Why I Write This Blog

Google Image
I’m coming up on my 250th blog since I began publishing them five years ago.

I’m sure many people who see them on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter, or receive a notice of them each week by e-mail, wonder why I do it. After all, religion is about as popular as taxes, something that’s on the mind of many of us this time of year.

Many people consider religion a personal matter, not to be discussed in polite society. This has, to some extent, been the case as long as I can remember, but nothing like today. In today’s society, discussing religion is as close as you can get to taboo.

So why do I write them?

Well, there are personal reasons, a hint of which can be found in the bio on my blogger home page. Having been a priest and a journalist, I have training and experience that lend themselves to writing such a blog. I suppose I’ve thought, “If I don’t write about the faith I’ve struggled to nourish all my life, who will?”

Always questioned his faith
“Ah,” some might think, “this guy used to be a priest, so he would naturally defend religion and faith.” Not necessarily. I consider myself a skeptic, someone who has always questioned his faith. Contrary to what many who know me may believe, my doubts have at times outweighed my belief.

But I also believe that writing this blog has become a way to continue what I started as a priest but because of current church law, haven’t been able to continue in the same way. (I don’t fault the church, by the way. It was my choice to leave the priesthood, although I do hope for a change in who can be a priest. I especially favor that role for women.)

I also write the blog because I understand and empathize with my fellow skeptics who struggle to embrace God and religion. I respect whatever decisions they make about these topics but hope my weekly offerings can help frame the issues and help them make rational and heartfelt decisions.

Google Image
And I write the blog because I have the impression that many of the people who reject, or are indifferent to, God and religion do so for rather flimsy reasons. Studies show that huge numbers of Americans are ignorant about theology, including the theology of their own - or their former - faith.

I’m no expert, but I try to read a lot on a variety of topics, including religion and theology. And when I do, I think that I’m doing so for readers who would like to be better informed but are slowed by the hectic pace of modern life, their own fears and anxieties or other reasons.

I believe the climate of opinion influencing disbelief and disinterest in religion is obvious. In novels, especially about crime or espionage, which I occasionally read, there’s almost always a presumption that “nobody still believes in religion.” No reasons are ever given. No rational arguments are made. It often simply appears to be a matter of the author making sure his readers know he’s “current.”

But the influence of books on public opinion is negligible compared to that of TV, at least before the age of social media (which mostly ignores God and religion). And in my opinion, no shows had more influence over people’s beliefs and practices, at least of those now in their 30s and 40s, than Seinfeld and Friends.

Seinfeld, which ruled TV between 1989 and 1998, is “widely considered to be one of the greatest and most influential sitcoms ever made,” according to Wikipedia. And all 10 seasons of Friends, on the tube from 1994 to 2004, “ranked within the top ten of the final television season ratings, ultimately reaching the no. 1 spot in its eighth season.”

How to be liberated
These shows, and copycats, showed young people of the time “how to be modern, liberated people.” The plots were often based on the characters’ sexual tensions and rarely included any reference to God or religion. The not-so-subtle message: Unlike your parents and grandparents, you don’t need God or the “restrictions” of religion in your lives.

These shows didn’t make these societal changes single-handedly, but they are, in my view, largely responsible. And they’re even more responsible for the sexual revolution, in which religion barely fired a shot.

I have the impression that many people today wouldn’t embrace religion for the same reason they wouldn’t wear wide-legged jeans, eat mostly meat and potatoes, or if female, wear their hair in a bun. In other words, there’s not much thought given to such an important decision. I hope I’m wrong.

And I hope my weekly blogs inject a bit of thoughtfulness – no matter how small - into this scenario. I believe many people, including those who consider themselves completely “secular,” having no apparent interest in God or religion, at times long for God and the help religion can provide.

I write these blogs for them, even though few of them may actually read them. I appreciate other readers, but honestly, you’re just along for the ride.

Comments

  1. Carol McGarveyApril 13, 2018 at 9:20 AM

    And we're glad you write them. Congrats on 250.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more