But alas, to more important things--Linz is on this understanding Mormonism kick. We watched a PBS documentary and now she is reading Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer, a book that is more about fundamentalism and religious extremism than Mormonism. But in all, we have had some interesting discussions. Let me preface this observation/comment/question by drawing your attention to a few facts. As of 2005, according to the World Christian Database, Christianity is the fifth fastest growing religion behind Islam, Bahai Faith, Sikhism and Hinduism. However, Krakauer claims in his book (copy-write 2003) "At present in the United States there are more Mormons that Presbyterians or Episcopalians. On the planet as a whole, there are now more Mormons that Jews. Mormonism is considered in some sober academic circles to be well on its way to becoming a major world religion--the first of such faith to emerge since Islam." All this to say that these religions of the world are overwhelmingly attractive to those seeking a devout spiritual life style. But Why?
Salvation in Christianity, as defined by Wikipedia, is a "gift that comes to an individual by God's grace, sometimes defined as "unmerited favor", on the basis of one's personal belief in and dependence on the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation in this sense refers to God's activities in bringing humans into right relationship with God and with one another through faith in Jesus Christ." So their is nothing that we humans do but accept the gift. We do nothing, God gets the credit and we get eternal salvation in return. Pretty good deal right? One could say that salvation in other religions of the world is not dependent on God's grace, but rather is dependent on mans ability to do good works. Adherents to Islam follow a strict code of ritual and conduct to attain salvation. Mormons, though they say that their salvation is found in Christ further research reveals that eternal salvation is not granted on an individual level, but is dependent on the salvation of one's entire family. Salvation through works is a staple in every other religion.
My question to you all is this: What is so appealing about shouldering the responsibility of one's own salvation. The fact that war and injustice riddle the world is a testament to mans imperfection. How could we think for a second that we have within us the ability to get it right by ourselves? Why is the free gift so hard to unwrap?
12 comments:
Possibly due to the fact that humans tend to be prideful. When we die, we'd like to say, "I was a good person and made it into Heaven." Sometimes I think people don't want the free gift of salvation because it seems too easy. There has to be some kind of a catch. The people that look for the catch often times find it upon meeting a Christian telling them to act a certain way so they'll fit into the bubble that the church has inflated. It's kind of awful but I think it just comes to the biggest problem with Christianity being Christians. We say that we are above the things of the world, but have created another Christian world that we live in that is more condemning and unforgiving than the secular world. To sum it up, Christians are their own worst enemies and have done a fantastic job undoing much of what jesus did.
You most certainly have a point. The Christians that are the "catch" are a hindrance, but I am beginning to think that Christians who try so very hard not to be the "catch" are also a kind of hindrance, in that they have no substance. We try so hard not be judgmental and forgiving, but then the pendulum swings to far, and we end up have no principals and no backbone. We become Christians laking a definitive Christ like patina. What is odd to me is that the fastest growing religions are the most judgmental with the strictest code to fallow. Those winning converts are zealots. Is there a happy medium?
I've seen that PBS documentary and it IS really, really good.
life is all about balance.
i've done a lot of studying mormonism, including 2 trips to utah, meeting with two different members of the quorum of the 70 apostles, BYU students and professors, and various other members of the church for interfaith dialogues.
in my opinion, the most appealing thing to a mormon is not necessarily the idea of "shouldering the responsibility." mormons have done a great job of creating God and heaven in their own image and understanding.
let me put it this way: what is not appealing about a heaven where you get to stay married to your spouse? where you get to have dominion over your own planet (as some believe, not all. let's not make general blanket statements here)? why wouldn't somebody want to be able to be baptized for loved ones that have passed on so that they could be with them in heaven?
it is a religion that caters to the base, earthly instincts of humankind. the LDS reject scripture (or the correct interpretation of it) for ideas that make them more comfortable. the LDS understanding of the afterlife is disconcertingly similar to life on earth. i went to an opening of a temple in newport beach and there was this one room called the "celestial room" which our tour guide told us was a representation of what they thought heaven would be like. well, if they are right then heaven is a 20' x 30' room with white carpet, gaudy furniture and big-ass gold chandeliers hanging from the ceiling. i hope they're wrong.
i'll admit, however, that i don't think its all that crazy; its wrong, but its not crazy. i can see why people would want to follow a religion like this. the problem is that it puts God in a box and on a level where humans can understand him.
there are a lot more theological issues that i would discuss if this were in person but no need to type it all.
i'd also like to point out that the mormons that i've spent time with are some of the most wonderful, welcoming people i've ever met.
Noah, great comment with amazing points. I have several questions, none of which are an attack, as I am in total agreement with you, but I want to ask them to further this interesting conversation. Anyone feel free to chime in. Do you also see these trends in evangelicalism or in the emerging church, a rejection the "right" interpretation (yes this is problematic, I know) of scripture for readings that make us more comfortable and palatable?
I thought I had another question, but I don't
i definitely see these trends in modern-day evangelicalism. i think that one of the greatest benefits of my interfaith dialogues with the LDS is that it required a whole lot of self-examination afterwards. i often found myself pointing out holes in their beliefs and then immediately realizing that the same argument could apply to evangelical beliefs as well.
i think the seeker-sensitive movement is an example of evangelicals making religion into something comfortable. but who cares if people are comfortable if they aren't coming to know the Lord in a deeply personal and passionate way? i think that people who start coming to church this way are in for a rude awakening.
i think that there are also problems with the post-modernist type thinking that goes along with the emerging church, but to be honest, i really don't know enough to make a valid argument so i'm not going to try.
This is a good bloggersation. (Blog+Conversation=Bloggersation)
Scott, Noah, You're both smarter than me. You guys are cool.
David- don't sell yourself short, I know you have some interesting thoughts on the emerging church. I would love to hear them.
Noah-That bit about interfaith dialogs forcing you to examine your own faith--that is my favorite part about studying this stuff. But to your comment on postmodernism. It is tricky because I think postmodernity proper creates a platform for christianity to be discussed because people are obligated to listen to your ideas and treat them as potentially valid. Big plus right? but this only works in academic postmodernism. From what I understand it is a misconception that within postmodernism all ideas are valid. Ideas are only potentially valid if substantial reason and support are provided. The listener can still choose to disbelieve or disagree, but they too must have reason and support to do so. It is very rigorous to operate on this level. Sadly, due to this, the average thinker adopts a sub-par popular version of postmodernism in which all ideas are valid all the time and no reason is needed--a nice firm "because thats what I believe" will suffice.
I'm no scholar when it comes to the emerging church either, but I feel like sometimes they (and I) choose love, not because it is theologically correct, but because it is easier. Or rather, maybe treating people with real love is too difficult because it necessitates stuff like truth and confrontation. So to treat people with "love" we use our powers of popular postmodernism to warp the meaning of love into a sugar coated, easily applied feeling that affords us the ability to embrace the behaviors of anyone at anytime. I am not saying we should be intolerant, that would be ridicules--what I am saying is that what we now call "Christly love" is really us just pussy-footin' around difficult issues.
What do you think?
Daw-gone-it, this is so long I should have made this a post. sorry all
I agree with David that this is a great conversation. I also like your statement in the last comment, Scot, about postmodernity. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, however, on your final question about love. All attempts at Christ-like love (and I would argue that all attempts to display love are inherently attempts to be Christ-like even if they are screwed up and fall far short) no matter how embracing and tollerable they may be, are good things that can and will positively affect the world for Christ. The idea that these actions are "pussyfooting" around the pertinant subjects are damnable judgements and just as mistaken as taking any act of kindness for weakness.
Now to step around the entire debate and put forth a thought I entertained while reading the original blog: What if, when we are all called up to heaven, God calls forth someone like Hitler and, by some eleventh hour conversion (or even more miraculously by God's grace alone (could Christ's salvific act be stronger than man's ability to live an evil life)) God ushered him into heaven as a "good and faithful servant." How many Christians would refuse to enter into a heaven that is populated by God's grace with people who were the most unrepentant horrific beasts on earth?
I worship a God who is capable of this (I know it is a bit heretical and I am not saying that it is definitly going to happen, but it does seem to lend itself to a very hopeful faith in God's grace and it does a wonderful job of humbling our efforts, nullifying our judgement, and putting the onus of salvation on God) and who is to say that each of us isn't as unrepentant, horrific, and beastly as the worst examples of humanity. . . in our hearts if nowhere else.
I agree with David that this is a great conversation. I also like your statement in the last comment, Scot, about postmodernity. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, however, on your final question about love. All attempts at Christ-like love (and I would argue that all attempts to display love are inherently attempts to be Christ-like even if they are screwed up and fall far short) no matter how embracing and tollerable they may be, are good things that can and will positively affect the world for Christ. The idea that these actions are "pussyfooting" around the pertinant subjects are damnable judgements and just as mistaken as taking any act of kindness for weakness.
Now to step around the entire debate and put forth a thought I entertained while reading the original blog: What if, when we are all called up to heaven, God calls forth someone like Hitler and, by some eleventh hour conversion (or even more miraculously by God's grace alone (could Christ's salvific act be stronger than man's ability to live an evil life)) God ushered him into heaven as a "good and faithful servant." How many Christians would refuse to enter into a heaven that is populated by God's grace with people who were the most unrepentant horrific beasts on earth?
I worship a God who is capable of this (I know it is a bit heretical and I am not saying that it is definitly going to happen, but it does seem to lend itself to a very hopeful faith in God's grace and it does a wonderful job of humbling our efforts, nullifying our judgement, and putting the onus of salvation on God) and who is to say that each of us isn't as unrepentant, horrific, and beastly as the worst examples of humanity. . . in our hearts if nowhere else.
Dang...I don't check the blogs for a few days and we had a church council and I missed it. Good stuff here...I don't know where to jump in...the post-modern church stuff spins around in my head 24/7...it seems the Emergent (with a t) Church is simply copying culture and trying to be "nice". "Everyone's opinion is valid"...this point drives me crazy, and I glad Andrew brought it up...every person is valid, but their opinion maybe moronic, lame, and yes...evil. I believe Satan himself has an opinion on many things...do we need his opinion...Eve listened to his opinion, and look where it got us.
With that said, we don't need to borrow culture's opinion of tolerance, it is stupid and real people can't live in it. No one can live the belief system of Postmodernism...no absolutes...no truth...just beauty for beauty sake...no purpose...no meaning...this is why 70 million young people in America are lost, with no frick'n idea of what to do with themselves or their faith...most anchors of our society have been removed...right and wrong...love, trust, loyalty, truth...find those consistent examples for me in our culture...and now the culture has its eyes on the church, and the emergent (with a t) church has decided to start removing anchors from the faith as well...to fit in with the times...I feel like I have taken some crazy pills...I am all for working out our faith...I am all for wrestling with propositional truth...let's do it...but if you remove the Bible (whole Bible, start to finish, and every jot and tittle in-between) as the absolute Word of God, and you make the atonement mostly an example of how to live, rather than the substitutionary death of Christ for our sins...we can't wrestle with anything...we are merely throwing out our own ideas...what we should be in search of is God's Ideas, in God's Word, confirmed by Godly men and women...I am tired of other people's ideas about life...they do not move me...the Cross moves me...but for a postmodern church...the cross doesn't move them anymore, because they don't find breath, movement and life in it...they find a God who wants them to be nicer...
I, like Andrew, should have posted this to my own blog...I am now just rambling...I apologize. Way to get me start guys...I love it.
Post a Comment