EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Recently, I’ve felt bursts of panic. The safe, mainstream Christianity of my childhood is starting to look more culturally dangerous than I ever believed. I think Jesus would be pleased. First of all, somewhere during my lifetime, organized religion became a dirty word. It just sneaked up on me. I’m trying to figure out when it happened. Was it when Jim Bakker, the PT Barnum of Christian television, landed in jail? Did John Lennon get things rolling with his infinitely cool exploration of generic spirituality? Can I blame the academics for their relentless, decades-long attack on absolute truth? And just like that—I realize that the guy who started dismantling organized religion in the first place was Jesus Christ. I’m just as surprised as you are. And yet the way that Jesus overturned his uptight religious contemporaries is a world away from how self-proclaimed tolerant Americans are now dismissing the institutional church. We had better figure out the difference. Defining “organized religion” is a tricky business. Janie B. Cheaney in this week’s World magazine says that the church, at least in the world’s eyes, is “aging ungracefully; an overdressed dowager with a checkered past, who divides her time between ghastly potluck dinners and awkwardly meddling in people’s private lives.” You get the idea. As someone who grew up feeling comfortable with the Church and its respectability, I have been grieving its flagging reputation lately. It feels like watching someone give my grandmother the finger. The author argues that the institutional church has now become, ironically, part of the counterculture. But the more I’ve been thinking about it, I find this strangely comforting. The scriptures have never defined the Church as a bulky, cultural institution, but instead as the Bride of Christ. That metaphor speaks of something sacred, intimate, and exclusive. Yes, even countercultural. So if the mainstream American public is finding the Church repulsive, the bridegroom’s reputation is close behind. When that happens, I had better wind up in the minority. Now don’t misunderstand me. There are plenty of churches that have no business representing Jesus Christ in the first place; as we know, not every bride is a virgin. It’s okay to leave those in the dust. But the message of the gospel is simply not compatible with a tolerant age, where there are “many routes to eternity” and truth is based on “personal experience and common sense.” If that’s true, then should we be surprised by a wholesale American rejection of its claims? We should never judge the authentic work of Christ in the hearts of individual men and women by the size of the congregations nor the Pew Forum’s surveys. What we think might be simply people’s rejection of an outdated, inflexible institution may very well be the rejection of Jesus Christ’s difficult and exclusive message of discipleship—the heart of why we meet and pray and worship in the first place. If that’s the case, then a smaller church tells a truthful tale. A small church—one that’s squeezing through the narrow gate described in Matthew 7—might be the healthiest church of all. I’ll admit I kind of liked it when everybody on my block dressed up, went to church, and spoke a comfortable American doctrine of Jesus-loves-me. The older I get, the more I’m realizing the cost of being Christ’s disciple. I’m kind of freaked out, and it’s exactly as it should be. |
Comments
I totally agree with your point. I personally do not attend a church. It’s not that I do not like churches, it just that (as the Master pointed out) Religion, REAL Religion, is what takes place between you and GOD. Real religion is a personal matter between man and the Father of the Universes. The Father indwells us with his spirit: and when we commune with that spirit, in worship, in love (which is the only real gift which we can make to the Father), or in fear, for ourselves or others, that is Religion. Dusting off some old book, or mumbling magic formulas in some dead language is just a casing for the essence of religion. Raising up a book, any book, as the “Sacred Word of God” crystallizes and fossilizes the beautiful messages in that book and effectively turns off everyone who is not into that particular clique of individuals. It kills Religion to fossilize and crystallize any message. Religion is dynamic, it can’t be chained! That’s the main reason Jesus left no writings of any kind. He knew full well that within a generation of two, his followers were going to change from the religion OF JESUS, to the religion ABOUT JESUS. Leaving writing or shrouds or any other physical remnant was only going to expedite what was going to happen anyway. And it’s true. My kid goes to a Private Christian school. I asked one of the kids what she was studying and she gushed on about the Miracles. Now don’t get me wrong. I have full faith that there were miracles done by the Master. I just happen to believe that they were incidental to what he was really trying to do. Jesus’ message was all about the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. Somewhere along the way, we have lost much of that message and insist on going on and on about the miracles. Even worse, in my opinion, was the adding to the equation of those most primitive of beliefs: original sin and sacrifice. 2000 years ago, 12 superstitious Jewish fisherman were witness to the most amazing event in the history of our universe. It happened so fast, and then it was over. Later they tried to write it all down. Not surprisingly a lot of it got mixed up. Then more was lost in Paul’s horse-trading and Hellenizing. The result is so called Christianity. So bottom line: Going to church to be with others of the same opinion about a particular theology is great. It is very good for the soul of man to be surrounded with others who worship the same Father of All. Just don’t confuse all the amen-ing and all with the real communion between your mind and your indwelling fragment of God. That’s the real essence of religion.
