The dialectic of the Organised Religions

There was this article which was published on Straits Times on 4 Feb 2012 written by David Brooks:

A FEW weeks ago, a 22-year-old man named Jefferson Bethke produced a video called 'Why I hate religion, but love Jesus'. The video shows him standing in a courtyard rhyming about the purity of the teachings of Jesus and the hypocrisy of the church. Jesus preaches healing, surrender and love, he argues, but religion is rigid, phoney and stale. 'Jesus came to abolish religion,' he insists. 'Religion puts you in bondage but Jesus sets you free.'

The video went viral. As of Thursday, it had acquired more than 18 million hits on YouTube. It speaks for many young believers who feel close to God but not to the church. It represents the passionate voice of those who think their institutions lack integrity - not just the religious ones but the political and corporate ones, too.

Right away, many older theologians began critiquing Mr Bethke's statements. Blogger Kevin DeYoung pointed out, for example, that it is biblically inaccurate to say that Jesus hated religion. In fact, Jesus preached a religious doctrine, prescribed rituals and worshipped in a temple.

Mr Bethke responded in a way that was humble, earnest and gracious, and that generally spoke well of his character. He also basically folded.

'I wanted to say I really appreciate your article man,' Mr Bethke wrote to MrDeYoung in an online exchange. 'It hit me hard. I'll even be honest and say I agree 100 per cent.'

Mr Bethke watched a panel discussion in which some theologians lamented young people's disdain of organised religion. 'Right when I heard that,' he told The Christian Post, 'It just convicted me, and God used it as one of those Spirit moments where it's just, 'Man, he's right.' I realised a lot of my views and treatments of the church were not scripture-based; they were very experience-based.'

Mr Bethke's passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days. This seems to be a moment when many people - in religion, economics and politics - are disgusted by current institutions, but then they are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them.

This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual.

We can all theorise why the intense desire for change has so far produced relatively few coherent recipes for change. Maybe people today are simply too deferential. Raised to get college recommendations, maybe they lack the oppositional mentality necessary for revolt. Maybe people are too distracted.

My own theory revolves around a single bad idea. For generations, people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent world view. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that's probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous world view.

If you go out there armed only with your own observations and sentiments, you will surely find yourself on very weak ground. You'll lack the arguments, convictions and the coherent view of reality that you'll need when challenged by a self-confident opposition. This is more or less what happened to Mr Bethke.

The paradox of reform movements is that, if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn't think entirely for yourself. You should attach yourself to a counter-tradition and school of thought that has been developed over the centuries and that seems true.

The old leftists had dialectical materialism and the Marxist view of history. Libertarians have Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Various spiritual movements have drawn from Transcendentalism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Thomism, Augustine, Tolstoy or the Catholic social teaching that inspired Dorothy Day.

These belief systems helped people envision alternate realities. They helped people explain why the things society values are not the things that should be valued. They gave movements a set of organising principles. Joining a tradition doesn't mean suppressing your individuality. Applying an ancient tradition to a new situation is a creative, stimulating and empowering act. Without a tradition, everything is impermanence and flux.

Most professors would like their students to be more rebellious and argumentative. But rebellion without a rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm.

If I could offer advice to a young rebel, it would be to rummage the past for a body of thought that helps you understand and address the shortcomings you see. Give yourself a label. If your college hasn't provided you with a good knowledge of counter-cultural viewpoints - ranging from Thoreau to Maritain - then your college has failed you and you should try to remedy that ignorance.

Effective rebellion isn't just expressing your personal feelings. It means replacing one set of authorities and institutions with a better set of authorities and institutions. The authorities and institutions don't repress the passions of the heart, the way some young people now suppose. They give them focus and a means to turn passion into change.

NEW YORK TIMES

This is an interesting article as I would never thought that someone would allow an article on organised religion to be published on Straits Times. My prejudices may be unfounded perhaps but that's not really the point why I am commenting on the article. The reason is cos David Brooks mentioned something very interesting:

 Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous world view.

Indeed, very few people have the genius or time to conjure their own worldview. But that really does not stop people from conjuring their own worldview by mixing and matching ideas from different religions - be it buddhism, hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or even New Age. I have not seen it really happening in Singapore other than people who propagate Yi-Guang Dao, a Taoistic syncretic religion that tries to enfold all religious doctrines in the light of Taoist philosophy, but from what I have read so far in apologetic literature, it seems that people are mixing and matching different aspects of different religions to form their own belief systems, never mind the logical contradictions which may result in the end.

But yet, human-conceived ideologies will always be riddled with internal and external inconsistencies. Ravi Zacharias has famously outlined a simple test for any worldviews: internal consistency, external consistency and experiential relevance. A worldview cannot be coherent if it is contradicting within itself. A house that is divided within itself will surely fall. Logically speaking, how can a worldview be divided among itself if it is to guide someone in their life? It's like the law telling you in one section that murder is wrong and the other section telling you that murder is ok. That is one reason why critics of the Bible have been trying to point out the 'internal incoherence' of the biblical writers (in most cases thus showing their ignorance about the bible).  Likewise, even an internally coherent worldview has to be corroborated by its external environment. The evidence we see in the world must be coherent with what the worldview teaches. And of course, the worldview must make sense and be livable. That is why atheism, lived to its logical conclusion, is unlivable and thus atheists become incoherent in their worldview and have to somehow argue that an atheistic lifestyle can still be meaningful.

Apologetically speaking, I have reached the conclusion that Christianity will remain the most coherent worldview in the market so far, corroborated by its internal consistency, external corroboration of science and history, and its experiential relevance. It is so because we know of one thing, we are not believing in some man-made myths but the historical resurrection of Jesus the Son of God and the Christ. It is not an ideology that is being conceived by man, or rather a few dozen of men who lived through a period of a few centuries.

Therefore, David Brooks is right when he says that very few people have the genius to come up with a comprehensive or rigorous world view but only One Person has the ability to come up with a coherent worldview which is able to address the question of origin, meaning, morality and destiny and yet be able to withstand its attack and critiques.