Christianity as a Global Threat
There’s a lot of talk nearly everywhere these days about the dangers of radical Islam. In some settings, people express similar concerns about Christianity, especially the dangers of a right-wing theocracy here in America. Whether the warnings come from “the new atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens or from secular-political voices on the left, the prospective villains are usually described as the Religious Right, Evangelicals, Christian Fundamentalists, and so on.
But largely under the radar, there’s something else going on in the Christian community in the US and world-wide, and it’s a change worth knowing about. Many of us who are involved with this emergence of a new thing would describe it as a deep shift (don’t forget the “f”), even a kind of repentance. Growing numbers of us Christians are ashamed of the ways that we Christians have behaved in recent decades – from Evangelicals backing unjust and unwise wars to Catholics covering up priestly abuse, from Prosperity Gospel televangelists getting rich by ripping off the poor to institutional religious bureaucracies fiddling around in carpet-color-committee meetings while the world is burning, or at least warming dangerously.
We have been arguing about the origin of species while an unprecedented extinction of species occurs on our watch; we’ve been fighting endlessly (and unproductively) about unborn children while achieving precious little for the already-born children in Darfur or Congo or Malawi or downtown Cincinnati. These stale expressions of bad faith have left many of us gasping for the fresh air of good faith.
So along with facing up to our current and historic failures and atrocities, we’re engaging in a hopeful re-imagining of what Christian faith can be, become, and do in the future. My book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope is a kind of cry, a plea, a prayer reaching toward this kind of faithful re-imagination.
In the first section of the book, I survey global crisis literature and summarize the lists which try to comprehend the most significant mega-problems we face in the new century, including the eight Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations’ Fifteen Global Challenges, the Copenhagen Consensus’ top ten, F.W. Rischard’s Twenty Global Problems, and Rick Warren’s five global giants. I apply a systems theory approach and wrestle the various lists into four deep issues which I explain using the metaphor of a suicide machine.
First, we have created an economic system that exceeds environmental limits, resulting in our growing, multifaceted environmental crisis. Second, this economic system is succeeding at making a minority increasingly wealthy, while simultaneously creating a global underclass whose standard of living falls farther and farther behind those who swim in luxury and excess. This growing gap between rich and poor exacerbates the third crisis: as the poor grow more desperate and the rich more frightened of their desperation, both sides arm themselves with more and more terrifying weapons.
Fourth, I suggest that these first three crises, which I call the prosperity, equity, and security dysfunctions, turn like three gears, teeth in teeth with the others, and they are together driven by a central drive shaft which I call the religious dysfunction. Our world’s religions are failing to provide a story strong enough to inspire enough of us to deal effectively with the first three crises. In fact, all too often our religions provide destructive narratives – I call them framing stories – which reinforce our solution deadlock and drive our social machinery all the more recklessly and passionately toward suicide. To put it starkly, there are figurative religious suicide bombers as well as literal ones, and they are armed with stories.
It’s at this level of framing stories that I see both the ugliness and hope of our religions, including my own Christian faith, which currently counts about a third of the world’s population as its adherents.
On the one hand, our religions can fan the flames of holy-war narratives –whether expressed in terms of terrorism or counter-terrorism, jihad or crusade. On the other, our religions can inspire us with framing stories of reconciliation and peace. On the one hand, our religions can foment stories of scapegoating and vilification, but on the other, they can inspire us toward compassion and understanding through stories of reconciliation and grace.
Instead of baptizing greed and self-interest, our faith communities can teach us stories which promote the common good, inspiring us to creatively pursue sustainability both environmentally and socially. Instead of sanctifying the consumerism that reduces everything to a financial “resource,” our faith communities can teach us stories that inspire true reverence for the planet and all it contains – opening our eyes to the signature of God in the hawk soaring among the mountains, the school of minnows flashing in the shallows, the cricket singing in the back yard.
Instead of distracting us from this-worldly injustice, our religions can embed in us a sense of stewardship and responsibility, so that we who have been given much gladly accept much responsibility for our neighbors. Instead of preoccupying us with raising our own moral score so we can consider ourselves spiritual winners at the finish line, we can live in a story of hope that turns our hearts towards our neighbor, toward the stranger, and even towards our enemies.
Christians with this emerging sensibility seek a third option, a path beyond the bad religion that we have a surplus of, and beyond the no religion called for by the new atheists: we seek a new kind of faith that engages us with the world as it is and challenges us to become more than we have been. I just received an email today that says what so many of us feel:
As a graduate student at Berkeley, where “Christian” automatically means “Christian Right” and “Christian Right” stands for pretty much everything against which the academy sees itself as pushing, I have struggled to even begin articulating how faith might produce the kind of life I want for myself and for the world. …[For] the first time in a long time I feel like I want, again, to identify as a Christian. So thank you very much for the work you are doing.
This, of course, is where Jesus comes in. The bulk of the book explores the ways Jesus’ life and message can “produce the kind of life we want for ourselves and for the world.” It begins by re-situating Jesus in his original social, cultural, and political context, showing how he struck chords against the backdrop of his contemporary crises that resonate in our world today.
The final conclusion of the book surprised me as much as I hope it will surprise readers: the most radical thing we can do to bring change into our lives and world, it turns out, is an act of faith – an act of withdrawing trust from the dysfunctional stories we’ve been told – stories both secular and religious, and transferring our trust to another story, a story captured by Jesus in the metaphor of “the kingdom of God.”
A new kind of Christianity fueled by this kind of story could turn out to be a global threat after all – but not a threat to progressive values like democracy and otherness and diversity and sustainability. Instead, it could pose a powerful challenge to injustice, greed, war-mongering, environmental plundering, vilification, cold-heartedness, racism, bigotry, violence, torture, and fear.
Many people seeking to predict and influence the outcome of our current election cycle may be working from old maps. It may be time to recognize that a deep shift is underway, a shift that could change everything, a shift in which we all may participate.
The first religious transformation I'd like to see in terms of politics would be for Christians (and other religions too) to say: "I will not seek to impose my religion on nonbelievers." That's where the conversation has to start.
All too often this whole conversation winds up as something like: "Some of the religious people think environmental stewardship has a basis in the bible and we'll just all agree not to talk about gay marriage." Not good enough.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian McLaren-Congratulations on your post and your book. I will read it!
There are several fine people from all religious faiths who want to rescue their religions from their own self destruction.
One such person is Douglas Rushkoff who wrote Nothing Sacred a book about what Rushkoff calls open-source Judaism.
Be Well,
Dr.Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
December 3, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian McLaren said:
Catholic priests have been outed by name, rightfully so.
You should take a page from Bob Somerby's book and use names....names of the Evangelicals who back unjust wars; John Hagee, the late Jerry Falwell, etc. ?
Prosperity Preachers like Benny Hinn, Randy and Paula White, Creflo Dollar, etc.?
