“People are not on a truth quest; they are on a happiness quest... They will continue to attend your church – even if they don’t share your beliefs – as long as they find the content engaging and helpful.” [Pastor Andy] Stanley described how the North Point Ministries model to “engage, involve, and challenge people” is designed to introduce them to a relationship with Jesus and emphasized that “the ultimate win is life change.”Dreher asks: "What happens if learning the truth about oneself and one’s life is painful, and makes one unhappy, at least at first?" My answer to that is: In a free society, a religion must offer happiness if it wants to argue to an outsider that it is an embodiment of truth.
I think Dreher knows this answer already. That's why he ends his question with "at least at first."
Posts
57 comments:
Fantastic exposition of the zeitgeist: happiness <=> truth.
Which I believe to be true despite the fact that it makes me unhappy.
I wouldn't be too hard on the "feel good" churches. The Yahweh of the Old Testament is still skulking about for when tough times return again.
Have you read St. Patrick's Confessio?
An upper middle class rich kid in what is now western England. Irish (scotti) raid his village. Take him as a slave. Hard times. He prays and prays and prays. Years later, he gets a vision to run away from his slavery and get on a boat that is waiting for him. He gets to the coast, a long journey, finds a boat. It is shipwrecked on the voyage home.
He finally gets back to his family. A while later gets another vision to go back to the Irish. He does.
Soft life, hard challenges, renewed faith, full of hope and joy that helps transform a whole people.
Some decades ago, it occurred to me that the traditions of my father didn't have to be justified to eggheads. One of the great moments of revelation in my life.
This egghead insistence that human life is only about the rational mind is quite tiresome. I'm glad I didn't live my life by egghead rules. Eggheads, you don't know what you're missing.
We don't have to justify our traditions to eggheads like Althouse and Dreher. They will continue to try to undermine them, of course, for whatever reason compels them. Mostly vanity, I think.
Human spiritual and religious tradition is important, too. Maybe more important.
Someone enlighten me about why it is a negative that people seek happiness and contentment in their spiritual lives?
I would have thought that it is self-evident that that's what people are seeking?
The epicenter of Mass, to my thinking, is the priest's call to the congregation to wish one another peace, which is to say, happiness and contentment.
Does anybody have a clue what this "truth" that Althouse is carrying on about is?
I've been reading Professor Bart D. Ehrman, lately.
So far, I get the impression that he's implying that St. Paul was a huckster or a kook (probably both) who invented the resurrection thing out of whole cloth because the underclass (if you will) of the times (just about everybody) wanted to feel good about God opening a can of whoop-ass on the rich people so He could tranfer their wealth to Paul's followers. Not in the hereafter, mind you, but right here and now.
In other words, the Jewish Apocalypse had begun because Jesus was the first. Didn't matter if you were full of sin. All you had to do was believe (and I guess that meant tithe to Paul and his network, by extension) and you'd be one of those getting the spoils soon to come.
Paul started the first megachurch.
I suspect not every modern Christian would find that view a welcome revelation.
Merry Easter, everyone!
So, there's also John Wesley. Passionate, almost too much so, follower of God. Minister. Missionary. Slunk back to England after having a really bad experience as a missionary in Georgia (southern US). Attends an evening church service. His heart is "strangely warmed" as he realizes God loves him and that this whole Christian stuff isn't about rules and duties but about love.
Develops his world transforming ministry as he orients it within orthodoxy, but also orthopraxy (right actions) and what he called orthocardia, a right heart.
This right heart stuff, this joy, is part of what Christians say is a fruit of the Spirit.
All this to say, Christianity is all about love and joy, about being renewed in life and having a bountiful hope. It just says that there are paths and actions that lead away from those things. So, as we go from one way to another, there is often frustration and hurt, and life itself in general has frustration and hurt.
This is why the National Council of Churches recently closed its doors.
