![\"\"](\"https:\/\/31.media.tumblr.com\/1e98224c8bdffeed22f0ab2a954326a8\/tumblr_inline_n2skh8ENWs1s88eo4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n
What do you see in the picture above?\u00a0 What you see may depend on what you are looking for.\u00a0 Also, what you see one moment may not be there the next moment, or it might be the opposite of what you saw in the first place.\u00a0 Or perhaps you see two different things at the same time.\u00a0 So what do you see?<\/p>\n
Reading Ross Douthat\u2019s Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics[1]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>found me both hopeful and seething.\u00a0 I loved Douthat\u2019s commentary on mid-twentieth century American Christianity; it was at this time period that the American Church was at its peak, growing, healthy, spiritual. I also loved the final chapter; it was worth the price of the book. But when I came to the section on prosperity preachers and the \u201cname it\/claim it\u201d gang, I became livid at the memories I have experienced through the years with such outrageous movements, and I became grieved at what popular 21st<\/sup> century Christianity has done to the orthodox Christian faith.\u00a0 I am not claiming to have \u201cthe only true and pure faith myself\u201d (God knows how roller-coasterish my own spiritual journey has been), but I do know through almost 60 years on earth that some things are truly out-of-bounds to Christian orthodoxy.<\/p>\n Douthat\u2019s style is open-minded, balanced, and fair to both Protestants and Roman Catholics.\u00a0 I appreciate this.\u00a0 His book is a call to action to return to a more sane, common sense, streamlined, historically sound Christian Orthodoxy.\u00a0 For me, personally, of all our assigned texts this semester, this one has impacted me the most.\u00a0 It revived my spirit and personal theology; I was surprised by my response.\u00a0 Douthat expressed in writing much of what I have been thinking about for years.\u00a0 Several items stood out but the most outstanding was what he had to say about mystery<\/em> and paradox<\/em>.\u00a0 \u201cWhat defines this consensus, above all\u2014what distinguishes orthodoxy from heresy, the central river from the delta\u2014is a commitment to mystery and paradox.\u00a0 Mysteries abide at the heart of every religious faith, but the Christian tradition is uniquely comfortable preaching dogmas that can seem like riddles, offering answers that swiftly lead to further questions, and confronting believers with the possibility that the truth about God passes all our understanding.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Beautiful!\u00a0 I felt like I was reading Richard Rohr.\u00a0 Douthat continues:<\/p>\n Indeed, this is perhaps the greatest paradox of all\u2014that the world\u2019s most paradoxical religion has cultivated rationalism and scientific rigor more diligently than its rivals, making the Christian world safe for philosophy as well as fervor, for the study of nature as well as the contemplation of divinity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But if this spirit of paradox and mystery, of both\/and<\/em> rather than either\/or<\/em>, has made Christianity extraordinarily adaptive, it has exposed the faith to a constant criticism as well.\u00a0 One man\u2019s mystery is another man\u2019s incoherence, and the paradoxes of Christian doctrine have always been a source of scandal as well as strength\u2014not only among atheists, but also among the many honest believers to whom orthodox Christian doctrine looks like a hopeless muddle or else transparent sophistry.[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Later in the text, Douthat continues his commentary on Christian paradox:<\/p>\n Christianity is a paradoxical religion because the Jew of Nazareth is a paradoxical character.\u00a0 No history or fiction contains as many multitudes as the New Testament\u2019s Jesus.\u00a0 He\u2019s a celibate ascetic who enjoys dining with publicans and changing water into wine at weddings.\u00a0 He\u2019s an apocalyptic prophet one moment, a wise ethicist the next.\u00a0 He\u2019s a fierce critic of Jewish religious law who insists that he is fulfilling it rather than subverting it.\u00a0 He preaches a reversal of every social hierarchy while deliberately avoiding explicitly political claims.\u00a0 He promises to set parents against children and then disallows divorce; he consorts with prostitutes while denouncing even lustful thoughts.\u00a0 He makes wild claims about his own relationship with God, and perhaps his own divinity, without displaying any of the usual signs of megalomania or madness.\u00a0 He can be egalitarian and hierarchical, gentle and impatient, extraordinarily charitable and extraordinarily judgmental.\u00a0 He sets impossible standards and then forgives the worst of sinners.\u00a0 He blesses the peacemakers and then promises that he\u2019s brought not peace but the sword.\u00a0 He\u2019s superhuman one moment; the next he\u2019s weeping.\u00a0 And of course the accounts of his resurrection only heighten these paradoxes, by introducing a post-resurrection Jesus who is somehow neither a resuscitated body nor a flitting ghost but something even stranger still\u2014a being at once fleshly and supernatural, recognizable and transfigured, bearing the wounds of the crucifixion even as he passes easily through walls.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The boast of Christian orthodoxy, as codified by the councils of the early Church and expounded in the Creeds, has always been its fidelity to the whole of Jesus<\/em>.