Renegotiating the Social Contract

The world has changed again.

We know to expect these changes to happen. We just don't know when or how they will emerge. We also don't know how long they will last before the next change. So what is the specific change I'm referencing?

Just last year Gil Rendle published a great book on "Leading the Church in a Changing World" - which is really what most of his writing has been on for several years now. One of Rendle's many contentions is that the social structure in the U.S. has changed from an aberrant time of high trust in institutions to low trust. He identifies the post-war years as the height of this time and reflects that the church will now need to accept the unchangeable reality that institutional trust is lower and that individualism over collectivism is inevitably on the rise. "Building institutions of the common good was not seen a distraction from the pursuit of a secure future but as a necessary building block," but now, quoting Hugh, Heclo, "the correct way to get on with life is to recognize that each of us has the right to live as he or she pleases, so long as we do not interfere with the right of other people to do likewise."

Put another way, once upon a time people expected to invest in institutions and in others for the sake of a common good. Today, if people invest in an institution and in others they expect a return on the investment. They expect to get out more than they put in.

I won't argue with Rendle on this point. I think he's right. I think this has been the standard for several years now, decades actually, and I think Rendle has rightly identified this as a major challenges for churches. The social contract was renegotiated and nobody asked us for permission to renegotiate it.

But I do think Rendle may have made an error in his thinking - one that perhaps all of us have made. He says the post-war years were an aberrant time - they were "not normal." I've said and believed the same thing. In light of COVID-19, I would contend that the error Rendle made is in implying that there is such a thing as "normal."

Without doing the sociological research, let's say for the sake of argument that the trust in institutions began in 1940, roughly the beginning of World War II when we had to trust in the war effort, and began to wane in 1970, the year of the Kent State shooting. That's 30 solid years of institutionalism. Let's then consider the 70's a transition time before the rise of individualism in the 80's. By the time Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good" in 1987 we were in full swing. 1980-2020 gives us 40 years of individualism.

COVID-19 is clearly teaching us that for society to survive we sometimes have to put the good of others ahead of ourselves. In the short-term and as a person in a low-risk group for complications, it is in my personal best interest to go about my life as normal. This is what the notorious spring-breakers on the beach did. But, as is often the case, that's only part of the story. But they may be the exception. More generally, younger generations seem to be more socially inclined than older generations. That may mean more trust in institutions (at least in those institutions that show they are worthy of trust) and a greater understanding of our need for mutuality.

If, and it is a big if, this traumatic moment in our history reignites a swing toward mutuality and higher trust in institutions then a 30 year social contract embracing collectivism followed by a 40 year period embracing individualism will be followed by an as yet undefined period of collectivism. The only normal is that the social contract is periodically renegotiated.

What would that mean for us? As a church leader, it means reemphasizing again the most important metaphor we have - the Body of Christ. It really is true that when one part of the body hurts we all hurt (I Cor. 12:26). It means reminding ourselves that the first church gave freely of themselves for the sake of others (Acts 2:43-45). I hope it means not a blind trust in institutions, but accountable trust. Churches will need to be outward focused ("How can we represent Christ in the world?") instead of inward focused ("How can we make more converts so that we can grow our group?"). By my way of thinking, those changes would be good and more reflective of God's intent for the Church. We are, first, not individuals but members of the Body. If the world comes to see this again and if the Church is willing to embrace this again we will be better prepared for the next crisis and more faithful to God's vision for the Kingdom.