Ministry Without Coercion.

The Enlightenment is not a religion in the sense that it proposes anything about existence out of the material and temporal world. It is not a religion in the sense of having a hierarchy demanding adherence to a set of rules and submission to the hierarchy administering those rules. The Enlightenment was and is the justification of the individual to think for him- or herself.

To the extent that a hierarchy of a church ministers to adherents without enforcing membership against the will of the parishioner, they are doing a service similar to that of the proponents of Enlightenment. There are congregations that engage in such altruistic service.

I don't disparage congregations that only minister to their own, but do not demean individuals who decide to search for meaning elsewhere. The purpose of a congregation should be to provide comfort and support, but not to dominate.

If  there is something beneficial about the teaching of a congregation, it should be evident without coercion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Public Cooperation Is Not One Church of Thought.

There are fundamentalists who claim they are the only Christians and that the Constitution mandate against the establishment of a church only bars the government from controlling their churches. They insist that the government is obligated to abide by the church law of their own sect whichever one it is. Actually, the ban against an established church has precedent in the intertwining of church and state in the history of Europe during the middle ages. Every facet of life was controlled either by the church or the state, and one enforced the authority of the other. There was no room for independent thought. So when pagan knowledge was brought back from the Middle East by the Crusaders, there was a Renaissance of thinking and culture that allowed people to question everything about life. The king's religion was continued through the Protestant Revolution, but the Enlightenment that came with the Renaissance still separated peoples' religious thought from their secular though...
Read more

The Divine used as an excuse.

I find the Divine to be a poor excuse for demanding what anyone should agree to. If you have to force your beliefs on someone else, how do you know they really believe what you say? In ancient times, it was enough for the tyrant to declare how the Divine favored his (or her) regime. It really didn't matter to the poor guy at the bottom of the ladder what the monarch said. Life was not any better for believing it. It was only blasphemy against the tyrant that got anyone into trouble since the tyrant was always the Son of the Divine. It is not only in North Korea that the tyrant was considered God. Even the Roman Emperors were considered Gods which is the reason for the Greek word "blasphemy" was used in the Christian Gospel for the Sanhedrin deciding that Jesus committed blasphemy. They weren't saying that he declared himself their God. They were saying that he had declared himself a God equal to the Roman Emperor. The Western term God is derived from...
Read more

The blood sport.

Despite what Divine principles people claim to adhere to, it is a common characteristic of human nature to try to make oneself more important by demoting someone else. I suppose this is a natural phenomenon exhibited in nature with the pecking order. There are many excuses for declaring someone else as undeserving of natural rights. It's a bit of a simplification to say that these excuses involve biases concerning biology, religion, society, and economics. It's all been used. Whether it is gossip, heckling, or lying, it is a blood sport.
Read more