Anti-religious Elements In Modern Christianity something in common with Buddhism

[mitchellmckain 0]

I have found it interesting to be faced with the paradox of defending the role of religion in modern society to atheists and agnostics while the pastor of my church often ridicules the idea of religion. You might be tempted to think that this anti-religious sentiment expressed in modern Christianity makes Christianity unique, but the truth is that Bhuddism also started out with a strongly anti-religious message as well. Of-course since these are technically religions themselves, from an objective viewpoint, these anti-religious sentiments could easily be interpreted as merely reformative rather than truly anti-religious. Bhuddism, for example, was founded by Sidharta Gautama who spoke strongly against the idea of deity and appeasement in reaction against Hinduism in particular, and therefore laid out quite a different path (than appeasing the Gods) toward the understood goals of religion (Hinduism) which was enlightenment and the escape from the endless cycle of rebirth in a world of illusion and suffering. Likewise, in modern born-again style Christianity, the word "religion" has attained considerable negative connotations refering to the same idea of appeasing God. Certainly no form of Christianity could be anti-religious in the same sense of Bhuddism because the belief in a single deity is vigorously upheld. But according to this modern born-again style Christianity, all the religions, which tell you what you have to do in order to please God so that you can make it into heaven, are a cheat and a deception (in fact no more than human manipulation). For this type of Christianity emphatically declares that there is NOTHING that you can do to restore your relationship to God or to qualify for redemption. So in modern Christianity the word religion is usually associated with organizations with some idea of working your way into heaven. This is part of the Protestant trend away from an organization like the Catholic church which (in the past at least) has thought it holds the keys to heaven and controls access to God. Thus, accordingly, this "new Christianity" recognizes that no denomination, church, or organization of men have any ultimate authority, but that all the authority rests in the written word and the living Jesus with whom anyone can have a personal relationship without any human mediator. In this brand of Christianity, the real Church refered to in the Bible as the bride of Christ is no human organization but a spiritual one administered by Christ himself uniting all people with a personal relationship with Christ. Now certainly from an objective non-Christian point of view this can be seen as merely making the Christian church an "organization" based on shared ideas and language rather than money and human administration. But even from this objective perspective it is easy to see the advantages (not claiming it is foolproof) in forstalling the human tendency to abuse power. This does not mean that it is not susceptible to any sort of manipulation for if someone (like Bush) sings the right tune he is still quite able to gain considerable support from them.

Edited July 8, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[evought 0]

Good essay.At the same time there has been an "anti-religious" movement (Reformation). Today, there is a matching "anti-spritual" movement which lends itself to reforming hierarchical structure. This can be readily seen in the legions of people who go to church "religiously" but who do not practice their faith in their daily lives. Even more are the Easter and Christmas Christians who only go to church on holidays. I see this also rampant in the Jewish faith.The anti-spritualists are only interested in appeasing God, or perhaps just their neighbors by going to church and performing the window dressing of being Christian without having to strain or challenge themselves overmuch by figuring out what their faith is actually supposed to mean or require.The push for hierarchy is visible in the interest of the Christian right in ordering everyone else's lives (particularly in the bedroom) while their own faith is vacant. The idea that everyone else should live as you are supposed to is one I have never quite understood.The other difficulty this brings up is that of discipleship in this world. How do you convert people to Christianity when they already *think* they are Christian? Discipleship is, in some ways, more difficult in this day and age than it was when Christians were being thrown to the lions. Then, the lines were clear and you knew exactly what you were up against. Your sacrifice counted and made a measurable difference. Now, people are more interested in personality, in trappings, than in character and integrity.

[mitchellmckain 0]

At the same time there has been an "anti-religious" movement (Reformation). Today, there is a matching "anti-spritual" movement which lends itself to reforming hierarchical structure. This can be readily seen in the legions of people who go to church "religiously" but who do not practice their faith in their daily lives. Even more are the Easter and Christmas Christians who only go to church on holidays. I see this also rampant in the Jewish faith.
The anti-spritualists are only interested in appeasing God, or perhaps just their neighbors by going to church and performing the window dressing of being Christian without having to strain or challenge themselves overmuch by figuring out what their faith is actually supposed to mean or require.

Now, people are more interested in personality, in trappings, than in character and integrity.

Can you explain a little more about what you are talking about. Maybe with examples? Why do you use the term "anti-spiritual"? What is this "push for hierarchy"? Do you mean "authoritarianism" or the right to dictate morality to other people?