I am fascinated by your response—it is clear you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about your position on religion and the church. (The blog you posted on your profile page really helped me understand how some Universalists see the world: http://www.conversantlife.com/ucontent/a-open-letter-to-the-religions-of...)
I think, however, that we actually disagree on nearly every point. My short essay is really about how the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ, if taught at face value, will not attract most Americans looking for an easy, comfortable worldview. My thesis suggests that perhaps that is why the Church’s reputation is in decline, and maybe it is as it should be. Your response, on the other hand, finds the Bible’s message to be “fossilized” and unreliable. On this point, we couldn’t be further from each other.
OK, What’s a Universalist??
Maybe I can define it for myself. I believe the Master when he spoke that “ I have other sheep than in this fold”. I believe Jesus when he told the apostles that he was living his perfect life, not just for this world, but for all worlds. I TOTALLY believe in Jesus as my Lord and Master. So this far, we seem to be walking the same road. My path may diverge, however, when confronted by ideas which would be totally foreign to the teachings of the Master… things like the existence of a God so anthropomorphic (anthropomorphic, that is to the culture of 2000 years past) that he would sacrifice his beloved son to wash away some supposed sin of mankind. God is way beyond any such petty vengeance as conceived by minds now dead for 20 centuries. OK, let’s take it a little further back… Primitive man’s first “religion” was fear of death. The history of ghost worship goes back to the dawn of evolutionary man. Hand in hand with ghost worship went the idea of original sin. It is a natural evolutionary response to those first inexplicable contacts between the indwelling spirit of the Father, combined with the fantastic dream life and the mind of the savage. Slowly, painfully, man evolved, socially, physically and culturally. As man progressed down the path towards civilization, so did his ideas of religion also progress. Ages later, after a long and difficult climb, a climb which was disastrously affected by the tragedy of the Lucifer rebellion and subsequent Adamic default, man had arrived at the rather pitiful state he was in during the times of Jesus. And there they were… 12 rather ordinary Jewish fishermen hanging out by the Sea of Galilee. They were the incredibly lucky recipients of the greatest event in the history of our universe, the final bestowal of a Creator Son, an actual Son of God, as he lived his perfect life of the reflection of God's love to all that would see. And for his troubles the “Church” of the day hung him on a cross to get rid of him. But of course they couldn’t do it. Jesus was way ahead of those guys! He knew what was going to happen. He could have stopped it, but that was not his Father’s will. But it was not, I repeat WAS NOT a sacrifice of blood for the soul of Mankind! Jesus chose to do this because he had a kind of faith, which I can only dream of… He KNEW who he was, he KNEW the Father, and he feared not the primitive blood lust of the scribes and Pharisees. On day 3, he rose, communicated briefly with his apostles and then made his way to his Father’s side, where he exists, even today. Now those 12 guys, the apostles, they went out and turned the Roman Empire upside down! And that’s just my point. The Church of today is in need of a good shake up, Just like Rome was 2000 years ago. Politics, money and power, that is what the church seems to be about today. Sure, here and there, there are pockets of real progressives, real proponents of the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God, but to Joe Public, its Jim Bakker and Tammy Fae, baby! No wonder there is so much hand wringing over people leaving the church! Some real fundamental changes need to be made, but like the Pharisees of old, I doubt this titanic can turn before it hits the proverbial iceberg.
Caroline, great blog. I find the unwarranted exit from the local church by Christians very troubling and, more than anything, reactionary. I think I'm right there with you.
As for you Mr./Mrs. Williams, I'm sorry but I don't think you'd find support for the core of your beliefs in the Bible. In fact, I think you'd find it flat out contradicts you.
