Progressive Faith Movement & Religion Posted by Oaktown Girl, 26 Mar 2007 03:11 am

Selling Religion

By Zeus

A central faith question for our time: “What would religion be if it weren’t trying to sell something?”

The reply is not easy to the tongue. Our religious imagination has been captured, felt up, coveted by self-serving “right hands of God,” and appeals to our most primitive emotions: fear of damnation, love of money, hope of eternal reward. Yet let us inquire more deeply.

What indeed would religion be without the falsely evangelistic snake oil of the “prosperity gospel”, which, against Jesus, blesses the worldly and materialistic rich over the humble and suffering poor. What would religion be without New Age gurus selling recipes for personal/universal awareness. What would religion be if it were not simply grafted on to political campaigns to attract so-called “values voters” (yet another term of vanity). “Holier than thou. Holier than thou,” proclaims the bankrupt faith whose coffers are bursting with coin.

In the last week we are “graced” with the launch of GodTube.com, the “Christian answer to YouTube,” according to the recent March 26th Newsweek. We witness a “BattleCry” rally attracting tens of thousands of Christian youth to San Francisco (the den of the devil I suppose) to rail against materialism (while using a wholly corporate, materialist format—rock concerts, etc.—to do so). We have a mega-rich celebrity Brazilian husband and wife televangelist team trademarking the word “gospel” and getting caught smuggling in 9,000 dollars IN A BIBLE into the United States (New York Times, March 19, 2007, A3). Talk about an apt metaphor. You can’t make this stuff up.

This is not the first time that the powers in the world have attempted to dominate and obscure the presence of spirit, and I’m quite sure it will not be the last. However, this is a time of acute and unrecognized irony. “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Yet, the love of money (and its attendants, status, power, ego, and ideology) seem to be America’s unifying religion. The idol of the almighty dollar is confused with an almighty God. Money is religion! Capitalism is democracy! Poor people deserve it! We are chosen! The absurdity is evident. The mistake of the Pharisees (the falsely pious of Jesus’ time) is resurrected for yet another run.

When irony has lost its power, and spiritual kitsch substitutes for conscience, is there a way out of the mess?

Trackbacks

Responses to “Selling Religion”

  1. on 26 Mar 2007 at 4:01 am 1. Aaron Barlow said …

    Budd Schulberg used to get young people coming up to him and thanking him for showing them how to make it in Hollywood through What Makes Sammy Run? They could not recognize–and didn’t care to recognize–satire and irony. And they couldn’t see that there might be something more important to creation than money.

    Mark Twain, a century and more ago, parodied the equating of salvation with earthly reward… and I have to explain to students today that he was making fun of the people who are sure they are amongst god’s chosen.

    Say it over and over, but it never gets through. Gotta keep saying it, though–or the idea that Heaven is a wholey owned subsidiary of Halliburton will stop bringing a nod and an ironic smile, and will only bring the nod.

  2. on 26 Mar 2007 at 4:40 am 2. Jams said …

    I don’t think there’s a disconnect between religion and greed. As far as I know, all religions advertise themselves as a path to some sort of preferred state. By definition, its members will be on the path, on their way to, but not having yet reached the advertised state. So, even if the preferred state is not a greedy capitalist one, there’s no reason why everyone on the path shouldn’t be a greedy capitalist. Even the hypocracy of imagining one isn’t greedy by virtue of one’s “faith” shouldn’t be unexpected.

    Religion is for sinners.

    I think the disconnect occurs where people expect religion to be more effective than it is.

  3. on 26 Mar 2007 at 6:51 am 3. JP Stormcrow said …

    My personal name for what I see as the primary ethos of the United States is the Church of Transcendental Materialism. The fundamental belief structure is that if you accumulate/consume enough money/fame points you crossover into OK Land, where the trials and tribulations of earthly toil and existence fade away. (kind of like a big Careers game.) As with any prevailing belief structure there are a wealth of rituals and myths, many of them conflicting on the surface (including many of the standard Christian stories) - but ultimately as a package they reinforce the core of the belief structure. Per your post, I do think that the interplay between this material accumulation/consumption ethic and the publicly-avowed spiritual Christian cover story is a fascinating one.

