The description of Larry Beckett's choice to join his evangelical church, based on "a structure that till then he had been lacking in his life (236)" piqued my interest enough to look up the footnotes.
17. of Chapter 9:
A more extreme example of the need for "structure" is provided by a member of the very conservative Living Word fellowship on the San Francisco Peninsula who complained that all through school he had been expected to "decide what is right and wrong and why I was alive and what I was living for... That's the worst thing to do to a man - make hims decide everything for himself, because he can't. It's a Satanic trap." A Christian, on the contrary, "doesn't have to decide what is right or wrong. He just has to decide to do right or wrong."
As I reflect on my personal preference of religion, I notice stark contrasts with the Living Word fellowship member above. The Catholic church has been too structured and stifling for me. Sunday church and priestly expounding about repenting for sins have not served me well. I wanted each homily to be an open discussion - clearly the priest knew not of half the things he was attempting to instruct the audience in. And funnily enough, the Polish word for homily, kazanie, stems from the verb kazać, or to order, command. I think that sums up Polish church culture well.
The preference based on structure arose also as I looked back on my Bulgarian friend from Chicago, who went from religion-devoid to religion-devout. Brought up ignoring the Orthodox church, she's become an impassioned Protestant in the United States. It struck me as incredibly odd as she once described her church's prayer rituals with a zeal and wonderment I thought reserved for loonies, for fanatics.
So, preference has been a matter of structure. Not having had structure, one yearns for it. Not having had freedom, one yearns for it. This is not exclusive to religion... same occurs with cultural identities (native languages as part, which are known by the 1st generation, taught to the 2nd, forgotten by the 3rd, and [attempted] to be resuscitated by the 4th [David Crystal lecture on language death!]), and even university image and administration (class discussion with Ana on strictness and authority presence in a uni setting).
Huh.
Posts
4 comments:
I totally agree with you on the idea that religion and the discussion of theology should be open, however, I'm not sure that it is the perfect answer for everybody. Those who have freedom seek structure, but often so do those without a clear personal moral structure or the time to develop one. Countless working class families are proof that a benevolent and right-minded, yet very structured church can be a strong force for good in a community. Many people seek the moral guidance for their lives without having the time to think it over sipping lattes at Starbucks. In this case a form of highly structured church becomes some form of a necessity. do i stray here?
PS check out this article on language death if you're interested:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Fall/full-McWhorter-Fall-2009.html
Agreed. Why the integrated yuppie culture in your response, though? :-) Sipping lattes at Starbucks? That almost strikes me as derogatory of those who ponder spiritual questions, presenting some kind of hedonist-materialist and zen juxtaposition... maybe I'm reading too much into that. Anyway, appreciate the article, though I must admit I don't care too much for the preservation of and issues with dying languages. For all of humanity, linguistic systems have been in constant flux... why the paranoia?
I'm a little confused in that I'm not sure where I integrated "yuppie culture" in my comment unless it was in my reference to working class families, which extend across a fairly wide spectrum of cultures.
As as "sipping lattes at Starbucks." Though granted it is a crude stereotype, is more of my blanket label for faux intellectuals who delve into the shallows of spiritual questions without considering the plausibility of their outcomes when they wonder why the whole world cannot simply apply their flawless solutions. Less of a hedonist-zen conflict than a concern for those who are so lost in spiritual/intellectual questions that the reality implicit in their original dilemma is lost along the way.
Sorry about the article if you didn't like it. I only threw out the link to the language death article because you sighted a very in depth lecture on the subject in your blog post, pardon my pretentious assumption that it implied interest. But I totally agree on not worrying about the constant change in languages. The author was really talking more about the potential benefits of language death, assuming that it is not accompanied by the death of culture, so there wasn't much paranoia at all.
Sorry this comment was so long... I kind of wrote around my ass a little :)
"Sipping lattes at Starbucks" might also be a comment on having time to ponder such questions as the state of one's spiritual health outside of the rather stricter guidelines of a formal religious hierarchy. Most people for most of human history simply didn't have the time to do that. Now, whether they come to better conclusions given a freer range over which to let their minds range is an open question.
Post a Comment