Relevancy and the Cult of Self

Google Image
I often criticize religion in these blogs for its lack of relevance. I believe many people agree, asking themselves “Why do I need it? I’m comfortable living my life as is. Religion has nothing to do with my life.”

The trick for religion is making itself relevant without giving up its fundamental principles; otherwise, it has nothing to say to modern society. One way of doing this, in the case of Christianity, is by continual review of its fundamental principles – making sure they are in line with what Jesus taught - and speaking about them in a clear, “non-churchy” way.

I realize, of course, that “relevance” is personal and subjective. For some people, it means isolating their thoughts and judgments from objective criteria. But many decide what is relevant mostly from what society currently approves and promotes. For them, being current is definitive in deciding what matters and what’s right and wrong. Their principal argument against religion is that it’s “old fashioned.”

PBS News Hour
I was reminded of this when recently reading David Brooks’ satirical essay in the New York Times. If you’re unfamiliar with Brooks, he is a Times columnist and a regular commentator, along with Mark Shields, on PBS News Hour with Judy Woodruff.

Some describe Brooks as a “conservative,” but I don’t like such labels. Usually, I think, he “calls ‘em like he sees ‘em.”

In his essay, “The Morality of Selfism, The Gospel of Saint You,” Brooks satirizes what he sees as the current obsession with self and the adoption of values that conform to our “lifestyles” at the expense of objective moral values. 

“We live in a culture of selfism — a culture that puts tremendous emphasis on self, on self-care and self-display,” he writes. “And one of the things we’ve discovered is that you can be a very good person while thinking only about yourself!



“Back in the old days,” he continues, “people thought morality was about living up to some external standard of moral excellence. Abraham Lincoln tried to live a life of honesty and courage. Mother Teresa tried to live up to a standard of selfless love.




David Brooks
Google Image
“But now we know this is actually harmful! In the first place, when people hold up external standards of moral excellence, they often make you feel judged. These people make you feel sad because you may not live up to this standard. It’s very cruel of them to make you feel troubled in this way! It’s very cruel of them to make you feel troubled in this way!”

As for relevance, he continues the satire.

“People are always talking about how Nelson Mandela came out of prison and tried to usher in an era of forgiveness and reconciliation. That’s all very well and good for Nelson Mandela, but what does this have to do with your life?

“If people are talking to you, shouldn’t they be focusing their attention on your life? Shouldn’t they be saying things you can relate to? If somebody starts talking about some grand hero who is dead or lives far away, you should just respond, “Sorry, that’s not relatable.”

This idea of relevance will not work for people searching for God in the Judeo-Christian tradition because Judaism and Christianity depend on following a way of living that believers contend has been revealed by God.

The Ten Commandments are a good example, or Psalm 15 in the Hebrew Bible, which lays out what, for people searching for God, is right and wrong. The first line asks what kind of life is approved by God. The rest of the psalm answers the question.

Acts with Justice
“He who walks without fault; he who acts with justice and speaks the truth from his heart; he who does not slander with his tongue; he who does no wrong to his brother, who casts no slur on his neighbor….”

Nor is the Christian Bible timid about telling it like it is. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul tells us what it means to love.

“Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.”


Comments

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