Easter has come and gone. It's not uncommon around holidays like Easter for religion to get a reprieve. Christians, rightly, recognize that at least Easter remains their holiday. A relative recently forwarded a rather friendly article printed in USA Today. The article is friendly, but it also carries the requisite angle. It caught my attention because it focuses on changes to religious practice in the midst of an inherently traditional holy day. People are leaving their traditions, it claims, and defining their own "church experience" many times leaving the expensive productions, fashion shows, floral displays, and liturgical pomp and circumstance behind. According to the article, it is only by doing this that the true object of Easter, Christ, can once again become the focus.
In a sense, it is a new protest against what many see as the institutionalization of religion.
Almost a year ago, I wrote an essay outlining what I see as a fairly significant shift in the way many Americans think about their faith (I blogged about some of the themes in that essay for the Huffington Post). As a philosopher, I'm intrigued by the epistemology (how knowledge is grounded) of this shift. I've become convinced that people of faith depend upon the social and practical constructs of something like the church in order to maintain a robust belief.
Of course this is no different than anything else. A Seattle Seahawks fan who never attends or watches games, doesn't own an oversized "twelfth man" jersey, or fly window flags from her car on game day soon will find, over time, that they are no longer a fan. An environmentalist who drives a gas-guzzler because he enjoys the ride and refuses to recycle because it's inconvenient may soon find his love for the environment fading. The mechanisms in our brain that sustain robust belief -- particularly when that belief is in something transcendental like the future state of the planet or an unseen god -- needs a constant and powerful bulwark against disbelief.
So this shift away from institutional religion is not trivial. The USA Today article focuses on the shift away from the institutional church proper and towards a more intimate, less liturgical model of "doing church" which emphasizes experiences and personal fellowship rather than doctrine and rules. One person interviewed for the article made the same prediction I did in my essay: the days of the institutional (protestant) church probably are numbered. She said, "We just weren't seeing any fruit, any new members, for all that huge expense of time and effort. I love Jesus and I love the church, but I think the way we do institutional church in America will be extinct before long. It will just crumble."
If this is true, how will the epistemology of faith change along with it? It's almost impossible to predict but I think certain key elements will earmark the shift.
People will depend on other people to help keep faith strong. Most of us need the support and validation of others to maintain our beliefs. In one of the many insightful passages in his The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker observes,
Each person thinks that he has the formula for triumphing over life's limitations and knows with authority what it means to be a man, and he usually tries to win a following for his particular patent. Today we know that people try so hard to win converts for their point of view because it is more than merely an outlook on life: it is an immortality formula. ... in matters of immortality, everyone has the same self-righteous conviction.
The growth of the internet and electronic communication may enable individuals to leave institutions and yet still have meaningful connections with others. I'll freely admit that blogging gives me an outlet and opportunity, however small, to connect with a larger audience and gives me a sense that my ideas mean something to others. I have friends on Facebook who regularly post nothing but passages of scripture or continually link to apologetic material. These, I believe, are partially to scratch the itch that Becker observed we all share. Without loyal followers who share and affirm our beliefs, they wither over time.
Believers will depend on an authority to ensure their faith has merit. Regardless of whether one is meeting in a mega-church or a home church, some authority that gives credence to belief always emerges. It may be an individual that everyone turns to for guidance or protection, or an escalation of the importance and authority of a religious text (or a version of that text -- this year is the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible, a translation which many almost deify), or a particular practice such as speaking in tongues or communal prayer. Many philosophers and scientists uphold reason as that authority. Regardless, epistemologically, belief needs a king and a soldier.
The "inside-outside" dichotomy will need to be maintained and may grow in importance. If institutional religion is "crumbling" I expect that a part of the justification for leaving those institutions must include the idea that one can do better. Becker used the unflattering term "self-righteous" to capture this idea (and many times the expression of this is unflattering) but it need not be as virtueless as that. Fans of a sports team need their rivals. Environmentalists need consumers. Philosophers need cave-dwellers. Scientists need artists. Corporations need competitors. Any worldview that has any significance for a person needs something to contrast against. I think this helps give ideas clear definition and helps our minds find boundaries for them. Belief needs to back up against something or it stumbles and falls over.
There will be a greater focus on the transcendent. I'm not entirely sure what form this will take -- it probably will take many forms. But I believe many believers are eschewing heavy-handed authoritarian churches. But as I noted above, this does not mean the eradication of authority. The authority will come in the form of personal worship and a more subject ethic. In a very real sense, this is a protest of the authoritarianism of Protestantism which, of course, was a protest against the authority of the Catholic Church. The "kingship of every believer" will take its fullest form in the next few generations and it will rest on a much more personal view of doctrine and practice I think.
I think the USA Today article is correct: certain facets of religion in the West are undergoing a change. I don't believe this earmarks a substantial, permanent change in the nature of the human person however. That's why I think the term "shift" is more accurate. In my view, a protest like the one we'll be witnessing in the next decade is all part of a regular cycle. Religious belief and praxis has gone through this cycle many times before. What has remained constant is the belief forming mechanisms that sustains and supports it. The specifics may be very different but the underlying epistemological needs will remain constant.
Apologies in advance to the Easter Bunny.
Portions of this post were previously published to philosophynews.com
Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.: Dominionism? What Dominionism?
Rev. Canon C. K. Robertson, Ph.D.: Dangerous Christians Who Teach Us To Live Like Jesus
Paul Pardi: Religion is Evolving Before Our Eyes
Rev. Peter M. Wallace: The Mainline Church: A Confusing Yet Hopeful Future
Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christianity In America - What's really hurting Christianity in ...
Please direct some attention towards an aesthetic of folding. This attempts to shift attention to the creative process of organizing. In this thinking the boundary is not a line, nor is the organization itself a fixed, restrictive entity. An aesthetic of folding encourages to overcome dualistic view. This thinking probably started with Weber's concept of the iron cage, but has progressed dramatically, spiritually with Whitehead.
In this time, where you interact with more people in a day, then your great-granparent did in a lifetime, it is essential for the church to redefine its edges. They have to be a zone of interaction more than a line of inside and outside. Here there can be synthesis in creative, novel ways rather than one that is determined by forces that are external.
People are going to come and go today. The aesthetic of a folded edge fits our time better than a fixed line. And in these folded edges novel approaches develop that benefit the group to becoming more than just being.
This is well stated.
People move in and out of the edifice (place for prayer, devotion, study, and contemplation). The edifice may continue as a place within which people will inexorably weave their course in and out -- that is, towards fellowship under formal rules and creating an ambiance for their spiritual pursuits but then move away from the building to their homes to once again embrace mundanity. However in this process, the institution must become flexible and accommodate this flow in and out of its doors.
And yes, as you aptly stated become a "zone of interaction" where the laity can continue their connection with their path at home as well and where one does not supersede the other claiming greater importance or supremacy over the other (church life versus home life).
This need for greater flexibility is not limited to Christianity however.
Faved.
Aw... that stings a little.
We in the congregation were already washed in His blood, but when we, in our daily lives of walking in this world, the feet get dirty, and the residue of sin began to cling onto us, and so when we return to the sanctuary every week we're cleansed again just as a weary traveler would be cleansing the dust of road from off his feet.
That's what the church used to be for; it was a place of cleansing, renewal, and refreshing, and this done on a weekly basis.
And back in those days there just was no such thing as some famous anointed Leader who had the goods you needed to be cleansed, for the Old Testament strictly declared: Not the flesh! The Holy Oil of the Anointing shall not be poured on any man's flesh.
With this understanding we knew that anyone who stood to lead the service could be anointed by the Spirit of God without exception, and no one, however famous, carried the Lord's anointing around like his own coat.
I wish and hope churches will return to this simply but extremely affective way, and relearn, just as Israel often had to, how to be receptive to the move of God, as we used to do when I was young,
Cause everyone knew, everyone was keenly expectant-from the pastor down to the lowliest pew member-all of us waiting, on that Sunday morning, for God to "move".
The "Service" ( that which belongs to and is given to God) was loosely composed of two distinct bookends: the INVOCATION which began it, and the DOXOLOGY which closed it.
There was no choir at those morning services, but our pastor stood at the pulpit and "made" the invocation, or at least he mostly did, or tried to.
He was a dear and loved man, but he was very verbal concerning what he felt, when he felt it, so he would stand there waiting for God to move and say, " I need my help", so sometimes the invocation of the move of the Spirit of God wouldn't come, and prayers went up in the congregation as expectancy rose, and then an very old mother of the church give out a deep sigh, then the Spirit would "break through" upon every soul in the sanctuary in the "refreshing", or, on some occasions, in order to "judge the flesh" of the congregation, and this included that of our pastor's.
Often an hour of more would pass with us all submerged in that exalted state, where repentance and confession of sins cleansed all souls.
From GeS -
" It is imperative that no one, out of indifference to the course of events or because of inertia, would indulge in a merely individualistic morality. The best way to fulfil one's obligations of justice and love is to contribute to the common good according to one's means and the needs of others, and also to promote and help public and private organizations devoted to bettering the conditions of life." (#30)
'The fact that human beings are social by nature indicates that the betterment of the person and the improvement of society depend on each other. Insofar as humanity by its very nature stands completely in need of life in society, it is and it ought to be the beginning, the subject and the object of every social organization. Life in society is not something accessory to humanity: through their dealings with others, through mutual service, and through fraternal and sororal dialogue, men and women develop all their talents and become able to rise to their destiny. " (#25)
Veritas.
The problem with this statement is that Catholic's have used it to justify Government welfare programs. The proper role of governemnt is to create a civil society that treats all it's citizens fairly under the law and does not allow any other entity to infringe on other's rights. The Church is just now begining to recognize the danger inherent in yoking it's responsibilty for charitable work to government "welfare". As our ability to work effectively as Christians is erroded daily by the mandates place on us by the governments perversion of what constitutes the common good, it becomes clearer that we need to rethink this interpretation.
Easter is the celebration of the Spring goddess Ishtar. Where do you think you get the bunnies and eggs from? Look up the origins of holidays before you distribute "facts" to everyone else.
EX christian, Pagan
One of the major commandments of God is that we do not forget. It is community or a church that can help us in that regard.
The truth is easy to know. Only our Maker Himself is able to be our Savior and no one else can be.