If the cretins who worked themselves into high profile positions in the Evangelical community and who use their influence to support issues harmful to their flock aren't outed for what they are, they will continue being cretins. Hopefully Ralph Reed is a goner, and Pat Robertson's backing of the authoritarian, Rudy Giuliani,
will cause a few to drop out of the 700 Club.
The philosophy preached by many of today's evangelicals and fundamentalists has little in common with the philosophy preached by Jesus Christ.
You wrote an excellent column, and I wish you luck in your quest to persuade Christians who have strayed from the original Leader's teachings to take up with false prophets.
December 3, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do find this an exciting & optimistic topic. It is indeed time for some sort of reform to occur. I'd seriously like to read this book and I look forward to reading the conversation that will likely unfold here! While I'm not a religious man myself I do read about religion often. Unfortunately it's far too often been more like watching a car accident than not. So this may offer some fresh air for me as well! ;-)
I am glad to see that you mention greed here. But I'm afraid it hasn't been given the importance and scorn it truly deserves. It boggles my mind that when composing a list of "top 10" bad things that greed somehow managed to not make the cut. It's my humble opinion that greed and selfishness are both basically the same thing and are behind probably 75% or more of all other "sins". Surely that merits a place somewhere amongst the baddest of the baddies. So until greed is seen as being as reprehensible and taboo as murder any such "reformation" will likely be nothing more than more "Church Chat" - recited at church and forgotten before you've exited the building. And tackling greed is no small task, especially in a country with high-octane greed coursing through nearly everyone's veins.
Unfortunately, like all things, religion is in the end dependent on the people involved (both those who preach and follow). Religion morphs over time to reflect the culture in which it exists more often than the other way around, which may explain why OUR form of Christianity is what it is and why all of the earlier variation were squashed out of existence.
Oh and maybe as an added bonus from all of this, people will start paying more attention to the whole "judge not" message which I think was said by someone important in Bible. That would be refreshing too.
December 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. McLaren,
Congratulations on your book and I hope it does well. I am afraid, however, that the people who NEED to read it, will not. It is as it ever is and was.
I have been so ashamed of the "Christian" church that I no longer even bother calling myself a Christian. If ever I believed, the hatred and punishment that the church has either condoned or tolerated in recent years has been enough to dissuade me from ever returning.
And you say that there is an answer. I say there is not. It is that simple. Will the churches serve their mission and stop the hatred of those who are different? Will the churches stop their condoning of wars against others? When it says in the Bible that Jesus, when asked how many times he should forgive his enemies, replied 70 time 7. I guess the church no longer believes that one, right? And when it says in the Bible that if one of God's children was hungry and you did not help him, you have sinned against God: well, I guess they don't believe that one either.
No, the Christian church is a sham and hoax and not for the reasons that everyone assumes. Even if the basis for the religion is false, the beliefs as good. But when the beliefs are false as well - then there nothing of value worth saving and it should die.
December 3, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday (12/2) I saw a local (mpls, MN) televangelist broadcast. Early in the broadcast, the televangelist brought several police officers onto the stage, each with a police dog that the congregation had paid for. They were for chasing down the "bad guys." The congregation cheered.
Then, during his sermon, he announced that Christians shouldn't turn the other cheek when facing problems. Indeed, he said, Christians should fight for their faith.
Meanwhile the congregation (several thousand) applauded.
Do you seriously think any Christian speaks for christ, for god, or for anything but their own economic benefit? I don't.
I don't mean to be rude, but as soon as someone identifies themselves as a Christian, I stop listening and wait for the "we must ..." agenda.
What's the difference between, "we're in a heap of shit" and "we're all blessed." The message is the same: "Listen my brethern and I will tell you what you want to hear." Christians are in a pickle; if they really believe what they say, they wouldn't be Christians.
MW
December 3, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a unitarian, I welcome the sensible and reasoned tones of this article. Rev McLaren, I welcome your thoughtful comments.
It seems to me that religion can be used for good or ill. From the right, so often, you hear the strident, evil tones of divisive and negative rhetoric. From the unending concern about abortion to the total failure to be at all concerned with the poor, it's nothing but pure evil. The prosperity gospel is the worst, but the patriot pastors with their muscular hating Jesus are also purely evil and monstrously wrong.
December 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about your philosophy requires any so-called religious belief? Additionally one must selectively ignore much of the purported life of Jesus, and leave yourself open to someone producing a ream of biblical quotes showing that Jesus in fact opposed your positions.
December 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught part of that too and for some reason like you I found it profoundly creepy. I guess the good nuns didn't teach me to link attack dogs with Jesus. Scary stuff and don't hold your breath waiting for any Democrat to speak out against religious extremism of the Christian or Jewish kind.
December 3, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you honestly think that it is possible? Who will "out" them? They have been brainwashed to distrust anyone other than their own ilk:
If the cretins who worked themselves into high profile positions in the Evangelical community and who use their influence to support issues harmful to their flock aren't outed for what they are, they will continue being cretins. Hopefully Ralph Reed is a goner, and Pat Robertson's backing of the authoritarian, Rudy Giuliani,
will cause a few to drop out of the 700 Club.
The thing with Giuliani is that it is just in our faces every day. It is about sex, and it is irrefutable. Even the cretins can't justify it. They were all holding their noses about Rudy anyway, thinking he was REALLY TOUGH (barf) on terror.
If we have any hope of "outing" people it should be on their behaviors and their choices. Unfortunately, the press (that liberal old thing!) lets most of it go by without even a whimper. They just bloviate over the most recent polls, and how they are running. Not too much about policy.
Jan
December 3, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem like a thoughtful, intelligent person. What is it, considering the heinous acts -- all justified by "chritianity" -- makes you able to stay with it? This is a serious question.
I was brought up as a Baptist. When I was 12 I began to wonder why so many hypocritical things were accepted, and at my ripe old age of 59 I simply have no respect for my former religion, or any other.
Morality clearly has NOTHING to do with religion, and in fact, most religions discourage thought on the subject. You strike me as someone who has thought about these things. Do you just say, "Well, my religion right or wrong," and do you really swallow this stuff about eternal hell-fire for everyone who doesn't say they are on your side?
Jan
December 3, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a systemic problem with Christianity -- and other religions -- that yields it vulnerable to "injustice, greed, war-mongering, environmental plundering, vilification, cold-heartedness, racism, bigotry, violence, torture, and fear."
That's faith by appeals to authority. All to often, authentic learning ends where faith begins.
December 3, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is too late for this effort to clean up the current crop of religions. It is time to scrap the idiocies that come from the desert religions completely, and do like most of us do - sleep in on Sunday mornings and explore the more rational form of meditation that are found in Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism (none of which have a word for heresy.)
Then spend some time studying the recent discoveries on neurology regarding what mental functions make us human (like the excellent books by William C. Calvin) and use the recent DNA research into human evolution (try the book "Before the dawn" by NY Times science writer Nicholas Wade.)
The desert religions (Christianity and Islam)have gone afoul by mistaking themselves for governments instead of organizations that have the purpose of studying what Martin Marty called the mysteries of life, in contrast to the mere problems of life that can be isolated and studied by themselves without directly effecting people.
Maybe someday people will understand the the Bible is really just a collection of entrancing stories that are good enough to be passed down among storytellers over the generations before finally being written down. No one is out there speaking to us. It's just us humans, whatever that means, trying to communicate to each other about mysteries that are too large to comprehend or be encompassed by mere human language.
Maybe that's enough of a program to get us all to the singularity, after which all bets are off.
December 3, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem said:
I think there's a Pulitzer Prize winning story for investigative reporters like Bartlett and Steele if they looked at not only the scandals involving well known Evangelical Preachers, but how so many live a life of luxury; and I'm not even going to mention the ability of some Preachers to cure the sick regardless of their disease;
something that makes me wonder why the Police Bunko Squad don't show up to make arrests.
On the other hand, if there are Christians,
or atheists for that matter, that want to do good work by helping the poor and the lame, by protecting the environment, and wish to improve the lives of the public in an altruistic way, I'm with them.
December 3, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The desert religions (Christianity and Islam)
Christianity is NOT a desert religion. From the very first it evolved in the Greek cities of the Roman Empire. It is an urban religion.
December 3, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I. too, am often disgusted by what is done in the name of Christianity and other religions. But it's simplistic to imagine discarding my faith like I would an old shirt that is frayed and misshapen. If I'm able to rid myself of it that easily, it couldn't have been very integral to who I am in the first place.
I haven't lost faith in the teachings just because mankind (as usual) seems incapable of understanding them well enough to follow them. There's probably a good reason for all those shepherd/flock metaphors in the bible; sheep aren't exactly known for their brilliance.
My experience with people in general is that they don't want to have to work too hard at understanding and avoid self-reflection like the plague. So they look for easy answers, like a Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Open Sesame, Welcome to Heaven. Rigidly trying to interpret the "letter of the law" usually means overlooking the spirit of the law, so the whole point of the enterprise gets lost in the process.
December 3, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for an excellent article. I'm also one of these who has struggled with the contradictions between my understanding of what Christianity actually means as opposed the negative things for which it has been too often used.
But I've been hearing just recently about the efforts of some Christian leaders to reinvigorate the faith by bringing it back to Jesus' message. There was a recent program on PBS which featured a group of scientists and evangelicals who traveled to the arctic to try to find common ground regarding global warming. And just last Friday there was another PBS program - Bill Moyers' Journal - that focused on the efforts of extremist Christian evangelicals to "support Israel" in ways that undermine the peace process with the Palestinians, out of fundamentalist Christian beliefs about the rapture. One of the featured guests on the program was our own TPM commentator, MJ Rosenberg, who is Jewish, and the other was Ron Sidel, a Christian leader who was instrumental in organizing the recent letter by moderate Evangelical leaders, written to President Bush to make clear that most evangelicals don't support the more extreme approach and are in fact in favor of the two-state solution. It was good to hear this, as the extremists have been devoting a great deal of time and money working against peace.
These things are all very positive steps. I applaud your efforts, Mr. McLaren, and hope they will continue. We need this - it's good for both religion and our country.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 3, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me a preacher that will take this viperine guy on, as Jesus would, and I'll show you a preacher that will restore some of my faith in Christianity.
from the archives:
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Methodist who leads the Republican race in opinion polls and fund-raising, gave the most personal testimony in Monday's debate. Each candidate was asked what "political philosopher or thinker" he identified with most.
Bush, the third candidate to answer in the debate, said, "Christ, because he changed my heart."
Moderator John Bachman pressed for more and Bush added: "When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."
http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/15/religion.register/
December 3, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. McLaren, you're a voice in the wilderness. So much of modern-day Christianity is shot through with hypocrisy, corruption, insincerity and lies.
You don't need to believe in a deity in order to be a good person.
What's more, deities in general don't really care, in the end, if you're a good person. What they demand is your unquestioning worship.
December 3, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a United Methodist pastor near Rochester NY. I have led two groups of lay people through "A New Kind of Christian" and think very highly of Pastor Brian's approach. I'm about in the middle of "A Generous Orthodoxy" right now. Either of these books would answer quite a few of the questions posed here. If one spends some open-minded/hearted time with his work, it is not easily dismissed.
My small caution is that we cannot take responsibility for our neighbors. I think that is a dangerous approach. We are called, I think, to respect our neighbors and be in dialogue with them. We may have something to offer each other. Too much has been inflicted by those who wish to help without taking time to understand the one who is believed to need help.
This effort on the part of North Americans and Europeans to take responsibilty for our neighbors in Africa, for example, has been a disaster for Africa. It is another face of imperialism and arrogance.
Christianity and the West generally can threaten with our efforts to "help."
December 3, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ!
Am I the only one who sees this agenda?
These people have not been converted to the progressive agenda. They are just shifting their philosophy to convert us.
"See, we ain't so bad. We've decided to go along with helping the poor and saving the planet.."
I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Now that the progressive movement is gaining momentum you suddenly want to befriend us?
I, for one, will not trade an RR for an RL.
If you support our ideology, do so because it is the right thing to do, not because your faith draws you to it.
I will not stand for the same infiltration of the Democratic party that happened with the Republican party.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
December 3, 2007 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
News flash people: The separation of Church and State was implemented for a REASON.
Go to church on Sunday if you like. Hell, go to church at night if you prefer. But if you're an elected official or serve in the public sector, then you ought to take your religion and stuff it.
At least between the hours of 9 and 5.
December 3, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian McLaren voices what America's most eminent philosopher, John Dewey, said in A Common Faith (1934) essentially that
religion forms itself to each century, to each culture,
so "Christianity" in 200 AD was radically different from "Christianity" today --
for all practical purposes, it was another religion.
In churches, we form a culture rather than repeat and inherit intact a set of religious rules completely determining our future actions.
And this is good.
It is our conscience that should and probably does first determine what is good.
Otherwise, we accept without conscience (unconscionably) what others tell us -- what could be good, evil, or neutral, but which of these we would not know.
Without our conscience having first say, we fall into the addage,
A good man does good things,
a bad man does bad things,
but only religion [when started as faith without conscience]
gets a good man to do bad things [like "auto de fe"]
In the third section of Dewey's A Common Faith,
" ... churches have lagged behind in most important social movements and ... they have turned their chief attention in social affairs to moral "symptoms," to vices and abuses, like drunkenness, sale of intoxicants, divorce,he says, and I quote,
rather than to the causes of war and of the long list of economic and political injustices and oppressions.
Protest against the latter has been mainly left to secular movements."
While Christianity believes more in "belief" than in "action", there is a truth in the adage God is a verb, not a noun.
