Benefits of going to Church

[timothyu]

Nobody has the right to go into a church and demand to be treated as a special ambassador of truth

That is not what I said. Church should be a place where scripture can be discussed openly.

 

[FireDragon76]

I mean, to be straightforwardly honest, I do think that prolonged absence from church is bad for us. I've outlined above what I consider to be theological reasons for why.

I don't see this as a matter of "morality"--asking whether the fish needs to be in water isn't a moral question; but a question of life and death, of health--a fish out of water is in trouble. The Christian, apart from the fellowship and the means of grace which God graciously provides for us, is like a fish out of water.

I understand where you are coming from but at some point, if you understand some of the developmental theories of Clare Graves, it becomes obvious some people may reach a place of human personal development where that isn't the case, and they may not be able to serve within existing religious institutions in a particular religious tradition, because they have moved on to higher levels of personal development that cannot be contained in the institution.

I am currently reading alot of Cynthia Bourgeault and she lived as a hermit for many years. She is a priest in the Episcopal Church, and currently she practices contemplative prayer and teaches about Christian mysticism. That kind of spiritual path isn't necessarily dependent on fellowship in a church institution, nor would her spirituality be a benefit to all religious institutions.

Before the pandemic, I started to no longer grow as a person and I wasn't contributing to the church, and I was developing bad health habits. I spent the pandemic meditating and learning, and found newer, healthier habits (I returned to being a vegan, as I was years ago). Now I am seeking re-engagement with a Christian church body, to see if it's possible and productive. I have gone back to my Lutheran church to visit since, and I am still a member, but I've aloso been visiting the local United Church of Christ (Congregationalists). While I appreciate the style of worship in the Lutheran church, the spirituality of Congregationalists on the whole is more experiential and personal, and less focused on biblicism. The pastor and people there are alot more postmodern-aware and tolerant of somebody that's had ecclectic religious influences; even though we disagree on some religious perspectives (I'm still basically Lutheran in many of my attitudes), I realize its less important that we agree about where we come from in the past, than we are willing to go together into the future with a spirit of love and dialogue. I'm not sure an institution like a conservative ELCA church can contain my spirituality, to be frank.

I would investigate something like an Episcopal church but down here in Central Florida, the theology is Evangelical Anglican and is about "saving souls". I now have a more cosmic vision of Christianity rooted in the theology of St. Paul and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, one that sees 16th century Lutheranism's concerns as egocentric, versus a cosmic, creation-centered perspective. Lutherans, it still seems, are very comfortable with 16th century answers to 21st century problems, and they don't seem to express much of a desire to change their lives to respond to new challenges. It's a religion that seems very much about comfort, but I realize in this life to be comfortable is to cease to be truly alive. And it it's still largely anthropocentric instead of embracing the post-human or cosmic.

And I believe everybody can know God, that God isn't a respecter of persons- or particular religions. We should all be seeking the deeper wisdom that leads to greater flourishing, greater consciousness and sympathy towards each other and towards all life. And that can be found in many religions, not just in an evangelical formulation of Christianity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I understand where you are coming from but at some point, but if you understand some of the developmental theories of Clare Graves, it becomes obvious some people may reach a place of human personal development where that isn't the case, and they may not be able to serve within existing religious institutions in a particular religious tradition, because they have moved on to higher levels of personal development that cannot be contained in the institution.

I am currently reading alot of Cynthia Bourgeault and she lived as a hermit for many years. She is a priest in the Episcopal Church, and currently she practices contemplative prayer and teaches about Christian mysticism. That kind of spiritual path isn't necessarily dependent on fellowship in a church institution, nor would her spirituality be a benefit to all religious institutions.

I think, on this, you've lost me. I understand what you're saying, but I quite strongly disagree with the idea of someone reaching such a "place of human personal development". I wouldn't call that spiritual, but soulish. I'd view it as an example of prelest and a spiritual woundedness that itself needs mending. That I should think myself having ascended to a higher spiritual perspective, I have in fact regressed away from grace.

One of the ancient desert fathers, Sisoes the Great reportedly on his death bed was seen by the brothers at the monastery speaking to invisible persons, when they asked him who he was speaking to, he responded that he was asking the angels who had come to take him to give him more time so he could continue to repent. The brothers told him that he had lived a virtuous life and he had nothing left to repent of, to which Sisoes is reported to have said, "Truly, I do not know if I have even begun to repent.".

I think Sisoes' words are filled with profound truth worthy of contemplation. The Christian life cannot be a life lived beyond the cross, but inhabits this place at the cross. It kneels before the cross, at the foot of the cross, and one can only confess to being a beggar in need to receive what is found only here at the cross.

One of the things I have frequently been critical of with much of contemporary Christian religion, especially here in the United States, is that it frequently acts and behaves as a "beyond the cross" religion. The cross is seen as where the Christian life begins, but one eventually progresses beyond it. What I observe is much of the "conservative Evangelical" world is "a form of religion, but denying the power thereof" as Paul called it. Because of rampant preaching of theologies of glory, because there is an absence of the cross, because, I think, there has been a failure to preach repentance. Because "repentance" has been perverted and distorted to become "what that other person needs to do", rather than how I ought to live. It is, in essence, what Pastor Bonhoeffer warned of when he spoke of cheap grace. Moralism has replaced repentance. Moralism has replaced the preaching of Law, and moralism has replaced the preaching of the Gospel.

The solution, however, isn't found in the cultural opposites of modern conservative Evangelicalism. The answer to the spiritual poverty of the Religious Right isn't found in, for lack of a better terminology, religious progressivism. So, as I currently see things, I can look to the so-called conservative churches and the so-called liberal churches and I don't know that there's a big difference--speaking in broad strokes rather than looking at specific cases. Because I think in both cases there is a treatment of the cross as behind, an idea of maturing beyond the cross. And it's not just on the subject of repentance, it's in the ways that the cross is lost sight of. Without beholding the cross right in front of us, we are ultimately turning toward our own ambition, our own power, our own structures of spirituality--and that's just spiritual suicide.

Because the reality of ourselves is that we are incurvatus in se, human beings turned inward onto ourselves. The cross at once reminds us of the severity of our own sin and reveals to us the grace by which we are forgiven and healed of sin and its terrible wounds. It is not that I was once forgiven, but that I am forgiven. It is not that I once was a sinner, but that I am a sinner.

The cross is uncomfortable. The cross is scandalous. The cross isn't elegant or polite. It is shameful, it is foolishness, it is a stumbling block. But there is no higher, no greater, no more sublime reality than the Jewish Carpenter who was hung from that wooden edifice of death.

Before the pandemic, I started to no longer grow as a person and I wasn't contributing to the church, and I was developing bad health habits. I spent the pandemic meditating and learning, and found newer, healthier habits (I returned to being a vegan, as I was years ago). Now I am seeking re-engagement with a Christian church body, to see if it's possible and productive. I have gone back to my Lutheran church to visit since, and I am still a member, but I've aloso been visiting the local United Church of Christ (Congregationalists). While I appreciate the style of worship in the Lutheran church, the spirituality of Congregationalists on the whole is more experiential and personal, and less focused on biblicism. The pastor and people there are alot more postmodern-aware and tolerant of somebody that's had ecclectic religious influences; even though we disagree on some religious perspectives (I'm still basically Lutheran in many of my attitudes), I realize its less important that we agree about where we come from in the past, than we are willing to go together into the future with a spirit of love and dialogue. I'm not sure an institution like a conservative ELCA church can contain my spirituality, to be frank.

I would investigate something like an Episcopal church but down here in Central Florida, the theology is Evangelical Anglican and is about "saving souls". I now have a more cosmic vision of Christianity rooted in the theology of St. Paul and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, one that sees 16th century Lutheranism's concerns as egocentric, versus a cosmic, creation-centered perspective. Lutherans, it still seems, are very comfortable with 16th century answers to 21st century problems, and they don't seem to express much of a desire to change their lives to respond to new challenges. It's a religion that seems very much about comfort, but I realize in this life to be comfortable is to cease to be truly alive. And it it's still largely anthropocentric instead of embracing the post-human or cosmic.

And I believe everybody can know God, that God isn't a respecter of persons- or particular religions. We should all be seeking the deeper wisdom that leads to greater flourishing, greater consciousness and sympathy towards each other and towards all life. And that can be found in many religions, not just in an evangelical formulation of Christianity.

