One thing that I vividly remember about my time in Seminary
was the amount of people that I would meet that would say something along the
lines of “I certainly believe in Jesus but I don’t like the church”. The
reasons for not liking the church are numerous and probably pretty obvious.
Don’t like the people, don’t like the style, too much hierarchy, political
positions they don’t agree with, etc., etc.
I do think there can be some merit to this. There are certainly
some things that should be deal breakers when looking for a specific church or
faith tradition. For me, aside from an orthodox view of Christ and the
crucifixtion/resurrection, two things stand out for me – I will not be a part
of a church that puts limits on leadership positions for women and I will not
be a part of a church that is not welcoming to all (though that is more broad,
as welcoming does not necessarily mean a specific political position, merely
that anyone is welcome to worship and be a part of the church).
The way that this was explained to me is that with our
faith, there needs to be things that we would die for, things we would bleed
for, and things that we would hold more loosely. The first category should be
pretty limited – for me it would probably be limited to the character of
Christ. The second is a few more, for me the two things listed above plus a few
other things. And then everything else would fit into the third category.
The issue that I think we run into is that way too many
things are being stuffed into the first two categories in regards to what we
want in a church (or denomination or faith tradition). With the great diversity
that is in humanity, it is probably going to be impossible to find a church
that fits everything exactly, or I like the think that it would be. The
alternative would be to force compliance upon members, which leads to danger.
Perhaps this is a theme that I will touch on later, as there is much to be said
about it.
The other alternative, and one that is becoming more common
among younger people, is a sort of cafeteria faith, where parts of many
different faiths are taken and melded together into a faith tradition that fits
the individual. This is the end result of the thinking of I like Jesus but hate
the church. And this thinking extends far beyond the Christian church, and is a
part of all faith traditions. People may take aspects of all faith traditions
and merge them into their own faith. This is all well and good as far as the
individual is concerned, but there are significant consequences.
(Before I go any further, I want to make a quick statement
that I am not against engaging different faith traditions or denominations, and
taking inspiration from them. The point I want to make is that it is dangerous
to that while simultaneously abandoning any faith tradition and to instead go
off on ones own, for reasons that I will explain now).
This idea was explored in a recent article in The Atlantic
titled “The Case Against Mix and Match Spirituality”.
It was a quick look at the Aspen Ideas Festival and the
ideas there about religion. There was discussion about how younger people
(millennials) were forming there own ideas of faith traditions and what they
may mean for them. It was looked at from the perspective of Jews, Catholics and
Muslims, but there is certainly lessons for all faith traditions and
denominations, including my own evangelical.
One quote that struck me was as follows:
"To call oneself a Muslim, a Jew, or a Catholic, what do the continuities have to be? You cannot simply erase the entirety of the religion that preceded you and call yourself a Jew. You can say that there is this tradition that is X,Y, and Z, interpret as you choose, state your reasons. It's a free country, this is the kind of Jew you want to be. What worries me is that the new forms will be so disconnected from the traditions that something called Judaism will survive but that the tradition in its richness may not. That is my deepest fear about my faith."
It is a concern about the heritage and the future of the
faith. Valid from my perspective. If you want to call yourself “Jewish” (or
whatever faith tradition), how much are you able to change before that word
ceases to have any meaning. What are the definitions that will fit with that?
Does there need to be certain things that are consistent across all people that
claim to be Jewish?
Christianity certainly has and continues to have those
discussions, and I am still not sure there is a good answer. I have my own
suspicions, but I am quite confident that people would disagree with me.
(For a hint, you can check out my post on progressive
religion: http://stevenuessle.blogspot.com/2014/06/thoughts-on-progressive-religion-and.html)
The other quote that really struck me, and kind of gets at
the heart of this situation, was as follows:
Call me old fashioned, but yes, I would say, to be a good Catholic you have to believe in God. There's a problem with the hyper-individualization of Millennial religion. The advantage of an institution is that it forces you into conversation with people you might not agree with. It forces you to grapple with a tradition that includes hard ideas. It forces you to have, for at least part of your life, a respect for authority that inculcates the sense that you have something to learn, that you're not reinventing the wheel, but that millennia have come before you. The structure of institutions, for all their evils, facilitates that. And we may be losing that."
The God part is pretty self-explanatory in my part. Hard to
consider yourself a Christian (or other faith group based on a deity) if you
don’t believe in God.
But the second part of the quote is what really caught my
attention and is the reason I wanted to examine this article. I think that
captures the crux of the problem with the hyper-individualization of religion,
of the attitude that I like Christ but don’t like the church.
“(An institution) forces you into conversation with people
you might not agree with.” What a powerful concept and I think it should be the
strength of the church. My church Central Baptist takes great pride in being a
“purple” church. We run a wide spectrum of political beliefs, thoughts on
worship style, organization of the church, etc. These are questions that we are
currently debating and it is not an easy process. But we are united in Christ
crucified, and there is power in that. There is not easy answer, but to deny
aspects of the kingdom is to deny aspects of Christ. Surely Christ is more
encompassing than any one person can fully realize. The power of the body is in
its magnitude, and in how it truly compasses the full character of Christ. If
we limit, or reject, parts of the faith, we limit (or reject) parts of Christ.
This applies not only to what is around us today, but what has come before us.
It is easy and it may seem safe to stay in a bubble, to only
take the parts of a faith tradition that you agree with. But it is limiting,
and it prevents the opportunity for growth and for deeper understanding. We are
not the first and only people to consider the higher truths of this world. There
is great benefit in engaging each other and in engaging the past. Failure to do
so will keep stagnate, and will keep us from fully experiencing all that Christ
has to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment