Skip to main content

Over the Hill?

By Carl S ~

Here in Maine, our local newspaper, the Lincoln County News, features a column called, "View from over the Hill." It's written by a 73 yr. old ordained priest. Lately, most of his topics are about his background and past experiences. The subject of a recent column (7/30/15), is quite different because he wrote it to be read before an annual meeting of his bishops as it deals with the future survival of his particular small church. After reading it, I sensed an unintended pre-mourning for the passing of religion itself.

The priest is upset because religion does not have the nostalgic meanings for others as it does for him. He seems to be unaware that church attendance was in past times mandatory and/or community-bonding. (Currently, these kinds of gatherings only happen whenever a tragedy such as a mass shooting occurs.) Attendees HAD to get together, HAD to pretend to believe, and HAD to be polite to one another, because every Sunday they would meet up again with those same people who also pretended, etc.

With this in mind, we may wonder: Perhaps one reason why overt non-believers are shunned and distrusted by believers comes from some understandable aversion: envy of the non-believer's honesty, an exemption of her or him from having to pretend, and from having to practice phony, "charitable” politeness.

It's a long article, so I can only excerpt some of his high points, quoting directly. To begin: He was driven to a hospital to visit a relative. He writes: "On the ride over, I was thinking of this article. I was sorry to see, all the way over, churches converted to other uses, churches showing obvious neglect from their congregations, and just plain abandoned country churches. Theses churches all once provided spiritual support to large groups of people and, for whatever reason, lost their influence with the folks going to other churches."

Perhaps he is unaware of the increasingly abandoned and "converted (an interesting use of that word in this context) to other uses" churches throughout the world. There are good reasons why churches have "lost their influence," which he seems incapable of seeing. He says the patrons "went to other churches." Yet, statistics show that people are leaving churches for good, internationally, and not going to other churches.

What about that "spiritual support" he claims they provided? What happened to those people who left; what did they do without it? Did they "spiritually"' fall apart or become immoral, sink into despair, become cruel and inhuman? Or did they find that they could do very well without that "spiritual support?"

To us and his church hierarchy, he writes with nostalgic regret of times when, "Culturally the church influenced civilians. I remember when... the entire street full of folks would cross themselves as the Angelus bell rang. Today, culturally, our young folks have super-extravagant, expensive, heavily produced religious shows that whip up the folks to levels that can't be sustained in daily life. When these folks go to a local church to be with real people, what do they find? Will they find Jesus there, or a group of polite, standoffish folks?"

Does he truly mean they will find "real" people finding "Jesus" at a local church, and not at a mega- church? Isn't one reason why the churches are becoming unattended happens to be because the reality-based civilians outside are finding out that the people who are inside them are not "real-based?"

Towards the end of his article, the author notes that nowadays, "people come to me to visit my home, to see the place, to go swimming, to relax, and sooner or later the conversation eases around to what they want to know without having to ask the question. Make sense?"

"I hardly ever hear anything alarming, just folks hurting, folks wondering what went wrong, folks who don’t know how to say I'm sorry. My advice, for what it is worth as the senior cleric (he doesn’t mention that he's the only cleric), is to be yourselves: be kind; be attentive to folk's real questions; always show forth Jesus' love and acceptance; lead, don’t condemn. "

With all due respect, except for his "Jesus' acceptance" part (Jesus "accepting?" Doesn't he read his gospels?), any thoughtful and caring person would give that advice. The need for a cleric is superfluous. The need for religion with its claim that it can fill up a "hole" in us with its god is also superfluous.

We have the awesome majesty of a real universe before us, with its own "revelations" open and waiting for us as if for children discovering the world around them. It replaces the majesty formerly claimed by gods, whose "glory" requires regular appeasement, offerings, and even killings in their names. Currently, gods are in comics and on movie screens, where they belong. We have traded the ambiguous supernatural for the real, all-natural. Our "spiritual," as he would say, is "currently" equated with awe itself, and our good touchy-feely emotions.

My wife and I recently watched a program about human altruism and compassion, which begins in infancy. Researchers have run experiments proving that compassion can become a virus on its own, that the practice of compassion makes each of us more generous and outgoing, feeling better about ourselves by making others feel good.

Later, in a restaurant, we watched the interactions between two young women and a toddler. They were making one another smile and laugh, and their pleasure was contagious to all who saw them. These qualities are living within our very genetic nature, the "spiritual support" we need and find, without the superfluous guilt and encumbrances of faiths. Given these facts, shouldn't the churches be emptying faster?


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro