June 14, 2004
BY ELSWHERE I MEAN ME:
Gimme that organised religion (Colin Sedgwick, June 12, 2004, The Guardian)
We are often told that people are wide open to the idea of the spiritual - the religious, the numinous, call it what you like - but have no time for organised religion. And so the churches are emptying while they pursue their quest elsewhere.Well yes, organised religion can be a curse, no doubt about that. It can become a habit, a drug, a prison. I heard of a minister who, having conducted his last service before retirement, never entered the doors of a church again. His religion had been operating on auto-pilot and, when the plane eventually landed, he could not run away quickly enough.
But while recognising the dangers of such barren religiosity, it is worth asking what people who have no time for organised religion actually want. Unorganised religion? Disorganised religion?
I suspect that what they are, in fact, looking for is private religion - that is, religion they can practice with minimal interruption to their normal routine and without having to bother about burdensome responsibilities. "I want the feelgood factor, but not the cost of commitment" - that, in reality, is what such people are saying. Putting it bluntly, private religion is essentially selfish religion.
Which defeats the purpose, no?
Posted by Orrin Judd at June 14, 2004 7:37 AM
But all religion is personal! We all live our religion. We may call ourselves Baptist, Catholic, or whatever; but our religion is the philosophy by which we lead our daily lives.
Organized religion is but a club which we join while our interests coincide with those of the club.
Our religion should change as we mature; otherwise, our life has been for naught. Unfortunately, most of us fear to venture far from the conforting confines of our chosen club.
Posted by: Tom Potter at June 14, 2004 2:50 PMMr. Potter:
It's precisely because we are changeable that our religion should be unchanging, otherwise it's just about our temporary feelings.
Posted by: oj at June 14, 2004 2:57 PMDidn't Chesterton say something about "even more, we need a religion that is Right even when we are Wrong"?
Posted by: Ken at June 14, 2004 5:22 PMWhich religion has been unchanging?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 14, 2004 5:43 PMThe purpose being to abdicate one's thinking to others?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 14, 2004 6:00 PMSo what special qualifications do they have to do your thinking for you?
And who do you choose?
Ooops. Contradiction. That involves thinking for yourself.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 14, 2004 10:13 PMMy parents chose for me.
Posted by: oj at June 14, 2004 11:16 PMI ate a lot of Spanish mackerel, which I never liked, because of the wisdom of the Church.
I was born too early. Another 20 years, I coulda been just as good a Catholic and had steak.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 15, 2004 2:39 AMThe fish was good for you, even if you didn't like it. Kind of like the Church was.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2004 7:29 AMMy view of religion exactly: do what we say, it's good for you, and you don't know what's good for you.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 15, 2004 8:01 PMOf course. If you choose what's good for you it's bad for everyone else.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2004 9:06 PMWhat if I choose to have 3 children?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 16, 2004 3:41 AMIf you act on your own morality you'll do a bad job raising them--in fact you won't be there to raise them. However, your morality is entirely conformist, to your credit and that of the Church you were raised in.
Posted by: oj at June 16, 2004 8:40 AMWhat OJ means is that you can't hope to be moral unless you abdicate any personal responsibility for your own actions.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 16, 2004 4:44 PMRobert:
The opposite. You're responsible for them, just not fit to judge them.
Posted by: oj at June 16, 2004 4:50 PMUmmm, Harry's question is still hanging out there.
Which religion has been unchanging?
Of course, there is the problem of relying on other people to determine how God, be he hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin, will judge your actions.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 16, 2004 5:38 PMWhy's that a problem?
Posted by: oj at June 16, 2004 8:51 PMIt is blindingly obvious why that is a problem.
Somehow you must judge on what authority these people can claim to speak for God.
And you have to judge which don't.
That you can go from there to accusing secularists of being self absorbed is, frankly, astonishing.
However, it is an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 17, 2004 7:11 PMThey--other people--are the authority. Well, since that is so, you are entitled to be an authority too.
QED
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 18, 2004 5:25 AMWhy?
Posted by: oj at June 18, 2004 8:37 AMWhy not? If other people entitled to be an authority on God, then so are you.
In fact, I believe you have made some very dispositive statements about God's characteristics that other religious authorities would find heretical.
Both of you can't be right.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 18, 2004 7:04 PM