It is this sense in which America's smallest church denomination recorded by Bureau of Census, Ethical Society,
has put action first since it spawned off Judaism around 1880 with Sunday meetings in Carnegie Hall.
One Ethical Society gives at least half and sometimes all its offerings to a different charity each week, like
December 3, 2007 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, please tell me, after a number of years in the forefront, did the Mainstream Protestant Leadership draw back from controversy and leadership in the 1970's and 80's? In the 60's they provided supportive leadership on Civil Rights, and in the anti-Vietnam War movement, but suddenly they fell silent. Why?
You note the total failure of the Catholic Hierarchy to deal with the reality of abuse of children. What made them so incapable of dealing with this, while at the same time they had millions to spend on repression of the reality of Female Sexuality? (I really wish we had full development here of the role of Alan Placa (Guiliani's good friend and business associate) in developing the legal strategy for protecting the Institutional Church from Civil and Criminal Litigation.)
You say you are going to do "systems Analysis" -- and I suspect to do that you have to deal with these kinds of questions about dysfunction. I don't think that is about the basic narrative --- the problem is not with that, it is about applications, and fear of either institutional rejection or conflict.
December 3, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, I'm very opposed to organized religion. In my mind it offers humanity an excuse to stop thinking and offers faith in a god as a solution for all that eludes us and all our shortcomings & failures. It's faith in the supernatural and none in us...and I don't accept that. But the reality is that large numbers of people fall back on this, depend on this, in order to make sense of the world and survive. It's always been the case whether it was ancient (or trendy new) paganism or todays sculpted institutionalized religions. I don't buy into them either, not for a second. But that's not what's important right now is it? I think what's important is finding a common ground, to at least start talking. Let's find some things we can agree on. Like the environment or compassion for those in need. Doing what's right, no matter your motive, is still right. I'd happily deal with their pushy 'we're the way' tomorrow if we can start working towards making the world better today. I'd take up arms if forced to believe but we're not there yet and we don't need to be. Let's talk about what makes man good and aim for that, together if we can.
We need to have some sort of conversation with this vast number of 'believers'. I'm as skeptical as they come - just read my posts. But here's an a chance to start that conversation. A chance to try & find a middle ground that might mean some people might not die or might think differently...maybe. I'll take any chance to at least try to have that conversation. And even though I truly believe they are dead wrong, can't we at least try before we unleash our angry & frustrated attacks?
As I said, I'm as skeptical as they come, but there sure are a hell of a lot of them. And if we can agree that the poor need help and the environment isn't there for the rich to get richer...isn't that a start?
December 3, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: In the 60's they provided supportive leadership on Civil Rights, and in the anti-Vietnam War movement, but suddenly they fell silent. Why?
Because the goals had been acheived.
December 4, 2007 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Christianity would be fine if it just limited itself to Christ.
Christ commanded that religion and civics be separated. (So does the constitution, courtesy of the framers of the constitution - so much for strict construction.) There's multiple reasons for this. First it maybe consistent with Christian ethics to oppose abortion on moral grounds. But in the field of civics, the countries with the lowest abortion rates, are also countries where abortion is both largely legal and largely free: Netherlands and Belgium. So what works for personal ethics, doesn't work for public civics.
Where religion invests itself in politics it is really taking on the wolf in sheep's clothes. The rightward lean of fundementalist religion can be traced back to some foundations that are funded by wealth conservative elites, whose real agenda is to undo the New Deal.
They picked up the Neocon structural strategy that society should be ruled over by elites, with the masses controled by excessive religiosity. If you check at who sits on the various boards of right wing religious groups such as Focus on the Family, the Religion and Democracy institute and the Catholic league you start to see an enormous overlap of personnel.
The wealthy elites are the wolves. Religion is the sheeps clothes that they put on. Its one thing for Islam or Judiasm to be involved in politics but Christ specifically COMMANDS against it.
When a Christian religion institutionally acts contrary to an obvious commandment from Christ it should be obvious to adherents and non-adherents that its a bogus operation.
I own a Catholic that I've had for about three decades. The writing in it is black and white, but where and when Jesus speaks, his quotes are in red ink. In my mind, anything that Christians spout it should be from the red ink part of the bible. But the fundamentalists more frequently quote the old testament then the new, and when they quote the new they quote non-gospel sections and when they quote gospel sections they quote from the Gospel of John instead of one of the three gnostic gospels, John being the most fanciful (the three gnostic gospel's narrative are largely in agreement, but John's less so). They spout the ten commandments, but the new testament purports to have replaced these with two commandments.
If you look at what Christ says, most of these right wing groups just aren't Christian. He was also against hierarchy and officialdom, in otherwords, highly organized religion. He had apparently had abundent reasons, it was politics inside a religious hierarchical organizations that made sure he was whipped, tripped, tortured and murdered.
These right wing Christian groups are functioning as later day Sanhedrins. .
They discredit, first themselves, and second religion in general.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
December 4, 2007 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get into too many details, but the religions you mention have also been marred by their own form of hatred. Taoists once performed horrid pogroms upon Buddhist monks, and there are violent racist Hindi as well. The tortured thinking is "since ours is the most tolerant religion, we should exterminate the other religions!"
I oversimplify, but you get the idea.
December 4, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally. A Christian of influence who doesn't make me want to spit!
December 4, 2007 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem said:
Jan,
excellent observation.
December 4, 2007 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
December 4, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, it is an urban religion. So what? It still is a caustic and negative force in this world.
Jan
December 4, 2007 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, do we need a better example than THAT of what Christianity has wrought?
Jan
December 4, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, they fell silent because a new pope had been elected who commanded that the religious orders remove themselves from the public sphere of overt political action.
December 4, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but I haven't heard agreement on this:
And if we can agree that the poor need help and the environment isn't there for the rich to get richer...
Who in the Republican "party of the religious" is saying that?
Jan
December 4, 2007 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe this:
In my mind, anything that Christians spout it should be from the red ink part of the bible.
How do you come up with this:
First it maybe consistent with Christian ethics to oppose abortion on moral grounds
Jesus never said a word about fetuses or embryos because he didn't know they existed. So much for all-kowing. I repeat what I said above --
Religion has nothing to do with morality, and in fact discourages independent and thoughtful efforts at grasping a true understanding of the subject.
Jan
December 4, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get the idea that religion is a personal exploration of the mysteries of mankind and its place in the Universe.
Anytime that idea that it is personal is forgotten and some leader takes over, it ceases to be religion and becomes either government or a mob. Religious administrators who forget that they are at best teachers and try to force others to adopt their doctrines and mouth their catechisms have no connection to religion. anytime one person declares that another is a heretic and attempts to penalize them for it, religion has been lost.
Buddha did not establish a doctrine to be believed. He taught some techniques and suggested that people try them, and if they found them useful, then apply them. As someone who has lived most of his life in the Bible Belt, that is a very attractive approach to religion.
