Survey: Americans switching faiths, dropping out

[Thomas]

From where I sit, "the church" (however that may be interpreted; institution, tradition or collection of fallible people) does not do the saving. G-d does. Through the teachings and person of Jesus. (As I understand) Jesus' given name in Aramaic, Yashua, means "salvation is of G-d." G-d saves, not the institution.

My point, Juantoo, is that Christ founded the Church as a means of the transmission of that saving knowledge, and also as a means of the transmission of that saving grace.

Without the Tradition, there would be no Scripture ... you would never have heard of Him, never heard His words, never knew He even existed.

But that is still not what the Church is.

The salvivic Grace of God is available to all, everywhere, in any and every given moment, from the beginning of time ... but that gift was realised, in a moment in time, upon the Cross, some two thousand years ago.

Does it not strike home to us all that the first person to be saved by the Cross was the robber at His side?
Luke 23:42-43 "And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

Salvation can be realised in a twinkling ... just like that ...

Christ was present in the world, and then He was gone, but He promised "another Paraclete", from the Father and from Himself, who would be with us all, always. But that Presence, the Holy Spirit, is invisible.

The Church is that Presence made visible in the world, the Church is the truth of the reality of Christ made visible in the world ... the Church is the one thing that stops the Message of the Incarnate Son whisping away into the miasma of myth and metaphor. The one thing that prevents the world turning Christ into the God of their own invention.

The world says, "It can't be true" whilst the Church alone says, "Yes, it is."

Whatever anyone says, it is an indisputable fact that any interpretation of Scripture is a reduction of its meaning to fit the pattern of someone's individual reason.

I stand by the Church because, from the very beginning, the Church has stood by His word as being absolute:

Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

To me, every argument offered against the doctrine of the Church is, in some manner, an attempt to explain away His words.

(with regard the faults of the church ... I know them. I know them more deeply, than many of us here. But I know they are ourt faults, not His, and as long as we blame the Church, as long as we blame our institutions, we seek to excuse ourselves ... I do not seek excuses, I ask forgiveness, and I try to forgive, in the hope that by so doing, I might be worthy of His forgiveness.)

The whole meaning of Christianity is myth made real — that God did indeed become flesh — and ever since, man has been trying to relegate that reality back into the realm of metaphor, back into the comfortability of myth.

The church is not G-d, G-d is not limited to the church.

No ... but the Church is His visible Body.

The church of itself cannot grant salvation to a soul, nor is it imbued with any special authority or privilege to do so.

Actually not the case, what about:
Matthew 16:19 "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Hardly a meaningless statement, and concerning the Church specifically.

This I speak is a Biblical stance taken directly from the teachings of Jesus:

Anything you say or do in His name was given you by the Church.

I place my faith in G-d and Jesus, numero uno priority. The church is incidental at best.

Without the Church .... nothing. Hardly incidental.

The church (as Path pointed out) is a tool, not the final product;

Then you miss the Liturgical dimension. In the Celebration of the Mass, the Mysteries, I happen to believe that there are more present than those I can see on either side ... The Church is eternal.

the church is a raft, not the destination.

Then you miss the Eschatalogical dimension. No offence to Path, but I rather go with the voices of the Mystics, they are closer to Her, I think.

The church is quite functional and serviceable, but it is by no means manditory.

You miss its Sacramental dimension.

The church especially is *not* the instrument *of* salvation, it is the teacher only of what that instrument really is.

And without the teacher, the world remains in darkness ... the Church is the continuation of 'the light that came into the world' ... and the Church transmits not just the Word, but the Spirit, and in that She is inviolate:
Matthew 16:18 "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Whereas outside the Church there is the world, and that's a different matter altogether.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

This is one of those situations where I appear to be attacking an individual, but it's not the case, I simply refute a set of assumptions, or presuppositions, with regard to the nature of religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

I wonder just how many people drift away from religion altogether because they have simply outgrown the model.

The assumption here is if they have outgrown the model, then the Christian has outgrown Christ, the Buddhist has outgrown Buddha ... they are the models, after all.

I just don't see it.

If one finds a more 'congenial' model, then God speed, and go for it ... but to assume that a paradigm is inadequate with regard to man's, or indeed mans' destiny, simply because it does not conform itself to one's individual apetites, habits and disposition.

I am not alone in this, there are others who still look deeply into the mystery of that which is but do not cling to the model commonly referred to as God.

The Western world has been locked into the philosophy of relativism for a considerable period of time now, and this informs man's way of thinking. It is this that has given rise to the notion that thd self is the arbiter of truth.

Any meaningful endeavour has as a necessary component the discipline by which its object might be realised ... but the West we are raised in expectation of instant gratification, 'instant karma' as Lennon said, and the tendency is to discard discipline as 'inconvenient', 'a fetter', a 'limitation on one's personal freedom', 'a crutch' etc. and invariably bitterness follows when failure is the result, and subsequently to find fault with the endeavour itself.

If someone thinks they've outgrown Christianity, they should expect to be looked on in the light of the saints, who for their part tell us that they have hardly scratched the surface ... so if such a person thinks him or herself better than the Patristics or Scholastics, better than the saints or the mystics of the Church ... then we wait in the hope of the fruit of their wisdom ... but forgive us if we do not hold our collective breath.

I see Christianity as a challenge which few can live up to, and even fewer are bothered to try ... but which nevertheless Itself embraces all ...

... but then, all the evidence suggests the days of the secular model are numbered ... America stands as the exemplar of profligate consumerism, materialism and egoism, the rampant and bitter weeds of relativism, that have choked the world into submission, and now is lost for a solution ... I suggest the crisis of faith in America is a symptom of a far greater malaise...

Am I choosing this because I am spiritually, psychologically, morally and ethically lazy?

Possibly. That is for you to decide. But such criticism is not necessarily the case. Misled, muddled, misguided ...

The false dichotomy given by the religious would have you think so.

You have supposed it a false dichotomy as axiomatic with no argument offered — indicative of a certain mode of thought which we would say itself is part of the problem. You have not proved it, nor are we obliged to accept it.

Do I need a point of accountability for my thoughts and actions?

If one seeks to serve other than the subjective self, yes. If one is looking beyond subjectivity, then one's object, or objective, is the measure by which one is reckoned, in thought, word and deed.

The discreet implication of such statements are, "Am I required to justify myself to anyone/anything?" and "I exist. That's justification enough for me." It's total and absolute subjectivity, under the guise of objectivity.

I think people give up practising religion because the rewards are not now, and not in this world ... and they want them now ...

There is no doubt that there are those who wish to live out their lives without the rigors of religion, whether it be Christian Scripture, The Dharma, The Tao or whatever, but to assume that anyone who comes to the end of their spiritual search and finds what Krishnamurti and others have found is lazy or seeking only comfort is offensive and intellectually disingenuous.

It depends what you think they have found, Krishnamurti is an unfortunate choice, as he was abused by those who took him into their care, and in turn, as is so often and so tragically the case, was an abuser of others.

Man will always come up with seductive philosophies, and false religions.

I agree that philosophically finding the self and dealing with the self using an external point of reference works, but what happens when you decide to look beyond self? What happens when you question what self is and are willing to let go of the models held so close these many years?

Well if you look beyond the self then you are obliged to find a transpersonal paradigm ... I suggest you can go one of two ways, into extinction or transcendance, I would suggest Buddhism and Christianity are exemplars of both, each in their own way.

But the alternative, to launch off into a world of one's own with no map, no star, no compass and no guide, but a reliance on what is proven to be utterly fallible and prone to error ... ?

The common wisdom would tell us that we must spend years in a particular system doing all that the system tells us, dutifully following the map so that we can arrive at the desired end. But why must we assume that the end is what we are told it is?

Because that 'common wisdom' was won for you at great price ... and by it we have the example of those who light the way ... you're arguing to abandon faith in something, for a faith in nothing at all?

What wisdom do you have, that outweighs the wisdom of the world?

And now, am I dangerous or stupid because I dare to question the established epistomology of generation upon generation of thinkers?

To question, no. To ignore the evidence, yes.

Am I to be stoned because I wished to stand naked before that which is and ask of its nature?

I'll not stone you. I might shake my head ...

I have read the books, and have practiced austerities and now I get off my knees and walk away from the Gompa knowing full well that which I call self may not be important and may not even exist except in my own mind. I may even question the process of reason itself.

The answer does not lie in books. Someone once said to Sri Ramana "I have read all the books ... which way do I go now?" He said, "back the way you came."

That way lies madness, as the saying goes ... are you not in danger of becoming the living evidence of why yours is not the way to go? You throw off all knowledge in the pursuit of uncertainty, you throw off all wisdom in the pursuit of the unknown, and assume the path to be a virtuous one?

Fools rush in, the old adage says.

This is why I feel that dropping out of established religion needs more insight than to simply call those who leave "lazy" or simply wanting to "feel good"

Tell me, if you were to require brain surgery ... would you choose a surgeon who is qualified and experienced, one who has a proven track record of success in performing a proven technique ... or someone who decided to throw it all away, and go out on a wing, without a shred of supporting evidence or material, and hand yourself over to someone with no qualifications, no idea of what to do, and no certain idea even of what he's supposed to be looking for?

Thomas

 

[cyberpi]

The world says, "It can't be true" whilst the Church alone says, "Yes, it is."

That is a generalization, and false by some individuals like myself. I recognize that each parable in the gospel refers to an aspect of relationship between at least two. In fact Jesus said that he is where there are at least two. But it is outright false to say that it is the 'Church alone' unless you are counting every individual as a potential Church, including those who don't go to your Church.

Perhaps the verse that shows it best is:
Matthew 24:40-41 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

For example: There shall be two attending your church; the one shall be taken, and the other left. There shall be two not attending your church; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

To me, every argument offered against the doctrine of the Church is, in some manner, an attempt to explain away His words.

Think about the power of that a bit more... when the Heavens and the Earth pass away, so does every Church. No matter what anyone's argument is, or attempts to explain away, even upon their death and the death of this world it will not remove the words that Jesus had spoken. The power in that statement is far more humbling. I believe that applies to everyone who lives here. Nothing will ever explain away someone's words, for they transcend the heavens and the Earth... they are of the heavens and the Earth. Words have a true shelf life that is greater than the Earth itself, because they are of the Earth itself. Man does not witness this... we see things deterioating, explained away, and falling out of this world. Killed on the cross, right?

