Catechesis’ (The Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Press) as the basis for this reflection.
Much has been written in recent years about secular humanism. A good case can be made that it is an atheistic (or a-theistic), man-worshipping religion. We see it in the media and in our educational system, but do we recognize it even in the Church? Dr. Daly points out how it has creeped into the Church especially as we see its effects on catechesis or the teaching our faith.
She sees the situation in the United States as particularly desperate in terms of the religious illiteracy. “Indeed, it is not unusual to meet otherwise well-rounded teenagers who are not sure what the Bible says, who have no idea what the commandments command, and who know no set prayers whatsoever.”
It would seem a rather subtle distinction of secularism’s infiltration where, “In the first case, students often spend their time making collages representing the boat people, composing songs of solidarity to be sung with migrant workers during boycotts; baking authentic Passover food, and fashioning Advent wreaths. Such activities, which on the surface would seem to serve as worthwhile supplements to the teaching of doctrine, often constitute the students' whole religious education”, states Daly.
Frequently, if the student is lucky enough to get some sort of so-called religious education in these secular humanist Christian environments, not only does it not often teach the essence of faith, but actually undermines it. As students are taught that the scholarly consensus is that much of the Bible is no longer relevant, that Christ was not necessarily divine, that the miracles in the Scripture are only stories—not accurate historical accounts, that the lives of the saints are merely exaggerated tales written by pious, but pre-scientific (ie., foolishly naive) authors, that the sacraments are only symbolic — having no actual substance or meaning, and that personal choice and experience is our right to an opinion that should prevail over the notion of a Church's teaching authority and her doctrines. And perhaps worst of all that an inordinate amount of time is spent deriding and upbraiding the Church for her abuse of power in the past and maintenance of positions with which society does not agree. How, one might ask, have we arrived at such a drastic situation? Doubtless, there are many answers, but one of the most obvious points in the direction of secular humanism.
Humanism, by itself is the belief that, to quote Alexander Pope, "The proper study of Mankind is Man," (An Essay on Man: Epistle II, 11. 2). Starting at the time of the Renaissance, Western man became increasingly interested in the liberal arts, which we call the humanities. Many great Christian thinkers embraced this humanism and saw it was a way of fulfilling a belief that Christian humanism offered a unique opportunity to study the fullness of man's God-given potentiality. But very quickly, however says Daly, many intellectuals grew more and more fascinated with man and the liberal arts than with their Christian context. With the increasing political and economic importance of Western Europe, came a greater self-confidence and a decreased interest in the divine. With the advent of the so-called Enlightenment, science, industry, and mechanical inventions became the new gods. To many in the eighteenth century, man himself seemed invincible; indeed, many eighteenth-century Christians were actually Pelagians—believing that man could and did work out his own salvation as a result of his own reason, faith, and intellect—without divine aid.
The resounding success of science brought with it a belief in the scientific way of looking at the world. Since science only accepted as real what could be proved empirically by sight, smell, touch, sound, or taste, many people rejected religion and its doctrines as unreal or untrue. When in the nineteenth century the findings of science conflicted with many of the statements in the Bible, those who adopted a scientific approach felt that the Bible and Christianity in general were quite simply wrong. Starting in the nineteenth century and continuing up to the present time, this secular humanism has enshrined man as a god, progress as religion, and economics, politics, and psychology as the doctrinal creeds of the Western world.
In our own century, the veil has been rudely ripped away from secular humanism and it no longer masquerades as a liberal kind of Christianity as it did among the more genteel Victorians, states Daly. And if we want to know how these humanists think all we have to do is look at The American Humanist Association, which issued in 1933 a Humanist Manifesto with thirty-four signees, among whom was the famous educator John Dewey. Yet while the Manifesto describes humanism as "religious," it utterly rejects the idea that religion has anything to do with doctrines which, according to the humanists, "have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of living in the Twentieth Century." Two points concerning the Manifesto are immediately obvious: first, that secular humanism intends itself to be a religion; and, second, that it intends to deny this title to any other traditional or competing set of beliefs.
The Manifesto also implied that only what solves problems is admissible as a creedal belief and that only what is specifically tailored to the modern, particularly twentieth-century situation, is worthwhile. In implicitly assuming that anything that involves suffering or other such problems is objectionable, the Manifesto actually tries to deprive human beings of some of the very obstacles that many have said impel him to greater deeds and to develop finer character—thereby rather dimming the inherent glory of men — by reflecting solely on their humanist perspective.
