|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Organised Religion Dead?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I don't think teh ebil intarwebz are luring people away from the church, but they're making it possible to have all sorts of communities and engagement on the fringes, and that fragmentation poses the real threat to organised religion, because people will now be happy making up their own minds, even if they're still nominally "on the inside". If the church has no automatic authority and there are as many different views voiced as there are members of the congregation, is it still organised religion?
If your definition of 'organised religion' is complete organisational control over what lies within the heart and mind of each believer, I'm not convinced that such religion has ever existed. There has always been a space outside official church doctrine that ordinary people in (or out of) the pews have filled with self-devised religious beliefs or spirituality. Anyway, in many cases, the clergy don't often expect ordinary people to understand the theological emphases that are supposedly essential to orthodoxy; they're simply expected to be loyal and compliant, and to avoid spreading 'deviant' ideas that might cause a breakdown of loyalty and compliancy in the community in general. Clearly, this pressure for outward control sometimes breaks down, and schisms or new denominations are created. But inward 'deviation' can gather pace quietly, without anyone noticing anything for a long time.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Authority MEANS someone is in charge and enforcing the rules.
Not at all! Authority can be relational, by which I mean a respect for someone's wisdom and (in the Christian context) holiness such that they are seen as someone to emulate and follow. I see much more of this kind of authority in the New Testament than the hierarchical authority that says 'Do what I command because I am in charge'.
But ultimately someone is making the routine decisions about what will go on in this week's meeting. And someone will decide what it is acceptable to say. AFAICS, it is inevitable that that IS 'top down' authority, however much it derives from relationship, not external imposition.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
Here is a link to the live stream of the conference.
Many thanks for some excellent comments. Very helpful.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I don't think teh ebil intarwebz are luring people away from the church, but they're making it possible to have all sorts of communities and engagement on the fringes, and that fragmentation poses the real threat to organised religion, because people will now be happy making up their own minds, even if they're still nominally "on the inside". If the church has no automatic authority and there are as many different views voiced as there are members of the congregation, is it still organised religion?
If your definition of 'organised religion' is complete organisational control over what lies within the heart and mind of each believer, I'm not convinced that such religion has ever existed.
Nor am I. But the ability to believe different things has been growing ever since the reformation, and now it's possible to not only shop around for a church/denomination that fits what you're looking for (which also means that you can easily go elsewhere if you start to disagree), but to find open and vocal support online for any dissenting view you can imagine, like a religious version of Rule 34.
I keep saying "porous" because that's how I see the modern church. It can't make the demands and exercise the control that were once commonplace, because it's becoming easier to ignore or leave. It still has authority, at least for some, but it's a different sort of authority. It's now far more about persuading, rather than dictating, which puts it on a level with many other bodies and voices. It's becoming just another opinion.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But the ability to believe different things has been growing ever since the reformation, and now it's possible to not only shop around for a church/denomination that fits what you're looking for (which also means that you can easily go elsewhere if you start to disagree), but to find open and vocal support online for any dissenting view you can imagine, like a religious version of Rule 34.
I keep saying "porous" because that's how I see the modern church. It can't make the demands and exercise the control that were once commonplace, because it's becoming easier to ignore or leave. It still has authority, at least for some, but it's a different sort of authority. It's now far more about persuading, rather than dictating, which puts it on a level with many other bodies and voices. It's becoming just another opinion.
This is true.
However, to me, the term 'organisational' is similar to 'institutional'. Religious institutions/organisations exist. They may have less influence, less public presence, less authority to demand attention from large groups of people than in the past. But they still exist. Whether they now persuade or dictate is another matter.
Certain evangelicals are critical of what they call the 'Christendom' church(es). You could say that this is a rather postmodern position for them to take, because they accept that Christianity is now about a personal faith decision, lived in a community of likeminded people, rather than being dictated by a hierarchy of overlords with the explicit or implicit encouragement of the state.
On the other hand, the longing that I detect on these messageboards is that Christians ought to belong to more official, more theologically regulated, more hierarchical (??) institutions that are inevitably more easily recognised by the state. This view seems to be held by a more theologically liberal constituency, which is paradoxical because it would impose greater organisational control upon the individual believer than the 'anti-Christendom' view. True, some of these small evangelical churches can be very strict, oppressive, etc. - but the fact is, they too exist in a pluralistic environment. Just like the CofE or the Lutherans, etc. they have to find their niche in western societies where it's easy to ignore religion.
Taking an evolutionary view, one might say that like the animal kingdom, different forms of faith arise to take advantage of different conditions, and different desires and requiements among different groups of people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is that correct, that there is a longing in these pages for an organized and hierarchical system?
I suppose there is partly, but also maybe a longing by others for the opposite?
Lots of longings, maybe. Pluralism ahoy!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl
There's lots of frustration here about the way that the historical churches do things (and I share in that), but there's also a suspicion of the unfettered spirituality and uncontrolled theology that's found among a myriad of independent Christian movements and churches. Especially if those movements and churches might be viewed as evangelical. (Noone seems too concerned about the Unitarians!)
Just my impression, of course.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
In all fairness I suspect that many Unitarian Churches tend to be Presbyterian/Congregational* mix in organisational terms and therefore really do not follow the free evangelical church patterns.
Jengie
*this means that there are strong non-cleric-leadership participation in the running of the congregation. That is there is a balance of power at the heart of the congregation government system and it is not a single person or tight knit clique who decide everything.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
