Recently I’ve been engaged in a forum topic designed to create the usual divisiveness within my particular church. Basically it was: “Dissenters: why do you consider yourself Catholic?”
A couple of weeks into this debate or mutual rant as the case may be leaves me with a good many questions, and it got me to thinking.
What exactly is religion all about? What is spirituality? What do we owe organized religion? What does organizied religion owe us? Those are just some of course, and I have no expectation of answering them all or any of them well. Some thoughts do come to the fore however.
The theory of the reactionary right seems to be that their particular take on religion is the “right” one, all others are to one degree or another, false. I guess that is a given pretty much. After all, why create a new denomination unless you feel other sects are fundamentally flawed in their ability to properly express God or the message? But the variation of how deeply this is felt or what it means is very wide indeed.
The spectrum ranges from “nobody is saved but us,” to “my faith tradition best expresses the message, at least for me.” Fundies group at the first flag and “liberal/progressives” at the other. Jesus remarked that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath, and I think the same applies for religions.
The agnostic exudes a basic honesty in revealing truth– one cannot hide one’s true beliefs. To claim that one can, is a sure way to not know God, making Him tiny and a bit ludicrous, being duped by lowly humans. The agnostic says, I cannot find personal proof that is satisfying to me that God exists, therefore I am unable to believe. I am open to being persuaded. That is simple honesty, and something I believe God grants mercy for.
The fundamentalist on the other hand believes that a religion sets out a perfect set of rules of the road. They believe some humans through interpretation of some holy tombs have somehow discerned the correct truth, and thus, they are required on penalty of hell to accept them, and accept them all without question. A slick trick is played to accomplish this: God created the Church, God prevents error from creeping into the Church, thus all Church statements in the form of Dogma must be correct, and moreover, God dictated.
What is troublesome mostly for me is that on arguably the most important issue of our respective lives, some folks are willing to give over their own God-given intellect to another body and follow them essentially blindly. No dissent can be tolerated, because dissent is simply refusal to follow God. End of story. Of course they admit that some things are hard to believe and follow, but they “trust” they are wrong and the Church is right, and that in time and through study, they will see the light.
This is troublesome, because it is not an intellectual critical decision based on logic so much as it is a convenient means to escape critical thought. It skips the “what if” questions completely, and thus the ugly, tedious, painful but fully rewarding exercise of having to work out a personal theology of God. It’s one-stop shopping. It leads to the often heard refrain among such folks as, ” I don’t know if the Church has a position on this issue, but if it does, I fully agree with it.” It also leads to the cockamamie idea that if one doesn’t agree with some teaching of the Church, one is by definition disordered. Only if in full agreement can the conscience be “correctly” formed, according to these folks.
I’ve alluded to this as the Nuremberg defense, used by various Nazi defendants to their activities in the Holocaust. “I was merely following orders.” The World Court of course rejected such a defense, stating clearly that one cannot hide behind an institution, but one is called upon as a human being to make personal decisions on moral issues. You will be judged by what you said and did, not by whether you followed somebody’s rules. Did not Jesus say about the same? He decried again and again the Pharisaic defense of following rules while long having lost any idea of why the rules were there in the first place.
Now I am loath to argue that anyone’s spiritual needs are wrong. In fact I don’t dispute that if you need your faith all assembled for you with plenty of help to tell you how and when to believe this thing or that, then, so be it. We all have our compromises. It’s easier no doubt to have it all laid before you, and all you need do is accede. Of course, many claim that this is hard to do really. Hard to accept some things–universally they refer to not being able to fornicate as humans are wont to do presumably. But this is no more than mere will power it seems to me, and accompanied by the ever available “absolution,” at least in my Church.
But it seems to me at least that we are here mostly for one reason, to grow in our understanding of our divine origins. I believe our earthly life is but the beginning, and membership in a Church is but a means to an end, not the end itself of my journey. To accept or believe that we are here to learn and explore and expand in our relationship to God requires that we seek unendingly. And searching unendingly does not mean putting on blinders and only searching within a little area. Much like the drunk who is on hands and knees under the street light, at the corner searching the sidewalk and curb for money he dropped half a block back, he mumbles, “The light is better here,” we must not be seduced by rhetoric and dogma that only within these parameters is it proper to search.
Religion is not my God. It is my tool. I use it to explore from a particular perspective some aspects of God. For this I find it useful. For this I may find it in some respects very powerful. But I do not expect it to answer everything, or even most things. Spirituality is to me made up of many components. Intellectual, emotional, physical, psychological, much like the human person. We are permeated by spirituality if we open ourselves to it. We respond on every level. No Church is likely to honestly address all these things equally well. (Few would argue that nature does not provide them with spiritual food in a way much different from an Sunday Mass for example.)
What do we owe our faith traditions? Our honest appraisal of where we feel they are right and where wrong. Open honest discussion of differences frame debate and debate opens avenues of thinking and thinking leads to revelation personal and collective. We are growing living organisms of spiritual beingness, and only by actually critically thinking of hard and deep subjects can we be honest to our God, however we define Him/Her. Only by looking directly at God, albeit through a glass darkly can we reach to achieve our “made in the image of” status as sons and daughters of the Source of All.
What does organized religion owe me? I would argue that it owes me a certain stability of dogma. Concepts of God should never be lightly or frivolously overthrown, certainly not for whims of the day. Yet the seeking Church, (and I would contend all should be this) must be open to dialogue, no matter how alien the new thinking might be. Rigorous debate always wins the day. In fact our Founding Fathers understood this best of all. Madison was vehement that only in the open market place of ideas would the “best” religions flourish. State support helped prop up the weak theological position. Thus this strong believer was the greatest of all proponents of freedom of conscience in the new American political society.
I feel very confident that the free exploration of ideas leads to truth. Truth stands the test of time and debate. Churches that can be open to change as truth demands are the ones that will survive in the future. Those that remain mired in concepts of infallible truths that can never be questioned will fail in time. Times have changed you see, the wealth of man’s intellectual repository is now available to anyone for the asking. No longer will pleas of “these are things well beyond your understanding” stand up against the internet’s ability to convey information everywhere instantly.
Dissent is not dangerous, unless one is talking about preserving the status quo. Dissent is healthy to the body politic and and the body faithful. It forces us to examine again and again those truths and dogmas we hold dear. We are forced again and again to gaze through new prisms, through new eyes and from new prospectives. The truth will prevail, and if it appears that some “truths” fail, then they were false truths to begin with, now uncovered for what they are.
So, no I won’t be leaving my Church any time soon, much as a few rabid “perfect” followers would like. Even though I argue with her about many things, she serves a purpose for me, she serves my needs at this time as the seeker that I am. I give her great thanks for that. I will continue to push her when I think she may be wrong. We will struggle and fight, yet I owe her this. If she is worthy, she will be up to the task at hand, if not she should face defeat in favor of other faiths. For truth is what we seek, and that is all any faith should seek. I’m a happy Catholic, although I may be one much different than you are. But more than that I am a happier seeker, always seeking my God in all His perfection. It’s just what I got to thinking about today.
Existential Ennui 