This statement was particularly alarming to me: "things like the existence of a God so anthropomorphic (anthropomorphic, that is to the culture of 2000 years past) that he would sacrifice his beloved son to wash away some supposed sin of mankind. God is way beyond any such petty vengeance as conceived by minds now dead for 20 centuries."
So let me get this right, you believe that the Gospel is that a God with no wrath brought man with no sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a need for a cross? Do you have any Biblical evidence for that?
.
Wow! Looks like I struck a nerve! OK, Let’s step back and looks at things in a way where we can both agree. First of all: Christ Michel is my Lord and Master. I believe in Jesus as the Son of God. I believe he was born in Bethlehem, grew to be a man, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind and raised Lazarus from the dead. I believe he died on a cross, rose, and ascended to his rightful place beside his Father in Heaven. I believe he is the living way to eternal survival.
But every man (and woman) finds his or her own path to God. That’s what religion is all about. True religion is an individual process, the growth of the soul, that indefinable entity of survival value which arises inside each of us as a result of our loving God and serving Man. For isn’t that what the Master told us: whoever be first in the Kingdom, be he the servant of all (or something like that). In order to receive Forgiveness for our individual sins, we have to receive the Love of God, who, by the way, has already forgiven us. But, in order for us to actually receive the Father’s Love and Mercy, we have to first learn to forgive humanity for its collective individual sins: In order to be truly loved by God, we must first learn to truly love our brothers (& sisters). Persons infected with the spirit of true religion are those wonderful persons you meet sometimes, those people who just can not seem to be nice enough, or helpful enough. And somehow you know they really mean it! They just can’t help it, the joy of knowing that God loves you just makes you want to go out and hug perfect strangers! Persons infected with the spirit of true religion are just bursting with the desire to go out and do some good deeds in secret. To shower their brethren with love and affection, to be living mirrors of how they, as individuals, think God would want everyone they meet to be treated. God is love. This is the highest designation our lowly animal minds can comprehend of him. Also, as the source of personality, God is a personality. A personality of infinite and incomprehensible magnitude, but yet, a personality. One of God’s gifts to us is our personalities. Whatever more God is than Love and Personality, he certainly cannot be anything less.
OK, so we are all good here now right? No more “alarming” statements, right? (NOT.) Look, I am not interested in trying to convince you about theology. Theology is no more than the way we as individuals, or groups approach and explain the subject of our personal relationship to God. Goodness knows, more innocent blood has been spilt in the history of mankind over one group’s view of theology vs. another’s. You don’t have to look much further than the pitiful and reprehensible conflict in Ireland between the Protestants and the Catholics for an example of that. So don’t be getting all “Crusader” over this! As for debating nuances inside the Bible, I can tell you right now it’s no contest, you win. And if you want to believe in a God, an infinite being of Love and Goodness, who would “sacrifice his only begotten son” (isn’t that how it goes?), then, Hey! That’s cool. To me that’s just theology. I’m sure you, as an individual, have as much and probably more true religion in you soul than I do. After all, anyone who claims to be Absolutely sure of who Jesus was, what his mission was, and under what circumstances he is coming back, is probably a person not to be trusted! I know what I think about that, and you know what you think about that. But do either of us know the ABSOLUTE truth?? I doubt it. So I’m not about to try and tell you what to believe. I’m just letting you know what I believe. Because that’s what this forum is supposed to be all about.
I thank you, Al and Nick, for weighing in on this discussion. I agree with you, Al, that this forum is an excellent place to discuss beliefs. (I have learned so much this year from other people through CL). I also think that it's natural to become defensive about the things that we hold inviolate and true; for me, that's the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.
Since this is a public forum (even though it feels as though we're speaking one-on-one), I also feel it's important to carefully represent what I write about, believe in, and hope in. So any distinctions I make between me and you aren't meant disrespectfully at all. (Quite honestly, your arguments and ideas probably resonate loudly with lots of people. It is very inclusive and very comforting, and your message about non-violence is absolutely essential).
Let's face it-- the Bible's theology is often illogical (i.e. the concept of grace, for example), and I think none of us who hold the biblical record as God's specific message to mankind would be able to accept it without some supernatural transformation of our hearts and minds. It is a logical process, yes, but it is also a spiritual one.
So anyway, rather than go point by point on our differences, I think it's best that we simply represent two people who have thought through our positions very carefully.