Treating church as a fetish

Taken from: http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=44

I have, over the last few years, had numerous conversations with intelligent, thoughtful individuals who continue to attend dogmatic churches that they no longer feel subjectively connected to. Indeed sometimes I speak to so many people in this position that I wonder if some churches are made up predominately of members who do not subjectively agree with what is being said, how it is being said, and the structures within which it is being said. And what is even more perturbing is that many of these people are not just pew fillers but actively involved in worship, speaking and leading.

One of the problems I have with this is that, whatever a person says to me about not really believing in what their church is saying or doing, their very presence within the structure sustains it and supports it. It was Hegel who wrote about how the State can flourish even if no one really believes in it, simply because the majority continue to act as though they believe in it. People involved at various levels of the State apparatus can say what they like behind closed doors, but if they are engaging in the rituals that sustain the State, then they are sustaining the State.

I must admit to getting increasingly frustrated with these conversations, particularly when I am speaking with confident, aware, independent people who are continuing to attend, not because they could not function without it, but rather because it would be too much hassle to make the break (perhaps because their wage depends on it, or their social networks are too intertwined with it).

This problem has a lot of resonance with Marx’ writings on money as a fetish. It is all too common to chat with someone about how money is not some magical property that brings happiness, that working all the hours God sends to increase capital will damage the most precious relationships we have and that having a better car is not what life is about. Only to realise that, as soon as they turn from the conversation, they act as though they did believe all those things. This is fetishism at it heart, ‘I know this thing before me is not magical but I act as though it is anyway’.

Those who stand in my position have all too often been sympathetic to these people who attend the church while saying, ‘I don’t really believe or endorse what is said’ because they are intellectually closer to us than those who attend such churches ‘naively’ (i.e. those who attend without questioning). However, we must resist such a seductive temptation and avoid getting drawn into sympathy for our friends in this position (and many of these people are my friends). For these people are the ones we should be critiquing most rigorously: for knowing what ought to be done and yet refusing to do it.