Now, many, many, many Catholic bloggers have already commented on this video and sought to refute it. Most of them have even done a good job at it. But since I am a sheep, I must follow along blindly and do as my peers are doing and attempt to add something to this debate. And indeed, there is one angle of the debate that I think has been missing so far (thought I may be wrong, and somebody much more intelligent than I may have already thought of this and written about it. In which case, you should probably read their article.)
The point I think needs to be made is one that comes out of the very existence of the debate itself. For several days now, which unfortunately is an eternity in internet time, different bloggers have been trying to refute the main claims of the video. Primarily, this video seems to be emphasizing a personal encounter with Jesus, through the intellect, will, and passions, over any sort of "organized" religion. Mr. Bethke, the young gentleman who made the video, equates institutional religion with self-righteousness and hypocrisy. His definition of religion seems to be a method of acting in order to look holy. However, as he rightly points out, only looking holy without knowing Jesus can lead to war and greed.
In refuting Mr. Bethke, many bloggers have taken to refuting his individual claims, and especially his definition of religion. For instance, in this video Fr. Pontifex points out that hypocrisy in the members of an organized religion cannot be blamed on the religion. Rather, it is an unwillingness of the people in the pews to listen to the message that is being preached. They do not take to heart the message preached by organized religions that you DO have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Or, Mr. Marc Barnes over at Bad Catholic takes to defending religion by attacking the specific claims made by Mr. Bethke. Indeed, Mr. Barnes does an admirable job of this, laying out the scriptural passages where Jesus does establish an organized religion and also pointing to the truth regarding the Church's charitable actions.
These men have done incredibly well defending the Catholic faith (for, as Mr. Barnes points out, Mr. Bethke's attacks do seem to mostly reflect on the Catholic faith) but they have not made the point I felt needs to be made. Fr. Pontifex alludes to the issue when he says, "See this had to be addressed, this use of illogical terms and definitions." However, he doesn't quite take this emphasis on terms and definitions where I hoped he would, so I will. The main point I want to make is this: this debate revolves around how someone defines religion, and the ambiguity over such a central term implies a need for an organized central authority that lays down definitions. In other words, unorganized religion is a strong argument for organized religion.
Unorganized religion, as it is understood by Mr. Bethke, seems to mean a gathering of people who come together in order to have an experience of Jesus. Indeed, Mr. Bethke does himself say that people should go to churches, it's just the highly organized churches he has a problem with. His definition of religion, as expressed in his video, seems to imply a state of organization that goes beyond the local community. And yet, Mr. Bethke himself defines religion here by saying, "You have to get back to my definition of religion... (Jesus) was coming to abolish self righteousness, justification, and hypocrisy." His definition equates religion with hypocrisy, and yet his video seems to equate it with organization. So the question is, what is religion? Do organized institutions of worship imply self righteousness, justification, and hypocrisy? Is religion simply a checklist of actions that our done so as to appear holy? Or, as Mr. Bethke believes, is true religion simply the personal, individual belief in Jesus Christ without reference to actions or dogmas concerning that same Jesus?
Unfortunately for Mr. Bethke, unorganized religion cannot answer these questions for the simple reason that if it were to answer them, it would cease to be unorganized. The movement away from organized churches to small personal groups is a movement away from the concrete to the vague. Unorganized religion thrives on the fact that it does not enforce definitions and moral standards on its members. It has abandoned defined dogma for undefined experience. It has thrown out clarity so as to be casual, and this is its main appeal.
But unorganized religion cannot stay unorganized for long. Man longs for definitions and moral standards, for these come as natural to him as does breathing and sleeping. Definitions and moral codes feed his intellect and will, and he always needs them. Eventually, those in a small unorganized religious group will have to ask themselves "What do we mean by this?" or "Is this action in line with what Jesus taught?" They will have to find definitive answers so as to continue in their ongoing relationship with Jesus, and when they do find these definitive answers, whatever they may be, they will have taken a step away from chaotic experience and moved towards organized religion.
In fact, looking at man, it would seem that his need for answers and definitions, his thirst for moral codes and ethical knowledge would be something the Creator has put in him. And indeed, if the Creator did endow man with this desire to know, then in saving man He would have kept this in mind. He would have instituted a religion that could give many answers. He would have created an organization that could feed man's need for knowledge, so that man could come closer to God. For how can a man come to know Jesus and be one with Him in every thought and action if he does not definitively know what Jesus would think or do? How can he be united to the Savior in mind and heart if he only has a vague idea of what made the Savior a Savior? Man needs definitions and clarity so as to know God, otherwise man's finitude would get in the way of his relationship with the Infinite. So, the Infinite would have to find a way to go beyond's man's limits. He would need to provide a source of clarity to man's ever clouded mind. And lucky for us, He did: "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam."
No comments:
Post a Comment