[evought 0]

Can you explain a little more about what you are talking about. Maybe with examples? Why do you use the term "anti-spiritual"? What is this "push for hierarchy"? Do you mean "authoritarianism" or the right to dictate morality to other people?

I use "religious" to mean "structured worship". I use "spiritual" to mean internal belief and worship. Spirituality affects the character of a person ("grace" - "an outward sign of inward faith"). People can be one or the other or both in degrees. I can religiously go to church without having spirituality enter into anywhere (I do not have any real faith, belief, or effect on my character). On the other hand, I have known people who I believe are faithful and solid christians who seldom go to church. They do not go through the standard motions, but their sprituality affects their lives and behavior. In at least the Lutheran faith, it is believed that only faith is required for salvation, not good deeds. Good deeds come as a result of the changes (grace) that faith brings to your life.

The trend I see is to heavily downplay the spiritual. People do not want to be "touchy feely" with religion. It is somewhat like fast food; drive through, pay, go away. The focus seems to be on worldy actions and worldly results. You can see this especially with televangelists, but I have also noticed it in, for instance, Missouri Synod Lutheran churches (apologies if this offends you). Missouri Synod churches seem more like country clubs than a center of worship. Their function appears much more social than spiritual. Another thing that has struck me is the Christian "Hip-Hop" rap. Much of the lyrics, when you stop to listen, are very worldly oriented: "If you want to marry money, honey, give Christ a chance." Religion is not meant to make you rich, but to make you better.

How many people do you think read the bible, other spiritual texts, or pray in private? How many people give religion no real thought outside of Sunday service? They drive gas guzzling cars and look down on the less fortunate. The "religion of wealth" has been with us in the US since the late 1800's: the idea that it is your responsibility to acquire as much money as possible in order to control the good which can be done with it. This inherently sets up a hierarchy of social and economic status which dwarfs spirtuality as a component of religion.

On the other side are people who study the bible and struggle with its requirements, help others to understand it, and try to live in a way which exemplifies Christianity. The bible is something which is often confusing and even frightening (think about the Beatitudes and what it really means to turn the other cheek). Other religious texts are the same. If religion is not (ever) a struggle, than it may not be deeply spiritual.

When worship is not spiritual, we essentially abdicate responsibility to the minister or priest. We let them decide what we need to do and where we need to be to belong to the club. This is not 100% true; we can also switch churches if we become uncomfortable with what they want us to do or believe.

----

I mean more the right to dictate morality rather than rigid authoritarianism. Many of the folks that wish to dictate morality are just as paranoid about someone gaining power over them.

As an aside, there used to be a group of religions called Mystery Cults. The Elysian cult was a popular one in Greece. The idea was that you went through a particular ritual to join the cult, and after that you were saved. That's it. The rituals were often involved and secretive, but no maintenance, prayer, good deeds, or anything necessary afterwards. Compare this to many (not all) modern evangelists where you are saved and born again by going through a ceremony and paying money and then (essentially), you are done. I have always thought there was more than that to religion.

[mitchellmckain 0]

I use "religious" to mean "structured worship". I use "spiritual" to mean internal belief and worship. Spirituality affects the character of a person ("grace" - "an outward sign of inward faith"). People can be one or the other or both in degrees. I can religiously go to church without having spirituality enter into anywhere (I do not have any real faith, belief, or effect on my character). On the other hand, I have known people who I believe are faithful and solid christians who seldom go to church. They do not go through the standard motions, but their sprituality affects their lives and behavior. In at least the Lutheran faith, it is believed that only faith is required for salvation, not good deeds. Good deeds come as a result of the changes (grace) that faith brings to your life.
The trend I see is to heavily downplay the spiritual. People do not want to be "touchy feely" with religion. It is somewhat like fast food; drive through, pay, go away. The focus seems to be on worldy actions and worldly results. You can see this especially with televangelists, but I have also noticed it in, for instance, Missouri Synod Lutheran churches (apologies if this offends you). Missouri Synod churches seem more like country clubs than a center of worship. Their function appears much more social than spiritual. Another thing that has struck me is the Christian "Hip-Hop" rap. Much of the lyrics, when you stop to listen, are very worldly oriented: "If you want to marry money, honey, give Christ a chance." Religion is not meant to make you rich, but to make you better.