I have become so disgusted with those who call themselves Christians and profess to be able to tell who else is a Christian that I would be delighted in a law that abolished the use of the term Christian. Because whatever that is, it is closer to nationalism than it is to religion. All I am saying is that I want those fools kept away from me. Their attempts to evangelize are the efforts of fools passing on the meme that builds their organization and has nothing to do with religion.
Not that I haven't met some really fine religious men in the Christian tradition generally a few Catholic Priests and one charasmatic ex-Baptist who was an Army Chaplain. But the evangelists and fundamentalists have poisoned that well. At least for me.
December 4, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is interesting, because it succinctly states the opposite of what I think.
December 4, 2007 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it when James Dobson says it. Until then, I have little reason to think that the Evangelical movement is somehow moving left or is otherwise ashamed of their actions.
December 4, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely... despite all the talk we hear about progressive evangelicals and a moderating voice within Christianity it's people like Dobson who still seem to have the most influence. He even mentions Rick Warren in his post -- now Warren is by all accounts a nice guy but his beliefs on social issues are still pretty problematic. I see a lot of "trust us, there's a growing movement" in this but I don't see actual evidence of Christianity moving towards the left. In fact, what I continue to see are Blue Dog Democrats using Christianity to drive the Democratic agenda towards the right.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 4, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Morality clearly has NOTHING to do with religion"
Why does this sound like an authoritarian statement to me?
Be careful. In a conflict, we tend to become just like our enemies.
I am not saying that the truth is always halfway between extremes.
The trick is to think at right angles to a polarized conflict.
December 4, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a fairly serious student of Buddhism myself, but I have recently been reading about Christian contemplatives, such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. It strikes me that although they use the language of Christianity, what makes them distinctive has nothing to do with doctrine.
December 4, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this -- morality does not depend on religion (or in the positive sense: secular morality exists). This refutes a claim made by a lot of religious advocates that absent the authority of religion we live in a condition of moral anarchy.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 4, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get your information about religion?
For a totally different perspective about religion, I would suggest starting with James Tabor's blogs, starting with www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/.
True, Tabor is a professor of relgious history, so you could make the point that he does not have anything to say about morality, and therefore he supports your opinion.
But I am just suggesting Tabor's blogs as a place to start thinking about religion from a serious intellectual standpoint that might overlap with your ideas about how to think rationally about things.
On the subject of morality and religion, I might suggest C.S. Lewis, who makes a good case that naturalism does not lead to any conclusions at all about morality. Naturalism only provides arguments to support the status quo, whatever that happens to be.
If people are violent, ignorant, prejudiced, and exploitative, that is because Nature made them so.
December 4, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a reasonable point of view.
Secular morality is a good starting point.
I would not say that reflection about secular morality will lead to any religious doctrine.
I do think that reflection about morality leads to deeper questions, and if you can get past the conventional religious doctrines it is possible to find insight on the part of religious thinkers.
I would agree that doctrine is an impediment to insight, but that is why I have spent a few years studying Zen.
December 4, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a very sad response. One of the greatest mistakes the international left ever made was to drop Christianity in favor of atheism. In doing so they let the right colonize Christianity and reinterpret the lessons of the old and new testament to dubious ends. The Bible is an inherently revolutionary document that supports social justice. Time to relearn that.
December 4, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, looking over the comments, I am a bit surprised by the level of animosity towards religion here. I am personally in a different place. While I think that the religious right has harmed this country, unlike the drunken Bush apologist Christopher Hitchens, I am not going to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of faith.
It will always be difficult to determine if "religion" generally is the cause of any problem in the world. In the end, problems are created by individuals, even if they make a choice based on religion, it is their choice and they ought to be responsible for their actions.
Furthermore, arguing about religion is a fruitless enterprise. At this point in my life I don't understand the sort of militant atheism of people like Hitchens. You're never going to argue a believer into disbelief. In some ways, these sorts of beliefs are not susceptible to rational argument. And being angry about what people believe isn't going to get you anywhere either.
People should read more William James. If an individual finds some use for religion and it matters in their life, then there is no reason for me to try to convince them otherwise. For me, it does not have any use in my life and I don't believe. I don't really consider myself an atheist, because that is sort of beside the point. I have found other beliefs that work for me--I am a materialist.
To put it another way, while other people may have a use for religion in their lives, I certainly have no use for anger about religion in my life. An old virtue of the much ridiculed Midwestern politeness was an unwillingness to talk about religion. There is, of course, some wisdom in this unwillingness, and I think we all ought to take it as our guide. When it comes to religion, let people be.
December 4, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or because they choose to be. No reason to soil Nature's good name.
December 4, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
D. H. Lawrence's last work, Apocalypse, is my favorite. Its thesis was that in the 2nd C. The book of revelations was added to the new testament, and that it was pagan literature, not christian. Apparently the Patmos islanders were pagans, and that was the source of John's Revelations. Lawrence goes on to argue the reason it was included in the New Testament was to seduce the pagans of Europe into the folds of Christianity, as they wouldn't understand without some sort of bridge. Of course his views were biographical: he wrote of his early life in a British coal mining community, where principally Revelations were pounded mercilessly into the folks every Sunday morning.
Lawrence's Apocalypse must be the most heavily edited book in history (he was in an eternal state of warfare with his editors for the duration of his career). I remember going to a University library to retrieve a quote from the edition I had read some years earlier, having to do with a certain "Council of Paul" in Constantinople where the decision to add Revelations was made. The book I checked out, however, was a study of the various editions of the book, and included Lawrence's original manuscript. Turned out that Lawrence did not write about this Council of Paul, it was an editorial embellishment provided by his publisher. The only other author I knew of that was so abused by publishers was François Rabalais, who also wrote about Christianity in a less than orthodox fashion (...blow hard, fart hard, turd on us). This suggests to me that the compendium of Christian literature has been abused by, say, editorial zealotry.
Neoboho
December 4, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your thought progression here is flawed in applying this to Evangelicalism, that it won't take you anywhere fruitful. I think Evangelicalism and Pentacostalism and Islam are gaining against the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches partly because they are more "personal," there is no hierarchy, no bishops, no proscribed liturgy, no history except the text. The preacher you go to listen to is the one you chose, one that says things that inspire you. There's you and God and the holy text and your own interpretation of it, not that of a board of bishops or a Vatican machine, and then you get together with a small community of like minded to share your feelings without much of a proscribed liturgy.
The religions that are growing
are much more personal, they are also much more tribal. There's no top down, it's all bottom up, and those radicals like Dobson or Robertson gain adherents because they say things the adherents want to hear. The Catholic church over the centuries even developed a system to deal with such phenomena, when a charismatic like St. Francis or St. Ignatius gathers a tribe of independent like-minded co-believers that could splinter off into its own religion, they'd proclaim it an order in order to keep it under the thumb and rules of the central governing body.