Perhaps I will seem naive in saying it. But I can't help but look and see the world around me and realize that things today aren't really all that different than five hundred years ago. Those 16th century answers seem to be as meaningful as they ever have been; and I can't help but think that's because those 16th century answers are also 1st century answers, and ultimately every-century answers. Because the cross stands at the center of time and space, it is the fixed point around which everything is ultimately oriented. Sin and death, love and forgiveness, Law and Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

The earliest 'churches' kept it simple, speaking amongst themselves of how everything Jesus said related to the coming Kingdom of God and God's will, not about man's will or how it should be presented.. Man eventually complicates things and it becomes all about man again.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think, on this, you've lost me. I understand what you're saying, but I quite strongly disagree with the idea of someone reaching such a "place of human personal development". I wouldn't call that spiritual, but soulish. I'd view it as an example of prelest and a spiritual woundedness that itself needs mending. That I should think myself having ascended to a higher spiritual perspective, I have in fact regressed away from grace.

The term "prelest" (which I am very familiar with) comes from a church that has a psychospiritual tradition that potentially places a very high value on silence, contemplation, and even the eremitic life. I know, because years ago I was an Orthodox catechumen. So I am not unfamiliar with Orthodox spirituality and asceticism.

One of the ancient desert fathers, Sisoes the Great reportedly on his death bed was seen by the brothers at the monastery speaking to invisible persons, when they asked him who he was speaking to, he responded that he was asking the angels who had come to take him to give him more time so he could continue to repent. The brothers told him that he had lived a virtuous life and he had nothing left to repent of, to which Sisoes is reported to have said, "Truly, I do not know if I have even begun to repent.".

I think Sisoes' words are filled with profound truth worthy of contemplation. The Christian life cannot be a life lived beyond the cross, but inhabits this place at the cross. It kneels before the cross, at the foot of the cross, and one can only confess to being a beggar in need to receive what is found only here at the cross.

Orthodox Christians do not understand the Cross as a blood sacrifice to assuage God's wrath, as some Lutherans do. God is impassible, and freely gives his mercy to those who seek it.

Being as I do not believe in Original Sin through an historical Adam, I understand sin potentially differently. And I understand metanoia in the true sense, the renewing ones mind. It is not a juridical concept involving penance. It's a recollection of humanity's divine vocation or theosis in this world. The Reign of God is about this world.

One of the things I have frequently been critical of with much of contemporary Christian religion, especially here in the United States, is that it frequently acts and behaves as a "beyond the cross" religion. The cross is seen as where the Christian life begins, but one eventually progresses beyond it.

I don't necessarily think we live beyond the Cross. I just understand the Cross in a manner different from historical Protestants.

I believe the spiritual life involves pressure and change, just as in all evolution. Jesus death and resurrection was a metamorphisis or the ultimate spiritualization of matter, that Jesus of Nazareth is emblematic of the New Creation which will culminate in the Parousia, when God will be "all in all".

What I observe is much of the "conservative Evangelical" world is "a form of religion, but denying the power thereof" as Paul called it. Because of rampant preaching of theologies of glory, because there is an absence of the cross, because, I think, there has been a failure to preach repentance.

I'm not speaking of a theology of glory. It's a theology of deep sympathy for the creation, akin to what the Japanese call mono no aware (the feeling of things). Of course the creation groans and travails. However, it also contains a sublime majesty, as St. Francis noted, often hidden under the lowliest things:

O sublime humility! O humble sublimity that the Lord of the Universe, God and Son of God, should so humbly hide himself for our salvation under ordinary bread! Look, then, upon the humility of God! And pour out your hearts before him. Humble yourselves that he might exalt you.

St. Francis saw that sublime humility not just in the Eucharist, but in everything that God created. And I believe this grace is not just for a select few, or even just Christians, but is there for anyone who has eyes to see. This really hit home to me several months ago listening to a Zen roshi praising St. Francis' Canticle of the Creatures.

Because "repentance" has been perverted and distorted to become "what that other person needs to do", rather than how I ought to live. It is, in essence, what Pastor Bonhoeffer warned of when he spoke of cheap grace. Moralism has replaced repentance. Moralism has replaced the preaching of Law, and moralism has replaced the preaching of the Gospel.

In the United Church of Christ, I don't encounter moralism, quite the contrary. I encounter people seeking to find depth and sincerity in their lives. Not a faith that people hid away on the back pews out of a false humility, as I see many Lutherans do at my church. Over the past few months as I've gotten to know the pastor, I found somebody who had lived the Christian life beyond the horizons of creed or dogma, and had developed a sensitivity towards the creation, in her own small way. She had an open-hearted curiosity about the world and though she was several decades older than me, she exuded vitality. When you find somebody like that, you are touching reality in a world that is increasingly unreal, where hearts are hardened and ideologies rigidly held: that in itself is a miracle.

The solution, however, isn't found in the cultural opposites of modern conservative Evangelicalism. The answer to the spiritual poverty of the Religious Right isn't found in, for lack of a better terminology, religious progressivism.

I don't want to go to a church that idolizes politics (especially right now because politics is so toxic), but I do think Christianity has to change in American culture or it will die. In that sense, religious progressivism is vital.

So, as I currently see things, I can look to the so-called conservative churches and the so-called liberal churches and I don't know that there's a big difference--speaking in broad strokes rather than looking at specific cases. Because I think in both cases there is a treatment of the cross as behind, an idea of maturing beyond the cross. And it's not just on the subject of repentance, it's in the ways that the cross is lost sight of. Without beholding the cross right in front of us, we are ultimately turning toward our own ambition, our own power, our own structures of spirituality--and that's just spiritual suicide.

Lutherans are quick to emphasize justification, but some (the anti-Pietists) absolutize this doctrine out of a despair towards praxis due to psychospiritual brokenness rooted in Lutheranism's past, with Luther himself (and look, you just can't use Bonhoeffer here because while he was Lutheran, his religion was far more radical, active, and almost Anabaptist in its ethos). St. Paul warns about a spirituality where we look in the mirror and promptly forget ourselves. The Christian life wasn't meant to be so compartmentalized. As one Episcopalian Eucharist prayer says "Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and not for renewal."

If this is spiritual suicide, you need to explain why I see Christians who live without their "fire insurance", and whose lives are obviously not spiritual wrecks. Perhaps its not all about "me and my eternal security"? Perhaps this sort of thing is more akin to Hell than to Heaven. A Hell of spiritual slumber, a perpetual Limbo where people sleep in a shadowy world of eternal rest, free from actual sin but nontheless lacking any supernatural virtue to enter Paradise or even Purgatory. St. Paul does not preach that sort of Gospel. The Gospel for St. Paul an initiation into awakening in the light of Christ. Christianity is properly a religion of moving towards enlightenment and gnosis, not despondency or akedia (which is all too real, it's tragic so many Lutherans at my church have children that need antidepressants, and don't realize the spiritual and social dimension to that condition.).

Because the reality of ourselves is that we are incurvatus in se, human beings turned inward onto ourselves.

That's only one stage of human development. At higher levels of human development, peoples sense of self expands to include their community, then an expansive consciousness that few human beings, and no societies, have actualized. Various cultures, however, have developed psychospiritual technologies that allow people to get out of this curvatio in se, as you put it, and I'm certainly not denying the validity of Lutheranism in this regard. I'm merely saying that Luther's 16th century insights are not good enough for a world where ecological holocaust and gross material inequality are all too real.

 

[timothyu]

I don't want to go to a church that idolizes politics (especially right now because politics is so toxic), but I do think Christianity has to change in American culture or it will die. In that sense, religious progressivism is vital.

Tough change considering an entire boomer generation within that nation grew up believing the two were essential in combination. Thankfully Billy Graham saw the error of his ways and repented of this. Son, no.

 

[godisagardener]

Would anyone here care to share their experience of going to church and how it benefits their faith and relationship with God?

The main benefit I find in attending church services and Bible study is the uplifting feeling I receive. There are times I feel down, have had a bad week or just don't feel sociable. And sometimes I don't even want to make the effort to go to church. But as soon as I step into the church I feel better, the burdens seem to fall away and I'm glad I'm among friends and fellow believers. Worshipping with others, studying God's word with people I've known for years, gives me a lift and a break from the world. I attend a small church, but what I get out of it is large. I know I can study at home, and do, but being among others is special.

 

[FireDragon76]

Tough change considering an entire boomer generation within that nation grew up believing the two were essential in combination. Thankfully Billy Graham saw the error of his ways and repented of this. Son, no.

I grew up in a Methodist home where religion was apolitical, in the American Protestant mainline when it was still a significant force in American culture. Today it's different.

I think the tendency to politicize Protestant Fundamentalism has been there since the 1920's. Big corporations used to pay off Fundamentalist preachers to not criticize corporations and to write religious tracts supporting their kleptocratic ideology. Even Billy Graham (who was basically a Fundamentalist preacher) took money from William Randolph Hearst, in exchange for Graham promoting Hearst's vision of American laissez-faire capitalist oligarchies and individualism.