In my ever so humble opinion, this article on religion in the Muncie Star Press is a jumble of vague language. I suspect the author is capable enough but is dancing around some uncomfortable truths.
The article says that Americans are “less dogmatic” about religious beliefs than they used to be but that might not be the case in Muncie.
[I]n Muncie, where Christian attitudes are dominant with limited voices from other religions, the path to eternal life continues to be in traditional beliefs.
Oh, so Catholicism? That’s pretty traditional – not like that Johnny-come-lately rabble rouser, Martin Luther. And don’t get me started on that radical John Calvin. Talk about your non-traditional iconoclasts. But, we don’t really get a hint from the article about what constitutes “tradition.”
Another winning passage:
Charlotte Overmeyer, associate pastor of High Street United Methodist Church, agrees with the importance of learning about other faiths and though she stands strong in her Christian beliefs and that path for eternal life, she doesn’t find harm in discussions alternative faiths. In fact, she, like some other religious leaders, would like to see more religious diversity in Muncie.
“Diversity is kind of exciting to me, to meet people of other faiths,” she said. “Can I listen to other people? Can I explore what other people believe? I’m not threatened by that. I’m glad for the discussion.”
I’m completely thrown by the phrase “that path for eternal life.” Which path to eternal life is that? Adherence to Methodist teachings? And what of those people of diverse faith? Are they off the path? And, if so, are they just on the planet to provide exciting discussions for true believers before they go to hell?
As to the central point of diversity, I think a certain degree of self-righteousness has to be built into the DNA of any religion, otherwise it doesn’t survive through the ages. I’ve found the notion of memetics to be helpful in thinking about religions and their component beliefs. With memetics, religions and other ideas act in many respects like independent organisms; using people as sort of hosts that assist in replication. Like any other organism, religions have to look out for their own integrity so they can be replicated from host to host in substantially the same form. A successful religion pretty much has to have a mechanism for rejecting foreign invaders — like white blood cells in the human body, equipped to destroy pathogens.
If a religion, as an organism, doesn’t have mechanisms built in to ensure replication in substantially its original form, it will dissipate and cease to exist in a recognizable form. Consequently, a successful religion is not likely to hold as a central tenet that any old religion will get you to heaven. There would be no impetus for people to pass the religion to other people intact. A religion that specifies that its adherents are going to heaven and adherents of other religions are going to hell has a competitive advantage in the ecosystem of ideas — up to a point. Once competing adherents start killing each other off, the religions start losing overall adherents. Sort of like when the white blood cells in the body get out of control, causing more problems than they’re solving.
I’m in between church services right now-looking for a bit of light reading. What are you on today, Doug?!? Just kidding-but not about the light reading part.
Anyway I really didn’t get a grip on what the author was talking about. I mean I got their main point-Muncie is more Christian than other parts of the nation. But the “traditional” part can be taken in a couple of different ways. My initial inclination was to take it to mean the traditional American Christian faiths-Pentecostal, Baptist, etc. Then I thought maybe Doug was right in mentioning Catholic. But then I see that the author interviewed Methodist and Quaker leaders-and no Caholic leaders. So I really don’t know what they mean by “traditional,” unless that is a catch-phrase to just mean “Christian.”
Guess I’ve never personally felt that way. But then again I’ve never explored it from that angle. You are right in saying that each faith tradition-and even denomination within the Christian faith-has to believe for some reason they are the “superior” way to survive. Right now I see the Presbyterians are going to have to figure out what that is-as at their general meeting this past week they voted to approve non-celibate gay clergy to be ordained. My own denomination will eventually be faced with the same challenge in either 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. At one of our assemblies that will be approved. It’s just a matter of time.
And yet, getting back to the germane question, yes, I think there has to be a certain amount of that thought whenever we are in discussion with someone of another faith. In my case, I’ll say that it is somewhere in the recesses of my mind. What is most important to me when I am in interfaith conversations is discovering those areas where we agree. And oftentimes those areas can be larger than one would expect.
What I’m hoping that Methodist minister was getting at was a sense of mutual respect whenever you are in those conversations. That is the only way that multiple faiths can exist on this planet, and yet that we can also learn how to live in peace with one another.
It’s been nearly 491 years (on Halloween) that Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. Guess 500 years is the cut off for no longer being Johnny-come-lately;-)
Five hundred years? I’m still skeptical of Deuteronomy. :)
As for the whole religion-as-meme thing, a very readable book I enjoyed was The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Exploration into the Forces of History (1997). That’s only a subset of what the book is about, but as I recall there is a lengthy discussion of Islam as a particularly aggressive religious organism.
Ive been to lots of different chruches of different denominations in this country and in Europe. Church is a large support group and activities center and any sucessful church has social activities for every demographic.Church is a reflection of the cultural views of the parishioners,and also an arbiter of the culture they influence. At least American religion is like that.
There’s much less going on in Europe on the purely socializing level.Thats why the American religious experience is so strong.A successful church has something organized for every demographic group they can identify.
Even religious study groups can include pot luck food.In my experience religion in Europe is more a ‘serious endeavor’,and attendance is not so good.
It’s a saying that the French go to church 3 times in their life’s cycle and maybe a couple times a year to boot… when they are baptized,get married and die,also for Christmas and Easter.Mass gives structure to the reveillon they celebrate at midnight.
Doug, from what I’ve read on Islam, I think you’re right. It has always been a faith that has grown through violence. Although we Christians have to also take a hard look at our history, too.
Lou, there are many out there who think the church is there for the ministires of hatch, match and dispatch. And at least one of those services, the person really doesn’t participate;-) You’re right that a big part of the driving force in churches in America is the social aspect.
And Deuteronomy??? I loves my shrimp and pork, my mixed fibers, my woman cuts her hair–that book really doesn’t have much influence in the grand scheme of biblical texts!