So the "personal" thing is not going to get you anywhere much as far as the behavior that bothers you. Both the more personal and more hierarchical religions are known for causing problems, top down or bottom up. And Evangelicalism is very personal, the prosletizing is very personal, it's person to person, often asking the prospect whether they have taken Jesus into their heart. Likewise, converts to Islam are often inspired through one other person that is simply another adherent, not an imam. Pentacostalism is exceptionally personal. And televangelism is not about a powerful political hierarchy building, it's all about personal charisma, more like a celebrity who has to watch his/her image and market in order to enjoy continued success rather than a dictator.
December 4, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't get this line of thinking:
One of the greatest mistakes the international left ever made was to drop Christianity in favor of atheism
As someone who was raised in a church, I never "dropped it." It dropped me when it continuously failed to offer any answers to my rational questions.
Being a Christian means you believe in something. If a person has struggled and come to the very difficult decision (hearing from the time you were able to process words that you would burn in hell for all eternity is a powerful disincentive) to acknowledge that they simply don't believe anymore, is not dropping Christianity.
Regarding the right "colonizing" christianity (as the right has colonized islam) -- religions lend themselves to that tendency, because people who need to be told what to do, rather than think things through find comfort in that, and can be herded any which way.
Jan
December 4, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!! Sad, but true;>
December 4, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really disappointed in this sorry display of bitterness and closed-mindedness by so many of my fellow progressives in this thread.
Really, really disappointing.
Please, anyone with anything intelligent to say: speak up! Otherwise Brian and his colleagues may decide to give up on building bridges to the secular left altogether.
To those of you have have dismissed Brian as representative of nothing, or as the representative of a "sneak attack" by evangelicals on the left: please open your minds -- get to know this huge and snowballing progressive Christian movement. It involves tens of millions of your fellow Americans -- if you have any interest at all in actually making change in this country, you need to learn to work with it.
You can learn more about this movement at RevolutionInJesusland.com, a blog I've been writing to introduce the secular left to these "revolutionary evangelicals."
December 4, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just couldn't help thinking about Cecil Williams as I read your comments. If ever there was a person who put faith to practice it is Williams. He is a great inspiration.
Neoboho
December 4, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. An ex-dominican monk I once knew quit the order because he wanted to get married and play jazz drums, but he carried his faith with him. I was really impressed when he told me of his education. For example, for his dissertation he had to disprove the existence of God. What is left after that? A totally abstract faith, I would think, without any outreach into worldly matters. Thus it is perfectly personal - it would have to be so. But I have to say that all he told me about this didn't seem to fit into "church" at all. Perhaps that's why there are churches, and there are monesteries.
Neoboho
December 4, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only because there is a tendency to set up false dichotomies.
There is a kind of Naturalism going around nowadays that seems rather empty and sterile to me. There is a kind of liberal scholasticism in which people seem to think that if they score a few theoretical points that they have solved all the problems of the universe.
Paul's letters are much concerned with the issue that there is a big difference between knowing intellectually what is right and actually living a good life. The 12 steps programs for alcoholics are concerned with the same issues.
The problem with liberal scholasticism is that it is not concerned with life as it is actually lived.
December 4, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
McBoo, as for greed, I've got a good one. Way back when, the first TV "court" program, I think it was called "Day in Court", a skid-row "Reverend" was charged with breaking a store window and taking a bottle of wine. The judge admonished him; "Reverend, you're a man of the cloth, so how do you justify violating the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal?""
"Your Honor, if you would have read the good book further you would have discovered "God helps those who help themselves!"
Neoboho
December 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As well as I understand things, I think you are on the right track. I am not sure that the contemplative life is necessarily without any outreach into worldly matters. Herman Hesse deals with that issue in various of his writings, such as The Bead Game. His protagonists have a bad habit of dying at the end of his narratives just before they get to the point of being able to apply their insights in the world.
Zen, actually, was the religion of archers and samurai warriors, who are very much in the world.
Whether the contemplative life is concerned with the personal or not depends on what you mean by the self. I think most contemplatives, Buddhist or Christian, would say that the true self is not at all what most people think of as the self. There are different ways of putting that. I don't think "true self" is a Buddhist term, although some will speak of the "original self," which is probably getting at a similar idea.
December 4, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is the self and there is the ego. Takes a bit, actually a lot, of 'contemplating' to know the difference. It's worth the time.
December 4, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Religious Right gave Christianity a bad name, just as George Bush gave "Republican" a bad name.
December 4, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto Jan,
Also, the 'International Left' didn't drop christianity as some sort of political blunder, christianity dropped itself by being at odds with the progressive/liberal agenda. We let the right 'colonize' christianity the same way we let them colonize racism, bigotry, fascism, and general hatred. I, for one, was more than happy to say goodbye.
December 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats odd, I distinctly remember a sermon, given after this era, stating that condoms were evil or somesuch and we should express ourselves accordingly in the upcoming shool board elections. Maybe my particular parish didn't get the memo?
December 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
JOHNWMEN: People have been hiding nefarious motives behind religious motives for millenia. Whether on the Dark Continent, in the jungles of the Americas, on the islands of the Pacific, (or in front of a television camera) they spew their religions, they give you trinkets, they may even feed you.
Should anyone profit from their words or works other than they, it's purely unintentional.
December 4, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mail-order catalog? :-D
December 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian McLaren
Your "Table for One" post yesterday stimulated my annual letter to God herein appended
THANKS!
Dear God;
This is my fourth annual letter to you. I hope you don’t mind one letter per year in December from me even though I know that the concept of time is just a figment of my limited earthly imagination. Your universe is timeless of course which is comforting.
Anyway, more so than my other letters to you, this one is my most optimistic. It seems that things have gotten so bad on our planet earth with the excesses of fundamentalist religions who seek to destroy that there are a group of outstanding leaders and writers who want to rescue the world and their religions from their very obvious self-destructive path.
Among these so called “radicals” are great thinkers from the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths. There are too many to name but you know them.
They speak of their great religious tenets being “hijacked” by fundamentalists and seek a return to the roots of religion from which great goodness and healing flow.
In short God – I’m not so sure how it happened, but we screwed up badly.
I have said in the past, God, that religion is both the most destructive force on the planet or the most beneficent force. You have given us the gift of free will to choose.
Well I guess it took us coming close to the brink for these earthly “radical” leaders to promote a return to the best that religions can provide.
Of course all along you knew, God, that we would ultimately choose life over death and that you gave us the great earthly religions to seek your love and more importantly the love of each other and our planet we call earth.
So in closing I know you are well, Dear God, which provides great comfort, and as usual I am looking forward to meeting you. But please God- not too soon since I have a few loose ends I need to tidy up down here.
Love Always;
Rick Lippin
December 2007
December 4, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem,
From what you describe, the Church you belonged to as a child was heretical. I'm sorry that must have been painful.
Mine wasn't. I suppose that is why we have different personal viewpoints as to what should be done with respect to Christianity and politics.
Let me recommend a book to you;
How to Read the Bible by Richard Holloway (Granta Books, 2006). It might surprise you.
Belive me CD, Christianity does not belong to the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Faldwells of this world. And even if you remain an non believer, it is too important to leave to them. Why let them own it? Help us take it back by supporting our efforts even if you can't believe. Atheism can help rid the world of bad religion too.
December 4, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a first step to that transformation, would you settle for, "I will not murder nonbelievers."
Should we not start with a renunciation of violence?
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
December 4, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent the summer of 1960 working at a kid's camp with Alan Watts' mentor on Zen, Gia-Fu Feng. I thought he was a remarkable man - he had uncanny skills in social situations; either in shocking people into understanding or soothing them into it. He attempted to define Zen for me, but it was only years later that I understood what he was talking about is the little *stop* you get from a Zen koan. Perhaps it's the microsecond where you make the decision to laugh.
Neoboho
December 4, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops, I meant "I own a catholic bible"
The fact is, I'm not sure what the difference is between a catholic bible and a non-catholic bible, but maybe in one they can make Jesus' words in red, and in the other they can't. I really don't know, so I thought I would point that out. Turns out I didn't.
Sorry.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
December 4, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I said "maybe".
I really don't know. Maybe Religious ethics dictate that abortion is unethical, then maybe they don't.
The point is, if they do. And maybe it is true, maybe abortion is a vice. The point is, even if it is a vice on a personal level, in the realm of civics, prohibition of abortion turns out to be counter productive. That was the point.
That made me think that Jesus was right in saying separate religion from civics. Thats the hallmark of modernism - separation and specialization of tasks. (The centrifugal characterstic of Christianity shows up in other areas too - one god, three persons)
Jesus was ahead of his time in that regard. 600 years later Mohammed would create a religion based upon the opposite notion (cohesion: one god, one prophet, one religious community, one book, one law, etc...). And that religion nearly pushed Christianity off the Eurasian continent. It held on in what was then a fringe area, Europe, and when the modern age eventually arrive, it was Christianity that became the ascended civilization and Islam not so much. Of course that's being played out now.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
December 4, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: It still is a caustic and negative force in this world.
everything we humans are and do can have a negative effect in the world. That's just the reality of being human. But likewise we are also capable of doing great good-- and that holds true for religion as well. It all depends what we chose.
December 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly everyone was respectful and praised this guy. And several of them even talked about their religious faith and religious ideas.
Your attack on 'the secular left' here is both insulting in your tone and wrong in your accusations. One, you have no fucking idea how religious these commenters are, and it is presumptuous to the nth degree to write as if you do. Two, you are simply wrong. Most people here were respectful.
If this person wants to 'build bridges' to this community, he will do it. A few random commenters expressing skepticism about Christianity in the midst of many expressing interest in his ideas shouldn't dissuade him, or else he's got bigger problems and isn't serious about fighting injustice. I assume he is serious about fighting injustice, though apparently your writing here implies that you assume otherwise.
December 4, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Catholics haven't covered up priestly abuse, the hierarchy of the Church has. The hierarchy treats the Catholic Church as their organization that they provide to the faithful, instead of a religious belief that they all follow. They've stonewalled their own parishioners, rewarded Bishops who have lead the coverup (Cardinal Law, formerly Abp of Boston, & now living in comfort in Rome), closed parishes to pay for the legal settlements with the abused (Boston), & in general morally bankrupted their religion, with Rome turning a blind eye to it all. The parish I grew up in is one of those closed & disbanded. It has been occupied for the past 3 years by parishioners who refuse to accept the Archdiocese's edict.
December 4, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mu.
December 4, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought that a Koan was a paradox that you had to learn to recognize a whole new and different paradigm to understand.
But that statement itself is only words, not an understanding of Koans, isn't it.
December 4, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 'religion' that is gaining more adherents is merely a popular activity. The same thing can be said for a popular TV show.
But is it really a religion? Every major religion/philosophy in the world was adopted by a government early in its life time and was expanded as part of the government program in order to maintain social stability. Social stability is a government function, not a religious one. That's why kings love religions. At least to one they sponsor.
Such 'religious organizations' are meme spreading devices rather then true religions, although they often shelter some people who are actually interested in religion instead of organizational power.
December 4, 2007 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, I must preface this by saying I've worked at two Jesuit institutions. Among people I count as friends and guides on the Catholic side of things are Redemptorists, Paulists, and Fathers of the Sacred Blood.
The orders -- the "splinters" you mention -- do have a certain rivalry, and the Jesuits tend to be at the heart of it -- they are the only monastic order whose Father-General has direct access to the Pope, while the others have to go through the Sacred Congregation of the Religious.
Finally, the incumbent Pope grew tired of the arguments. He called together all the Fathers-General in the Sistine Chapel, and said they needed to pray for guidance to resolve all this silliness.
praypraypraypray
*C*R*A*C*K*! With a flash of lightning, the frescoes opened, and then healed themselves. A note fluttered down.
The heads of all the Orders looked at each other. No one wanted to pick it up. They all looked at the Pope, who sighed, picked it up, and unfolded the letter.
(signed) God, S.J.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 4, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ was a desert dweller, and an adherent of Judaism which is a desert religion.
So the Christian religion was transplanted to urban areas. So what? A cactus is a desert plant, even if it is grown inside cities.
December 4, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well I'm a liberal Episcopalian if you want labels. Naturally, I moved to the single more fundamentalist Episcopal diocese in the United States, with a Bishop Iker who wants to leave the Episcopal Church of America and transfer his allegiance (and all the diocese property) to the rule of some Anglican Bishop in Africa.
Bishop Iker has filled all the minister positions in the Diocese with little Iklings who similarly hate Gays and detest women who want to be ordained. Since the Catholic church will take married Episcopal Priests in as Catholics, we have several in this area. I mentioned that to one Catholic Priest I was working with, and he said that those men were detested by most of the Catholic Priests in Fort Worth. Like conservatives everywhere, they lived to make everyone speak the approved fundamentalist catechism and to make everyone miserable.
I miss the litergy, but I can't stand the people. I don't feel that I have left Christianity, it has left me. It's like movement conservatives have taken over the churches. You're correct. They have abandoned the spirit of religion for a clear, easy to understand set of steps to take to get to heaven.
Better they just burned the entire structure to the ground, rented a few tents and started asking how mere human words collected at the instructions of the Emperor of Rome could encompass the complete guidance given by an infinite - whatever it is - and provide easy assembly instructions to follow.
Most of the people I know who have any interest in religion at all avoid Christianity like the plague. Christians are probably the greatest sales people out there for New Age Religions.
But, like I say, this is part of the Bible Belt. Religion here has performed the function of approving racism and gay-hating for so many White folk that it may never disappear. For Blacks and Latinos, their religious that has usually worked to protect them from the majority. For those functions it is pretty easy to extract a few simple steps to get you to heaven.
