Where is Christanity Headed?

[GlorytoGod]

Where is Christanity Headed?

back to Daddy on the Good Ship Jesus

All Aboard

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by nativeastral

the problem with christianity is its orthodoxy. you'll find in judaism/islam emphasis on orthopraxy, leaving one's inner beliefs/revelations more of a private 'affair'.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an emphasis on orthopraxy with Judaism and Islam. I'd have to spend a little bit more time conversing with a Jew or Muslim to understand what that means.

But if I am understanding you correctly, then what I'd say is this. My "orthodoxy" (ie. right thinking) is actually a bit of an orthopraxy (ie. right action) as well.

I said that the true orthodoxy was the one that was good for the people as well as the religion, but I didn't specifically define the details of that orthodoxy. One major problem, to me, is theologians trying to define a so-called "right path" that doesn't treat the people with proper respect. They encourage thinking that isn't socially or politically beneficial. The kind of thinking they promote alienates and demonises certain kind of people. They treat certain members of the parish, congregation or religious community as just objects, farm animals or live stock to be poked and prodded as they wish.

To me it now becomes a matter of orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy. It is now a question of what you, as a religious leader, are doing to the people. What are you doing to each of the people in your community individually? This is the problem. It is where theologians and religious leaders don't treat the members of their community with dignity. They don't treat them as fellow human beings.

It should never be my business, whether I am a layperson or even one in the clergy to decide someone else's cosmic fate or destiny. It doesn't matter even if I am someone as high as the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. I am just another social being. I have no right nor authority to decide someone else's cosmic fate or destiny or even tell them what will happen to them. I can only speak for myself. I believe people should have humility towards others when it comes to cosmic fate and destiny.

But with regards "orthopraxy," I don't know if I have entirely understood what you're saying, but to me it's pretty much a personal matter. It is my policy not to try to interfere with someone else's beliefs/revelations or relationship with God.

If I was to have a right to discuss matters or to have authority over others, it would be over social and political matters. I believe I have a right to speak up on social/political (ie. worldly) alignment issues such as who has final ideological authority, what ideas become established, who can be judged or legitimately branded an "apostate," how we decide who has the right ideas and matters of ideological conformity. I just don't believe it's my right to decide someone else's cosmic (ie. otherworldly) relationship with God.

My personal belief on what "authority" I have is being able to speak my mind on what ideas become established and how things are enforced socially and politically. Much of what people consider "orthodoxy" are "established ideas" and I believe that many of these "established ideas" have gained popularity somewhat unfairly. I believe that it should be possible to challenge "established ideas" and not be considered "a heretic." The trouble with so-called traditional Christianity is that not all ideas are equal or fairly treated. Some ideas are treated with contempt. There is also a strong anti-intellectual phenomenon. People don't value "good ideas." The value of an idea is measured on how well it favours the "established" ones.

This is not "authority over others" but "the right to speak my mind" on what I consider right and wrong with regards to religious ideas. When I said "authority" I meant having "equal authority" compared to others. I meant that one's ideas should not be undervalued just because it doesn't favour the established ones.

My contention is that there should be no "established" ideas. It should be an even playing field. The value of an idea should be measured on how well it benefits an individual Christian's spiritual journey and on how well it benefits the rest of the Christian collective. This is what I mean about what is good for both the people and the religion.

By putting emphasis on "good ideas" it may seem to some here that I am suggesting that intelligence is what leads us to God. Some may accuse me of promoting philosophical thinking. I am not promoting philosophical thinking. I am promoting education.

Education helps people both individually and collectively. The better your education, the better you are at helping yourself and others. By encouraging people to think up "good ideas" I am encouraging people to learn so that they can help themselves as well as others on their spiritual journey.

My concern is that much of what amounts to an "education" in many Christian communities is whatever favours established ideas. Local religious leaders discourage congregants and parishioners from exploring ideas that don't favour the established ones.

I am more concerned about how ideas become established than the ideas themselves. This is perhaps where I may differ with traditional Christian orthodoxy and where my version of "Christian orthodoxy" may be more like that of Judaism and Islam. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We need to put aside the differences and create the KISS church (Keep It Simple Stupid).

I'm curious, Marsh- what are the 7 churches? Because there are a lot more than 7 so far as I can tell... Seems like every chance people get, they schism and create a new denomination.

They don't refer to denominations per se. Remember that at the time that this prophecy was delivered to John, the word "church" would have still refered to "congregation" rather than a denominational, institutional church like we know them today. So the prophecy includes messages to seven congregations. This might mean that there were, and will be, seven kinds of Christians in the world (i.e. the humble, the arrogant, the backsliding, the legalistic, etc). There also might be more than just seven types, these just sufficing for the prophecy. The bottom line is that there is not just one church (congregation) at the end of the age.

