Religion Gets A Revamp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/ross-douthat-bad-religion_n_1433108.html?ref=religion

Religion in America is a topic that’s been done to death in books like “American Grace” by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, but a new work has been put out by a Roman Catholic, Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist. He criticizes various forms of Christianity as it has modernized, such as prosperity gospel as well as the God within philosophy popularized by people such as Oprah Winfrey. I find it ironic that a Catholic is criticizing people for distancing themselves from institutionalized religion and taking on more of a “spiritual” angle in their beliefs and philosophy when the Catholic Church is probably responsible in great part for people not having any real love for organized religion, especially as of recently with the child abuse cover up scandals. Protestant churches can be bad too, in their own ways, but the appeal of the more piety based Christian sect is that it’s not about what you do so much as what you believe, which can create a sense of unjustified entitlement in the wake of having a “born again” experience, which is where people start becoming non denominational, because even the evangelical title is too embarrassing. There are a number of reasons that could be speculated on, but I think it’s relevant to find agreement with the author first before continuing on my tirade as to how he’s actually making the problem worse in a sense and not really solving it by some call to traditional religion.

I agree that there are big problems with the types of “heretical” religion he rails against, though calling them heretical is a bit esoteric. I suppose they would be heretical in the sense of breaking off from orthodox teachings, assuming the Catholic Church is orthodox. But the reasons these are damaging to society is more explicit than, say, traditional Catholicism, which I would argue has its own issues to confront. Prosperity gospel, at its core, believes that Jesus will bless you with financial gain, because it is his will. Of course, it isn’t just given to you without some responsibility on your part. You need a combination of faith and donations to encourage this windfall upon you. The reason it poses such an explicit danger is that is appeals to one of the lowest common denominators amongst humanity, our desire for material wealth and gain. If you tell people that God wants to make you rich, then people can get on board with it much easier than if you just tell them that you’ll be rich if you get involved with a pyramid scheme or the like. God is supernatural, so people can make more “sense” out of the creator of the universe wanting people to be prosperous than being taken in by common snake oil salesmen. But if you are motivated to be religious simply because you think your piety will give you money from heaven, then it’s definitely less sincere than if you want to actually help people out of the goodness of your heart and conscience.  Not to mention that this ridiculous theology suckers money out of otherwise reasonable people, who are drawn in by desperation and feelings of devotion to some God they felt estranged from. This sort of abuse of power is a problem that exists in any religion, but especially so with such an explicitly profit centered message.

The “God within” theology, popularized by many New Age sorts of thinkers, has its own issues, notwithstanding the conflicts with general classical Christianity and monotheism. When you give a person the idea that they are God in a nominal sense or can find God within themselves, it makes them feel a bit more entitled than they need to. It’s one thing to improve self esteem by saying you’re created by God, but to go so far as saying you have God within you in a more grandiose sense borders on a megalomania and egotism usually only possessed by dictators of the ilk of Hitler and Stalin. I’m not saying believers in this are going to commit mass genocide or the like, but it creates the dilemma of where you stop in terms of trying to improve people’s perception of themselves and encourage self confidence. I’m all for this sort of thing, but all good things require restraint and self control along with pride and ambition. It’s one thing to believe you are special in that God has a plan for you, such as with prosperity gospel or even just a notion that “things happen for a reason”, but it takes religious belief a bit too far in the notion that you are God incarnate, albeit not perfectly. The idea seems to be that you must find God by some sort of purification or meditation. A lot of this seems to resemble Hindu ideas, albeit the notion of people having God within for Hindus is more akin to reconnecting to ultimate reality, though there are likely multiple schools of this theology propagated by celebrities and theologians alike. Any sort of Western interpretation of Eastern ideas, such as the Hindu belief of a connection between one’s atman, your soul in a sense, and the Brahman, the world soul, has potential to miss the point entirely or at least place the theistic and transcendent tendencies of the Abrahamic religions onto what are nontheist and immanent traits of Hinduism and the like, though not always. Hinduism is notorious for being one of the most, if not the most, diverse religious systems in the world. You can be Hindu and be atheist, polytheist, monotheist or henotheist, amongst other possibilities. That reflects on how diverse the religious sensibilities of believers in these ideas can be. Not so much with prosperity gospel, but God within can be vaguer in how you interpret it.

