I’m not so concerned about what will take the place of the Church as I am about the absence of any type of community. I don’t think the institutional church is a healthy form of community, which is why I am so critical of it and advocate its passing.

But my desire to preserve some of the remnants of my faith comes from my brief contacts with what I consider true community within the confines of Christianity. I see some good there that I think should be preserved.

I will say those good ideas (justice, mercy, freedom) transend religion and therefore do not need to keep labels such as ‘Christian’ or ‘church.’ Religion is merely a forced version of those things so you are right to say that personal choice and personal responsibility come after religion.

I find myself seeking community based on those ‘good things.’

I looked up the definition of community and I found a few entries from Merriam-Webster that resonate with me:

-a unified body of individuals.

-a people with common interests living in a particular area.

-an interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common location.

-a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.

-mike

I agree with you that the ideas behind religion, and in particular western Christianity, are wrong. But I think we have to be realistic about that fact that religion has been around for as long as humans have. Like you said, trashing it all will never happen on a large scale. Religion will be around long after you and I are gone because those hungry for power will always use it to their advantage.

However, I believe the idea of freedom, justice, mercy, and compassion for all humans is not wrong. I would argue that in many cases, these ideas are in direct competition with religious ideas. It is where these two sets of ideas collide that I want use an example.

Now I understand what you mean about the method being irrelevant because the idea is wrong. But in order for errant religious ideas to be brought down, something must be offered in their place. I would turn to Martin Luther as an example that proves both of our viewpoints.

In proving mine, he introduced a model that brought about much equality and freedom for the time period. It was a step in the right direction, not a full step mind you, but a step.

In proving yours, because it was based on faulty ideas, Luther’s version of church became just as bad as the Catholic version he left. So any method is wrong because the ideas are wrong.

So I guess my question for you would be, if it all could be trashed, what then?

-mike

In the context of this post, the term church is relevant. In a larger scope, maybe not.

I agree that my description of what I thought true church could be broadened to the phrase “true humans.” I also have no doubt that those who act with compassion and justice and mercy may never step foot in a church or consider themselves part of a church. And that is just fine.

However, when I use the term church I am doing so purposefully.

Let me try to explain where I’m coming from. Ideally, “good people” are boundless. They see humanity first, they see the individual first. These “good people” are nation-less, they transcend nationalities, borders, governments, and self-imposed social boundaries.

But let’s be honest, these people make up a small number of our society. Most people, because of either their conditioning or a built-in need, these boundaries help them define their identity. “Church” is one of those boundaries. Therefore, I think people can be “true humans” and still work within those boundaries.

I don’t think it is an ideal situation because any type of self-imposed social construct may start out with good intentions, but ultimately will turn into something much more sinister and controlling.

So when I compare the evangelical church and the true church, it is within these ideas I speak:

Consider Shane Claiborne and the simple way. No one thrust the limitations they live within on them. They felt they could best serve humanity within their own self-implemented rules.

So I would consider them “good people”, but I would also consider them the true church.

On the other hand, self-imposed rules that are forced onto others, like those of evangelical Christianity or conservative Islam, are exactly the opposite of freedom. The problem is the subtleness in which people are convinced to self-restrict themselves for some false sense of holiness.

This I why I said the evangelical model can never become the true version of freedom because it is built on teaching others to place self-imposed boundaries on themselves that they otherwise would not.

I’ve wondered if we can’t just trash it all. But the fact of the matter is we can’t because it would create a vacuum that would be filled with some other social construct.

Hence the idea of a “true church.”

Thanks for pressing me to better develop my thoughts on this idea.

-mike

Yes, I think there was a true church, I think there always has been, long before the term church, and always will be, long after such a term fades away. So if we dispense with the term church, what I speak of is a group of people who are pro-creation, those who take care of one another as well as this planet.

I do not speak of some sort of vegan hippie culture. I speak of those who value each human individually and realize the necessity of good stewardship of our planet.

Therefore I think this group of people was always meant to exist in order to be a voice of justice and advocates for peace against those who would rape and pillage anything and everything on earth out of greed.

-mike

I knew he was from KY, but how did you end up on stage with him? He is on my list, but my list grows faster than I can keep up.

I still have not read any McLaren. He is also on my list. I’m intrigued when you say his book makes you feel excited about being a Christian. How so? Shane Claiborne did the same for me, especially Jesus for President.

-mike