.
I’m thinking about starting a church.
This may sound like a wacky idea coming from a basically a-religious person like me, but a church is the only way I can think of to accomplish my goal.
I’d like to create an institution that brings people together on a regular basis, perhaps weekly, in a building set aside for the purpose. There they will hear a short speech laying out a facet of a philosophy on how people can better live together, as well as take part in a meeting that lays out courses of action to improve the institution and the lives of the people it touches. I want this institution to be a living, breathing thing because the people who are part of it really believe in the importance of its existence and the work that is done in its name. That work should include charity, education, and support, not only of the people who belong, but also of other people in the community nearby.
That is a fair description of the best of the churches run by the religious right. The weekly service brings people together, where the sermon and the music give them a thought for the week. The Sunday school classes provide education about that thought and often are also committees that band together to take action, whether that be volunteering for a shift at the local food bank or getting a group together to picket a funeral. The offering provides funds to run the church, reach out to prospective members, buy the supplies they need, pay the preacher, and even give a few dollars to a family facing hard times.
And in and among the music and the light shows that seduce people into paying attention to the religious message, they drip, drip, drip into their ears the political philosophy of the Republican Party.
There are, of course, many churches that take no stand on politics and even some where parishioners are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, but I know of none that unabashedly supports Democratic candidates and referenda in the way that the churches of the religious right do. And I don’t see how we build the kind of support the Republicans have without a similar institution that does.
So I’m thinking about starting a church. Wanna join?
.
6 comments:
Techinally while I'm a atheistic leaning agnostic, I'm also am a ordained minster even have the paper that says so, go figure for a guy who dislikes religion. I think what separates liberals from conservative generally but not always is that we rely more on reason and logic to solve problems and less on superstition, and mysticism. Also aren't Unitarians usually Democrats?
No, what separates conservatives from liberals in that conservatives are humble enough to understand that human nature is neither changeable nor a possible subject of scientific inquiry (given that it is impossible to examine without bias).
Cathy, what you describe seems very close to what the Unitarian Church already offers. We went to the Unity Church for a year or so, but the local church seemed to be quite enthralled with the materialism of "The Secret" ...that Carl Jungian-way of approaching life by embracing the spiritual realm of reality ...though that doesn't quite explain it very well. I've always embraced the philosophy of "The Secret," personally, I never thought of it as a way to gain materially, but more of a way to engage in a more meaningful life.
Anyway, that's why we are going to begin attending the Unitarian Church soon. Unfortunately, my wife has been in the hospital recently and is still fighting off the secondary infection she picked up there, so we will begin to go when she's in better health. But, out of curiosity, Cathy, what would be different about your new church than what the Unitarian church offers?
And, in response to Dave's observation that "aren't all Unitarians Democrats?" I'd say, definitively, "no!" At least not at the church on East 21st St.
Cathy, I would, however, be interested in joining a regularly scheduled discussion group that would embrace all things from philosophy to politics.
There are plenty of religious groups out there that are unabashedly liberal. They don't tend to get the same kind of following or attention, though, because they often are more intersted in politics than in doing any of the other things people turn to a religion to do for them, like helping them make sense out of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. People don't go to church or synagogue to hear how they should vote on House bill 8056; tey go to church or synagogue to find comfort in their own sufferings.
If the mainline churches have suffered a decline over the past 40 years, it's because they've failed to understand that.
If churches are only for people who are in trouble, how do you explain the successful (both materially and spiritually) people who are pillars of them? To me, church is where I go to think about how to live a better life and to provide a center for my philanthropy.
I'm not really suggesting that a new church needs to be formed, just that the church structure is an excellent paradigm for creating a political movement. We've seen that in the religious right.
I don't know of any liberal church that provides its parishioners with voting guides in the way that so many conservative churches do. And I've never seen one of those guides that recommends that a Democrat be voted for, even when the Democrat is anti-choice and anti-gay. Somehow, the church always finds the Republican to be sufficiently compelling that the Democrat is bypassed.
I've never attended a Unitarian service. I'll have to look into that in the new year.
I think you're overly focused on financial trouble. Wealthy people can still suffer disease despite being good people, have children die or go missing, undergo psychological stress.
I am not suggesting that churches and synagogues should not be centers of charity and good works. What I am not just suggesting, but flat-out saying, is that churches that refuse to perform their primary responsibility--of giving their members an overarching view of the world and help understanding their place in it--are not likely to survive over the long term. I don't need synagogue to be just another place that rehashes what's on the New York Times editorial page.
As for voting guides--no, I haven't seen them either. But I've been in liberal congregations that did everything but. I became truly disgusted with a synagogue in New York where practically every speech by the rabbi dealt with the Iraq war. She established a practice of reading the names of the dead and having people stand for them. At one point, she went on sabbatical, and when she came back, she made a point of saying how she had been "looking forward" to this moment--as though the Upper West side had afforded her no opportunities to pursue her liberal politics during her time off. What rubbish.
It says a lot that we never refer to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as "the religious left." I've never heard one person on the left suggest that Al Sharpton's involvement in poltiics is inappropriate on the grounds that he's a man of the cloth. People only seem to conclude there's too much religion in politics when it's politics they disapprove of.
Post a Comment