This doesn’t mean that I’m supporting Douthat’s claim that we should return to traditional religion, though. It’s just as damaging, though in a much more subtle sense. The damage organized religion in particular does, along with religious thought, permeates culture more deeply than the recent and modern developments that try to draw people in with more palpable and desirable traits, like wealth and self esteem. The authority of a faith tradition that stands through time for one reason or another is stronger and thus more difficult to pull away from. You feel the pull of a community that gives you a sense of purpose even if that purpose is from outside yourself instead of within. There is a need for answers to your questions of where you come from, why you’re here and where you’re going and the church supposedly gives you some sense of satisfaction. It’s not even the hypocrisy of believers that is the largest issue, as that occurs with any set of beliefs one might have, naturalist or supernaturalist. Traditional religion uses rhetoric instead of logic first and foremost. They speak to a commonsensical, yet often misguided, set of ideas we take to be true because they’ve been held as true for a long time and have benefitted people in many ways. This sort of charisma and gravitas pulls people in and even draws them back in after they leave for the simple fact that they give some form of a structured answer to our deepest philosophical questions and psychological needs. But in doing so, there is cognitive dissonance, psychological turmoil and general inconsistency that could be prevented if we didn’t take dogma and faith as our prime authority in life. I’m not saying you can’t be religious or spiritual in some sense and also be rational, but many times we favor the former over the latter in our daily lives, acting on impulse and intuition rather than any sort of deliberation or debate.

There are other issues I could bring up, such as the over saturation of political topics with religious undertones, but it suffices to focus on what traditional and modern religion share in common in order to discredit them both. I don’t have a problem with you holding these beliefs, but if you try to argue that they have a rational basis at their foundation instead of faith and obedience to transcendent authorities you believe in only based on that belief, then I can’t take you seriously. There aren’t philosophical arguments to show the validity of a system that at its core does not use arguments to turn people, but conjecture and fallacies that we are commonly unaware of because of how easily misunderstood philosophy and logic are in the context of theology. If you’re going to make polemics against New Age religion as it has become interwoven with Christian theology in one sense or another, it behooves you to make sufficient arguments as to why classical Christianity based in tradition and teachings that hold up within the sacred texts is better than what is obvious to a fair segment of the population as fabrications and misdirection. Outsiders can’t take the religion seriously if there is nothing competitive about it in relation to their own, or for those who were raised in secular philosophies, the religion isn’t compelling by habits that made them skeptical to religion early on. Bottom line, religion doesn’t get more credibility or authority by how long it has survived, since any good idea is subject to alterations to appease people who aren’t satisfied, or vague retorts that keep the masses quiet and questioning without breaking away from the flock. Even the allegedly 2000+ year old faith of Christianity doesn’t get a stamp of approval because of the influence it has undoubtedly had on philosophy, history and various other disciplines. It has to stand on merits apart from its faith claims, which means it stands on vague Deism that the founding fathers of America respected as natural theology. But as far as classical Christianity goes, it has beliefs that are becoming more and more outdated and struggling to adjust, which explains why we get money grubbing televangelists and inspiring gurus that tell you to look inside for God. Religion poisons everything, but to quote Paracelsus, the poison is in the dose. Even something normally good can become damaging in excess and even things not immediately toxic can wreak damage over long exposure in small doses. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

Jesus and Religion, Friends or Enemies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

http://rapgenius.com/Jefferson-bethke-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-spoken-word-lyrics

http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-poet-jefferson-bethke-talks-jesus-religion-67470/

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/hating-religion-loving-jesus-why-sentiment-flawed

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/

A video that was shared by a few of my Facebook friends has lingered in my mind since I watched it myself to sample what was so popular. Jefferson Bethke, only a few years younger than me (right around my brother’s age actually) speaks about how he holds Jesus in high regard, believes in his death as substitution for sin, but despises what he characterizes as religion in everyday Christian practice, but has also qualified in other contexts as false religion. This brings up a few issues, one of which is that sharp critique against the word and practice of religion. The phrase that “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” while clever in use of alliteration (which I myself am quite fond of) is also mistaken even as it remains popular with newer generations growing up as young adults in this society that some might consider post-Christian, though what is meant by that is somewhat uncertain. Christianity is still fairly strong in its existence, even if some churches are losing members to much larger fellowships elsewhere. But the type of Christian religiosity has changed drastically. Many would say they are followers of Christ rather than adherents to the religion of Christianity for the same reason that many oppose various –isms that are self descriptive labels that have fragmented in the amount of meanings they have to each individual. I can respect that practice, since this sort of diffusion of labels and inconsistency on virtually any sort of agreed upon points in any system has made many people almost Pyrrhonist in their daily philosophy, if not in their more serious discussions, since they don’t feel there is any sense of security in institutions or communities. So what do they do? They reserve all judgment on matters of truth. But there is a problem I have as a student of religion with the claim from this clearly articulate youth that all religion should be regarded as the same, though he seems to have backslid on this slightly after the fact, but let’s take the video mostly at face value for the purpose of discussion. I may be secularist, but I cannot side entirely with those that want to eliminate religion, if only because the foundations of problems that are reflected in religious intolerance are deeper than simply believing in the supernatural. For someone to think Jesus hated religion or that you should hate religion and love Jesus, as the video itself paraphrases, is just as problematic as hatred of those beliefs and practices that are abused by the manipulative and take advantage of the hopeful, but in themselves could manifest in even secular contexts. Not to mention there’s the Christian context we can interpolate for considering what religion meant to the writers of the Bible, since it’s used intermittently, so clearly it wasn’t so important as it is today, but it wasn’t a taboo word. These two things in particular are my concern: modern Christianity’s development into a sort of “spiritual but not religious” category and whether Christianity was purely spiritual and not religious itself.

Jesus definitely opposed religious legalism, adherence to the letter, but not the spirit of the law, but he also preached religion, especially in terms of reconnection as opposed to bondage in the form of rote adherence which was the common antagonist in his parables and in real adversaries he went against in public. He was an observant Jew of his time as well. Regarding the political stuff brought up early in the video, there are probably just as many Democrats and Republicans that call themselves Christians and many vote Independent parties because they follow admonitions from the bible to vote godly people into office, which commonly suggests Ron Paul these days. One can critique hypocrisy in religion and politics and still adhere to a religion, since the word in any etymology doesn’t automatically mean multifarious intentions or the stuff Jesus criticized in the Pharisees. This is where church and state separation is very pertinent to consider.  I also wonder if the critique is of all Christianity or just Protestantism as it became more prominent in terms of televangelism and fixation on the church as a business before its primary function of worship. If he’s critiquing Catholicism, it gets into another area, since Catholicism is a two pronged system, deriving authority from scripture and tradition both, not just scripture as is the case with Protestants. In any case, the problem he has is what he perceives as Christians today thinking that they have to be charitable and do all these things to qualify as Christians, but the basic notion is simply a change of your paradigm to recognize the centrality of Jesus as God and how that affects your life, if I understand it even somewhat correctly.

Much of the poem written by Jefferson Bethke is indicative of modern Christianity, trying to sever itself from the older formulations that have become very strict and rigid in their application of the Gospel. One manifestation of this sort of “neo-Christianity” is nondenominational churches, and another is creedless churches, like Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ, though these have existed in some form since the 19th century. It is not an entirely bad sentiment to want to affirm yourself as unique and not conform to a crowd that is both displeasing and dissonant with what you personally believe to be the core teachings of Christianity. But many Christians reflect that this idea of salvation preached about in the video, such as “Religion says do, Jesus says done,” misses the nuance of works proceeding from faith. Works themselves as religious practice, what’s called cult practice in academic studies (not to be confused with cult in the modern sense of a group with dangerous beliefs and practices of brainwashing), do not merit salvation, that much seems fairly clear in Christian teaching (from what I understand as a nonbeliever). But the works should not be rejected as something that is part of a Christian’s daily walk. They are said to result from your faith, not due to any expectation of reward because of the quantity or presence of those actions, but the quality that inspired them.

There are a number of uses of religion in the New Testament and at least 2 are especially relevant. The first talks about what ideal religion consists in, James 1:27; caring for orphans and widows as well as keeping oneself unstained by the world. Whatever the second part exactly means is up to some interpretation, such as being in the world, but not of it, or more strict monastic vows. The verse right before James 1:27, 1:26, speaks about something Bethke seemingly neglected in part. To paraphrase, if you consider yourself religious then mind your words or your religion is worthless. Technically, the youth in question doesn’t identify as religious, but the tone and content of his message is religious nonetheless and thus he renders his religion worthless by what I and others could conceivably interpret as superfluous polemic. If he focused his critique on Christianity itself as practiced in churches or such instead of the public behavior of a larger and more diverse group of Christians, there’d be more agreement by the educated who see the distinction between false and true religion that is enumerated implicitly or explicitly in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament’s various letters. In painting most modern forms of Christianity and its identity as a religion with such a broad brush and subsequently condemning them, he doesn’t leave much to praise except within his own generation, which is self serving and counterproductive in speaking to older audiences who no doubt share many of his sentiments, but nonetheless adhere to what he considers religion and not “spirituality”, which is even more vacuous a word than religion is these days.

The crux of this whole burst of popularity for this still growing area of Christianity is to think before you speak, and then think some more. To make rash judgments in terms of politics, doctrine or otherwise is to show your foolishness to everyone instead of admitting ignorance and seeking out an answer. If religion is man made, but Jesus was at least partly man, then you already contradict yourself in implying man made things are opposed by whatever you think is opposed to religion. Jesus and religion are only on opposite spectrums, as another part of the video goes, if you purposely structure it so that they are in no way related except by people that would disagree with you. That sort of contrarian behavior is not conducive to a discussion. If you said Jesus opposed false religion, you’d at least be clear, but you wouldn’t have nearly as good a rhythm. But you didn’t even try to make that distinction between that and true religion, which is referred to in the bible itself. Evidently, there wasn’t wholesale opposition to religion, though this isn’t to say it isn’t without some imperfections. But any system has that. Even Christianity has flaws and bad examples, but that’s why you should strive to make Christianity more in line with what it actually teaches. Of course, the specifics of that is something I don’t want to try to touch on for a while. Hypocrites exist everywhere, so don’t point them out while you yourself already have flaws. Jesus himself said this, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” You want to fix Christianity as a whole, fix your part of Christianity first. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Who Cares What Jesus Would Do?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/father-edward-beck-asks-cares-jesus/story?id=10319427

Having heard much in the news in the last few weeks regarding the Catholic Church confronting the sex abuse scandals as well as seeing the many prominent tragedies or issues that plague the world at large, the common phrase popular in the 90s (though I would think it went as far back as the 60s; not sure on that) What Would Jesus Do? (hereafter abbreviated as WWJD) still resonates with many people. But this article really puts the idea in perspective and points out a fatal flaw within it. The gist is that we’re putting Jesus on a pedestal and using all his actions as the standard to which we must reach. And even if you’re not Christian, you can appreciate the radical nature of Jesus’ behavior and seek to emulate it. He reformed culture, he got people to follow him and preach his ideas in one way or another, not to mention he stood up to authority that had taken itself too seriously or insisted on powers beyond what were allocated to it (Pharisees and the Roman army respectively) But if you take what is supposed to be God incarnate in the Christian vision and make that the standard to live up to, you’re inevitably bound to fail at it, or appear so self righteous that you alienate all those around you by behaving as if you’re superior just because you’re celibate.

By all means you can ask “What Would Jesus Advise You To Do?” since this affirms his authority, Christian or otherwise, as a teacher, but does not suggest that his standard of excellence is what we should hold ourselves to; no more than every martial artist should hold Bruce Lee as their goal to reach. In both cases, we’re talking about men that were the best of the best in what they did, albeit Bruce Lee never made alleged claims to deity. But like Jesus, he took his practice and lifestyle very seriously and taught it as best he could to others in hopes that they might follow the ideals and practices that he had used in his lifetime. To try to take either teacher and make their life’s example as the be all and end all of what you should seek to do is not only dangerous in that it borders on a personality cult, but like a personality cult, it saps you of your individuality and self expression. You can emulate Jesus in that you forgive others that do you wrong, while also pointing out to them that it wasn’t exactly right of them to do whatever they did to you. But to react exactly like Jesus is not only predictable, but it stifles any notion that you’re supposed to be you and not Jesus. As the author, Edward L. Beck, notes, Jesus “was never married, never a parent, never a woman and never fell victim to sinfulness as the rest of us do,” With his lack of complete accessibility to every human, people should take his more universal ethical teachings to heart instead of thinking they can perfectly emulate him through less than expected methods or being notoriously nonconformist to the point where you are conforming to a standard of nonconformity. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.