Inspite of these particular problems, the Humanist Manifesto still dictated the following beliefs:
1) Even for ‘religious’ humanists, the universe was not created but simply is self-existing;
2) As a result of the nature of the universe demonstrated by science, any belief in supernatural bases for human values is unfounded;
3) Humanism believes that the "complete realization of the human personality" is the proper end of person’s life. All progress or personal development must occur, insofar as it occurs at all, in the here and now.
4) Traditional religious notions are now passé; the humanist finds his highest goal in his own intense sense of personal life and in cooperating with others to promote social well-being.
This led to their final belief as:
5) That the human being is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the fulfillment of his dreams and that he himself has the power to achieve them.
Although this first Humanist Manifesto did not actually deny belief in God, it suggests amazingly, nevertheless, that he is at best, irrelevant.
By 1977, when the second Humanist Manifesto was issued, traditional religion took even more of a beating. (This document was signed by such people as the historian Sidney Hook; the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov; the famous scientist Crick; the well-known Soviet Dissident Andrei Sakharov; Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization of Women; Allen F. Guttmacher, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner). This document asserted further that:
1) Traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human need or experience do a disservice to the human species.
2) We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
3) We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.
The second Humanist Manifesto, says Daly, makes it very clear that traditional religion hurts a human being, but yet it never seems to occur to the secular humanist that religions may actually perform a service in giving him or her something to value above and beyond our own limited physical needs and experience; moreover, secular humanism fails to show that man has not demonstrated a need for religion. Despite the well-documented historical evidence that human beings seem to need religion, rituals, and revelation, secular humanism denies this need, asserting that man is responsible for his own secular salvation. In rejecting any absolute values or theological principles, secular humanism clears the way for its own undisputed authority.
In dictating that all ethical questions be decided on a personal, experiential, and circumstantial basis, it essentially makes the individual his own god and gives them the right to formulate their own ethical system. In matters of sexuality, the secular humanist is convinced that religion exerts an unhealthy influence over believers. As a corrective measure, they advocate that birth control, abortion, and divorce be bestowed as rights. The secular humanist does not explain, however, how they will protect humans from the pain that these so-called "rights" can and do cause.
Now that we have seen the main beliefs of the secular humanists, we might well ask why, if almost no one ever sees these documents, or has ever heard about them, or has read them, how is it that they have had such an effect on our society?
One answer seems to be (apart from appealing to in large part our base human nature), is that secular humanism appeals to the most educated segment of the society and to those in strategic locations for disseminating these views. For example, those in academia and in the prestige media are almost always prejudiced in the direction of secular humanism. As a study of television's elite indicated, "of the 104 network vice-presidents, writers, producers, executive producers, and presidents of independent production companies” they have “political beliefs [that] are more liberal than those of the average American.” Although 93 percent of the television elite had a religious upbringing, more than half of those now claim no religious affiliation. More disturbing is the statistic that 97 percent are pro-abortion and 96 percent seldom or never attend religious services. These statistics are especially peculiar when we compare them with the findings of a recent Gallup poll, which discovered that 81 percent of the population considers itself Christian, and 78 percent considers Christ divine in one way or another.
It is clear, despite the fact that the secular humanists are not in the majority in America, says Daly, they are disproportionately prominent in the intellectual elite and in the prestige media--making it difficult for the person with traditional religious beliefs to espouse them in any of the usual public forums. Another deterrent is the fact that the secularist perspective has been so successful in getting the courts to strike down virtually any public talk about religion and religious principles as a violation of the separation of Church and State or the freedom of the individual to determine one’s own course of action.
These, and many other seeming societal ‘facts’ create an extremely culpable environment especially for the young, the impressionable and the ignorant—in not allowing or inhibiting their nurture and initiation into traditional orthodox religious beliefs—creating instead a very fertile climate for the spread of secular humanism. And this chief attraction is enhanced in that it enshrines ‘selfishness’ instead into a virtue (think the typical Canadian suburbia and accompanying shopping mall consumerism). Indeed, the only religious obligation becomes one’s compliance to indulge and fulfill oneself, as something normal, necessary and enjoyable. Since one's chief duty is to oneself and to one's own desires, needs and rights, as a society we tend more and more to treat others rather cavalierly (as evident in the regular type of communication found on modern media such as FaceBook and Twitter), which seems culturally to be moving more towards shallowness and the dispensing with whatever does not gratify one's own ego.
