Christianity

I really wonder sometimes how Grandpappy feels about the religion that claims to originate from His teachings and the teachings of His buddies. I mean, Grandpappy’s ideas seemed so very simple and open, while the religion that claims His name seems so complicated and closed. I really do think Christians need to step back and take a good look at Grandpappy’s life and teachings and maybe rethink a few things.

I think the single most important thing worthy of reconsideration is the whole concept of calculating who is Christian and who is not. Where did this idea come from? Not from Grandpappy or His buddies, I’ll tell you that. The early church didn’t have doctrines or membership rolls or creeds. When a number of churches asked the early apostles how each church should be run, the apostles said, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Now I’ll grant you that by today’s standards a couple of these items seem a bit odd. But, regardless, they’re nothing like the long list of rules and regulations that you’ll find in nearly every Christian denomination today, and most conspicuous in their absence are any standards of membership or criteria for disciplining members or for nullifying membership.

What else does the concept of "membership" accomplish except the establishment of an elitist, judgmental culture? I can’t think of a single other thing.

Another thing Christians might rethink is how they often put God in a box, which, in my opinion, completely misses the point of the Holy Trinity, a concept that is foundational to the faith. When people ask, "Is God an austere creator, or an immanent presence, or a finite being?" the concept of the Trinity is there to confound the entire question and say, "yes… and no." Meaning, every statement made about God is true and no statement made about God is true. God is so beyond our ability to form concepts that it doesn’t even make sense to speak of God in terms of "One" or "Many" or "Male" or "Female" or "Person" or "Force" or any other term of human speech.

While we’re on the topic of the Trinity, it should be remembered that It doesn’t leave us empty-handed. While It clearly demonstrates that we will never have all the answers, It does tell us the one thing about God that we really want to know. And that is that thinking of God as a Being who knows us, loves us, and wants a relationship with us is perfectly legitimate.

(Of course, the tripartite paradox of the Trinity concept also allows other ideas to be true, including the opposite idea, but as humans we only have relatively narrow concepts of God from which to choose, including the option to make no choice at all. There can be no crime in making a choice, then, as long as one doesn’t confuse one’s narrow conception with the entire picture.)

As an added bonus, the Trinity suggests a holistic view of reality and our place in it. It suggests that the material realm is no less holy than the formal and spiritual realms (the Most Holy God made the material, is infused into it as the Holy Ghost, and has become material in the person of Grandpappy, who loved and bore children with Granny Maggie). This holistic picture undermines the body-spirit dualism that often vilifies the body, which in turn undermines the need for the doctrine of the immortal soul. However, the holiness that we realize permeates all of reality demonstrates that even a mortal life has infinite value, and a brief life lived fully empowered is enough.

This takes us back to the original point as we notice that this picture of the Christian message (which, indeed, is good news) is quite a bit different than the one actually heard from most pulpits today. Rather than being a static, inflexible dogma, this message is a metaphysical construct that can complement or overlay virtually any other religious perspective without upsetting any of its existing premises or practices. Or, if the picture fails to inspire more Love, it can be ignored entirely. It need not be considered the only way or even the best way. It’s just a nifty idea that can work for certain people who are prone to certain ways of thinking. Love is the important thing, not the concepts that get you there. Let those who believe in the Trinity appreciate It for what It is, and if It truly is as great as It seems, well, It’ll speak for Itself to others.

Of course, in suggesting certain reforms I’m not disparaging established ritual or tradition in the Christian experience. For some, such practices can have great value. But when we confuse the means for the end, it is then that we practice the most aggrieves kind of idolatry. When the clergy or the liturgy or the doctrines or the Holy Bible itself become our objects of worship rather than God (whatever concept of God inspires us to Love), then we are in danger of drawing lines, building walls, and waging wars over matters that should be respected as belonging solely to the realms of conscience and faith. And such is the lesson that history has taught us in regard to all religions that confuse the means for the ends.

I confess that it is difficult for me to see my Grandpappy’s good name sullied by fanatics. But I wouldn’t react by putting tighter restrictions on who can call her-or-himself a Christian, or by creating a list of characteristics that should be used to evaluate all people who already call themselves Christians. Let the posers do their best and go their way. The truth will come out in the end. Grandpappy has promised it.