S ÍNTESIS Y REFLEXIONES FINALES

The contemporary Western world is characterized by a combination of factors, chief among these being secularization and pluralism. Telling and interpreting the story of the four rural Anglican parishes in Tasmania that form the basis of my study requires an understanding of how global social and cultural changes impact on these churches and their parishioners. Drawing on Berger’s analysis of secularization and pluralism provides a valuable insight into the effect of these social and cultural changes, their meanings, and their implications. I choose Berger, mainly but not exclusively, because Berger’s research is deeply concerned to explore issues surrounding the sociology of religious culture and how this affects people’s lived experience.

The impact of contemporary cultural processes within these four rural Anglican communities of faith in Tasmania is neither mitigated nor diminished by virtue of their rural location. The influence of exclusivist religious positions, on the one hand, or the secular relativists, on the other, (Berger 1992) is as real an influence in these rural situations as anywhere else. This is due to these cultural processes being endemic across Western society as a whole because of the ubiquitous nature of modern communications systems (Wuthnow et al. 1984).

Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s theories of secularization became prominent in the sociology of religion and many theorists, including Berger, conjectured that

secularization was chiefly responsible for the changing nature of modern society (Berger 1967). Such theories, very broadly, are concerned with explaining why organized (Christian) religion is steadily declining in modern societies. Berger initially saw pluralism as being a side effect, or “twin phenomenon”, of secularization (Berger 1969: 17). However, Berger (1992) now sees pluralism (and pluralization – that is, how pluralism impacts on people’s lived experience) as being the most significant effect of modernity upon society.

Lyon (2002) concurs with this change in focus from secularization to pluralism as being a more accurate and sophisticated analysis of the place of religion in contemporary Western society. Likewise, Bouma (2006: 5) claims that “it is essential to correct a misapprehension that dominated the late twentieth-century discussion of religion and secularity: secular societies are not irreligious, antireligious or lacking in spirituality”. In Australia, this manifests through the emergence of a multi-faith and diverse society (Bouma 2006). This has resulted in a society where “religion and spirituality have seeped out of the monopolistic control of formal organisations like churches” (Bouma 2006: 5). Furthermore, Frame (2009: 13) in his analysis of ‘unbelief in Australia’ acknowledges

the difficulty of generalising when it comes to religious belief, even with the benefit of ‘hard data’ such as survey results and census returns. Because belief exists deep within a person’s being, has complicated origins and is often complex in its outward expression, caution must always be exercised in making sweeping claims about what Australians do and do not believe, and in pronouncing judgments on their corresponding strengths.

The traditional parish system was predicated on a stable society where the church was at the centre of that society or, at least, played a significant part in the life of that society. The degree to which this premise has proved to be no longer applicable can be seen in the ethnographic descriptions of the four rural Anglican communities of faith that form the basis of this thesis. In other words, these parishes are no longer at the centre of the communities in which they are set. They are, in reality, on the edges of society. Yet, they have sought to re-invent themselves by seeking the well-being of those with whom they share their lives in the wider community

and, in so doing, they have found renewed life for themselves, too. This process of seeking the well-being of the ‘other’ is a rather more respectful engagement with people than is the approach where the church assumes, as it did in the past and is still often the case today, that it is the sole bearer of truth. Pluralism, therefore, rather than being a cultural phenomenon that is antithetical to parish life can, if engaged with creatively, bring new life and vitality to any community of faith.

Modern Western society is pluralistic, where rival definitions of reality compete with each other for a share of the ‘market’ (Berger 1967). This pluralistic situation requires that different definitions of reality not only compete but also ‘co-exist’ with one another:

Pluralism, as Berger contends, manifests itself in several ways in modern societies. Its most important form is socio-cultural pluralism – the pluralism of symbolic universes where values, morality, belief systems of a sometimes very different character are placed in a position of having to co-exist. Historically, this kind of pluralism was carried by urbanization, but at present it is also carried by mass communications and public education. (Wuthnow et al. 1984: 57)

Thus, pluralism in the West can be said to have issued in an era in which, on the whole, the church is no longer the predominant shaper of a belief system where values, morality, and community and personal identity are defined by adherence to, or attendance at, the church. This is a relatively recent phenomenon and prior to this

there was, to a large extent, throughout the Western world, one ‘system of meaning’ which permeated every aspect of life. The Christian religion was the dominant source of this integrating system. It described the nature of the world and the nature of reality itself, and prescribed how one should live both in society and in one’s personal life. (Bentley, Blombery & Hughes 1992: 99)

The church today, then, has lost a significant amount of power. The notion of ‘Christendom’, where the church was both guardian and dispenser of how to live, behave, and act within a society, has passed in the West (Lyon 2002). This pluralistic situation resonates with the post-modern understanding of provisional truth as opposed to there being absolute Truth (Marshall 1992, Küng 1980a).

Contemporary society, because it is characterized by pluralism, provides more than one world-view to its citizens, and often these world-views are in competition with one another (Berger 1969). Pratt (2005: 192) considers the ubiquitous nature of pluralism in contemporary society impacts on religion in a way that demands acknowledgement:

Plurality names the context of our so-called postmodern life. It names the contemporary situation of religion in society: religious plurality is a fact of our time. Plurality cannot be avoided. Neither can it be factually acknowledged then cognitively shunned, except by enacting a most obtuse denial. The social fact of religious plurality impinges today in a new sort of way, demanding a cognitive response: and it is this sense that it may be perceived afresh as a particular element of our time and our global weltanschauung.

Pratt’s comments emphasize the fact of plurality in the contemporary world and the necessity of open response. For churches to fail to acknowledge pluralism is for them to deny the reality of contemporary Western society. At both a local and national level, such acknowledgement should inform decisions and practices of churches.

Given the pluralistic nature of contemporary society, it is less able to provide firm plausibility structures that are all-embracing as occurred in the past. This results in people having to make choices, and continually make choices, between competing world-views in order to establish a system of meaning for themselves. In many ways, people in the contemporary world exist within spheres of life that all tend to be secular, such as work, recreation, and community. Organized religion, as one sphere amongst many, is now noticeably lacking in relevance for many people, which has largely contributed to the decline in the place and potency of the church. Rather than being situated at the centre of society, the church is now at the edge of society. Further, because society is pluralistic

it evidences heterogeneity of religious experiences and truth claims; we must take all of these empirical phenomena seriously; therefore, we cannot accept as a prior claim an exclusive truth. Thus the starting point of Berger’s critique is an empirical statement about the nature of modern social conditions. (Gaede 1986: 171)

Pluralism necessitates choice and Berger (1992: 89) looks on the requirement that people must choose, are “compelled to choose” (italics in original), as being positive, rather than negative. There is a greater freedom involved in this choice because individuals are able to choose who they will be. However, there is also an escape from this freedom in belonging to groups, where individuals are defined by belonging to groups (Bruce 2000, Lyon 2002). The pluralism evident in secular society enables truth to reappear (Berger 1992) because “religion is a structural as well as a cultural feature” (Beckford 1989: 102). That is, religion operates both in the institutional realm and in the private realm (Luckmann 1967). Thus, in discussions of religion in the contemporary world, it is important to recognize that secularization and pluralism allows for what Berger (1992: 173) sees as the opportunity for the “individual in quest of religious truth to make something of a fresh start”.

The transition from churches holding a hegemonic position in society to one characterized by individual choice has major implications for the way that individuals determine their world-views and meanings:

In contemporary Western culture, the Christian ‘world-view’ no longer has a monopoly. To some extent, everyone has the opportunity of choosing their own systems of meaning and deciding for themselves what will have ultimate significance for them – at least in the private spheres of life. The public world has its own particular values and ways of operating which are built around economic factors, efficiency, productivity, and orderly management. In the private world, individuals can choose their own ‘world-views’ and values, and these systems are seen as personal and private. (Bentley, Blombery & Hughes 1992: 99)

However, religious institutions “not only preserve, hand on, and make plausible a particular religious experience; they also, as it were, domesticate it” (Berger 1992: 173). Hence, there arises questions for individuals concerning whether to belong to churches or not, and what this means for them and society generally. This creates what has been described as a problem of ecclesial belonging (Berger 1992), which results, in part, from the processes of secularization and pluralism (Chadwick 1990).

Berger (1992: 180, 181) is concerned that churches facing a loss of identity and place in contemporary society become characterized either by “considerable insipidness” or “fanaticism”. Berger (1992: 181) considers that “one of the great challenges of the pluralist situation [is] to find a way of religious existence that rejects both these alternatives”. In my study of the four rural Anglican communities of faith, ESM demonstrates the capacity to negotiate between these extremes and to provide, from its religious world-view, a vehicle for institutional and private engagement with the wider community for the benefit of all.

Communities of faith, through engagement with the wider community, are able to generate social capital that enriches both their own life and that of the wider community in which they are situated (Ammerman 2001, Bouma 2006, Cray 2007). The four parishes I examine in this study are affected by demographic and socio- economic realities as well as social and cultural changes in contemporary society, such as secularization and pluralism. My research, by focusing on communities of faith that have opted for change and inclusivity, is highly relevant to the situation facing many rural parts of Australia, and also many churches in Australia and globally. Indeed, my research reveals that these rural communities have been very much enriched by the parishes. This is not because the parishes resisted or reversed the impact of social and cultural change on the rural communities but because they have outwardly engaged with them, enriching themselves and the wider community.

The Anglican Diocese of Tasmania is currently characterized by an outlook that is largely evangelical (theologically conservative). It has used the terminology of a ‘Missionary Diocese’ to describe itself and its relation to Tasmanian society and there is widespread acceptance of what Bearup (2003) describes as adhering to a ‘purpose driven church’ type agenda. Yet, as Drane (2001) comments on these types of churches, there is almost universal decline in attendance and a decline in any wider influence within society. The response Berger (1992) offers is one that provides a via media between insipidness and fanaticism. The conceptual framework undergirding ESM (see Chapter Two) is entirely consistent with the type of church advocated by Berger.