Wahabi fundamentalist Islam performs a similar function of protecting people in Saudi Arabia who do not belong to the royal family. It is a political organization too powerful for the King of Saudi Arabia and his family to destroy, so they buy them off by letting them run the schools and the courts. The royal family also encouraged them to export their religion to Afghanistan so they would not be causing trouble inside Saudi Arabia. The Wahabis were thus training and funding the Taliban. They are more political movement than religion.
December 4, 2007 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who were Catholic and worked for Civil Rights and to end the Vietnam War were never supported by their Church. Was there ever a publicly anti-war Catholic made Bishop?
The Catholic Church uses its Bishops and higher administrators to protect the institution of the Church, not to work for social improvement. The cover up of child molesters is another example where protection of the institution was more important than care of the individuals who were hurt by Priests.
The Southern Baptists and southern Methodist churches were the mainstay of support for slavery and segregation. As the Civil Rights movement made inroads into the South, the movement conservatives in the Republican Party offered those denominations political assistance in fighting the Civil Rights movement in exchange for the help from those denominations in taking over political control of the South.
Here in Texas, the members of those denominations went to the low-turnout political caucuses that selected delegates to the county and state Republican conventions and took over the Republican party. Then the Church leaders campaigned for the Republican politicians they accepted, including passing their church rolls on to the Republican Party as sources of both money and volunteers. Bush's election as Governor of Texas, defeating the popular Ann Richards, was midway in their effort to take over all the statewide offices in Texas, which they currently still maintain.
But if you will notice, the churches became part of the movement conservative political machine rather than being sources of religious wisdom. Racism and anti-Hispanic feelings are what are causing the Texas churches to grow, not religion. (I'll believe otherwise when I see the end of segregated Churches on Sunday. I don't expect to live to see that here in Texas.) The members simply use religious code-words to recognize each other, since they know that open racism is politically a severe negative. The pure political movement conservatives, like Karl Rove, use promises to change the political climate to one more like the fundamentalists demand to keep them in line.
This is the religious side of Nixon and Reagan's southern strategy.
December 4, 2007 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your characterization of the people here as the "secular left" is, for the most part, misplaced. Speaking for myself, I do not consider myself "secular." I have simply learned that memorizing passages in a book - which according to Bart D. Ehreman ("Misquoting Jesus") acquired more errors of transcription that it has total words during the more than a millennium during which it was hand transcribed - is a rather fruitless task.
As my previous comments in this thread should show, I find that the so-called religious organizations here in Texas have, for the most part, become part of the Republican political machine and in so doing lost their soul. If they ever had one, since many of them are still fighting on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement.
It is also quite obvious that the so-called Christian religious fundamentalism movement adopted the concept of Biblical Inerrancy when historians started applying textual analysis to the Bible and suddenly realized "Whoa! The names authors of the various books in the bible are generally not the real authors! Most of it is collaborative writing!"
Whatever God - Jehova - the Tao - that which cannot be named - or whatever it is called really is, the words of the Bible cannot possibly encompass him/her/it/whatever. The best that is possible with mere words is to provide a metaphorical narrative that may hint as some element of whatever it really is. Blind men and the elephant, and all that.
The Christian fundamentalists (and I suspect, the Islamic fundamentalists and those of other religions) are playing politics, not addressing the real mysteries of religion. When you play politics you have an in group, you have outcasts and you have enemies, and the fundamentalists use memorized phrases they have assigned special meaning to in order to determine what category someone fits in.
Anyone truly interested in religion is not going to play their political 'belonging' games. They don't like that, and they will pressure those of us who don't want to join just to belong.
Rejecting the politicians using religious labels does not make a person secular or atheist. I find that it is a step towards becoming religious, something those poor, sad women of the Jehovas' Witnesses will never be able to offer me. That's just not my path.
Nor do I offer my path to you to criticize. So lay off the "secular left" label and insults, OK?
At least I'm not promising anyone that if they believe and send me money they'll get rich, or that they can elect me to office and find a Biblical paradise here on Earth where they never again have to see someone of a different race or nationality. That isn't religion. It's just sick. Have you been watching the garbage coming out of Oral Roberts University? Too typical.
December 4, 2007 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did look, and I am more confused. Under what circumstances can a non-Christian (which does not mean purely secular, other-Abrahamic, or other label) find common goals to work upon, with the particular religious matters put aside as not directly relevant? From my experience, at least with a couple of people, it can happen; we've agreed to focus on goals, not necessarily beliefs that drive them.
All too often, even if I indicate early that I'm non-Christian, someone will suggest I start reading scripture, or ask one of my favorite questions to which I have an answer:
"Do you know the Lord?"
"Yes, and equally the Lady." If that answer makes immediate sense and lets me go my own way, fine. Even if it gets a "huh?" but we agree to keep theology out of our interactions, fine.
Do you construe "Learning to work together" as having to agree to consider Christian doctrine, or at least having to say "no thanks; now let's go treat the sick" at frequent intervals?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 5, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no expert by a long shot, Rick. But my master Wikipedia says a koan shifts from the rational to the intuitive. So I wonder...can a paradigm be intuition? My take is that a paradigm shift would be from one rational system to another, but I'm not too sure I'm right. My inclination is to understand paradox's motive as suspending language (words) itself.
Neoboho
December 5, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's certainly an interesting response. I did not intend to jump into your conversation in any serious way. I wrote my comment because I thought you were making your own false claim about the world--that nature has made mankind in a specific way. We can say that in some ways--it's hard to deny the facts of evolution--but it's important to remember that we have free will and in fact, we choose to be petty and greedy and vicious.
But let me ask, what do you mean by liberal scholasticism? You say that people tend to think that if they score a few theoretical points then they have won, and I agree that is a problem. It's the reason we're all arguing on the internet. But what does that have to do with scholasticism? Scholasticism is a methodology that can in fact be put to use in living a good life. The practice of law is essentially scholastic and always has been, including the continental and canonical traditions. Church law is scholastic, but it has always been intimately involved in expounding how people ought to live.
So, maybe we're just operating on different definitions of scholasticism. Would you explain what you mean?
December 5, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those liberal Episcopalians, too, also living in one of the handful of Episcopal dioceses in the US wanting to break off and ally with the Anglican Church. I don't think it will be as easy as they imagine; they're welcome to go and take whomever is willing, but will likely encounter legal difficulties when they try to take the Church's financial assets with them. What's really ironic to me is that our current presiding bishop (a woman, for the uninitiated) has precisely the sort of wisdom and true righteousness we have the right to expect in our religious leadership.
A blog I frequent (http://www.correntewire.com/) routinely refers to the hypocrites as Christianists, a term apparently coined by Andrew Sullivan. A Christianist "perverts Christianity to achieve political power or wealth, 'practic[ing] their piety before others in order to be seen by them' (Matthew 6:5)." Useful term, Christianist.
December 5, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink