One of the reasons that so many deeply-dissatisfied atheist-materialists are repelled from Christianity; is that Christianity means picking a church or denomination and then obeying it.
As with a gang or cult; the prime demand is for loyalty to the institution; and this is enforced by initiation through loyalty tests.
Typically, the covert is required to believe and affirm some things he regards as false; and (which is probably worse) must state that some bad things are good.
There is often a honeymoon period after conversion when everything seems easy - but the loyalty tests will soon arrive!
One classic is Abraham being ordered - as a test of obedience to divine will - to sacrifice his son Isaac; so that he is faced with a choice of disobedience to God and ritual murder of his child.
The test is that we must agree and believe that the Right Answer was to kill Isaac: that the goodness of God is axiomatic whatever God asks of us; and obedience to the incomprehensible divine will is essential, while eschewing gross evil and doing what we personally believe to be good is irrelevant.
Well, that is the Old Testament - but there are also some stark loyalty tests in the New; such as the story of Ananias in Acts of the Apostles*. First Ananias, and then his wife, are struck dead by divine will for some combination of withholding tithes from Peter, and then lying to cover the sin.
The episode seems to be presented as an exemplary punishment - as a warning and deterrent to others not to do this kind of thing.
No doubt it would have been very effective at ensuring tithes got paid; but... Well, this kind of justice is more like the Forest Laws of the Normans, than the behaviour of a wholly good God whose children we are.
What such loyalties resemble is a kind of bait and switch con practiced on the convert - who hopes and intends to buy one thing, but being induced to accepts another, and much less desirable thing.
Or the Christian feels like a Man induced to sign a contract; who then finds himself bound by all kinds of things written in the "small print" of which he had been unaware, and would not wanted to agree-to.
Each church has its reasons for such practice; and claims that the requirements are all logically entailed and/or absolutely necessary for the integrity of the whole. Such tests are seen as a part of the process of learning what it really means to be a Christian.
However; I have come to see these loyalty-tests as corrupting of Christians, in a process that continues and worsens.
This process is one I regard as corrupting, because it always seems to push converts towards a conceptualization of God rooted in power not love; and a conceptualization of Christianity as derived-from the group and enforced by authority via rules and tests and practices.
It is this effect of Christian conversion (or devout practice) that is so repellent to non-Christians; and is worsened by Christians who assert that there is no alternative.
And indeed, there is no institutional or this-worldly alternative; since the attempts at "liberalization" all lead out from Christianity and into conformist left-secularism.
The only real alternative I can imagine is to recognize Christianity is primarily and essentially a matter between Jesus Christ and each Man individually - not bound-up vitally with any institution; and concerned primarily with what happens to each of us after death, rather than what happens during this mortal life.
Of course institutions are essential and anyway unavoidable; and of course post-mortal expectations can and should influence this moral life...
But it is a matter of what is primary, essential, and mandatory; from which the rest grows and develops.
It is a matter of the true and necessary root of Christianity.
* Acts. 5 [1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, [2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. [3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? [4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. [5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. [6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. [7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. [8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. [9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. [10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
2 comments:
I attend church services at my local village church regularly, but I do not regard that as primary and haven't for over a decade-and-a-half. If I did regard institutional loyalty as primary, I sense that I would be in fairly precarious position concerning my faith and belief, particularly after the gross institutional failure most churches display five-six years ago, coupled with the dogged refusal to recognize or repent any wrongdoing ever since.
Apropos, on the matter of loyalty, why is it a one-way street when it comes to churches? To what exactly was institutional Christianity loyal to from 2019-2021? And to what have they been loyal since?
It's as if the churches view the birdemic closures as their own Abraham-Isaac moment. The right answer was to close the churches and declare them non-essential (it can't get anymore glaring than that) because that is what the goodness of God asked of them, and obedience to the incomprehensible divine will is essential, while eschewing evil and doing what they -- the churches -- should have done is irrevelevant.
Why the divine will would utilize anti-God authorities to impose church closures was question that occurred to virtually nobody within Christian institutions. Providence. It's a mystery.
So, God, in his infinite power, demanded the churches be shut and utilized the secular authorities to do his bidding. The churches, who emphasize God's power, bowed to anti-God forces without so much as a whimper. An odd way to *fear* the power of God if there ever was one.
And the old, "yeah, but it's a fallen world and the church run by fallen, finite creatures" excuse doesn't cut it. Individuals and institutions can be fallen *and* repentant. I would be far more sympathetic to churches if they sincerely adopted a fallen and repentant position publicly. But fallen and unrepentant? How can one be loyal to that?
Where is one's loyalty -- individual or institutional -- if one refuses to repent obvious wrongs?
The last bits are little off-topic. Sorry.
@Frank - People are usually blind wen it comes to their own churches; but can often see that churches per se are just-another-institution, and church leaders (whatever they call themselves) are just-like-other-senior managers. Part of the totalitarian system - and either actively approving of the system and its aims (or else motivated primarily by the desire for success - which means: system-success).
This just gets more obvious with every passing year (or month). But the one thing that seems to unite nearly all Christians is that the only true Christianity puts "church" first, and the individual must (if he is to be a Christian) obey "church".
The only *perceived* alternative to institutional obedience is pick and mix hedonism.
To me, this emphasizes that such people are focused primarily on mortal expediency and this-world pragmatism; and they don't Really believe in the reality and primacy (and desirability) of post-mortal life.
Such an attitude is understandable - but is not admirable.
Post a Comment