American Secular Religion

[Bootstrap]

I thought this was worth starting a separate thread:

I sometimes think about Maslows hierachy of human needs. I think its top stops short, in is incomplete. What it needs is one more layer to be the top. It actually is present in all the layers. And that is the spiritual hole that is within humans. Mazlow was an atheist and did not believe in religion. He simply placed it in Psychological/Social needs. To him there is no need for God or real spiritual needs. Especially as the West becomes rich and has Maslows 5 needs well and long ago met, life becomes more meaningless. And the spiritual need is obviously not being filled with any of the 5 categories. Life is hollow. And so, what we see in these wealthy secular people, is a need to do something to show their virtue, and a genuine need to set right wrongs. And since they have rejected God, they adopt secular ideologies as their faith and religion. They act with vigor and conviction and force to make people do and think what they ought - just like the Catholics used to do, and the Muslims still do. While we can have opinions and discussions on various ideas such as CRT, I don't think we should be hooking up our wagon to them, nor even creating an alliance with them.

I agree with this. I think this is happening across the spectrum in America, political and secular causes are becoming religions. I'm not sure this is new - emperor worship goes way, way back, so does philosophy as religion, so does nationalism as religion. And I don't think it's any different on the left than on the right.

But the Bible isn't a newspaper or an analysis of race relations in modern America - if we want to read and understand and minister to our modern world, we find ourselves in conversation with the secular world around us, with the experiences of real people as they live their lives, etc. I'm not sure that's completely different from biblical times either, Paul knew Stoic philosophers and referred to them in his Mars Hill address. He did not "hitch his wagon" to Stoic philosophers. He did not call himself a Stoic or declare loyalty to them.

In modern America, politics is the real religion for many. Political identities like "left" and "right" can trump Christian identity, some people find it easier to discuss things with people who agree with their political views than they do with people who are serving the same Jesus and following the same Bible. People are devoted to the preachers of these political religion, they are loyal to political identities, they do not hang out with people who have different political identities. And this sometimes leaks into even the church - Christian leaders who are not willing to endorse certain political positions may face very strong pressure to do so.

[temporal1]

[Szdfan]

But the Bible isn't a newspaper or an analysis of race relations in modern America - if we want to read and understand and minister to our modern world, we find ourselves in conversation with the secular world around us, with the experiences of real people as they live their lives, etc. I'm not sure that's completely different from biblical times either, Paul knew Stoic philosophers and referred to them in his Mars Hill address. He did not "hitch his wagon" to Stoic philosophers. He did not call himself a Stoic or declare loyalty to them.

I’d go further than that — the structure and logic of Paul’s epistles reflects Stoic philosophy (e.g. if X is true, the Y is also true). Paul’s arguments are influenced by Greek philosophy in a way that’s not evident in the Gospels.

[Josh]

I thought this was worth starting a separate thread:

I sometimes think about Maslows hierachy of human needs. I think its top stops short, in is incomplete. What it needs is one more layer to be the top. It actually is present in all the layers. And that is the spiritual hole that is within humans. Mazlow was an atheist and did not believe in religion. He simply placed it in Psychological/Social needs. To him there is no need for God or real spiritual needs. Especially as the West becomes rich and has Maslows 5 needs well and long ago met, life becomes more meaningless. And the spiritual need is obviously not being filled with any of the 5 categories. Life is hollow. And so, what we see in these wealthy secular people, is a need to do something to show their virtue, and a genuine need to set right wrongs. And since they have rejected God, they adopt secular ideologies as their faith and religion. They act with vigor and conviction and force to make people do and think what they ought - just like the Catholics used to do, and the Muslims still do. While we can have opinions and discussions on various ideas such as CRT, I don't think we should be hooking up our wagon to them, nor even creating an alliance with them.

I agree with this. I think this is happening across the spectrum in America, political and secular causes are becoming religions. I'm not sure this is new - emperor worship goes way, way back, so does philosophy as religion, so does nationalism as religion. And I don't think it's any different on the left than on the right.

But the Bible isn't a newspaper or an analysis of race relations in modern America - if we want to read and understand and minister to our modern world, we find ourselves in conversation with the secular world around us, with the experiences of real people as they live their lives, etc. I'm not sure that's completely different from biblical times either, Paul knew Stoic philosophers and referred to them in his Mars Hill address. He did not "hitch his wagon" to Stoic philosophers. He did not call himself a Stoic or declare loyalty to them.

In modern America, politics is the real religion for many. Political identities like "left" and "right" can trump Christian identity, some people find it easier to discuss things with people who agree with their political views than they do with people who are serving the same Jesus and following the same Bible. People are devoted to the preachers of these political religion, they are loyal to political identities, they do not hang out with people who have different political identities. And this sometimes leaks into even the church - Christian leaders who are not willing to endorse certain political positions may face very strong pressure to do so.

The traditional Anabaptist answer to this was to not ally one’s self with left or right (or other) political movements, going so far as not serving on juries (which the 2nd century church also did not do), running for office, or voting. Christianity took a sharp turn away from this in the 4th century when well-meaning people thought Christianity and the state and political force could somehow be merged for good.

[Bootstrap]

But the Bible isn't a newspaper or an analysis of race relations in modern America - if we want to read and understand and minister to our modern world, we find ourselves in conversation with the secular world around us, with the experiences of real people as they live their lives, etc. I'm not sure that's completely different from biblical times either, Paul knew Stoic philosophers and referred to them in his Mars Hill address. He did not "hitch his wagon" to Stoic philosophers. He did not call himself a Stoic or declare loyalty to them.

I’d go further than that — the structure and logic of Paul’s epistles reflects Stoic philosophy (e.g. if X is true, the Y is also true). Paul’s arguments are influenced by Greek philosophy in a way that’s not evident in the Gospels.

Yes, that's true. But even in the Gospels, Luke's writing style and organization is influenced both by the Septuagint (especially in the first two chapters) and by the way Greek historians wrote. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all primarily influenced by Jesus, whose story they were telling, but they were quite different people, each with different influences, some of them very much secular.

[Josh]

But the Bible isn't a newspaper or an analysis of race relations in modern America - if we want to read and understand and minister to our modern world, we find ourselves in conversation with the secular world around us, with the experiences of real people as they live their lives, etc. I'm not sure that's completely different from biblical times either, Paul knew Stoic philosophers and referred to them in his Mars Hill address. He did not "hitch his wagon" to Stoic philosophers. He did not call himself a Stoic or declare loyalty to them.

I’d go further than that — the structure and logic of Paul’s epistles reflects Stoic philosophy (e.g. if X is true, the Y is also true). Paul’s arguments are influenced by Greek philosophy in a way that’s not evident in the Gospels.

I would agree with those who say Christianity is essentially a syncretisation of Greek philosophy with second temple Judaism; the gospels don’t really lay out much of a recipe for how Christianity should be practiced outside of the context of 1st century Judaea & Samaria. Paul’s Christianity is remarkable similar to the philosophy of the Stoics.

Of course, some people prefer to reject Paul. Our own John Hurt here on this board prefers to only seek inspiration in the Gospels.

[MaxPC]

1 Corinthians 3

3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.

[temporal1]

2021 / RZehr wrote above:

.. And since they have rejected God, they adopt secular ideologies as their faith and religion.

They act with vigor and conviction and force to make people do and think what they ought - just like the Catholics used to do,
and the Muslims still do.

While we can have opinions and discussions on various ideas such as CRT, I don't think we should be hooking up our wagon to them, nor even creating an alliance with them. ..

2022 / 'Grave evil':
[Nancy] Pelosi denied Holy Communion by San Francisco archbishop for pushing abortion rights
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 861315002/

06.25.2021
Why Is President Biden Being Denied Communion?
President Biden finds himself at the center of a brawl within the Catholic Church in the U.S. over plans to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Biden is the nation’s second-ever Catholic president and has described his faith as “the bedrock foundation” of his life. So what are the Catholic bishops saying — and will their plan go through? John Allen discusses.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-c ... communion/

2021 / ‘Not a Happy Experience’:
Pro-Abortion Sen. Dick Durbin on His 17-Year Communion Ban
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/not-a-h ... munion-ban
Bishop Paprocki:
Examining conscience before communion is essential
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... -essential

.. In the meantime, Catholics who publicly and obstinately advocate for abortion, including politicians, can and should be denied communion under canon law, Paprocki said. ..

2021 / Can Someone Be Denied Holy Communion?



2012 / EWTN / Denying Communion to Someone / Author: Father Edward McNamara, LC
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... meone-4622