"Now, the sons of Eli were worthless men; they had no regard for the Lord." 1 Samuel 2:12.
Mitchel the Bat, try your hand at NT Wright next and you'll see there's quite a discussion on that issue--and modern audience is a good description, as the idea that Paul got things started is a couple hundred years old. This is a very longstanding debate.
I've been reading Professor Bart D. Ehrman, lately.
Ehrman's communications to lay people are totally different than his communications to scholars. He likes to sell books to lay people, so he makes outrageous claims. When he's communicating with other scholars (who know better), however, he is far more honest.
My family regularly attends Willow Creek. We live in Barrington. Believe me, as a "hard-core" born again Christian, I go there for one reason: Hybels. The man can preach a sermon. The rest of the experience is crap. A point I make repeatedly and enthusiastically to anyone there who will listen. People might want comfort, but they want truth more. The pathetic Evangelical-Industrial Complex with its shitty, hollow music; shallow engagement model and low-hanging fruit approach to membership kills me. His point about truth quests vs happiness quests makes it seem he thinks they're two different things. They're not. Furthermore, I have yet to hear a sermon that was just "thoughtful entertainment". It's not exegetical preaching the way that's traditionally understood, but it ain't no BS wealth and prosperity crap like Osteen or those other slick-ass hustlers. Hybels is an amazing Christian man and my respect for him is immense. But Willow Creek is just too big.
@Paddy O: Thanks and will do.
Joseph Smith put it this way:
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God."
"But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received."
And elsewhere:
"But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances."
@Freeman Hunt: Thanks. I have no background on any of this, merely intellectual curiosity, but I've gotten the impression every now and then that Professor Ehrman can be a bit glib. It seems the more earth-shattering a claim he is making the more he tends to hedge, speaking more in terms of preponderances and probabilities.
I know this stuff isn't math but still . . .
I've been reading, lately, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Follow the link, and you'll see that the most important issue in spiritual life, according to the Church, is not "truth," but "to know and love God."
The Catechism also contains several lengthy passages about the nature of God... and it isn't some anthropomorphic guy with a beard up in the sky.
And from the Book of Mormon:
"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."
"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given."
"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."
Every reader knows that growth and happiness come from overcoming challenges.
Without conflict in the sense of plot and character development there is no progress. Happiness is the end not the means.
Mitchell the Bat, you can't go wrong reading Lewis. Really. Don't start with "Mere Christianity". Start with "The Great Divorce." Plus, I'd recommend a very short book by Henri Nouwen called "In the Name of Jesus." Trust me on this, it's not what you think from the title. It seems to me the vast majority of "Christian" books blow. Warmed over list books or how to's. Bah.
The truth is -- which people do not want to accept in our utilitarian, hedonist society -- is that happiness is paradoxical.
Christ is very clear about this in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in many other places. If one does not accept that, if one continues to have the pagan Greco-Roman idea of happiness being merely sensual pleasure or power or money, then one can never find the truth, they are forever kept in the dark, and they are the ones who are truly UNhappy.
The most unhappy people today are those who conceive of happiness as some form of hedonism. Constantly chasing after some pleaure or another, when they get it, it does not satisfy, and they go and chase after the next thing. All the while bitching and moaning and making everyone else's life miserable.
Bender, I believe there are a number of studies demonstrating that after about $70,000 a year in income, people don't get any happier at all. In fact, they get less happy. Always found that very interesting. And I believe it's true.
"shitty, hollow music"
There's a subject I've often wondered about - why does contemporary religious music suck so bad? There was a time when it was either the best music around, or at least comparable in quality to then-current secular music. But you can strip the lyrics from contemporary Christian music and still identify the remaining tune and arrangement as 'contemporary Christian music', because of its cloying insipidity. What gives?
Follow the link, and you'll see that the most important issue in spiritual life, according to the Church, is not "truth," but "to know and love God."
ST - keep reading and you will also read that "God is Truth." You will also read that sin/evil is a privation or distortion of truth.
