RubySera_Martin said:
Saltmeister, how do you propose to get this kind of cult off the ground? All you use to describe it is language, which is a teaching. The only way to know whether a person is in or out of the group is by measuring them against some kind of criteria, which would of necessity be composed in language.
I think your idea may be sound if the goal is to unite Christianity, but the logistics as you describe do not propose a workable solution so far as I can see. The next question I would ask is: Why is it important to unite Christianity? Do we want the entire human race under one ruler, the pope or bishop of the "flock"?
You emphasize personal truth. If everyone's personal truth is different from everyone else's, how do you propose the group to hang together?
The idea came from what I observed in other religions. There is one thing Falun Gong, Wicca and New Age have in common: they're not "centralised." The followers, regardless of where you are, where you live, your race or nationality, are not dependent on the rest of the collective. Nobody is there to enforce the way you practice these religions. It's
self-serve.
I liked the idea of how the Falun Gong movement started. Li Hongzhi, its leader, doesn't have centralised control of the Falun Gong movement. All he's got is a web site. Lack of centralisation is the reason why it's got so many followers in China. Centralisation isn't necessary. People just meet in certain isolated places to practice their religion, channel their Qi Gong energy. While Falun Gong isn't centralised it isn't fragmented. Pamphlets are distributed and meetings organised to get people interested but not attached to any "establishment." I'm not a follower of Falun Gong, but I like Li Hongzhi's idea.
Religions like Wicca, Buddhism and New Age are like that too. There is no "centralisation." No single leader. People don't align themselves to a fixed set of teachings. They adopt and absorb whatever works for them. But instead of judging each other, followers of Falun Gong, Buddhism, New Age and Wicca encourage each other. They see
personal truth in each other. There's no centralised leadership, but they aren't fragmented either.
You won't hear Wiccans/Buddhist/Falun Gong saying to each other "you're doing it wrong." If a Wiccan, Buddhist, New Ager thinks you've got the wrong idea, he will simply share with you what he thinks Wicca/Buddhism/New Age means. They don't say you're wrong even if you are. They just tell you what they think of their religion. They'll just tell you
their theory on how it works. It's like an engineer or scientist. Listen to him explain how something works, lay his knowledge out before you and if you know enough about science, you will see that he's right. He convinces you with his knowledge. A similar story with Wicca/Buddhist/Falun Gong.
Not saying I'm converted, but our approach to Christianity could be more like that. I think Christianity was probably like that when it started and spread through the Roman Empire. Christianity was
personal to start with, but over time people forgot that it was Jesus' personality (though that's just my view) they lived for, not his teachings. They started judging each other on teachings: "
You're doing it wrong." But as I said before, a Wiccan, Buddhist, New Ager will never tell you that you're wrong or that you've twisted their religion, they'll just tell you
what it is, just like a scientist or engineer who explains how things work. Also, as religions they're "decentralised."
Instead of "do it the Jehovah's Witness way, do it the Catholic way, the Anabaptist way," it's "just do it." Even if you're doing it wrong, someday somebody will teach you how to do it right. You'd be corrected. You won't have to get burned for it.
In reference to the question,
How does it hang together? . . .
There is an aspect about Christianity that makes it different to Wicca, Buddhism, New Age and Falun Gong. What makes Christianity different, I think, is that there's
a concept that needs to be preserved. I might describe Christianity as a "preservationist" religion. Wicca, Buddhism, New Age and Falun Gong aren't "preservationist." This is probably why you'd be criticised or considered "non-Christian" if you're "universalist" or mix Christianity with other religions. There is something about Christianity that needs to be preserved. I haven't quite put my finger on it. I don't think I ever will. That's the reason why Christians may react negatively -- they know there's something they need to protect, but they're not sure what it is.
My idea of "ancestral devotion" and "de-emphasis" on teachings was that maybe Jesus was
IT. There was something about Jesus that held it all together. That's how Christianity might "hang together" even if we don't think the same way. Jesus holds it altogether. Our views on how the notion of Jesus can "hang together" and be "preserved" may differ. But just like Wiccans, Buddhists and New Agers we wouldn't have to prove it to other people. We'd just explain what it means and how it works for us. People will listen to our explanations, see how it works and simply be convinced that we're not insane, mad or crazy -- that we know what we're talking about. We won't necessarily end up believing the same things but at least we could share what we have. That's perhaps how it would "hang together" -- that it just works for us. That's what happens with Wiccans, Buddhists and New Agers: it just works for them.
I acknowledge that Christianity
is fragmented. That fragmentation is real.
I guess I'm a nerd. I'll say it like this: The fragmentation in Christianity is a result of attempts to centralise it. It's where Christians align themselves to some centralised leadership based on an existing movement, leader or set of teachings. If Christianity became "decentralised" maybe the "fragments" will disappear. Leadership wouldn't be centralised. No need to measure them against some criteria. If people think they need something, whatever it is, even if it's not my ideas, they'll move towards it. My ancestor/devotion to personality idea as just a
concept of how it might happen. It would have to be some natural process, where people change their approach to Christianity by the mere exchange of ideas, mentoring and guiding each other.
I should probably say "organised religion," but "centralised leadership" better conveys the idea that Christianity is
centralised around fragments. Once this centralised leadership is removed (decentralisation), we might be more free to enjoy a more unifying experience. We would still have different beliefs, but there'd be more cohesion between Christian communities.
It's our attitude to other Christians that needs to change. I was thinking that some kind of "decentralisation" would dissolve the fragments (like salt crystals) so that we could finally work together as one faith.