No ... but the Church is His visible Body.

Was your Saint Paul in Church when he saw Jesus? Was Jesus in Church when he spoke with God? What you speak in private so that no person sees... God still sees it. I have personally witnessed that.

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Every individual has their own key. A lesson learned here is kept... a transcending treasure.

Anything you say or do in His name was given you by the Church.

Are you for real Thomas? Nobody comes between a person and God.

Matthew 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Matthew 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak you in light: and what you hear in the ear, that preach you upon the housetops.

If Jesus speaks in darkness, and the Spirit of my Father speaks in me... where did you read Church ??? Every individual has the direct Bluetooth to God. I have personally seen it.

Matthew 16:18 "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father which is in heaven."

Lets get this straight... Peter upon whom the church is built, is blessed because no church revealed it to him. Will you be seeing this irony? The power of God here is far, far, far beyond every church. The relationship between individuals is good, including what you call church, but whether or not a person sees some things is entirely up to God. I submit that what you are calling church is not fully what Jesus was calling his church. A portion or a lot... but not all. There is a church also outside of what you are calling church.

 

[Paladin]

The assumption here is if they have outgrown the model, then the Christian has outgrown Christ, the Buddhist has outgrown Buddha ... they are the models, after all.

C'mon Thomas this just doesn't wash, if it were true ther would only be one sect. You know well the saying: "If you meet the Buddha, kill him"

If one finds a more 'congenial' model, then God speed, and go for it ... but to assume that a paradigm is inadequate with regard to man's, or indeed mans' destiny, simply because it does not conform itself to one's individual apetites, habits and disposition

So the assumption is that if we do not hold to the model we are automatically hedonistic. Typical Christian outlook, and indicitave of the philosophy that man is essentially evil or at best a-moral. This of course wipes out the study of ethics altogether

The Western world has been locked into the philosophy of relativism for a considerable period of time now, and this informs man's way of thinking. It is this that has given rise to the notion that thd self is the arbiter of truth.

Again we see the false dichotomy, if we make an enquiry outside the model of religion we are automatically in the realm of what is percieved to be the self as defined by the very model we are leaving behind. This kind of black and white thinking is what I mean to transcend.

Any meaningful endeavour has as a necessary component the discipline by which its object might be realised ... but the West we are raised in expectation of instant gratification, 'instant karma' as Lennon said, and the tendency is to discard discipline as 'inconvenient', 'a fetter', a 'limitation on one's personal freedom', 'a crutch' etc. and invariably bitterness follows when failure is the result, and subsequently to find fault with the endeavour itself.

Discipline isn't an exclusive property of religion. In the last ten years of my recovery from drug addiction I didn't use any particular religion and yet here I am clean and sober.

If someone thinks they've outgrown Christianity, they should expect to be looked on in the light of the saints, who for their part tell us that they have hardly scratched the surface ... so if such a person thinks him or herself better than the Patristics or Scholastics, better than the saints or the mystics of the Church ... then we wait in the hope of the fruit of their wisdom ... but forgive us if we do not hold our collective breath

Gosh, where to begin with such a snippy statement! Thomas, I do not think I or anyone else is "better" than any of the saints, can you see the fallacy of black and white thinking here? It isn't a case of better than or worse than, it's about honest inquiry outside of a heirarchial model. For anyone to look down their nose at the Church and its traditions is just as wrong as the Religious looking down their nose at those who have left it behind.

I see Christianity as a challenge which few can live up to, and even fewer are bothered to try ... but which nevertheless Itself embraces all ...

... but then, all the evidence suggests the days of the secular model are numbered ... America stands as the exemplar of profligate consumerism, materialism and egoism, the rampant and bitter weeds of relativism, that have choked the world into submission, and now is lost for a solution ... I suggest the crisis of faith in America is a symptom of a far greater malaise...

Agreed, America is in crisis but that is another argument

You have supposed it a false dichotomy as axiomatic with no argument offered — indicative of a certain mode of thought which we would say itself is part of the problem. You have not proved it, nor are we obliged to accept it.

So this is a challenge to prove that you have made an argument?

If one seeks to serve other than the subjective self, yes. If one is looking beyond subjectivity, then one's object, or objective, is the measure by which one is reckoned, in thought, word and deed.

And now I am limited to the subject/object realm? This seems strange Thomas considering your knowledge of Zen.

The discreet implication of such statements are, "Am I required to justify myself to anyone/anything?" and "I exist. That's justification enough for me." It's total and absolute subjectivity, under the guise of objectivity.

Strawman. Justification and approval don't enter the equation for me

I think people give up practising religion because the rewards are not now, and not in this world ... and they want them now ...

Yes, that is true many think that way but not all

It depends what you think they have found, Krishnamurti is an unfortunate choice, as he was abused by those who took him into their care, and in turn, as is so often and so tragically the case, was an abuser of others.