So, yes, truth is the most important issue in spiritual life. As is love, because God is Love.
Well, which is it? Truth or Love?
Yes. Each is a reflection/manifestation of the other.
This is the great music of Christianity.
I wish I could do this stuff at a Catholic Church. May have to go with the Baptists.
Unfortunately, most Baptist congregations have gone all contemporary music, too.
Shorter Freeman: Prof. Ehrman is a tool. (I concur.)
Paco, an interesting question. Could you toss up a couple of contrasting examples? That would help further the discussion.
Paco Wové- there are many reasons. Number one is because it's easy. Really. There's zero skill or talent involved in creating these terrible " songs". Also, people want consumable tripe because it goes down easy and requires no reflection or introspection. These songs are without subtext and in no way do they attempt to recapitulate human experience and make us ponder, wonder or pine. We cloak them, scantily, with the word "Christian" and think that does it. Hey, it's Christian!!! Must be good!! Now the people who perform at a place like Willow are hugely talented. Talent that's wasted on crap music. We've forgotten the truth and have chosen to substitute smooth, sweet nothings. I can barely make it through the "Rock Block" to hear the sermon. Common grace is a lost concept in the modern evo church. You lose the liturgical history and try to wing it culturally, you're going to end up with trite hoke. And that's what we have. If "church" music were truthful and good it would be the most popular music in the world. Just look at all the talk and speculation about Malcom Mumford. People dissect his lyrics and discuss them because they are deeply moved by the story. No one talks about praise music ever. Ever.
Then there was the wretched sinner caplight45 who having attended a church because the people were nice and it made his wife happy, one day fell on his face before God at the front of the church recognizing the futility of his life and the ultimate heartbreak of missing the presence of God in this life and in the life to come. Had those people not accepted and welcomed a smart-ass know-it-all with a huge chip on his shoulder I shudder to think how different life would be.
The Latin way of evangelism was always to hold people outside the church until they were sufficiently Christian to enter. The Celtic way of evangelism (yes, as in St. Patrick) was to open the churches and monasteries and invite the non-Christians in to experience share the life of of Christ with believers which would then lead to conversion.
And now I am off to empty two boxes of .40 cal into some targets.
Dreher says "at first" because he believes that only through Christ is there true happiness, and that realizing one hasn't been living a Godly life can make a person unhappy (and probably should, to motivate one to a better life).
He also believes that the protestant Megachurch prosperity gospel does not lead one to a proper understanding of God and thus won't lead to true happiness.
Christianity based on marketing and focus groups can never challenge a follower deeply enough to have true conversion of life.
The church congregation that hires and fires its pastors ensures that it will only hear teaching that tickles their ears.
They cannot tolerate hearing teaching that truly pokes a finger deep into their hearts. They'll get pissed off and fire the pastor.
They will tolerate a pastor's financial and sexual sins til the cows come home, but a challenging teaching will get them fired faster than the lightning that is striking them spiritually dead for being so hardhearted.
If today you hear his voice
harden not your hearts
I love belonging to a Church that is not focus grouped and teaches me things that are way out of step with today's secular culture but true to the core.
If you marry the spirit of the times, you will die with it.
2 Timothy 4:3
@Paco Wove
There's a subject I've often wondered about - why does contemporary religious music suck so bad?
While I agree with you, PW, I've got to ask, doesn't every category of popular music suck now, compared to, let's say, 40 years ago? Isn't contemporary religious music still on par with its secular counterparts, i.e. they're both bad.
I get gas at a local service station that plays a local "Christian" station over the speakers at the pumps. Oh Lordy, hideous! Can't they find a Bach Cantata or some Stanley Brothers?
@Mitchell the Bat,
A book on the subject of just what we can reasonably say and not say about Biblical sources is Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus.
With a name like Luke Timothy, talk about a perfect moniker for an NT scholar!
A lot of the smaller contemporary unchurches are storefront operations of denominations without saying so.
There's a new Cornerstone Church in my community that is a hip new wing of the Church of Christ.
Also consider Taylor Marshall A Catholic Perspective on Paul. Free podcast programs at the link.
Oopsie...Linky
It isn't actually Dreher's term, it is a term coined by Melinda Lundquist Denton in her 2005 book on the religious views of American teens. Copied from Wikipedia for convenience:
1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
It makes for a shallow faith that doesn't tend to extend into adulthood, a problem that serious religious thinkers are trying to find ways to combat.
This may be for good or ill, depending on your perspective, but it probably gives some important context for Dreher's criticisms.
A good book on this topic is Almost Christian by Kenda Dean.
@jana,
A Book along the same line as Dean's, but of more recent vintage is Ross Douthat's Bad Religion, or as I call it, "Everything You Believe is Heresy".
Since Dreher blurbs Douthat's book, one hopes he has read it.
This blog is interesting for:
>its intelligent but wrong atheists, and
>its intelligent and right theists.
It's all been hell-in-a-handbasket since the Catholic Church updated the Catechism after Vatican II and lost the solid gems like this that were in the old Baltimore Catechism:
Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (after Vatican II) --
1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us "partakers of the divine nature" and of eternal life.21 With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ22 and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.
Yeah, but it doesn't have the zip and memorability of the old version.
Which was question no. 6, by the way. I see the new version has the idea at line 1,721.
Religion is viewed and often taught as a list of "do's and don'ts". These are important, but living a godly life comes from grasping the "whys and wherefores".
That church saved my life.
Andy Stanley is a smart and good man.
Says the life long atheist until the moment I saw my wife dead on the floor.
At my worst moment, that church reached our to me with love and compassion. Changed my life.
@Lydia,
I find that the best mnemonic device for remembering the old Baltimore Catechism is to imagine oneself in a game of Jeopardy, e.g.
"I'll take Baltimore Catechism for $100"
"A visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace."
Buuuuuuzzzzzzzz!!!!!!
"What is a Sacrament, Alex?"
Sang St. Patrick's Breastplate this morning at church. I am so glad my evangelical church doesn't sing modern evangelical music. But I also know that our music bewilders many newcomers. Non-church goers and Baby Boomers like my parents have a particularly hard time with it. The youngsters learn to love it.
The Heidelberg Catechism' vision of happiness:
" . What is your only comfort in life and death?A. That I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who with his precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins,and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, wherefore by his Holy Spirit he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him."
The Baltimore Catechism has the benefit of allowing for rote memorization of answers, which many people did. But for that very reason it does not foster a faith that seeks understanding. For example, what does it mean to say, "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven"?
What does it mean for the person who can recite that, and what does it mean for the non-believer who asks us to give a reason for our hope?
It is because of such poorly catechized Catholics who could repeat their memorized answers from the BC but could not explain them that so many people in the Church ended up embracing such things like contraception, abortion, various strains of liberation theology, and quit going to Mass and confession.
By the way, if number 1721 is too high (which I cited only because I noticed it when looking up "happiness"), how about Number One (compared to the BC's number six) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is modeled after the much older Roman Catechism issued after the Council of Trent) --
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
Andy Stanley learned that his father was a serial adulterer at a formative stage of his own life. The truth hurt. He'd rather be happy.
We seek the God we deserve.
Donald, I think you answered Dreher's criticism conclusively. That is what a church should do, there with hope when hope is lost.
Religious truth and dogma aside, the secret to success in life is the deferment of present happiness for the possibility of future contentment. A useful church should encourage that tendency in its parishioners. Anyone who offers you anything sort of that standard, I don't care if he's a snake-handling carnival barker or an Episcopal bishop with a doctorate in divinity, that pastor is either a long-con scam artist or a recruiter for a cult.
Post a Comment