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.