  4. on 26 Mar 2007 at 8:07 am 4. Jams said …

    It’s certainly fascinating!

    I think it’s important to realize that the accumulation of wealth isn’t just a belief structure. Wealth plays a very real role in determining one’s own future, as well as a role in the future of one’s family and social circle. But yeah, there is a point where the need for security turns pathological - conspicuous spending, compulsive purchasing, and of course, coruption.

    It must be a terrible conflict trying to resolve Christian piety and Capitalist consumption. Or maybe not. Maybe most people just don’t worry about it. Than again, maybe it’s enough of a mixed message to make people a little coo-coo.

  5. on 26 Mar 2007 at 12:38 pm 5. JP Stormcrow said …

    It must be a terrible conflict trying to resolve Christian piety and Capitalist consumption.

    Although the conflict with specific “Christian” elements adds a particular piquancy, I believe this is a pretty significant conflict for almost anybody who is trying to run their life via any principles other than straight wealth and material accumulation.(and clearly a worldwide issue - but I will restrict my comments to this country, where my generalizations are merely questionable rather than laughable.) And I certainly do not exclude myself - challenges and agonizing reappraisals along this axis are a constant factor in my family, as we try to balance personal, familial, community and societal expectations - explicit,implicit and half-glimpsed.

    And of course the capitalist/materialist/consumption aspects are not “merely” associated with the accumulation of status, but with the actual provision of material security as well. Let’s identify three very important interwoven strands to life: provision of physical and material security, maintenance of a status system and moral/religious belief systems. Let’s further say that there is a desirable state of affairs(or at least a less confusing one), where these three strands mutually support one another rather than create conflicts. I believe most would agree that contemporary America is not in that state, but differ radically on the root causes of the problem and therefor the remedies needed to bring things into balance.

    Bottom line: We are all(most) of us confused and uncomfortable with contemporary life. There are true and significant cultural “wars” going on between factions with different proposed fixes and agendas. Those involved in the “wars” (i.e. all of us) are further confused and challenged by the fundamental disconnects themselves - the resulting “mass” hypocrisy masks various forms of exploitation by truly dishonest actors. The conflict between putative Christian values and the “consumption ethic” is one interesting significant aspect of this sate of affairs. But I think the issue is even more deeply rooted and structural.

    I am afraid that we are all bozos on this particular bus.

  6. on 26 Mar 2007 at 12:44 pm 6. spyder said …

    Good gawdy man, are we revisiting RH Tawney (Religion and the Rise of Capitalism) and Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) now? Next thing you know someone will start quoting Marx.

    Of course that might tend to overlook the good deeds of Constantine, Charlemagne, and Frederick the Great and all of those other Holy Roman Emperor types. Maybe the consolidation of Herod could be compared to that of the Mayan kings/lords; could we deconstruct the role of Shintoism within the shogonate and imperial houses of Japan?? There is nothing particularly Xtian about the relationship between religious imperialism and accumulation of great wealth through its “infliction” on the masses.

    Looking back at Luther’s theses, the ones involving the sale of indulgences seems most apropos.

    —84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
    —85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
    —86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
    —87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
    —89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

    Soteriology is the name of the game. Led to believe that without some intermediary process of providing renumeration (and tithing) to a spiritual sovereign in exchange for absolutions and blessings, the propitiate would remain in a sinful state and not be saved for eternity. The vast masses of human beings, whose own lives are filled with suffering and devastation at the unattentive whims of the wealthiest (being born unto the untouchable caste, anyone?), are constantly reminded that their earthly suffering derives from their incapacity to afford salvation’s magic E ticket. The special wisdom granted to those who have received the soteriological grace imbued knowledge. Aren’t they special????

  7. on 26 Mar 2007 at 12:58 pm 7. James Killus said …

    Well, suppose we strip away from religion the promise of material wealth as an indication of the favor of God. Then suppose we strip away the promise of eternal life as some sort of reward on a pass/fail exam.

    Next strip away the practical use of religion as a way of providing a ready-made moral code: “Do as you’re told, or Daddy (God) will be mad. Besides, without a code based on faith (and how is faith operationally different from one’s “feelings” or perhaps someone elses?), then what is to stop everyone from stealing daughters and raping cats?

