I can’t prove what I’m about to present. It’s not my intention. After all, who am I to question the tradition of Western Christian religion or its truth or veracity?
On exploring that score, I consider myself somewhat informed; I have throughout my relatively long life considered myself a Christian and a church-goer. My lifestyle and values have been shaped and influenced by mainline Christian teachings and the Church’s outlook on both our earthly life and our promised life thereafter. Yet I have been told, in church, that if I do not without question accept the three basic tenants of the faith, I should not consider myself a Christian. Under that circumstance, I guess I’m what you might refer to as a skeptic, or “fence straddler.”
The next obvious question is why am I pursuing this critique? The answer is simple and direct: I have lost a great deal of faith in the credibility of the Church’s presentation of its mission. Is my experience unique, or do others sitting in the pews harbor similar repressed doubts?
And just what is that mission? Looking at it on a personal, what’s-in-it-for-me level, preparing me for my salvation or redemption or rescue. Salvation or redemption or rescue from what? According to the Church, from sin. In the Western Church’s view, Catholic or Reformed, you and I are sinners, always have been, and absent their intervention, always will be. Why? Because, according to the Church, we are human beings!
You mean everybody is a sinner, just because we are human beings? Yep. But the good news, according to the Church, is that it’s here to “save us” from the harsh consequence of spending eternity in a hellish situation. Instead, through the Church’s program, you get to spend it in a heavenly environment. What’s the difference? Pain, displeasure and mental torment versus pleasure, comfort and peace of mind, I guess. Which would you prefer?
OK, so the Church is here in the present to save us for the hereafter. Its program is earthly to prepare us for the non-earthly afterlife. I know what earthly life is and is all about (from experience), but what about the afterlife? How do I familiarize myself with that?
Ask your local priest or pastor.
Won’t that just give me one side of the story, the Church’s side? Yes, obviously, but fortunately for the Church, there is no other organized or institutional opposition to provide a counter story. In other words, the Church has a monopoly on the question (sale) of salvation. Accordingly, salvation is available to us at their counter, on their terms, and no place else. Kind of a Hobson’s choice: take it or leave it.
Does everybody believe the Church’s story? No. Does that mean they do not believe in God? Not necessarily. Some people believe in God (deists) but do not adhere to the Christian representation of God. Others follow a religion foreign to Christianity.
For Christians, Jesus is God. If you cannot believe in the Western Christian Church’s presentation of the 1st century Jewish messiah as God (in a Trinitarian sense), you are not a Christian. Don’t bother coming to their counter in search of salvation. Per the Church, salvation is particular to and for Christians and is not universal.
Really? That sounds rather exclusive. Is God exclusive in his feelings for humans?
Good question. The short answer is, their God loves all, but that love seems to come with qualifications: membership within the ranks of “believing” Christians. Christians call it grace, and it’s only available from The Master Himself (or is that Itself?).
All the above are issues in considering the Church the correct approach to salvation. A more basic question is, is “salvation” a human necessity, or even a human possibility? This brings us right back to the issue of sin. Is sin, as defined by the religious order, a reality? Is it a universal or particular problem? Is religion the only avenue to both defining and addressing human sin or malfeasance? And in considering all the above, some judgment, or conclusion, based on history (experience), seems appropriate as to both the credibility and, as important, the effectiveness of Western Christianity’s proclaimed mission.
I began above by saying I was not out to prove anything, and I stress that: I’m not. Then, why are we having this conversation? Because I believe that after a run of a bit over 2,000 years of promoting their position, sufficient evidence and example, or lack thereof, should exist to make at least a preliminary value judgment about the effectiveness and veracity of Western Christianity as a resource for not only good (correct or virtuous) human living, but for improving our prospects for a successful life after life, assuming there is some form of “life” after life. Where do we find such evidence?
Some may consider that I’m putting Jesus on trial. That’s not correct. I’m putting the spotlight on the Church. In my mind, there is a significant difference. What we know of and about Jesus we know almost exclusively from the earthly Church, dished out to us over a rather bumpy 2,000-year period. That certainly, in my mind, is sufficient time in human experience to gather evidence and make an analysis of its history of fulfilling its mission, as I’ve laid it out here.
In current terms, you might think of the Church as an afterlife insurance company. Its premiums for protective coverage are your “faith,” “hope” and “unquestioning trust” in what the Church professes. The question in the end becomes, is the salvation coverage it provides worth the premiums it charges?
After a bit over 2,000 years, the question remains: Who knows?
Editor’s note: TR Harry is the pen name of a Scottsdale-based author who writes primarily about politics and religion on his blog. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
Share with others
