Lord, help me believe -- but not just yet

There are at least two levels of issues here. The first being that the masses have never been invested in the finer details of church doctrine. That is left to theologians and those with the time and interest, which is just fine. Most of us have jobs and families. A good grounding in the basics (yes, that is an issue), and then attempting to live by and practice faith is more important to many people.

At the second level, faith/religion has been terribly harmed by its intrusion into secular issues and vice versa. Consumerism has become become predominant in our society, often with the aid, or at least tacit approval, of churches. Faith has become so involved with cultural and political litmus tests that it has lost much of its authority. Church leaders have undercut faith by their personal behavior, and lack of leadership. The Church turned to politics, rather than to God, to solve the problems it should be solving. Churches have used divisive issues, often based on hate and fear of the other, to mobilize its people, never putting forth the same effort for positive causes.

Steve

"Sometimes I wonder if Americans treat faith as a vaccine: we get just enough of the stuff to prevent our souls from being "infected" by the real thing."

There is some truth to that, but I'm not so sure the apologetics debate really tells us *that* much. Many people just don't focus on the faith in the same way a professional apologist would. I know that I went through a "stage" in which I really read quite a bit of apologetics. Now--I really couldn't care less about going to hear one of them speak. Why--partly because I have heard most of it before; partly because Christian fundamentalists don't really make me feel insecure; but mostly because I've just moved on to other things with regard to my faith.

Actually, Christopher and Peter's debates got quite a bit of attention in England, although that might be because Peter is better known here. It's odd that religious America seems to like left-wing Christopher, whereas secular England prefers right-wing Peter. Anyone make sense of this?

There's also the point that C Hitchens' books are worthless. He first scatter-shot, with a chapter about Zen and fringe Hindu sects thrown in the middle for no obvious reason, and no obvious rational flow. At least Dawkins develops consistent arguments.

A good church should make you feel welcome, and more than a little uncomfortable.

I found the Hitchens' debate rather flat.

He first scatter-shot, with a chapter about Zen and fringe Hindu sects thrown in the middle for no obvious reason, and no obvious rational flow.

He did that to anticipate the argument that there's a valid Eastern religious option.

The post at November 17, 2008 10:34 AM is mine.

I do tend to wear my cynicism on my shoulder, eh? ;-)

I readily concede the complexity. Vis a vis Catholics, I could see that complexity in action growing up amongst them and encountering "exes" in my UU congregation.

The "formula" is simple, I submit (insist, I guess). The mechanics are easy to follow. A church is there for its congregation. The parish priest and support staff deserve a living wage for their work, most especially when it prevents them from earning that living wage outside the church. Money is involved, management of that money, tax rules and other (ahem) nonsense... I think my point is that there has not been for a very long time a clear distinction between the purpose of a church and the operation of a church. Hence my "ratings" metaphor.

I think it is an ENORMOUS mistake to confuse the finer points of doctrine with Christianity. I do agree that most people's religious faith is very shallow. However, if anything a real concern with some of the finer details of the faith beyond the early creeds is itself a sign of a shallow faith, imo. Such things do not transform a person. They do not make us more loving. They do not provide peace, joy, patience, etc which come out of the Holy Spirit. They are dead and fruitless. They allow people to feel that they are religious without actually having to submit to the work of being transformed into the likeness of God through the working of the Holy Spirit.

I think this is very distorting. Why did theological debates get enormous attention in the past? Because theological communities had different political right. So people who have no real interest in theology or religion had to be interested, because it was crucial for "our team" to defend itself from public humiliation and possible loss/gain of tax or other privileges by losing.

In reality (and sadly, I think), real heart religion has always been a minority thing. Theological debate is not exactly the heart of religion, but it's not unconnected to it. But while getting people to take an interest in such debates, by linking public bragging rights of one or another communion to how they turn out may increase interest in theology, it's generating an increase in what really matters religiously.

Roland, we are getting into the details. They are valid and worthy of discussion, but they don't really answer my question.

I'm going to metaphorically stomp on your implications, good sir.

You are an adulterer or fornicator and if you go to confession, make a good act of contrition and amend your life (i.e. stop the extra-marital boinking), you are kosher again.

So, the sincere and heartfelt vows I (metaphorical I) took with my second wife are no better than "extra-marital boinking". Nice. How would that make me feel about my (again, metaphorical) wealthy neighbor, who pays off is his first wife to keep her quiet and cooperative so he can get his annulment and kosherly boink his trophy second wife, all without needing to confess to anything?