But I do not see this as any kind of recent trend but something that goes to the beginnings of the church. Long before Constantine, when Christianity became the thing to do, Paul struggled with this same tendency within the early churches. There were, for example, the husband and wife whom God struck down because they lied about what they donated to the church. Even before the coming of Jesus there were evil people who used religion as a smokescreen to hide themselves. I am not even sure you can make a real distinction between those merely struggling with sin and those just pretending. Only God can seperate the tares from the wheat.

How many people do you think read the bible, other spiritual texts, or pray in private? How many people give religion no real thought outside of Sunday service?

How can I answer such questions? Do I do enough? Do you? What shall we do? Be proud of the 10 minutes spent before bed time or some other goal we set and meet for ourselves? I know a lot of people who do everything you ask about, and yet they have their limitations. Where do you draw the line? The religion of wealth is not out there somewhere across an imaginary line. It is right there inside you. It is sinful human nature. Many fight this to varying degrees and some with the grace of God have their small victories. But the kingdom of God belongs to the weak in spirit, to those who have lost the battle and know it, begging God for help. God does help us, but we have no reason to be proud of ourselves or to judge others.

They drive gas guzzling cars and look down on the less fortunate. The "religion of wealth" has been with us in the US since the late 1800's: the idea that it is your responsibility to acquire as much money as possible in order to control the good which can be done with it. This inherently sets up a hierarchy of social and economic status which dwarfs spirtuality as a component of religion.

The religions of both Christianity and wealth has been in North America since its first settlements, which included both Plymouth and Jamestown. This two sided nature of America is no secret. The whole world can see it plain as day. With one hand we give and with the other hand we take. I am well aware of the this idea of aquiring weath for good which you speak. And it is both true and false. The aquisition of weath (like the aquistion of power) does not in of itself condemn you but it is spiritually perilous, because of its temptations, responsibilities, and because the means to something, almost invariably in time, becomes the end. Yet I believe there is something even more perilous and that is passing judgment upon others. Let God judge the wealthy and the powerful. Only He has the ability and the right.

On the other side are people who study the bible and struggle with its requirements, help others to understand it, and try to live in a way which exemplifies Christianity. The bible is something which is often confusing and even frightening (think about the Beatitudes and what it really means to turn the other cheek). Other religious texts are the same. If religion is not (ever) a struggle, than it may not be deeply spiritual.

All true. And yet maybe not. I can easily envision meeting Christ and having him ask me, "why do struggle so and make it complicated? Be at peace and rejoice, for you are mine." Need we all be intellectuals or religious solicitors? Cannot the simple mind accept the love of Christ with a simple heart and how shall we gainsay such a thing? Only God knows. He is the author of salvation and the only judge.

I mean more the right to dictate morality rather than rigid authoritarianism. Many of the folks that wish to dictate morality are just as paranoid about someone gaining power over them.

Christianity (whether religious or spiritual in your judgement) is not the only group that seeks to dictate morality. I think liberal groups can even be more intolerant, self-righteous and dictatorial, pushing what amounts to a liberal humanistic theocracy to force their morality upon us all.

[evought 0]

But I do not see this as any kind of recent trend but something that goes to the beginnings of the church. Long before Constantine, when Christianity became the thing to do, Paul struggled with this same tendency within the early churches. There were, for example, the husband and wife whom God struck down because they lied about what they donated to the church. Even before the coming of Jesus there were evil people who used religion as a smokescreen to hide themselves. I am not even sure you can make a real distinction between those merely struggling with sin and those just pretending. Only God can seperate the tares from the wheat.

No, of course the idea is not new, certainly the Sadducees fit the bill fairly neatly. It is, however, maybe something that goes up and down over the generations, both in practice and in its overt acceptance by society. It has been noted that there is a tendency for complacency and rebellion to alternate generations. My personal, non-quantifiable, oppinion is that the matter is worse now than when I was younger, both from my subjective experience and from reading news an literature from the last several decades. Of course, my experience is filtered through the lens of different ages; I was a different observer when I was younger than I am now. I think, though, all-in-all, that things have changed some measure. The gilding on much of society has worn a bit thinner and the cult of personality has gotten that much stronger.