Ad hominem, the work krishnamuti did is still valuable

Well if you look beyond the self then you are obliged to find a transpersonal paradigm ... I suggest you can go one of two ways, into extinction or transcendance, I would suggest Buddhism and Christianity are exemplars of both, each in their own way.

But the alternative, to launch off into a world of one's own with no map, no star, no compass and no guide, but a reliance on what is proven to be utterly fallible and prone to error ... ?

So if I honestly inquire of reality, reality itself will not answer?

Because that 'common wisdom' was won for you at great price ... and by it we have the example of those who light the way ... you're arguing to abandon faith in something, for a faith in nothing at all?

If you are arguing about the sacrifice of Christ I don't find that relevant outside your own model unless you wish I convert to Christianity and then hold a discussion. If you are referring to the lineage of the great thinkers of the world, including the great thinkers of Christianity, then yes, I admit a great debt to them.

What wisdom do you have, that outweighs the wisdom of the world?

Now is this the same world that keeps killing itself over and over for personal gain, power, money, prestige?

To question, no. To ignore the evidence, yes.

I ignore nothing, but weigh each thing carefully. As I said the honor I give to the great religions is great. I retain the right to weigh all things before blindly accepting them.

The answer does not lie in books. Someone once said to Sri Ramana "I have read all the books ... which way do I go now?" He said, "back the way you came."

That way lies madness, as the saying goes ... are you not in danger of becoming the living evidence of why yours is not the way to go? You throw off all knowledge in the pursuit of uncertainty, you throw off all wisdom in the pursuit of the unknown, and assume the path to be a virtuous one?

You assume much here. What makes you think I use the term "virtuous" and how do you know I have thrown anything away? All of the the things, the knowledge, the wisdom, the sacrifice is still nested within me like the little Russian dolls one nested within the other.

Fools rush in, the old adage says

.
You've been talking with my wife?

Tell me, if you were to require brain surgery ... would you choose a surgeon who is qualified and experienced, one who has a proven track record of success in performing a proven technique ... or someone who decided to throw it all away, and go out on a wing, without a shred of supporting evidence or material, and hand yourself over to someone with no qualifications, no idea of what to do, and no certain idea even of what he's supposed to be looking for

I don't see this comparison to spiritual inquiry to be relevant.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood my intent here Thomas, I am not here to bury religion or its importance in society, and thus the world. It is the glue that holds society together, it provides a basis, no, a start-point for man's greatest questions, but a religion is still a man made paradigm. I'm sure you have read people like Stephan Batchelor or Steven Harrison, Tony Parsons and thinkers like these? To hold people hostage to a particular model by telling them how they cannot succeed without the fetters, and yes I say fetters of religion is just plain wrong.

 

[Thomas]

Hi cyberpi —

That is a generalization, and false by some individuals like myself.

I don't think so. The Catholic Church holds that Sacred Scripture contains:
"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted."
Dei Verbum
I don't think anyone or any other tradition holds this, and the rest of what is a Constitutional Document, to be the case. If you wish to argue, I am happy, but I will argue via this document.

But it is outright false to say that it is the 'Church alone' unless you are counting every individual as a potential Church, including those who don't go to your Church.

The Church is a community — an ekklesia.

I am saying that the Church stands by Scripture as being the infallible Word of God, whereas the world insists the very existence of Jesus can be doubted.

For example: There shall be two attending your church; the one shall be taken, and the other left. There shall be two not attending your church; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Such an interpretation reduces Salvation to a lottery and renders God subject to whim. I think that's an erroneous interpretation, it renders God as one without justice, nor mercy.

Think about the power of that a bit more... when the Heavens and the Earth pass away, so does every Church.

No ... not the Church that is the visible presence of His Mystical Body ... that, like He, endures forever.

Was your Saint Paul in Church when he saw Jesus?

Nope, he was hunting Christians ... but after Jesus had a word, he entered pretty darn quick, read Acts 9 — Ananias was called by God to bring Saul of Tarsus into the Church.

Was Jesus in Church when he spoke with God?

The Church, like the Sabbath, was made for man, not God. (Mark 2:27).

But the authors of Scripture, they were in the Church when they wrote their testimonies, The New Testament is the testament of the New Church.

Every individual has their own key.

And every individual key is corrupted by sin: "And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it" John 1:5.

Are you for real Thomas? Nobody comes between a person and God.

What I said was, if it wasn't for Tradition, you would never have heard of Jesus. "What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you" (Acts 17:23).

(On an historical note, btw, without the Church, there would be no Christianity, and the USA would be a very different place, and Europe would be speaking Arabic, as it was united under the Church that the Moslem expansion was halted outside Vienna. Interesting thought, eh?)

Might I remind you that Jesus didn't write the Gospels, His apostles did, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and His apostles preached the Word so that you might know it ... and wrote their testimonies, because the Church asked them to.

The Church believed in Jesus before a single word was consigned to paper.

So it is something of a nonsense to argue Scripture against the Church that produced it.

So I say again, had the Church been wiped out in the first 10 or 20, the first 100 or 200 years, not a jot would have survived.

If Jesus speaks in darkness, and the Spirit of my Father speaks in me... where did you read Church ??? Every individual has the direct Bluetooth to God. I have personally seen it.

I have no doubt that God speaks to everyone in the heart, no matter how few listen ... and those who hear Him seek His presence in the World, and find it in the Church. I have seen that. Everyone who truly seeks God seeks the gift He left for them.

Acts 10 is just such an account.

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father which is in heaven."

Lets get this straight... Peter upon whom the church is built, is blessed because no church revealed it to him. Will you be seeing this irony?

What was revealed to Peter is what forms the foundation of the Church. There's no irony there, just plain common sense. When Jesus saw that Peter saw it, then He said 'you are the rock' — and the Church rests on that roack, that Jesus is the Son of God, come in the flesh.

The power of God here is far, far, far beyond every church.

Indeed it is ... but the Power of God works through the Church.

The relationship between individuals is good, including what you call church, but whether or not a person sees some things is entirely up to God.

Yes. Faith itself is a gift.

I submit that what you are calling church is not fully what Jesus was calling his church. A portion or a lot... but not all.

I'm sure you're right. What I see and call the Church is just a shadow of the reality, that is veiled until the time — my time (for me) and the world's time (for the world) is right.

There is a church also outside of what you are calling church.

I see only the one of which He spoke. Only one that shows the loyalty to Peter that Jesus showed. If Peter was good enough for Jesus, then he's good enough for me. I'll go by the Church which He founded, and which He guaranteed.

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

Hi, Thomas-

I think something I am curious about is what your definition of the Church to be. Do you refer to the Body of Christ, to all Christians, or only to those who agree with your own denomination, your own place of worship and structure of authority? Early Christianity was, to the best of my knowledge, not a large institution. The Church was a body of believers who formed a community. They managed to find salvation despite having little written text, and none of them had all the pieces of it. Somehow, despite all this, their faith was so great that they were willing to be martyred for it. Christ prevailed in them because of their strong sense of the Spirit within them, and their sense of community among them. This is not to say these early Christians were perfect (we know they were not from Paul), but I do not doubt their salvation despite not having a large institution to oversee it.

I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the body of believers (my definition of Church- where two or more are gathered in Christ's name) has a purpose in transmitting the Gospels, the Message of Christ (His life and His teachings). However, to say that these are the transmission of grace is, I think, going too far. I have faith in God alone. God is sufficient to spread His own message, through the Church and through other means (both of which I believe are active), and God alone is sufficient for salvation. No matter how many people leave a church, we will never be without the Church- the body of believers in Christ, the followers of His message. I believe that Christ cannot fail. We are not dependent on any human institutions, but rather only on Christ.

As for Whom the Christ is, the myth/metaphor is as significant as the historical person. I believe that while the historical Christ is of great importance, we should focus so intently on Christ as sacrificial lamb, as God incarnate, that we lose sight of Christ as human being, as bridge between humanity and divinity, as teacher and messenger. I think to say that people who are not in a particular church are turning Christ into a “God of their own invention,” is to ignore that many people retain the historicity of Christ despite their lack of association with a registered denomination. Remember, just because I may meet with a group of individuals that don’t claim 501c3 status and hire a priest does not mean that I am unchurched. And so it is with others, too. Some people avoid a church because they wish to water down the message, make it more palatable, and so forth. Some people go to church for the same reason. Going or not going to any particular church is not evidence of faith or of being in Christ, nor is it a guarantee that we will be so. Christ Himself said many will say “Lord, Lord” and He will not recognize them. Christ Himself set the standard by which to discern someone’s commitment to His teachings and the Spirit: the fruits of the Spirit. “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit…” What is this fruit of which He speaks, since people may do things in His name and yet not be known by Him? I believe the fruit is a consistency of character, of right awareness in the world, that is evidence of one’s being in Love, in God- for “God is Love” (the agape kind).

How, then, can we reconcile the fact that some individuals are outside the boundaries of any Christian church, and yet show the fruit of the spirit? What do we do with this? I would say that being against a church’s doctrine is not being against the words of Christ. Doctrine is composed of the thoughts, the interpretations, that humans come to in reading the words. Whether they are my interpretations or another’s, they are still interpretations. Whether they are substantiated by a particular tradition or not, they are still tradition and not the message itself. I do not believe Christ picked a single institution to spread His message. I believe He called on His followers to do it. And His followers are His alone. They may gather together on a regular basis, create tradition to embrace the mystery, appoint leaders or not, build buildings or meet in someone’s house… but the followers are the Church, are the Body of Christ. We should not divide the Body and provide stumbling blocks for our brothers and sisters, but rather encourage all to grow in the Spirit and to “die to self, that we might live in Christ.” If we do this, God will bring us into wisdom, whether we all agree on one particular tradition or not.

The liturgical aspect of church is to embrace the mystery, to celebrate the mystery. But we do not need one tradition to show us a proper way to do this. The multiplicity of liturgies shows that there is more than one approach to the mystery, more than one way to celebrate. There is only One Mystery, but there are many ways to come near to It.

As for the eschatology, this may mean (in the case of the mystics) a reunion with the Divine, or it may mean some idea of an actual end times event. In either case, the tradition prepares us for it, guides us to it, but it is not the reunion itself. In my own Buddhist quote, I would say once more that tradition is the raft that brings us to the shore (reunion). The Church is a body of people who will (hopefully) be reunited with God- the Bride of Christ. I do not see how the tradition itself could be the reunion, when it is clear that many people follow the tradition (any tradition) and are not showing evidence of the fruit of the spirit, much less mystical reunion.

As for the sacraments, I will make no pretense of pretending that any of it is mandatory in my belief system. I believe the sacraments are a blessing, but not necessary. I do not believe anything is necessary for salvation except a turning toward God. Salvation is given by God freely, through grace. It is not earned through any particular actions, whether performed by the Church or by oneself. These actions are evidence of salvation, not causes of it.

I think far more troubling than people leaving churches in the United States is the straying of churches from the message of Jesus Christ. A church can always claim that it is the one and only entity able to interpret God’s word. But the history of the church shows that it must not be infallible, for its own actions have gone against, at times, the heart of Christ’s message- of love, of equality (no emphasis on class or caste), of service to the most poor and vulnerable, of distance from worldly desires… This is not to say to abandon the church, but to try to hold it (which is really to say to hold each other, as brothers and sisters) to the narrow path of Love, of service to God and others rather than to self. This may mean that one abandons an institution- a building with a leader and a bunch of his/her ideas- but that is not abandoning the church. Abandoning the church is to turn one’s back of Christ’s message.

Peace,
Kim/Path

 

[path_of_one]

I believe that while the historical Christ is of great importance, we should focus so intently on Christ as sacrificial lamb, as God incarnate, that we lose sight of Christ as human being, as bridge between humanity and divinity, as teacher and messenger.

Of course, I meant to say "we should not focus so intently..." But then, those who know me would have guessed that...

One little word slipping out changes the meaning so dramatically! (Thank goodness we have the Spirit to guide us in reading scripture, eh?)

 

[seattlegal]

I think far more troubling than people leaving churches in the United States is the straying of churches from the message of Jesus Christ. A church can always claim that it is the one and only entity able to interpret God’s word. But the history of the church shows that it must not be infallible, for its own actions have gone against, at times, the heart of Christ’s message- of love, of equality (no emphasis on class or caste), of service to the most poor and vulnerable, of distance from worldly desires… This is not to say to abandon the church, but to try to hold it (which is really to say to hold each other, as brothers and sisters) to the narrow path of Love, of service to God and others rather than to self. This may mean that one abandons an institution- a building with a leader and a bunch of his/her ideas- but that is not abandoning the church. Abandoning the church is to turn one’s back of Christ’s message.

Peace,
Kim/Path

Indeed, we are the living stones from which the church is built. ~1 Peter 2:4-5

 

[Ciel]

Thomas,

An honest question........

From your posts here do you feel you are drawing people towards The Church or pushing them further away?

Does it matter?

- c -

 

[gp1628]

I found the report to be very interesting but there is one lack (which might have been mentioned since I didnt read the whole thread, sorry).
According to another often quoted study, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions and if it continues on the scale it has then it could become the 3rd largest religion in the US by 2012.

 

[Dream]

Again we see the false dichotomy, if we make an enquiry outside the model of religion we are automatically in the realm of what is percieved to be the self as defined by the very model we are leaving behind. This kind of black and white thinking is what I mean to transcend.

Truly. The self has always been the final arbiter of truth for itself. The alternative is to accept all things as true.

 

[juantoo3]

According to another often quoted study, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions and if it continues on the scale it has then it could become the 3rd largest religion in the US by 2012.

I am not sure what religion Wicca would supplant, but I would also think Atheism to be gaining ground as well. I suspect for much the same reasons.

 

[juantoo3]

My brother Thomas,

In the course of my travels I have met many who for various reasons became disenfranchised with Christianity, or more generally disenfranchised with certain people who sat in positions of authority within and claimed to speak for and represent Christianity or some faction therein. For a layperson there is little distinction; the pastor *is* Christianity. And when a person in authority abuses their privilege, the layperson is apt to chuck it all and seek somewhere else.

If anything, I am probably an anomaly in that I still cling however tenuously to Christianity when those around me who have been similarly disheartened by abusive authority do indeed exchange their Christianity for another faith.

The point that some may switch religions for personal gratuity is not lost on me, but neither is that an all encompassing reason. People lose their religion for a variety of reasons. Abuse of power is what keeps me out of church. Which is just as well from my point of view, I always had a hard time dealing emotionally with all of the hypocrasy and pretense since I can remember.

If "church" were about worshipping G-d, I would not hesitate; I would be in the front row every time. Now church has become an institutional endorsement of politics and gambling and gossip and fashion shows and dating services and pot luck dinners...and that's just in the sanctuary! It's not a matter of forgiveness, if it were I would have left by now for another religion like others before me.

It *is* a matter of tacit and complicit endorsement of the figurative money changers still conducting their business and selling their wares within the confines of the Tabernacle. It seems normal and correct through repetition; even though we know instinctively it is not because our Messiah specifically and unequivocally set the example that it is not in no uncertain terms. Yeah, I know, church is BIG business. Look at me, BSBA, an advocate for business; free enterprise, conservative politics, Keenesian economics, blah blah blah...but not in church. That is not the purpose of a house of worship. Yet all too often business becomes the primary purpose of church, at the expense of worshipping G-d.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The last part of this teaching seems to get ignored more often than not.

I accept there are marvelous teachings to be had from some wonderful and insightful teachers, and the fact I am jaded does not mean there are no sincere teachers still out there. But they are few and far between, and finding them is all the more fraught in dodging the pretenders along the way. Like a school textbook, I can learn in some setting outside of the school building. I do not require a church building to read and understand the Bible. If anything, the real world examples set inside a church appear to conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

Faced with the conflict between Bible and Church, to which side do you lean?

For me it is a no-brainer. I'll take the teachings of Jesus over the money-grubbing business conducted in his name any day of the week, especially the Sabbath.

 

[cyberpi]

I think Paladin was referring to me. I am a social scientist (a cultural anthropologist, to be exact).

Imagine as an example if I were to make statements that maybe trees and plants had spirits, and then I said that I imagine it would take a Botanist to figure this out. Yet the truth is, I'm not really a Botanist but I still cling to the belief that trees and plants have spirits and in my spare time I project that belief onto Botanists. Later I insist that it is true, or my belief... but I've already forgotten, I never was a Botanist. Would I be honest with myself or with others?

I fully agree with Thomas in his defense of whatever he calls Church, as an institution or an ekklesia: community. As I read it, Paladin's expressed model of an institution or a community is one of a prostitute who shows him a thing and then is no longer of use... a congitive dissonance. I can imagine several reasons: like graduating from a school and then it is no longer of personal value to return to that school. Yet it would be of value for others to return if you later found something wrong with their teaching. In a sense Paladin claims that graduation day is the day that he was kicked out for thinking counter to or outside of the teaching of the school. To me, I have no 'cognitive dissonance' with the school... I am in school every day of my life. I can think outside of and counter to members of a university without rejecting the value of the university. I value the institution, and I have yet to find one where there was not at least a shred of love, faith, and truth in it... even within the military which goes to war. Every institution I have seen is like most every person I have met... there is some good, and there is some evil in it. I see Paladin rejecting the good in church. God is real and baptism in your own bathtub is just not the same.

The Gospel of Thomas 43 comes to mind... loving the tree and hating the fruit, or loving the fruit and hating the tree. I see the trees not as a person, but as what a person does.

Yet I fully disagree with Thomas with the claim that any single institution or community is the sole voice or hands and feet of God. I have seen a glimpse of God doing things in this world, outside of people, in other people, in my life, and in my mind... so the lessons here are not solely from a teacher in a school or a person in a church. But I do have to eat the words of others if I want to learn... both the agreeable and the disagreeable. I do not know what is there until I look, and I do not learn it until I also do it. If a church is a place of incest, theft, and murder, then I am going to attend just to expose it. If a church is a place of love, faith, and truth being exchanged, then I'd be nuts to not want to attend and be a part of it. Whether I find more good than evil in it, or more evil than good in it... I wish to attend. I am fooling myself if I claim to know what it is that I like or dislike within a church if I have never even attended it. Or a mosque. Or a buddhist temple. Or a synagogue. Or the street side where there are homeless drug users, prostitutes, thiefs, liars, paranoids, and murderers... real people.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

Much to discuss, but at the heart, I think, lies this:

... but a religion is still a man made paradigm.

We see it as a God-given paradigm — I think that explains all the difference.

Thomas

 

[cyberpi]

From your posts here do you feel you are drawing people towards The Church or pushing them further away?

Does it matter?

I'd say you are proof that he obviously draws people towards... you have been drawn here and even asked him questions.

Perhaps you think people are better drawn towards a happy void of emptiness. Don't ask, don't tell is rather popular in the world. Or perhaps you advise surrounding the building with strippers... a house of LOVE. Surely then you could attract people if that is what matters to you.

 

[Paladin]

Thomas,
Good of you to answer so quickly my friend. As abstract as it may sound I wonder if there is ultimately any paradigm at all.
Your points are well taken and have given me pause to consider just what it is I really think and believe and from a conventional standpoint, or subject-object mode of thinking I could concede many points.
My study of the great Christian mystical writings leads me to believe that beyond a wholesome discipline those that experienced God at any point in their lives did so because they were willing to give up the "me" and realize that "thou art". I see this in other traditions as well.
You are probably right that many turn away to merely indulge their own egos but I think it unfair to label everyone not in the same household as your own in the same manner.

If indeed God did give mankind a paradigm which implies something outside of it, consistent with the dualistic mindset then the other traditions must indeed be wrong. And somehow I cannot embrace that idea.
I also cannot embrace the idea that if I do not belong to a particular club I am less than real, less than disciplined less than dilligent in having a relationship with actuality, that which is all in all or perhaps what you call God. I have asked for a loaf, will I recieve a stone?

 

[Ciel]

I'd say you are proof that he obviously draws people towards... you have been drawn here and even asked him questions.

Perhaps you think people are better drawn towards a happy void of emptiness. Don't ask, don't tell is rather popular in the world. Or perhaps you advise surrounding the building with strippers... a house of LOVE. Surely then you could attract people if that is what matters to you.

Cyberpi,

As my grandmother might say........"what on earth has got in to you today"

- c -

 

[cyberpi]

As my grandmother might say........"what on earth has got in to you today"

Only today? Must it be of the Earth?

A person who merely reads and contemplates will never learn and see it. A person who will not read and contemplate is even further behind.

Communication is an important part of communion, but not the only part.

 

[path_of_one]

Imagine as an example if I were to make statements that maybe trees and plants had spirits, and then I said that I imagine it would take a Botanist to figure this out.

I wasn't referring to that of the spirit when I was referring to the value of social science. I was engaging a social question: why does Hinduism, as an organization, have a much higher retention rate than Christianity?

Now, you could propose a hypothesis that speaks to the spirit- that Hinduism is offering more to people's souls, or that it is a better version of God's message, etc. (None of which I agree with, by the way.) I was offering a hypothesis that is social, organizational- that there may be social reasons that some religions are gaining ground or retaining more members and others are not. These reasons may be institutional, cultural, social, even economic- and not only having to do with people's spirituality.

Every person is on a spiritual journey. Whether or not they join with a religion is a social issue. There is no religion of one person. Religion is, by definition, a group endeavor. So I study it as I study other social organizations.

That said, on the other hand, I am a spiritual person as well. But I limit my spirituality to my self. That is, I don't see it as my job to judge other people's spiritual progress, their relationship to God, their reasons for joining this or that religion, etc.-- in the case of their spirit. I can make observations about social stuff, but not others' spiritual life.

Yet the truth is, I'm not really a Botanist but I still cling to the belief that trees and plants have spirits and in my spare time I project that belief onto Botanists.

Not sure what this means. I really am trained as an anthropologist (that is what my degrees are in), but I consider that an entirely different matter from my spiritual life. The former utilizes analysis of data vis-a-vis a history of social theory. The latter (for me) is embracing the mystery- it is mysticism (reunion with God), it is intuitive knowing guided by the Spirit, it is growing in Christ. I see science and spirituality as two different approaches to reality (and approaching two different realities!). I use science to study human institutions structurally and functionally- what works, what doesn't, what is inefficient, cause and effect. I use spirituality to approach God and in my interactions with people.

In short, I am simply me- one unique creation of God. But that unique creation took a bunch of training in a particular type of science. It's not "me" in the sense of my spirit, but it is "me" in the sense of one of my roles in society. We are each spirit (permanently), and a bunch of roles in society (temporarily).

I fully agree with Thomas in his defense of whatever he calls Church, as an institution or an ekklesia: community.

I do also. I defend the Church (Body of Christ) as a community of believers. I don't defend it as an institution. I fully acknowledge that is because of my nit-pickiness about what an institution is vs. what a community is in the social theory world of Path.

As I read it, Paladin's expressed model of an institution or a community is one of a prostitute who shows him a thing and then is no longer of use... a congitive dissonance. I can imagine several reasons: like graduating from a school and then it is no longer of personal value to return to that school. Yet it would be of value for others to return if you later found something wrong with their teaching.

I agree with what (I think) you are saying, in the sense that after we have grown to the limit of our community of believers (the Church), the limit of our tradition, we should stick around so that we may help others. In fact, I actually think we can never outgrow a religion or tradition, or a community of believers. Once we think we've learned it all, we show we are lost and not learned at all. We can always learn something from every person, every tradition, every culture, every organization. We just have to make up our mind to be open to it and humble enough to take in the lessons God has for us.

I also think we should ask ourselves "What can I do for others?" and not the other way 'round. We can be a service to others anywhere.

That said, there are many churches, many traditions. I do not think it does good for a person to remain in a situation that is abusive to one, or that teaches something so opposite to one's own spiritual experience (found through reading the Bible guided by the Spirit) that one exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance and so is a liar- playing a role of something one is not. Furthermore, what I have found is that while I would be fine with almost any group of people if they would but love me and accept me (flaws and all), generally this is not what happens. If I do not conform to every doctrine, to every action, to every political viewpoint (and indeed, non-religious opinion) that the group purports, then I am viewed as a threat. And in rapid order, I am made to feel very unwelcome. I have been in churches that literally said the college-educated, the scientists, the professors were, as a group and wholesale, on the pathway to hell because they relied on reason for some stuff. How is that to make people feel? If it were a person relationship- if my father told me on a regular basis that I was going to hell for being a scientist- this would be considered abuse. Should I accept it because it is an institution that is abusive and not a single person? I think not.

So I withdraw in love. If I am seen as a threat in a community, I certainly do not want to be abused and made to feel unwanted, and I certainly do not want to be a stumbling block to others' faith. It is better that I withdraw and find a community in which I am not a threat, in which I can be of some service and I am not forcing that service and love down others' throats.

In some cases, it is as much for others' sake that one leaves as it is for oneself.

Yet I fully disagree with Thomas with the claim that any single institution or community is the sole voice or hands and feet of God.

I have seen a glimpse of God doing things in this world, outside of people, in other people, in my life, and in my mind... so the lessons here are not solely from a teacher in a school or a person in a church.

I wholeheartedly agree. God is everywhere if I will but see Him.