    Now abandon religion as an explanatory principle: “The sky is blue because God made it that way.” We might include a rejection of religion as an explanation for the mystic experience, since said experience is yet another phenomenon among many, and does not, to the skeptic seem particularly privileged.

    And while we’re at it, let’s admit that religion as a socializing force is not that dissimilar to religion as an economic principle, if what you’re looking for, your “profit” if you will, is to be found in friendships and acquaintances, which are, after all, as self-serving in nature as business contacts.

    In short, some take their rewards in coin of the realm and some in other realms, but it is not obvious why one set of human needs should be elevated above other sets of human needs, nor why religion should be at the crux of any of them. Some people write letters to soap opera characters and some pray to God. Wish fulfillment fantasies are powerful things, and the line between fantasy and reality is easy to see in others, but less so in ourselves.

  8. on 26 Mar 2007 at 8:09 pm 8. The Constructivist said …

    Hey, Zeus, interesting set of questions. I looked at it from the other end recently at Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist. In my absence, my partners have been doing lots of God blogging. Hope you find it interesting.

    Perhaps because I’m a literary critic I see the sacralization of certain stories as one of the central impulses in and strategies for institutionalizing religion. But I wouldn’t reduce it all wish fulfillment fantasies, as JK seems to be doing in his closing lines. Ooops, imoto just got up from her nap. To be continued.

  9. on 27 Mar 2007 at 12:33 pm 9. Zeus said …

    Should we abandon religion altogether, discarding it as an irretrievable conceit? I don’t think so. In my experience it can offer a communal focus, voice, and responsibilty to spiritual expression and application. I think religion is both seen too narrowly and engaged in a manner that is far too glib (for what but the glib would enslave the spirit to the conceits of the ego). I deeply appreciate some of the questions and thought experiments being raised in the comments so far (as well as the lovely simplicity of truth and worth just proffered: the need to quit writing because a child demands care– never a better argument than this! Here is another thought experiment, with a real basis, aimed at piercing this veil between literary and philosophical sanguinity and religious inspiration.

    Can a progressive person of faith love Nietzsche? I am a progressive person of faith and Nietzsche is my favorite Western philosopher, not because he “keeps me honest” (that too, but not primarily) but because Nietzsche helps me understand the difference between connection to spirit and mere vanity.

    When Nietzsche said, “God is dead,” perhaps one of the most misunderstood phrases ever uttered, he was piercing the Victorian, bourgeois concept of God, built around vanity, built around servicing our pettiest desires. He was not throwing forth nihilism, but unmasking nihilism, that which under the operation of conceit prevents the mystical and inherently creative communion with spirit.

    For is it not the spirit that helps us to “taste a new desire” not for wealth, but for joy, not for celebrity but for listening to the thrumming of wisdom in the observations of a child, to, as Nietzsche says, “lie still like a mirror so that the deep sky might be reflected” in me and in you, and lead us to a place not of covetousness and fear, but of generosity and courage, not of indifference, but of love, not of exploitation, but of justice, not of callousness but the “drop of goodness and sweet intelligence beneath layers of murky, thick ice…, not toward invincibility but toward a heart “cracked wide open, blown upon and drawn out by a thawing wind” to experience the world in the presence of spirit and to gently and compassionately turn back idols to their source.

  10. on 28 Mar 2007 at 10:27 am 10. JP Stormcrow said …

    not toward invincibility but toward a heart “cracked wide open, blown upon and drawn out by a thawing wind” to experience the world in the presence of spirit and to gently and compassionately turn back idols to their source.

    Very nicely said. I will coarsen the dialogue by labeling this A Legitimate Sense of Wonder. It is indeed a beautiful and wonderful thing. But it is my contention that at the current stage of development of mankind, that its association with religion (and organized Abrahamic religions in particular) is no longer useful. The baggage they bring erodes for me (and I suspect many) the wonder behind the wonder. The mechanisms of understanding the world via logic and experiment lead to no more impoverished a spiritual experience, and yet potentially do far less collateral damage.