How can I answer such questions? Do I do enough? Do you? What shall we do? Be proud of the 10 minutes spent before bed time or some other goal we set and meet for ourselves? I know a lot of people who do everything you ask about, and yet they have their limitations. Where do you draw the line? The religion of wealth is not out there somewhere across an imaginary line. It is right there inside you. It is sinful human nature. Many fight this to varying degrees and some with the grace of God have their small victories. But the kingdom of God belongs to the weak in spirit, to those who have lost the battle and know it, begging God for help. God does help us, but we have no reason to be proud of ourselves or to judge others.The religions of both Christianity and wealth has been in North America since its first settlements, which included both Plymouth and Jamestown. This two sided nature of America is no secret. The whole world can see it plain as day. With one hand we give and with the other hand we take. I am well aware of the this idea of aquiring weath for good which you speak. And it is both true and false. The aquisition of weath (like the aquistion of power) does not in of itself condemn you but it is spiritually perilous, because of its temptations, responsibilities, and because the means to something, almost invariably in time, becomes the end. Yet I believe there is something even more perilous and that is passing judgment upon others. Let God judge the wealthy and the powerful. Only He has the ability and the right.

We have a right to judge because we are given eyes that see and brains which think. Only God can judge with finality ("Krinos"), but we can all perceive and make a call ("Agon"). Making judgements is important to deciding where to go next and is fundamental to what we are. It is important to recognize that *our* judgement is limited and imperfect, but that does not absolve us from trying. My judgement about the state of society and religion gives me a place to start thinking about why and what next.

All true. And yet maybe not. I can easily envision meeting Christ and having him ask me, "why do struggle so and make it complicated? Be at peace and rejoice, for you are mine." Need we all be intellectuals or religious solicitors? Cannot the simple mind accept the love of Christ with a simple heart and how shall we gainsay such a thing? Only God knows. He is the author of salvation and the only judge.

No, we need not all be nosy intellectuals like me. But I do think that everyone must struggle at some time at some level just to be said to have made a choice. I have met "simple" people who are in many ways smarter than I, but I know they still struggle and wonder when they see a wrong they cannot right, a child in pain, or good people who suffer. The world is not fair and that rankles some part of our nature. Faith has to cope with that incongruity in our lives.

Christianity (whether religious or spiritual in your judgement) is not the only group that seeks to dictate morality. I think liberal groups can even be more intolerant, self-righteous and dictatorial, pushing what amounts to a liberal humanistic theocracy to force their morality upon us all.

Certainly not the only, but it was the subject we started with :-). Self-described Christians (liberal or conservative) are also the dominant power in the US at the moment. I do not think most protestants remember very well when they were an oppressed minority or why we have the freedoms we do in this country.

Anyway, wife needs the computer ...

[mitchellmckain 0]

We have a right to judge because we are given eyes that see and brains which think. Only God can judge with finality ("Krinos"), but we can all perceive and make a call ("Agon"). Making judgements is important to deciding where to go next and is fundamental to what we are. It is important to recognize that *our* judgement is limited and imperfect, but that does not absolve us from trying. My judgement about the state of society and religion gives me a place to start thinking about why and what next.

Sure we need to make judgements, but I try to restrict myself to my own life. I pretty much stick to judgements like, "this is what works for me and I couldn't live my life that way". When I see the sin out there it is a warning for myself, that if I am not careful I could find myself doing the same, so if I don't like what I see I know what to fight against in myself to avoid becoming what I dislike.

Certainly not the only, but it was the subject we started with :-). Self-described Christians (liberal or conservative) are also the dominant power in the US at the moment. I do not think most protestants remember very well when they were an oppressed minority or why we have the freedoms we do in this country.

Indeed it is the swing to extremes like this that I fear more than anything. We need to find the kind of compromises upon which this country was built, on some issues, before we shake ourselves apart.

[demolaynyc 0]

Can you explain a little more about what you are talking about. Maybe with examples? Why do you use the term "anti-spiritual"? What is this "push for hierarchy"? Do you mean "authoritarianism" or the right to dictate morality to other people?

I know this has been already explained to you but to add more, I'd just want to say that religion is "reaching for God" when in reality it's really "God reaching down on us". Since we are just humans and our hands can only reach so high, we could not possibly reach to God. In religion, its followers try to please the God(s) by practicing rituals, even self-inflicted wounds (some practice in Christianity), and other "Unnecessary" rituals.

The idea of "anti-religion" in Christianity is that because of God's love for us, he sacrificed himself to save his people who are slaves to sin (meaning us). All good works are done, it's just up to us to Believe in Him and put our faith in him to gain salvation. Salvation is not through good works, it's through faith.