And, still metaphorically, I examine my entire life, my commitment to being a good Christian, and I just might be willing to be damned to Hell by a church that I no longer care about, for loving my second wife so much that I will not be a liar, go to confession and stop boinking her just to get to Heaven.

All metaphors, allegories and hypothetication aside, Roland, and what you see there is a conglomeration of the stated thoughts and actual experiences of people I've known. It is not to me that you need to form your rebuttal. It is to them.

I find it interesting that Rod, and most here, take "taking faith seriously" is defined in terms of knowing, and "discussing", theology, but few have said anything about faith making differences in the way one lives. Of course, this latter example of taking faith seriously is in even shorter supply than the first, so maybe the omission is understandable. Now, understanding our faith is important, and few Christians have an even halfway adequate understanding of basic Christian doctrine and history, but at the same time, we are not Christians by virtue of what we know, but by who we know and what we do about it. We are not gnostics, no amount of detailed doctrinal and theological knowledge is going to save you.

I wonder how many North American Christians would be willing to go through the practice of the ancient ante-Nicene church? Before you could join the church, be baptized or partake of communion you had to go through 3 years of daily instruction (on top of your normal activities), have your friends and family interviewed to determine your worthiness, have to sit (stand, really) in your own section when attending church, and finally pass a test administered by your bishop, and all this just to get baptized. Could it be that this points to a problem we have in the modern church? That we have made being a Christian, a member of the church, far too easy?

"And, still metaphorically, I examine my entire life, my commitment to being a good Christian, and I just might be willing to be damned to Hell by a church that I no longer care about, for loving my second wife so much that I will not be a liar, go to confession and stop boinking her just to get to Heaven.

All metaphors, allegories and hypothetication aside, Roland, and what you see there is a conglomeration of the stated thoughts and actual experiences of people I've known. It is not to me that you need to form your rebuttal. It is to them."

I don't think so, if the Truth is True, those people had better put their pride and desires aside and figure out how to conform to it; otherwise what were they doing there in the first place? Religion that you abide only when it suits you, and is untrue when it cramps your style, is no religion at all. In that case you are just worshiping the dude you see in the mirror. Lest anyone feel this is some sort of "accretion" by sex-hating clerics, read what our Lord says with regards to marriage in the Gospel.

The above is just so typical, "my feelings trump all," sentimental American crap.

PS Larry - interesting points.

PPS - good grief, Beliefnet software sucks.

So, Steve K., would you then also contradict Roland's statement that no one is excommunicated for pre-marital sex, adultery, or secular crimes by saying that they should, at the very least, be shown the church door with a polite but firm "and please don't come back?"

Consistency is admirable, even in service to an absolutism. My point is, again, not about the individual details but about that very consistency.

"I find it interesting that Rod, and most here, take "taking faith seriously" is defined in terms of knowing, and "discussing", theology, but few have said anything about faith making differences in the way one lives."

Good point Larry, though perhaps Rod can clarify for us the example he used. Basic knowledge is essential, and often lacking. But I have been in groups of younger Catholics who almost seem to measure their worthiness by their expertise on the liturgy, ability to quote Chesterton, or keenness at analyzing papal encyclicals. Not good. When that gets to be all-consuming, it's time to step back and maybe do some volunteer work!:)

Franklin,

You are not stomping on my implications, you are treading precariously in theological quicksand.

The Boss said, "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Marriage is a sacrament and it cannot be undone. A decree of nullity means that there never was a valid marriage. Without that, you (metaphorically) are still validly married to your first wife. And your (metaphorically) boinking your second "wife" is adultery. You are in a state of mortal sin and cannot receive communion. I mentioned before the remedy of confession and contrition. This is church doctrine and is not to be considered a mere "rebuttal" on my part to you (metaphorically) or to "them".

I cannot speak to your (metaphorically) loving your second wife so much as to stop boinking her just to get to heaven. You are a creature with free will. I think the Boss also said something about loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And loving thy neighbor as thyself. Coveting your neighbor's trophy wife, on the other hand, was covered in a prior testament.

The fact that many peoples religious beliefs are extremely shallow certainly isn't a new/modern phenomenon. I would maintain that it has always been the case. Read literature going back hundreds of years and you will find ample evidence of that.

I think Charles Cosimano has a point that a pluralistic society by its very nature would tend to be less dogmatic to ease everyone getting along. Conversely a near religious mono-culture (ex Turkey) would tend to be more dogmatic and have more persecution of religious minority.

The linked article was interesting. I think modern man has the freedom to discuss religion, and a lack of interesting because there's no objective way to verify which religion (if any) is correct. So there is no way to settle the debate which makes the debate pointless. I think people are pragmatic and don't waste their effort.