Right. Well the first post didn't really go where I wanted it to, exactly, but it got the ball rolling. I'll try to be more focused as I go.
I wanted to expand upon the taxonomy I stated in my first post. I said there are 'three' basic groups on the whole 'religion' issue that are distinct from my 'traditional' religious system. I realized two things as I wrote this...
1. I really do fall into the 'evangelical' camp. And you do to, if you're a sincere believer of any stripe. If you really believe in the super-natural aspects of Jesus' life; resurrection and miracles? If you believe you have an obligation to spread the good news? You're an evangelical. But 'evangelical' is a term that has been co-opted by the media to conjur images of mega-churches, fundamentalism, insensitive proselytizing and intolerance of others. Quite the opposite of the original evangelicals back in... oh... 100 AD.
2. The 'non-corporates' are really a political aglomeration... ie. a right wing coalition based on hot button issues such as right to life, opposition to gay marriage and the promotion of faith-based schooling. But again, from the 'outside' (ie. the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' they look like one big amorphous blob. They ain't.
OK, for most of you this is nothing new... at least on an intellectual level. Nobody likes to be pigeon-holed into some mega-group. But be honest... most of us do it all the time to one another.
For example, I resented being labelled an 'evangelical' until I read the definition given by various 'evangelical' groups... according to them, their basic beliefs are quite similar to mine. The hot button issues aren't even central to the core. Really think about it: are any of the hot button issues: abortion, gay marriage, faith in the school, part of the essential definition of a christian evangelical? Of course not. And yet, at some point, someone decided that if I don't have the 'group' position on these issues, I am decidedly not with them. Why? Why does some mega-group get to define this for -me-, even though these issues are not a part of the essential credo?
That's the thing that is divisive. By wanting to win a political victory, various groups got together and re-defined the whole CONCEPT of 'evangelical' to be 'with us or against us'. And that ain't fair! Or very Christian.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Two Homes
I want to start off by telling you a bit about me. I'm closing in on 50 years old. I have two homes... one in Seattle, USA and the other in Dublin IE. I was raised in Ireland but I've been in the USA for so long I'm fairly well 'Americanised' (well, except for spelling ;) .) I was raised and remain a Catholic so everything I write about is within that framework.
I've noticed there are 3 factions in Seattle that have pretty much squeezed the life out of the 'traditional' religions in Seattle and that's what got me thinking about this blog.
1. 'Non-Corporate-Christians'. I don't have a good name for this uber-group because they cover a lot of ground. To me they are everyone who is not a member of a 'mainline' religious organisation like 'Episcopal', 'Presbyterian', 'Methodist', etc... I'm pretty sure this represents the majority of 'Christians' these days. Unfortunately, there is a misperception among the media and non-religious that they are all cut from the same cloth. You know this ain't true... For example, 'Fundamentalists' and 'Evangelicals' have nothing to do with Joel Osteen's brand of 'Christianity'. I think the media lumps y'all together as a political convenience... after all, the only thing this group seems to share in common is an overwhelming allegiance to Republican voting.
2. 'Spiritual But Non-Religious'. Most 'true' Seattle-ites would fall into this group. This also covers a lot of ground... various eastern philosophies, new age ideas, wiccan jazz, but mainly, it seems to me, a vague idea that there is 'something' out there beyond 'us', but certainly nothing that can be answered with traditional religions. These guys are about 98% Democratic in politics.
3. Bust out agnostics and atheists. They have a -lot- in common with Group #2 (although their politics are slightly less predictable.) Lately they have come out of the closet and are now vocal in the 'zealotry'. It seems like they feel a need to push back against what they perceive as the 'creationist threat'.
As I say in the intro, I feel squeezed by all three of these meta-groups. I can't figure out how they have come to dominate the media landscape. I know there are still a -lot- of 'traditional' church-goers like me... but you never hear about us so it seems like we've become irrelevant.
Well, I'm not quite ready to go quietly into that good night. I frankly find all three groups to be seriously deficient in their respective outlooks and I intend to explore these problems here. There is a real intolerance developing which has contributed to the polarization in the West and it is largely because each group has developed quite the 'holier-than-thou' attitude which would seem to contradict centuries of progress towards tolerance and communication between people of different belief systems.
I also want to provide a forum for anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that 'faith' and 'science' -do- go together---without apologies and without a bunch of lengthy circular logic. I'm talking about unabashed belief in God... yes, a 'personal' God that runs the whole show. But not finding that incompatible with 'evolution' or 'string theory'. And not feeling a need to destroy our faith when it's leaders are found wanting. And not denying scientific reality because of various phrases in a religious text.
There's a lot to cover, but I've gassed on enough for now. Trying to keep these things 'bite-sized' will be a challenge for a world-class ranter such as meself. ;)
---JC
I've noticed there are 3 factions in Seattle that have pretty much squeezed the life out of the 'traditional' religions in Seattle and that's what got me thinking about this blog.
1. 'Non-Corporate-Christians'. I don't have a good name for this uber-group because they cover a lot of ground. To me they are everyone who is not a member of a 'mainline' religious organisation like 'Episcopal', 'Presbyterian', 'Methodist', etc... I'm pretty sure this represents the majority of 'Christians' these days. Unfortunately, there is a misperception among the media and non-religious that they are all cut from the same cloth. You know this ain't true... For example, 'Fundamentalists' and 'Evangelicals' have nothing to do with Joel Osteen's brand of 'Christianity'. I think the media lumps y'all together as a political convenience... after all, the only thing this group seems to share in common is an overwhelming allegiance to Republican voting.
2. 'Spiritual But Non-Religious'. Most 'true' Seattle-ites would fall into this group. This also covers a lot of ground... various eastern philosophies, new age ideas, wiccan jazz, but mainly, it seems to me, a vague idea that there is 'something' out there beyond 'us', but certainly nothing that can be answered with traditional religions. These guys are about 98% Democratic in politics.
3. Bust out agnostics and atheists. They have a -lot- in common with Group #2 (although their politics are slightly less predictable.) Lately they have come out of the closet and are now vocal in the 'zealotry'. It seems like they feel a need to push back against what they perceive as the 'creationist threat'.
As I say in the intro, I feel squeezed by all three of these meta-groups. I can't figure out how they have come to dominate the media landscape. I know there are still a -lot- of 'traditional' church-goers like me... but you never hear about us so it seems like we've become irrelevant.
Well, I'm not quite ready to go quietly into that good night. I frankly find all three groups to be seriously deficient in their respective outlooks and I intend to explore these problems here. There is a real intolerance developing which has contributed to the polarization in the West and it is largely because each group has developed quite the 'holier-than-thou' attitude which would seem to contradict centuries of progress towards tolerance and communication between people of different belief systems.
I also want to provide a forum for anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that 'faith' and 'science' -do- go together---without apologies and without a bunch of lengthy circular logic. I'm talking about unabashed belief in God... yes, a 'personal' God that runs the whole show. But not finding that incompatible with 'evolution' or 'string theory'. And not feeling a need to destroy our faith when it's leaders are found wanting. And not denying scientific reality because of various phrases in a religious text.
There's a lot to cover, but I've gassed on enough for now. Trying to keep these things 'bite-sized' will be a challenge for a world-class ranter such as meself. ;)
---JC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)