Thus, one can think, speak, and act as one pleases in everyday life or for purely pragmatic expediency in pursuing ones quality of life and personal rights, yet absolutely impervious to criticism and totally free from the ‘unhealthy’ and ‘outdated concept’ of guilt. Since any kind of deprivation, sorrow, suffering or self-sacrifice is seen as bogus or burdensome (hence the increase demand for euthanasia rights), one has carte blanche to indulge in the ‘means justifies the ends’ or what some might call ‘absolute hedonism’ under the guise of modern cultural lifestyle and fashions all emboldened by large commercial media and impersonal corporate interests. And even more disingenuous is that it is masked under the guise of being more "open" to others, tolerant concerning other "lifestyles," and non-judgmental of others' beliefs, all of which modern mainline Christians have embraced in like kind (thus, ironically undermining the true radicalness of the Gospel priority to inconvenience ourselves for the sake of God’s kingdom values and others needs that we are told biblically, are not inherently of this world).
Whereas this brand of Western secular liberal humanism is actually extremely closed, intolerant of, and judgmental concerning any competing traditional religious belief whatsoever, as it is enforced by a seemingly respected ‘political correctness’ that must not then be questioned as it is for the common good, as defined by the norm of the most generalized societal level of mass societal interests and appeal. It is really a form of social justice as political activism that is able to subsume spirituality under its own definition.
Maybe the best antidote to all this is that we must believe in a God that actually comes to us in his grace and that dwells within and transfigures us—even as it is hopefully realized in our brokenness due to a false self pride (infecting much of contemporary liberal and conservative Christianity). It is to remember rather, that as C. S. Lewis says in rather mystical language:
“Our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feelings for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner (in us and others)—no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ…the glorifier and the glorified. Glory Himself, is truly hidden”.
We should also notice that all the holiness and dignity of our neighbor derives from the fact that he or she is made in the image and likeness of God —for by ourselves humankind has no glory. In confronting this false teaching of what it is to be human and divine (as ultimately embodied in the Eucharist), we could do no better than to follow J. R. R. Tolkien's injunction to his son Michael, "Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament… There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that."
That is the greatest lessen the Anglican Church of Canada and its leadership in large part (and all Christian mainline Churches for the most part), can learn today in making the crucial distinction of this false secular liberal humanism and its contemporary expression in Christianity--that it is a heresy which all too often, has invaded many of our Western churches to their true detriment and impoverishment—because it is a false Christ being preached.
As Dr Daly finally concludes, like the woman in the Gospels who had hemorrhaged for years—only if we are willing to grasp the hem of Christ's garment, and believe we will be cured, will we be transformed to be like him. Indeed, the secular humanists are right, humans will be gods, but not as they have thought. We will one day be divine, not because of our own bodies or minds, or souls, but because of the infinite gift of our brother, the Lord Jesus Christ. Truly as Saint Irenaeus said, "If God became human, it was so that humans could become gods."
This is our true nature; this is our true destiny; this is the deepest longing of our hearts and it is one against which, not even all the liberal humanists, or false secularists of history—outside or within our Churches (Anglican or otherwise) can ever or will ever—prevail against the true Christian Church--united in Christ.
It is also a sad state of affairs to watch a Church tradition dismantle itself. The Conservatives are gone, and the evangelicals are gone, and the Anglo-Catholics have either died away already or gone away for the most part…And so the ultra-Liberals are pretty well the only ones left or rather have they alienated everyone else! And what that means is there is no counter-balance to provide liberal secular Anglicans any semblance of reasonable accommodation (or accountability). And I’m not even mentioning those like myself who truly tried to live the real sense of a via media (not the false inclusiveness that passes for mediocre compromise of these same self-styled appointed spokesman for the extreme liberal agenda and its personal interest groups)…
United States Christianity may wrestle mainly with the abuse of the fundamentalist contingent agenda, but ironically, the Canadian Church society context gets to deal with the opposite extreme—a secular liberal humanism bereft of the Transcendent that masquerades as the ‘common good’ which in reality is ruled by society's majority determination as the lowest common denominator of political correctness…
It’s a very effective but destructive combination for the dismantling of a Gospel as merely a facsimile that may seem to be true on the surface, but is really quite empty on the inside. Our vested Anglican ecclesial authorities and most contemporary clergy cater to its creed, thinking they are so relevant to a modern or post-modern version of the Good News of the ‘special interest group’ that is put first actually, before the Gospel priority of Christian charity and unity of the Body of Christ—to what in the end, is in large part, only a secular counterfeit version of that same Gospel.
Let’s look at the basic tenents of this liberal secular agenda and why it is in reality so destructive of mainline denominational Protestant Christianity (for the most part). Sadly, it is what the Western Anglican Church Tradition has mostly bought into hook-line-and-sinker. (I must insist here, to say I am not in favor of the opposite extreme—a fundamentalist Christianity which is based as much in power, control and fear as well)…
I'm working with an article by Anne C. Daly on ‘Secular Humanism and Catholic Catechesis’ (The Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Press) as the basis for this reflection.
Much has been written in recent years about secular humanism. A good case can be made that it is an atheistic (or a-theistic), man-worshipping religion. We see it in the media and in our educational system, but do we recognize it even in the Church? Dr. Daly points out how it has creeped into the Church especially as we see its effects on catechesis or the teaching our faith.
She sees the situation in the United States as particularly desperate in terms of the religious illiteracy. “Indeed, it is not unusual to meet otherwise well-rounded teenagers who are not sure what the Bible says, who have no idea what the commandments command, and who know no set prayers whatsoever.”
It would seem a rather subtle distinction of secularism’s infiltration where, “In the first case, students often spend their time making collages representing the boat people, composing songs of solidarity to be sung with migrant workers during boycotts; baking authentic Passover food, and fashioning Advent wreaths. Such activities, which on the surface would seem to serve as worthwhile supplements to the teaching of doctrine, often constitute the students' whole religious education”, states Daly.
Frequently, if the student is lucky enough to get some sort of so-called religious education in these secular humanist Christian environments, not only does it not often teach the essence of faith, but actually undermines it. As students are taught that the scholarly consensus is that much of the Bible is no longer relevant, that Christ was not necessarily divine, that the miracles in the Scripture are only stories—not accurate historical accounts, that the lives of the saints are merely exaggerated tales written by pious, but pre-scientific (ie., foolishly naive) authors, that the sacraments are only symbolic — having no actual substance or meaning, and that personal choice and experience is our right to an opinion that should prevail over the notion of a Church's teaching authority and her doctrines. And perhaps worst of all that an inordinate amount of time is spent deriding and upbraiding the Church for her abuse of power in the past and maintenance of positions with which society does not agree. How, one might ask, have we arrived at such a drastic situation? Doubtless, there are many answers, but one of the most obvious points in the direction of secular humanism.
Humanism, by itself is the belief that, to quote Alexander Pope, "The proper study of Mankind is Man," (An Essay on Man: Epistle II, 11. 2). Starting at the time of the Renaissance, Western man became increasingly interested in the liberal arts, which we call the humanities. Many great Christian thinkers embraced this humanism and saw it was a way of fulfilling a belief that Christian humanism offered a unique opportunity to study the fullness of man's God-given potentiality. But very quickly, however says Daly, many intellectuals grew more and more fascinated with man and the liberal arts than with their Christian context. With the increasing political and economic importance of Western Europe, came a greater self-confidence and a decreased interest in the divine. With the advent of the so-called Enlightenment, science, industry, and mechanical inventions became the new gods. To many in the eighteenth century, man himself seemed invincible; indeed, many eighteenth-century Christians were actually Pelagians—believing that man could and did work out his own salvation as a result of his own reason, faith, and intellect—without divine aid.
The resounding success of science brought with it a belief in the scientific way of looking at the world. Since science only accepted as real what could be proved empirically by sight, smell, touch, sound, or taste, many people rejected religion and its doctrines as unreal or untrue. When in the nineteenth century the findings of science conflicted with many of the statements in the Bible, those who adopted a scientific approach felt that the Bible and Christianity in general were quite simply wrong. Starting in the nineteenth century and continuing up to the present time, this secular humanism has enshrined man as a god, progress as religion, and economics, politics, and psychology as the doctrinal creeds of the Western world.
In our own century, the veil has been rudely ripped away from secular humanism and it no longer masquerades as a liberal kind of Christianity as it did among the more genteel Victorians, states Daly. And if we want to know how these humanists think all we have to do is look at The American Humanist Association, which issued in 1933 a Humanist Manifesto with thirty-four signees, among whom was the famous educator John Dewey. Yet while the Manifesto describes humanism as "religious," it utterly rejects the idea that religion has anything to do with doctrines which, according to the humanists, "have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of living in the Twentieth Century." Two points concerning the Manifesto are immediately obvious: first, that secular humanism intends itself to be a religion; and, second, that it intends to deny this title to any other traditional or competing set of beliefs.
The Manifesto also implied that only what solves problems is admissible as a creedal belief and that only what is specifically tailored to the modern, particularly twentieth-century situation, is worthwhile. In implicitly assuming that anything that involves suffering or other such problems is objectionable, the Manifesto actually tries to deprive human beings of some of the very obstacles that many have said impel him to greater deeds and to develop finer character—thereby rather dimming the inherent glory of men — by reflecting solely on their humanist perspective.
Inspite of these particular problems, the Humanist Manifesto still dictated the following beliefs:
1) Even for ‘religious’ humanists, the universe was not created but simply is self-existing;
2) As a result of the nature of the universe demonstrated by science, any belief in supernatural bases for human values is unfounded;
3) Humanism believes that the "complete realization of the human personality" is the proper end of person’s life. All progress or personal development must occur, insofar as it occurs at all, in the here and now.
4) Traditional religious notions are now passé; the humanist finds his highest goal in his own intense sense of personal life and in cooperating with others to promote social well-being.
This led to their final belief as:
5) That the human being is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the fulfillment of his dreams and that he himself has the power to achieve them.
Although this first Humanist Manifesto did not actually deny belief in God, it suggests amazingly, nevertheless, that he is at best, irrelevant.
By 1977, when the second Humanist Manifesto was issued, traditional religion took even more of a beating. (This document was signed by such people as the historian Sidney Hook; the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov; the famous scientist Crick; the well-known Soviet Dissident Andrei Sakharov; Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization of Women; Allen F. Guttmacher, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner). This document asserted further that:
1) Traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human need or experience do a disservice to the human species.
2) We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
3) We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.
The second Humanist Manifesto, says Daly, makes it very clear that traditional religion hurts a human being, but yet it never seems to occur to the secular humanist that religions may actually perform a service in giving him or her something to value above and beyond our own limited physical needs and experience; moreover, secular humanism fails to show that man has not demonstrated a need for religion. Despite the well-documented historical evidence that human beings seem to need religion, rituals, and revelation, secular humanism denies this need, asserting that man is responsible for his own secular salvation. In rejecting any absolute values or theological principles, secular humanism clears the way for its own undisputed authority.
In dictating that all ethical questions be decided on a personal, experiential, and circumstantial basis, it essentially makes the individual his own god and gives them the right to formulate their own ethical system. In matters of sexuality, the secular humanist is convinced that religion exerts an unhealthy influence over believers. As a corrective measure, they advocate that birth control, abortion, and divorce be bestowed as rights. The secular humanist does not explain, however, how they will protect humans from the pain that these so-called "rights" can and do cause.
Now that we have seen the main beliefs of the secular humanists, we might well ask why, if almost no one ever sees these documents, or has ever heard about them, or has read them, how is it that they have had such an effect on our society?
One answer seems to be (apart from appealing to in large part our base human nature), is that secular humanism appeals to the most educated segment of the society and to those in strategic locations for disseminating these views. For example, those in academia and in the prestige media are almost always prejudiced in the direction of secular humanism. As a study of television's elite indicated, "of the 104 network vice-presidents, writers, producers, executive producers, and presidents of independent production companies” they have “political beliefs [that] are more liberal than those of the average American.” Although 93 percent of the television elite had a religious upbringing, more than half of those now claim no religious affiliation. More disturbing is the statistic that 97 percent are pro-abortion and 96 percent seldom or never attend religious services. These statistics are especially peculiar when we compare them with the findings of a recent Gallup poll, which discovered that 81 percent of the population considers itself Christian, and 78 percent considers Christ divine in one way or another.
