Daar is in
vanoggend se NYT ‘n artikel van Douthout, 'n gereelde rubriekskrywer, wat vrae vra oor die negatiewe kant
van godsdiens.
Hy skryf dat godsdiens wel ‘n opmerklik positiewe uitwerking het op mense wat
gereelde kerkgangers is.
Maar onder mense wat net nomineel Christene is, gaan
dit sleg. Hulle lewens is grootliks in ‘n gemors: hulle is arm, ongesond,
korrup en openbaar negatiewe sosiale gedrag. Hul godsdiens maak geen verskil aan hul lewens nie. Trouens, die teendeel lyk amper waar.
Wat tel is dus nie
kerklidmaatskap nie, maar ‘n aktiewe geloofslewe. Waar godsdiens ‘n formaliteit
is, kan dit selfs slegter wees as ‘n gebrek aan godsdiens. Getalles vir
egskeiding en kinders buite die huwelik is veel groter onder nie-praktiserende
Christene.
Miskien is hierdie opmerkings nie verbasend nie. Ons ken die verskynsel reeds uit Bybelse tekste as
skynheiligheid: mense het die skyn van geloof, maar hul lewens verloën dit.
Hulle leef nie deugde uit nie, is ongevoelig teenoor ander en het nie ‘n
verantwoordelikheidsbesef nie. Dit is mense wat aan die kerk behoort omdat dit
vir hulle voordelig is.
Hul lewens lyk so hard omdat hul gewetens oënskynlik toegeskroei is. Selfs die lig van godsdiens kan die donkerte nie uitdryf nie.
Nie alles is egter so
eenvoudig nie.
Party onkerklike mense respekteer mense die kerk, maar hulle neem nie deel aan
kerklike aktiwiteite nie. Dink maar aan jongmense wat nie eredienste bywoon
nie.
Ook hulle lewens ly onder negatiewe
gevolge. Sonder dat hulle dit weet of bedoel, mis hulle dan die ondersteuning van mede-gelowiges, val hulle terug in eensaamheid en isolasie en groei hulle nie geestelik nie. Dan het hulle ook nie 'n sterk mondering teenoor negatiewe gedrag en invloede nie. Hulle ly onder hulle eie afsondering en afstande van die kerk.
Nou skryf Douthout, sou sommige mense sou triomfantelik uitroep dat die Bybel reg is. Dit is
beter om koud of warm, as om louwarm te wees.
Maar hy voeg by
die kerk moenie te gou oordeel nie. As ‘n kerk hand in eie boesem steek, is die
vraag waarom die kerk nie meer doen om die louwarm lidmate nader te bring nie.
Wat doen die kerk vir jongmense? Wat doen die kerk vir mense wat arm is,
ongesond is en swaarkry onder sosiale druk? ‘n Lewende kerk moet tog sulke
mense kan nader trek?
Die vraag is nou
hoe om oor die a-kerklike groep te dink. Hoekom bly die mense weg? Is dit omdat
die kerk op sekere maniere praat oor hul lewens wat hulle nie oortuig nie of
wat hulle afskrik?
Meer nog: Wil ‘n
mens dat die kerke weer groot groepe mense nader trek en vir hulle leer dat
geboortebeperking teen God se wil is, dat net mans die ampte mag beklee, dat rasse geskei moet word en dat 'n geloof sonder twyfel 'n mens voorspoedig sal maak?
Is dit, vra die
artikel, dan nie maar beter dat hierdie groepe kerklos moet bly nie?
Dit is ‘n kwelling
dat Douthat kan dink dat sommige kerke so negatief is dat dit maar beter is dat
hulle lidmate die pad vat. Dit beteken nie dat die skrywer self noodwendig gekritiseer
moet word nie.
Sinvoller is dat
‘n mens gaan nadink oor hoe liefdevol die kerk oorkom tot mense wat elke dag in
nood is, en ook oor hoe die kerk uitreik na mense wat formeel lidmate is, maar
liewer nie aan kerkaktiwiteite wil deelneem nie.
Lees die artikel hier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-christian-penumbra.html?emc=edit_th_20140330&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55992893 Hier is ‘n interesante paar reaksies van lesers:
Baloney. Plenty of poor struggling
people in the deep South participate in religious faith, maybe even more so
than the successful happy people elsewhere. The more successful probably
participate only modestly; i.e. they are smart or well off enough to know that
they shouldn't let their religion interfere with real life; that it is only for
traditions and celebrations.
Ross Douthat attributes the churches’
waning influence to their “being constantly disfavored, pressured and policed.”
But the fault doesn’t lie with outside forces. To diagnose the true causes of
their problems, red-state religious conservatives should look to their own
behavior. Young and working-class people are repulsed by their sexism, their
ugly bigotry against gays, Muslims and other “out” groups, and their
mean-spiritedness towards the poor.
Evangelicals and right-wing Catholics have
sullied their image by aligning themselves with the GOP—the party of
negativity, misogyny, racism, warmongering, unapologetic torture and gleeful
imposition of the death penalty. The Republican primaries in 2012 seemed like a
competition to see who could act most like the hate-filled Baptist Reverend
Fred Phelps.
Going to church every Sunday isn’t a true measure of virtue. What
counts is how you behave towards your fellow man (and woman and child on food
stamps) every other day of the week.
Let's not confuse correlation with
causation.
It could just as easily be said that wealth, status and income are
solid predictors of church participation along the penumbra.
Church becomes
just another box to check of activities taken and tasks accomplished, like
healthful eating and exercise.
Unions have done more for economic
mobility and social justice in terms of sharing the wealth than churches have.
Churches are usually on the side of the power structure or at least they strive
to explain why the power structure should win and true believers neednot worry
because heaven is theirs. It used to be in the bad old days that at least the
Catholic Church recognized that religious schools should be supported by the
members of the religion but things have changed. Bishops now feel they should
be consulted about legislation and give their blessing before its passed. If
not, they want exemptions no matter what but they still want their federal
money.
Institutional religion wants temporal power and if it doesn't get it
all hell wil break loose. The patterns are there religion or a claim to being
religious doesn't translate into a civil or educated society. No doubt there
are some pretty forward thinking religious leaders but mnay of them are small
minded institution protecting fanatics who think that the USA would be a better
place if only it were a theocracy. Of course the only theocracy they want is
the one that is run by them but then they cannot imagine another. Theocracies
are bad for humans.
The money-changers don't require a
disciplined, rigorous Christian thinking from their participants. Any malignant
bigot is welcomed into the "Christian" penumbra. They can purchase
the group identity and judgmental arrogance that form the hot core of fake
churches all over America. The members can call themselves “Christian” just by
subscribing to the blind ignorance, vindictiveness, meanness and rage that
characterize the likes of John Hagee, Fred Phelps, the Schlaflys, Franklin
Graham, and all the other hate consortia that form Commercial “Christianity.”
Their
principal business is shameless self-mythology. Of course these are the people
and the places where poverty, poor health, political corruption and social
disarray flourish. Here are high rates of teen pregnancy, drug abuse,
alcoholism, porn consumption, and broken homes. Here, not coincidentally, is
the GOP’s base. It goes to show, doesn’t it…getting people to see themselves as
better than they really are, and indeed as much better than people they
disdain, was always and will remain a lucrative business.
That’s the
“Christian” penumbra, Ross. You’re being silly to suggest that they aren’t a
“truly healthy religious community.” They’re doing things precisely as they
intend to do them. This is all the health they want, because it’s all the truth
they want.
