Author Anne Rice said last week that she was 'quitting Christianity:' The once-lapsed Catholic wrote that she could no longer accept her religion's teachings on homosexuality, feminism, politics and birth control.
"In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian," Rice announced on her Facebook page. Can you leave religion and keep Christ? Can you be spiritual without being religious?
Faith lingers, one way or another, in every society. For those who have given up on Christianity, there's a newly coined term, "cultural Christian," to describe the half-hearted believer or the timid atheist who doesn't want to be labeled as such. Unlike being pregnant or dead, which holds no middle ground, fence-sitting about God is so common that it might even be the majority position. The question is whether being a cultural Christian, accepting the trappings of faith without the substance, is viable. Or must a person take stronger, more positive steps toward a different kind of spirituality?
Breaking away can be soul-wrenching. It was meant to be. Organized religion tries to convince us that it has the patent on God, some faiths more loudly than others. Buddhism has no central authority or required attendance, while at the other extreme the fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam mandate daily prayers and hold the threat of damnation over those who don't attend services. Fewer people are intimidated these days, however. Spiritual coercion seems to be on the wane. The number of regular worshippers has fallen sharply and continuously for decades in Europe, and although South America and the U.S. are considered more religious societies, the numbers are slipping there as well.
There have been other reasons to keep away from church and synagogue, especially the backlash over liberal theology. Christians gave up on massive guilt and a punishing God, replacing these with an all-embracing welcome from a loving God. This should have been good news for believers, but when Christianity was reduced to an ethical culture, it lost much of its mystery. The Kingdom of God has to be more than a donation drive for the needy. Good works cannot replace transcendence, and there's no disguising that Jesus offered not only transcendence to his followers -- meaning a world beyond pain, suffering, and sin -- but miracles and the blessed presence of God in their lives.
Fundamentalists looked upon this failure as itself a kind of sin, or at least corruption of the faith, which caused them to surge into power. But behind the promise of being born again and finding Christ as your personal savior, they delivered more of the old coercion, sometimes with more fire and brimstone than ever before. Still, it can be said that fundamentalists took mysticism and the resurrected Christ seriously, and they attracted the common people whom Jesus most loved. Their most pernicious effect, on the other hand, was to deny love to anyone outside the sect, leading to bigotry trumpeted as God's will.
If a cultural Christian adopts the xenophobia and harshness of the fundamentalist worldview, that would be a double tragedy, because the absence of God would be filled in with a false idol. The way to avoid this trap, and also the apathy of fence-sitting, is to use one's birthright in good faith. Anyone born into a Christian society can claim a lofty but heartfelt morality based on love and compassion, the central teachings of Jesus, if you must leave God out. On that basis one might add hope of the afterlife and the promise that sin can be overcome and atoned for.
Using those elements of cultural Christianity, one can build a personal faith. It's a beginning, at least. Ahead lies a lifelong journey to answer the great questions: Does God exist? Do I have a soul? Where should I place my faith? Organized religion gives the "right" answers to all of these, but throughout history real belief has required a personal search to validate the truth. To accept the truth blindly is the same as having no personal convictions of your own. By the same token, to say that you have adopted Christ without Christianity seems equally facile. The teachings of Jesus are staggeringly difficult to carry out in practice, as anyone knows who has tried to turn the other cheek or loved his enemies. But if you approach Jesus as a guide to higher states of consciousness, which is what he meant by saying that the Kingdom of heaven is within, then being a cultural Christian could open the door to true transformation in body, mind, and soul.
Published in the Washington Post
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Matt J. Rossano: Would Evidence for God Mean the End of Atheism and Christianity?
Christopher Cocca: What If You Could Google God's Will?
You can compare all the data in the world but you alone will believe in your own truth,
Until the end of this experience,
The future
//This should have been good news for believers, but when Christianity was reduced to an ethical culture, it lost much of its mystery. //
And gained a great deal of practical usefulness and contemporary relevance. It's the contrived 'mystery' that allows priests, pastors, imams,etc to stand in the way of progress, be it scientific or ethical.
//The Kingdom of God has to be more than a donation drive for the needy.//
Really ? Again, it would of far greater benefit to us all if that's what it boiled down to.
//Good works cannot replace transcendence//
Might be more useful to reverse that statement. That which is curiously indistinguishable from imagination or delusion cannot replace good works
// there's no disguising that Jesus offered not only transcendence to his followers ...beyond pain, suffering, and sin but miracles and the blessed presence of God in their lives.//
Name a 'messiah', guru, etc who hasn't 'offered' those things. It's the repeated failure to deliver that's resulted in the rise of the ethical culture, etc that the good Doctor seem to be trying to give short shrift.
//The teachings of Jesus are staggeringly difficult to carry out in practice, as anyone knows who has tried to turn the other cheek or loved his enemies.//
How about damning whole cities, for not listening to your unsolicited gospel? This article seems to criticize one for 'cherry-picking' the practical, actionable aspects of Christianity, yet does exactly that with Jesus teachings
Very little is found in the many sects of Christianity that points to self-realization. There are of course a few exceptions but they are a miniscule population in the Christian world and are often attacked by other Christians as Non-Christian.
I wish I could find the quote to the effect that seminaries have produced more atheists than anyone else. I read it once, didn't write it down and quickly forgot who said it. That was probably first quipped a century or more ago, as was more true then than now, because now getting into a seminary to begin with is much less associated with the willingness to question one's own belief of which you speak.
Why do we have to witness more Hell on earth? from a lapsed person of faith.
I don't understand how calling anything unmeasurable and unobservable "real belief" has any more value than the cognitions or imaginations one chooses to attribute to it.
I believe in L.U.C.K., though.......Labor Under Correct Knowledge.
I believe I know when I get hungry....or thirsty. When I get sleepy, or cold....or hot (like today!).
But searching for truth?
Naaaaaaaaaaa. Truth is where it happens. It's "stumbled" upon. Searching for truth is like running around trying to find an "accident". Just sit on your fist, kick back on your thumb, and uh ho, look out! Here it comes! Yeeeehaaaaaa!
What's that saying? "You'll know it when you see it"!
"Cultural Christian" isn't a "spiritual" position, it is a cultural one. So why judge it on its spiritual deficiencies? That's like condemning non-competitive sports for not being competitive, or ornamental plants for not being edible.
Some people have a warm spot for ancient traditions and they wish to maintain them for aesthetic reasons, or out of respect. Does every Hindu who keeps a statue of Ganesh in the house have to believe literally in the Hindu Pantheon? Should Native American dances stop while we check the cognitive consistency of every dancer? Do people of Christian heritage have to believe literally in the resurrection if they want to let their children paint Easter eggs?
Come to think of it, what is the spiritual value of setting up a such a stiff grid and then deciding whose paradigm fits it or not? What is the civil authority for judging such lifestyle choices?
"What is the civil authority for judging such lifestyle choices?" should be amended to read,
"WHO is the civil authority for judging such lifestyle choices?".
Answer: Sarah Palin and her entourage! And speaking of "ancient traditions".......
http://www.youtube.com/user/MockTheDummy1?feature=mhw5#p/u/12/eiaI63pBmLs
"Cultural Christian" is just another label, like "Progressive", "Architect",
"Doctor", etc. (and we DO love to apply labels to everything). Also, generally
speaking, it is not the participators who apply the labels, it usually comes
from outside the group, by people trying to understand their position.
As he wrote, a 'cultural christian' is merely someone who has given
up on standard organized religion. That doesn't mean they have given
up on the intent that religions should be teaching.
In other words, a 'cultural christian' is still of a spiritual nature, still keeping
the main thrust of the system, just not with the restrictions that organized
religions want to maintain.
Their 'spirituality' remains intact, they've just withdrawn from its most ardent
spinmasters.
In other words, I have grounds for understanding it as almost the opposite of what you describe, which is more like what Anne Rice seems to have chosen, as far as I have followed it. In other words, you describe and Rice chose the spirituality without the cultural baggage, whereas the "cultural" whatevers get something out of visible customs minus the theology.
My problem is, that he not only also describes, but DEFINES "cultural" religion with the loaded judgemental words "half-hearted believer or timid atheist". That's where my problem is. Is someone wants to go to Mass and listen to chants and smell the incense, and finds something "spiritual" in that, without taking communion or going on some alternate philosophical quest, who are we to judge? It might be an interesting person to spend time with.