It is clear, despite the fact that the secular humanists are not in the majority in America, says Daly, they are disproportionately prominent in the intellectual elite and in the prestige media--making it difficult for the person with traditional religious beliefs to espouse them in any of the usual public forums. Another deterrent is the fact that the secularist perspective has been so successful in getting the courts to strike down virtually any public talk about religion and religious principles as a violation of the separation of Church and State or the freedom of the individual to determine one’s own course of action.
These, and many other seeming societal ‘facts’ create an extremely culpable environment especially for the young, the impressionable and the ignorant—in not allowing or inhibiting their nurture and initiation into traditional orthodox religious beliefs—creating instead a very fertile climate for the spread of secular humanism. And this chief attraction is enhanced in that it enshrines ‘selfishness’ instead into a virtue (think the typical Canadian suburbia and accompanying shopping mall consumerism). Indeed, the only religious obligation becomes one’s compliance to indulge and fulfill oneself, as something normal, necessary and enjoyable. Since one's chief duty is to oneself and to one's own desires, needs and rights, as a society we tend more and more to treat others rather cavalierly (as evident in the regular type of communication found on modern media such as FaceBook and Twitter), which seems culturally to be moving more towards shallowness and the dispensing with whatever does not gratify one's own ego.
Thus, one can think, speak, and act as one pleases in everyday life or for purely pragmatic expediency in pursuing ones quality of life and personal rights, yet absolutely impervious to criticism and totally free from the ‘unhealthy’ and ‘outdated concept’ of guilt. Since any kind of deprivation, sorrow, suffering or self-sacrifice is seen as bogus or burdensome (hence the increase demand for euthanasia rights), one has carte blanche to indulge in the ‘means justifies the ends’ or what some might call ‘absolute hedonism’ under the guise of modern cultural lifestyle and fashions all emboldened by large commercial media and impersonal corporate interests. And even more disingenuous is that it is masked under the guise of being more "open" to others, tolerant concerning other "lifestyles," and non-judgmental of others' beliefs, all of which modern mainline Christians have embraced in like kind (thus, ironically undermining the true radicalness of the Gospel priority to inconvenience ourselves for the sake of God’s kingdom values and others needs that we are told biblically, are not inherently of this world).
Whereas this brand of Western secular liberal humanism is actually extremely closed, intolerant of, and judgmental concerning any competing traditional religious belief whatsoever, as it is enforced by a seemingly respected ‘political correctness’ that must not then be questioned as it is for the common good, as defined by the norm of the most generalized societal level of mass societal interests and appeal. It is really a form of social justice as political activism that is able to subsume spirituality under its own definition.
Maybe the best antidote to all this is that we must believe in a God that actually comes to us in his grace and that dwells within and transfigures us—even as it is hopefully realized in our brokenness due to a false self pride (infecting much of contemporary liberal and conservative Christianity). It is to remember rather, that as C. S. Lewis says in rather mystical language:
“Our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feelings for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner (in us and others)—no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ…the glorifier and the glorified. Glory Himself, is truly hidden”.
We should also notice that all the holiness and dignity of our neighbor derives from the fact that he or she is made in the image and likeness of God —for by ourselves humankind has no glory. In confronting this false teaching of what it is to be human and divine (as ultimately embodied in the Eucharist), we could do no better than to follow J. R. R. Tolkien's injunction to his son Michael, "Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament… There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that."
That is the greatest lessen the Anglican Church of Canada and its leadership in large part (and all Christian mainline Churches for the most part), can learn today in making the crucial distinction of this false secular liberal humanism and its contemporary expression in Christianity--that it is a heresy which all too often, has invaded many of our Western churches to their true detriment and impoverishment—because it is a false Christ being preached.
As Dr Daly finally concludes, like the woman in the Gospels who had hemorrhaged for years—only if we are willing to grasp the hem of Christ's garment, and believe we will be cured, will we be transformed to be like him. Indeed, the secular humanists are right, humans will be gods, but not as they have thought. We will one day be divine, not because of our own bodies or minds, or souls, but because of the infinite gift of our brother, the Lord Jesus Christ. Truly as Saint Irenaeus said, "If God became human, it was so that humans could become gods."
This is our true nature; this is our true destiny; this is the deepest longing of our hearts and it is one against which, not even all the liberal humanists, or false secularists of history—outside or within our Churches (Anglican or otherwise) can ever or will ever—prevail against the true Christian Church--united in Christ.