\u00a0 Its dogmas and definitions seek to encompass the seeming contradictions in the gospel narratives rather than evading them.\u00a0 Was he God or was he man?\u00a0 Both<\/em>, says orthodoxy.\u00a0 Is the kingdom he preached something to be lived out in this world or something to be expected in the next?\u00a0 Both<\/em>.\u00a0 Did he offer a blueprint for moral conduct or a call to spiritual enlightenment?\u00a0 Both<\/em>.\u00a0 Did he mean to fulfill Judaism among the Jews, or to convert the Gentile world?\u00a0 Both<\/em>.\u00a0 Was he the bloodied Man of Sorrows of Mel Gibson; the hippie, lilies-of-the field Jesus of Godspell<\/em>; or the wise moralist beloved by Victorian liberals?\u00a0 All of them and more<\/em>\u2026.[4]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So what is the difference between orthodoxy and heresy?\u00a0 This is no small question!\u00a0 Douthat skillfully compares and contrasts these two opposing notions in his 300-page book.\u00a0 He not only deals with concepts, particularly with theological concepts, but he also deals with individuals and their organizations.\u00a0 Starting with the 1960\u2019s in particular, the author describes the decline of religion in America.\u00a0 Although Americans still held to a belief in some form of God, yet their church commitments begin to wane for many reasons, not the least of which was a transformation in popular culture.\u00a0 Douthat suggests five major trends for American Christian decline in the 60\u2019s and 70\u2019s:<\/p>\n I agree with Douthat\u2019s commentary overall; the American society was changing at a frantic pace.\u00a0 But I would also add another factor, namely, consumeristic, technological advances.\u00a0 Technology, particularly the popularity of television and of its ensuing visual stimuli, particularly in pathos-ridden advertising, I believe, was another factor that contributed to orthodox Christianity\u2019s sad decline in the American culture.\u00a0 Ironically, it was particularly this technology that contributed directly to one of the Christian heresies that crept into the unaware consumers\u2019 homes, namely, Christian television programming<\/em>.\u00a0 As with anything new, there can be both positive and negative consequences.\u00a0 Television allowed Billy Graham\u2019s crusades to be aired to millions.\u00a0 But it also brought new heretical teachings that teased and captured the minds and souls of millions, including the \u201cprosperity\u201d gospel, the \u201cGod within you\u201d gospel, and the \u201cAll-American\u201d gospel.<\/p>\n Douthat does not mince words about these heresies and about the particular heretics who tout such teaching.\u00a0 He does a good job of connecting these \u201cnew\u201d teachings with beliefs that have been challenging Christian orthodoxy for centuries.\u00a0 And although there is \u201cnothing new under the sun,\u201d adherence to these heresies has grown exponentially in the 20th<\/sup> and 21st<\/sup> centuries.\u00a0 And since America is often the pacesetter in popular culture, this unorthodox thinking has now been exported worldwide.\u00a0 So is there a way out of this mess?\u00a0 In his final chapter, Ross Douthat makes a case that there is still hope for orthodoxy.\u00a0 He suggests three actions for American Christians:<\/p>\n Finally, Douthat sums up his thesis:<\/p>\n As for saints, there are, no doubt, many holy men and women in America whose sanctity is known to God alone.\u00a0 But Christian witness needs to be public and evangelistic as well as intimate and personal, and our highest-profile evangelists\u2014Catholic as well as Protestant\u2014have been far more likely to fall prey to the culture of celebrity than to follow in the footsteps of a Jonathan Edwards or of a Dorothy Day.\u00a0 The future of American religion depends on believers who can demonstrate, in word and deed alike, that the possibilities of the Christian life are not exhausted by TV preachers and self-help gurus, utopians, and demagogues.\u00a0 It depends on public examples of holiness, and public demonstrations of what the imitation of Christ can mean for a fallen world.\u00a0 We are waiting, not for another political savior or television personality, but for a Dominic or a Francis, an Ignatius or a Wesley, a Wilberforce or a Newman, a Bonheoffer or a Solzhenitsyn.\u00a0 Only sanctity can justify Christianity\u2019s existence; only sanctity can make the case for faith; only sanctity, or the hope thereof, can ultimately redeem the world.[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What I saw in Bad Religion<\/em> is similar to what I saw when looking at the picture at the beginning of this essay.\u00a0 I saw one face\u2014a young, attractive face.\u00a0 But after looking at the picture more closely, I saw another face\u2014the face of an old woman.\u00a0 There are many interpretations for these faces that could be applied to our reading, but for me, the reading was a reminder that Christianity is paradoxical\u2014and it must be, or it isn\u2019t the true faith.\u00a0 I don\u2019t have to understand<\/em> it all (particularly its mysteries), but that doesn\u2019t mean I don\u2019t believe<\/em> it.\u00a0 And what is the alternative?\u00a0 Peter said it best, \u201cLord, unto whom shall I go?\u00a0 You have the words of eternal life.\u201d\u00a0 Peter certainly did not understand it all, but he never stopped believing in the one, true, apostolic faith.<\/p>\n So, what do you see?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n