It's pretty tempting to try and equate each of these seven churches with a denominational church. For example, I've heard a lot of hardline Protestants say that the chuch in Thyatira represents the Catholic church because there is reference to "that woman Jezebel," who they think represents Mary. Personally, I don't think that's the meaning of the prophecy, though. Congregation can mean anything from world-wide following to an individual Christian family, and I doubt that God views us in terms of our denominational loyalties, anyways.

[path_of_one]

Thanks for the explanation, Marsh- that helps a lot! I've read Revelation, but I confess I am just not that into interpreting prophecy. I'm more, as Nativeastral would probably say, focused on orthopraxy. That is, I figure my ideas about all of it are shifting, probably inaccurate as to reality, and kind of irrelevant. But my actions are something grounded that I can develop into a more Christ-like manner. And my experience of God, relationship with God is something that I can engage with, giving time to reading scripture, waiting in silence before God, and offering each day to God.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The question, though is, which Simplicity are you talking about? We don't all agree on the definition of this "Simplicity." Your concept is simple from your perspective simply because of your personal life experiences and your present life situation. But to get someone else to accept your "Simplicity" you have to get them to abandon their perspective, experience and present life situation and come over to where you are standing. Your views are complicated from where they are standing.

I think my views are actually simple, because they don't involve views. I would like to see a congregation where people gather together, take joy in life, lift up whatever they have to God, encourage and love one another, make long-lasting friendships, serve the earth and humanity in some way.

I ask no one to abandon anything. I really believe we could unite as Christians simply by focusing on Christ's life and teachings in practice (that would be that orthopraxy thing- working out what a life in Christ looks like) and leaving the rest (our ideas) up to us individually. I can't really see any benefit in complicating things by making the church about having certain ideas. So far, it seems to result in division at best and at worst, killing each other.

I'm a pragmatic sort. I'm all for ditching things that just don't work, and getting over a billion people in the world to all think the same thing doesn't work.

But maybe my idea of people just hanging out together in peace and love, helping each other out, and sitting together before God is really complicated to someone else. I dunno.

My personal belief is that there should be an etiquette. One must decide what is good for both the people and the religion. This is what I call "true orthodoxy." This is what I consider to be the position that is most likely to be correct. Fundamentalists and universalists place too much emphasis on one or the other.

Problem is, that means someone has to decide, and then there is an imbalance of power and a great potential to misuse religion... as happens again and again. Seems that this etiquette also leads to terror, arrogance, prejudice, etc.

The problem isn't so much in the idea of religion, as the fact that it requires humans to practice it.

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think my views are actually simple, because they don't involve views. I would like to see a congregation where people gather together, take joy in life, lift up whatever they have to God, encourage and love one another, make long-lasting friendships, serve the earth and humanity in some way.

I ask no one to abandon anything. I really believe we could unite as Christians simply by focusing on Christ's life and teachings in practice (that would be that orthopraxy thing- working out what a life in Christ looks like) and leaving the rest (our ideas) up to us individually. I can't really see any benefit in complicating things by making the church about having certain ideas. So far, it seems to result in division at best and at worst, killing each other..

I don't know if you are speaking utopia or nirvana, but I like it...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Problem is, that means someone has to decide, and then there is an imbalance of power and a great potential to misuse religion... as happens again and again. Seems that this etiquette also leads to terror, arrogance, prejudice, etc.

The problem isn't so much in the idea of religion, as the fact that it requires humans to practice it.

But then that isn't good for the religion or the people. But I said that I considered the "true orthodoxy" to be whatever is good for the religion and the people. What I am asking is for community leaders to be prudent in the way they deal with differences in belief. It is this ability to deal with differing beliefs that consitutes true orthodoxy in my opinion. It is the ability to negotiate. It's like Barack Obama building bridges. He doesn't seek to create enemies. If people are not at fault, he is prepared to work with them. If they err, he offers his criticism. He gives people the opportunity to demonstrate their virtues.

To me, the problem isn't that there is someone to make the decisions. The problem is the way of making decisions. It's like the difference between a democracy and autocracy. It is like the difference between a free press and a state-controlled media.

Consider my post before on established ideas, that there should be no established ideas, that any ideas that become dominant are debatable and that it should be possible to challenge them.

Consider the modern statecraft of an executive branch, legislature and judiciary. None of these branches have supreme authority. They simply receive precedence depending on the situation, whether the situation calls for it. Domination is prevented by the principle of the separation of powers.

Consider the idea of a newspaper, or a peer-reviewed medical journal. Make your opinion and ideas public for all the world to see.

I didn't say we'd have an autocracy or plutocracy.

Why don't churches have their own newspapers, editorials and peer-reviewed journals on orthodoxy and orthopraxy? How do we review what is rational or irrational based on the written traditions that we study? Who is going to challenge established ideas? Most of what I see around is propaganda and ideological hegemony rather than balanced opinion. When will Christians stop listening to demagogues and start thinking and acting judiciously and prudently? When will we stop clinging to established, dominant and popular ideas?

Much of Christianity is dominated by demagogues, people who, upon finding themselves in a position of power, wreaked havoc socially and politically. These people were more interested in finding enemies to fight rather than being leaders in a collective spiritual journey.

There were not willing to engage socially with people. They didn't even recognise the social aspects of being in a religious community. They were more interested in being demagogues, creating artificial, ideological boundaries between people.

The denominational divisions in Christianity were created by demagogues, and if you are sidelined because of your non-traditional or non-conventional beliefs, it is a consequence of political structures created by demagogues.

Paul said that "I can do anything, but not everything is healthy." But these demagogues are more interested in creating ideological boundaries for people rather than creating a healthy, non-legalistic, non-judgmental, non-ideological, non-fundamentalist social environment for religious people. They are more interested in creating enemies and looking for someone to fight to boost their popularity and appear competent as spiritual leaders. This is their idea of the cosmic struggle of Christianity.

My idea of the cosmic struggle is the exact opposite. Down with these demagogues!

One should not seek to dictate, but to listen and understand. Demagogues don't listen or try to understand. They dictate. They want power and domination. They don't care about the people.

The trouble is that Christians have spent too long honouring demagogues and not enough time appointing competent spiritual leaders.

The real cosmic struggle, in my view, is a social and political one, not a theological one. It is the struggle to be wise, judicious and prudent, socially and politically. Theology is about the otherworldly, a world we cannot see. The trouble with much of Christianity is this emphasis on theology, this world we cannot see. But how can we appreciate theology if we can't appreciate the social and political? How can we appreciate what we can't see if we don't even appreciate or understand what we can see?

We should try to understand the visible before we try to understand the invisible.

The demagogues and fundamentalists appeal to theology because they know that Christians are obsessed with theology. Emphasis on theology leads to social ineptitude and the demagogues and fundamentalists exploit this social ineptitude so that Christians demonise and vilify any beliefs or people that are different or unfavourable to their own. Many of these demagogues don't even know they're demagogues. Because they too are socially inept, they are blind to their own demagogy.

This is what I consider to be the problem Christianity faces.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I don't believe any religion leads to God.

We are already the perfect manifestation of "God".

We couldn't get any closer if we tried.

[wil]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

We are already the perfect manifestation of "God".

We couldn't get any closer if we tried.

Now were talkin...

[Dream]

Well, overall things are getting better. Lots of good people are making an impact from wherever they live (including fundamentalist and universal members). I see an impending rapid change in Prot. fundamentalists, but I see everyone as working upon different aspects of the same problem. We want to know why does the world keep 'Wobbling' upon its axis? Why haven't unbelievers been converted to 'us' fundies yet, or why is there still rape, war, and disease? Unies ask "Why can't we all just get along?" (The universalists also want to know why there are fundies.) A quote from Jesus: "He that is not against me is for me."

It is written that man is made in God's image, which is why we should not murder but there is even more implied than just 'Don't murder' if we are in God's image! Observe: Genesis 9:2 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth...." The word for fear here means 'Reverence', and the word for beast here refers to 'Life'! Neither the fundamentalist nor the universalist can deny this. I Corinthians 14:25 "...the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you." To whom is the unbeliever bowing? He bows to God, but rather than in particular direction God is considered 'Among' the believers. That is why he falls upon his face before them.

Each can learn to trust that even the 'Fundamentalists' or 'Universalists' themselves see issues and have tools we do not. Each is digging from the other side. Love will accomplish good things, so the digging is good!

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

But then that isn't good for the religion or the people. But I said that I considered the "true orthodoxy" to be whatever is good for the religion and the people.

I think part of the issue, though, is an assumption that what is good for a religion is good for the people. This posits that what is good for a social institution is good for people. But this demands figuring out what "good" is for both. There are often conflicts between cultural or institutional stability and survival and individuals' needs and best interests. I am deeply skeptical of the capacity for any institution, religious or otherwise, to ever really serve everyone. First, because everyone will not agree. Second, that what some will see as good comes at a cost to others. And third, because what forms stable institutions (i.e., what is often seen as "good" for them) is not necessarily what serves individuals.

It just seems like as much utopia as my vision, but with more work involved.

What I am asking is for community leaders to be prudent in the way they deal with differences in belief. It is this ability to deal with differing beliefs that consitutes true orthodoxy in my opinion. It is the ability to negotiate. It's like Barack Obama building bridges. He doesn't seek to create enemies. If people are not at fault, he is prepared to work with them. If they err, he offers his criticism. He gives people the opportunity to demonstrate their virtues.

That's an interesting idea. So right belief has to do with dealing with differences, not belief itself? Of course, negotiating is a toughie... one problem is that you can end up with the lowest common denominator, which serves no one, is ineffective and inefficient, and still costly. A prime example is what goes on in environmental policy on a regular basis.

Consider my post before on established ideas, that there should be no established ideas, that any ideas that become dominant are debatable and that it should be possible to challenge them.

But again, then you are wishing for a group of educated, interested, dedicated and open-minded people. If humanity was that way, then you wouldn't really need any sort of government or religion, would you?

The problem with democracy, as we see in the United States, is that people without a clue and without any motivation to get one still are involved in decision-making. This is why the US was set up as a Republic in which most of the important decisions are made by people that *should* be operating for the good of the whole but are better informed and more dedicated than your average citizen.

That is also how most religious institutions work. The laity generally doesn't have the time, make the time, or want to devote the time to the type of education, contemplation, and open debate that the work you propose would demand. Most people want answers. They want an authority to look up to and blame if things go wrong. Unfortunately, people are lazy.

And the difficulty lies in why we should listen to a lot of lazy, uncaring, unmotivated and/or uneducated people and form our institutions based on that, religious or otherwise. That basic problem, again- everyone will have different ideas about what is "good" for them and the lowest common denominator in negotiating with everyone equally is not necessarily what is in the public interest or the interest of society and its institutions.

Despite having studied social systems for a number of years now, I can't for the life of me see getting around the basic problem that when you have a group of highly dedicated and open-minded people, you often don't need structure. And when you need structure, you need it because you're dealing with a bunch of folks that are not interested in what is good for the many, but only for themselves. As soon as you need structure, you're already in trouble because all the rest of the lousiness of institutions follows soon after.

Why don't churches have their own newspapers, editorials and peer-reviewed journals on orthodoxy and orthopraxy? How do we review what is rational or irrational based on the written traditions that we study?

I don't know that the peer review process works very well, except in narrow denominations. Just look at how rapidly some article would disintegrate in our Christianity section here- people coming at it from all angles. The problem is there is little or no agreement in how to review any of this stuff. A Catholic, a Quaker, a Baptist, a Pentecostalist... all will review very differently. And I'm not sure it should be otherwise. But without getting rid of this diversity, there isn't much hope for unity except through acceptance and focus on practice rather than belief.

Who is going to challenge established ideas? Most of what I see around is propaganda and ideological hegemony rather than balanced opinion.

Who gets to decide what is propaganda and hegemony vs. challenges to established ideas? And which established ideas?

When will Christians stop listening to demagogues and start thinking and acting judiciously and prudently? When will we stop clinging to established, dominant and popular ideas?

That isn't a Christian thing, it's pervasive in all aspects of American life. Most people don't want the bother of thinking beyond what is popular. This is why we have people to tell us what to wear each season, how to think about the various celebrities, what goals to have in life, how to have good sex, how to make our spouse happy, how to take care of our health, how to vote, and so on. Almost every area of our life has some sound-bites handy to address it. Most people are uncomfortable with critical thinking and besides, it's boring, right?

Americans watch an average of four hours of television per day. They could read. They could think. They could meditate or pray or volunteer at a soup kitchen.

Until we deal with the widely embraced idea that our way to happiness is to buy crap and watch the media, the idea of having an American Christianity that is in any way critical, self-reflexive, and based upon solid debates to form orthodoxy is a pipe dream. Our own culture prevents this and makes religion just one more institution subjugated to consumerism.

These people were more interested in finding enemies to fight rather than being leaders in a collective spiritual journey.

There's more profit in fighting. And it makes people easier to control.

The denominational divisions in Christianity were created by demagogues, and if you are sidelined because of your non-traditional or non-conventional beliefs, it is a consequence of political structures created by demagogues.

But then if we have no boundary around orthodoxy and do not sideline the non-traditional or non-conventional beliefs (like mine), then how do we avoid universalism when this inclusivity reaches its natural conclusion? At some point, we draw a boundary. And then that boundary is used to divide and conquer people.

Paul said that "I can do anything, but not everything is healthy." But these demagogues are more interested in creating ideological boundaries for people rather than creating a healthy, non-legalistic, non-judgmental, non-ideological, non-fundamentalist social environment for religious people. They are more interested in creating enemies and looking for someone to fight to boost their popularity and appear competent as spiritual leaders. This is their idea of the cosmic struggle of Christianity.

Sadly, true. But we can't put all the blame on the leaders. People demand this sort of thing. It's just supply and demand. That they get butts in their pews is testimony to the draw most people feel to judge others and to not think for themselves.

The fascinating thing is that most leaders at the higher levels of the organizations are actually quite reasonable and self-reflective and critical individuals. I was struck by this in watching a recent documentary "In God's Name," that interviewed 12 of the top spiritual leaders in the world. It's the lower level leaders and laity that feed off conflict and judgment.

One should not seek to dictate, but to listen and understand. Demagogues don't listen or try to understand. They dictate. They want power and domination. They don't care about the people.

Hard to blame them. Most of the people don't care about the people either.

The trouble is that Christians have spent too long honouring demagogues and not enough time appointing competent spiritual leaders.

And not enough time in our own study, reflection, and contemplation. 75% of Americans identify as Christian. Yet the average American spends 4 hours a day on TV-viewing. Imagine if that 4 hours were spent in prayer or service.

I think we'd see not only a different Christianity, but a different nation.

Kingdom of God, anyone? It's ours for the taking!

We should try to understand the visible before we try to understand the invisible.

Understand and honor. Reverence for God in and around and through us.

Great post, Salty.

[Faithfulservant]

the 7 churches represent the church through history much like the statue in the book of Daniel. There are wonderful studies available on this subject you just have to search.

[nativeastral]

'The Dilemmas of Institutionalization

In later works, particularly his widely read The Sociology of Religion (Prentice Hall 1966), O'Dea expanded his initial analysis of institutional dilemmas within the Catholic Church by developing a more general explanation of the phenomena. By building upon and extending, among other influences, Troeltsch's study of church and sect, Weber's insights into the routinization of charisma, and Parsons's discussion of deinstitutionalization, O'Dea created a conceptual scheme for understanding the factors contributing to the functioning of, and change processes within, religious movements and organizations. In an example of middle-range sociological theory, O'Dea identified five dilemmas that were "structurally inherent" to religious institutionalization:
(1) Dilemma of mixed motivation . Over time, institutionalization tends to produce specialized offices and other roles. The originally religious goals, values, and motives of those involved in the organization, whether at the leadership or laity levels, may become more worldly. The organization is faced with the question of whether, and how, to adapt to this divergence in, and widening of, members' motives.
(2) Symbolic dilemma: Objectification versus alienation . The original sacred experience of transcendence must, if it is to be socially shared within a cohesive group, find expression through a collection of objectified symbols. With institutionalization, the sense of awe and power associated with sacred symbols and rituals may become routinized and the symbols themselves may become alienated from the believer.
(3) Dilemma of administrative order: Elaboration and alienation . Institutionalization tends to generate new demands that are usually met most efficiently through bureaucratic offices. Expansion of the bureaucracy typically follows, as does the potential for detachment or alienation of both the offices and the officeholders from the laity.
(4) Dilemma of delimitation: Concrete definition versus substitution of the letter for the spirit . In communicating and protecting the spirit of its religious insights, the organization is typically driven toward dogmatism, fundamentalism, and the establishment of specialized interpretive structures and processes. The scope and depth of the original religious message may become further reduced as a result of attempts to maintain its relevance for believers or through efforts aimed at attracting converts.
(5) Dilemma of power: Conversion versus coercion . During the early history of a religious movement or organization, individual believers usually demonstrate their faith and commitment to the emerging religion through an act of conversion. Through time, the institution, to maintain and even strengthen its status, tends to become more closely aligned with secular authorities and may draw upon the power of the state to support its goals. Doing so, however, raises the likelihood that membership in the religious body will be seen as mandatory, and increases the risk that protest groups may arise in response. The stronger ties to secular institutions may also foster cynicism and secularization among both the religious leadership and the laity.'


Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science

[GlorytoGod]

Hebrews 12:2 (New International Version)

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God

John 11:25 (New International Version)


25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


eternal life that is where we are headed.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

We are already the perfect manifestation of "God".

We couldn't get any closer if we tried.

I wish that was true.