Very interesting comments from Cal and Rooson, each in its own way. For Cal, the idea that adversity is making Christianity stronger is an established one. It is true, for instance, that by the 14th century, Christendom had fallen into a pit of excess and hubris - which then caused Europe to divide into two main courses. One, was the Reformation and the Catholic counter-reformation, both of which attempted, with varying degrees of success, to address the problems associated with the Christian nations' status quo. These did spark revivals in faith, especially among the few who were educated. The fervor of many of the new Protestants and born-again Catholics often rivaled that of the early Christians, although not always in ways that we would like - the 16th century saw the Inquisition and witch trials, the latter squashing centuries of valid knowledge concerning healing and and personal spiritual growth.
The second stream led to the Renaissance, a bugaboo with traditionalists who argue well that this brought the beginnings of modern materialism, an emphasis on this-world human development. But perhaps our time-line is off; perhaps the impact of this materialism has yet to reach its peak, and the real test of faith is yet to come, as I think Cal is saying. There are, they say, no atheists in foxholes.
Perhaps, however, Christianity is really dwindling away; by the time of Christ, the Greek and Roman religions were moribund, not through conquest, but through the very success of this greater culture. The old had simply lost power. In hindsight, we can see that the people were searching for something more genuine, and they found it in Christianity. But perhaps now, it no longer feels genuine. Perhaps it has lost its power through time, the once-great insights of Christ now being reduced to tired cliches. In much the same way, we have seen language diminished - for instance "awesome," as everyone past 30 knows, no longer has the impact it once had. It is not that the meaning behind it is no longer "awesome" - but that we have co-opted it, brought it under the umbrella of the mundane. Christianity may now be in the same position. Its meaning is as great and mysterious as ever, but it no longer captures the imagination of the great majority, when one includes all of culturally European-based people.
Will our "falling apart" revive it? I think yes, with some; but with many, no; and for those, a new way to deeper meaning would have to be found. Religions last a long time, but never, as far as we know, do they last forever. They need to be made fresh in another guise : in another wine container, as Jesus would have it.
Which brings us to Rooson's comment. There was much said there that I agree with, but we always come to that idea, which is in the Bible, that one can only come to God through Christ. I must reiterate my own belief that Christ, too, might come in different containers. We must ask questions: will illusions to shepherds continue to reverberate in a world where almost no one is conscious of the land and practices that provide him with food and clothing? Will tales of despots like Herod and Caesar resonate with a people who know nothing of such styles of government? Or of provincial peoples such as the ancient Jews with their strict prejudices and rules, when we are all aware of each other through the internet, or something even greater in the future? Do I court heresy when I say that maybe Christianity as we know it is coming to an end, to be replaced by something whose surface structure is more suitable for the times? Did, for instance, Christ come to the Chinese and the Hindus and so forth in the guise that most suited that time and place?
Is, then, Christ not a man, but a symbol, a position in the heart that binds a person with all people, and all people with God? Could deification of the human vessel and name of Jesus be the true heresy? I know that might be a little strong, but I put it forth to make a point. Christianity might rise again in adversity, but perhaps not as the Christianity we now know. Although we might still find God only through Christ, in some other time or place this might not be through the image of Jesus. For the bread and wine represent his body and blood, but are not body and blood - just as Jesus represented Christ, but was not, as a body, the Christ. That is, that the spirit and meaning are eternal, but the particular vessels in which they are carried are as mutable as anything else made of matter or by man. FK
The second stream led to the Renaissance, a bugaboo with traditionalists who argue well that this brought the beginnings of modern materialism, an emphasis on this-world human development. But perhaps our time-line is off; perhaps the impact of this materialism has yet to reach its peak, and the real test of faith is yet to come, as I think Cal is saying. There are, they say, no atheists in foxholes.
Perhaps, however, Christianity is really dwindling away; by the time of Christ, the Greek and Roman religions were moribund, not through conquest, but through the very success of this greater culture. The old had simply lost power. In hindsight, we can see that the people were searching for something more genuine, and they found it in Christianity. But perhaps now, it no longer feels genuine. Perhaps it has lost its power through time, the once-great insights of Christ now being reduced to tired cliches. In much the same way, we have seen language diminished - for instance "awesome," as everyone past 30 knows, no longer has the impact it once had. It is not that the meaning behind it is no longer "awesome" - but that we have co-opted it, brought it under the umbrella of the mundane. Christianity may now be in the same position. Its meaning is as great and mysterious as ever, but it no longer captures the imagination of the great majority, when one includes all of culturally European-based people.
Will our "falling apart" revive it? I think yes, with some; but with many, no; and for those, a new way to deeper meaning would have to be found. Religions last a long time, but never, as far as we know, do they last forever. They need to be made fresh in another guise : in another wine container, as Jesus would have it.
Which brings us to Rooson's comment. There was much said there that I agree with, but we always come to that idea, which is in the Bible, that one can only come to God through Christ. I must reiterate my own belief that Christ, too, might come in different containers. We must ask questions: will illusions to shepherds continue to reverberate in a world where almost no one is conscious of the land and practices that provide him with food and clothing? Will tales of despots like Herod and Caesar resonate with a people who know nothing of such styles of government? Or of provincial peoples such as the ancient Jews with their strict prejudices and rules, when we are all aware of each other through the internet, or something even greater in the future? Do I court heresy when I say that maybe Christianity as we know it is coming to an end, to be replaced by something whose surface structure is more suitable for the times? Did, for instance, Christ come to the Chinese and the Hindus and so forth in the guise that most suited that time and place?
Is, then, Christ not a man, but a symbol, a position in the heart that binds a person with all people, and all people with God? Could deification of the human vessel and name of Jesus be the true heresy? I know that might be a little strong, but I put it forth to make a point. Christianity might rise again in adversity, but perhaps not as the Christianity we now know. Although we might still find God only through Christ, in some other time or place this might not be through the image of Jesus. For the bread and wine represent his body and blood, but are not body and blood - just as Jesus represented Christ, but was not, as a body, the Christ. That is, that the spirit and meaning are eternal, but the particular vessels in which they are carried are as mutable as anything else made of matter or by man. FK
RSS Feed