TR Harry
Submitted photo
By TR Harry | Scottsdale
Following up on my recent commentary, A Christian reflects on 2,000 years of dashed hope, here are some of my questions and answers about the mission of the Christian Church:
Q. What is the mission of the Christian Church? A. To bring the world to accept Jesus the Christ, as God.
Q. How does the Church do this? A. Through sales.
Q. What is the Church selling? A. Historically, its flagship product has been Salvation; life everlasting, through belief in the Christ.
Q. How are sales going? A. The trend is mixed. In developed markets, not well. In less developed markets, not bad.
Q. Is the problem in developed markets market saturation? A. No, it seems to be more of a product reliability, or credibility issue.
Q. Meaning? A. Does their product work; does it produce what it is billed for.
Q. Does it? A. Theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) once suggested that the most pressing question people asked when hearing a sermon is, “is it true”? Nobody really knows, and that’s the crux of the problem. The Church can’t rationally prove that it does, and no one else can prove that it does not. It’s a matter of the consumer’s belief (faith) in the product. More and more appear to question whether it does. That seems to be diluting the Church’s effectiveness. What the Church seems to many to be offering is Hobson’s choice, which is questionably much of a choice at all.
Q. Hobson’s choice? A. Yes, a Hobson's choice is really the presentation of a take-it-or-leave-it situation. That’s the extent of your “choice.” For centuries, this option from the Church, based upon the FUD factor, was enough to compel belief in their product. Today with a more knowledgeable audience, this sales tactic is becoming less effective.
Q. And the FUD factor is? A. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. A marketing strategy used by a dominant or privileged organization that introduces these emotional factors into its marketplace to promote its own product, or service, aside of any tangible benefits.
Q. And you believe the Church actively promotes such a consideration of fear, uncertainty and/or doubt? A. How would you describe a pitch to the potential buyer that if he (or she) doesn’t accept what it’s selling, they are destined to spend eternity in hell, or damnation?
Q. Admittedly, I see your point. It is, or at least has been, to say the least, persuasive. Less so today, you think? A. Yes, I do. And so today the emphasis in most churches is to minimize the hell and damnation side of their argument and portray a more positive side, such as fostering a community of faith which serves others by embodying love, compassion, and service alongside the offer of “hope” they provide. We all hope for good as opposed to the bad. No guarantee, you understand, but the example of the Christ’s dying and purported physical resurrection offers hope in the same outcome for the believer. However, aside from semantics, some apparently see little if any difference.
Q. So, you don’t see much value in the Church, in religion then? A. I’m not saying that.
Q. Then what are you saying? A. I have no way of knowing whether the Church is correct or not in its approach to offering eternal life. From humanity’s point of view, it is, so far, rationally unprovable, either way as things stand. All we have is that Hobson’s choice they offer: believe, or not. Based upon the Church’s pillars supporting belief, the Bible and Church teachings and history, I have come to regard — as apparently others have and continue to — the Church’s presentation supporting their sales pitch, so to speak, appears less and less credible, in today’s world, the more one looks closely at it and its source information.
Q. And you feel that way because? A. Because the Church, a man-made earthly institution, relies exclusively upon its own internally developed “source information” and so-called pre-assumptions regarding all it religiously professes. The rules it follows are its rules. The truths it professes are its own truths, as it interprets them. It is called tradition. It is chained to its own tradition while much of the rest of the world has accepted and for the most part benefited from progress. By progress here I mean an improvement in the human condition, little or any of which can be counted as originating from the Church. In some ways, progress is anathema to the church because progress challenges tradition. Progress implies change. But the church replies that tradition is based upon truth, and Church-truth does not change; truth is not relative. I would generally agree with the Church here, but add, that truth is subject to context, and absolute truth is a questionable concept today, even for science.
Q. So, tradition is bad? A. No, not at all, but it is inflexible and often sits poorly with progress.
Q. While I’m sympathetic to your skepticism here, I am not convinced that what you say the Church is “selling” isn’t well worth the price you claim it’s charging, i.e., unquestioning faith in the reliability of their two thousand plus years old “product.” A. It may well be. Who knows? Yes, it may be. In the end, it’s your call … and that’s my point: 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.
