christianity and the aestehtic of submission
there has been a great deal of discussion about the decline of mainline christendom in america, especially in relation to politics and the replacement of mainline church communities with evangelical and fundamentalist movements.
this is a fairly notable shift. america cannot be said to have been a "christian" nation throughout its history, at least in any absolutist sense. or to phrase it better, that would be a misleading expression. what people consider christian belief currently has changed dramatically over the years in relation to changes in science and world politics, etc. it would be more appropriate to begin by saying that america has always been strongly influenced by christian churches and congregations of which a large percentage of its citizens (probably a continuous outright majority until recently) were regular members. [it's best to keep to this logic, concrete bodies and actions] because of this large proportion of christian-identified members of american society, including leaderships within an array of other institutions, we can speak of the tremendous cultural force of the religion in american society of the past and present.
many reasons have been fronted for the decline of the mainline church in america, and they are valid in their own right, but i would suggest that an "adequate" explanation of a phenomenon is one which allows that phenomenon to be organically altered in dialog with the explanatory force.
instead of looking at the problem historically and analytically, we should consider how to interpret the decline of the churches in terms that might allow their renewal.
meaning our first concern should be the question, what repels and what might draw people to this religion?
a friend made a comment i find remarkably telling. mainline churches (and many other christian churches alongside) have an aesthetic of submission. you walk in and bow before an absent God-king, speak about your own weakness and failure alongside his designs, and seek either absolution or direction in proper behavior to supplement your weak understanding of life.
this is a critique of sensation and impression, and i think it speaks leagues more to the problem of organized religion in america that any other constructive critique i've heard.
is christianity predicated upon personal weakness or is it not?
if we examine sermons, common prayers, themes of worship, church organizations and services, the training of pastors, etc., this is an overriding theme of the religion. it is also wildly out of step with most American culture today. we might except in this the culture of addiction, which has taken a special relationship to the church, but this is not enough to make a mainstream religious movement in a relatively comfortable society.
so this is the question, submission.
christianity is born a slave religion in the margins of an Empire. "submission" means something different in such a context. submission is to physical lords and masters, people against whom god represents a deliverance. in such worshippers we do not see christianity as either self-abnegating nor hedonistic. we see a celebration of the powers of life as they are able to conquer death. see for instance the preservation of the old "christus victor" interpretation of the death and resurrection in the eastern orthodox tradition.
america is a relatively affluent country, in the sense that america could be said to be the pinnacle point of integrated global capitalism. we live "in the Empire," we pay its taxes, we buy its products and services (built in large part by slave armies in the "territories").
this is a fairly notable shift. america cannot be said to have been a "christian" nation throughout its history, at least in any absolutist sense. or to phrase it better, that would be a misleading expression. what people consider christian belief currently has changed dramatically over the years in relation to changes in science and world politics, etc. it would be more appropriate to begin by saying that america has always been strongly influenced by christian churches and congregations of which a large percentage of its citizens (probably a continuous outright majority until recently) were regular members. [it's best to keep to this logic, concrete bodies and actions] because of this large proportion of christian-identified members of american society, including leaderships within an array of other institutions, we can speak of the tremendous cultural force of the religion in american society of the past and present.
many reasons have been fronted for the decline of the mainline church in america, and they are valid in their own right, but i would suggest that an "adequate" explanation of a phenomenon is one which allows that phenomenon to be organically altered in dialog with the explanatory force.
instead of looking at the problem historically and analytically, we should consider how to interpret the decline of the churches in terms that might allow their renewal.
meaning our first concern should be the question, what repels and what might draw people to this religion?
a friend made a comment i find remarkably telling. mainline churches (and many other christian churches alongside) have an aesthetic of submission. you walk in and bow before an absent God-king, speak about your own weakness and failure alongside his designs, and seek either absolution or direction in proper behavior to supplement your weak understanding of life.
this is a critique of sensation and impression, and i think it speaks leagues more to the problem of organized religion in america that any other constructive critique i've heard.
is christianity predicated upon personal weakness or is it not?
if we examine sermons, common prayers, themes of worship, church organizations and services, the training of pastors, etc., this is an overriding theme of the religion. it is also wildly out of step with most American culture today. we might except in this the culture of addiction, which has taken a special relationship to the church, but this is not enough to make a mainstream religious movement in a relatively comfortable society.
so this is the question, submission.
christianity is born a slave religion in the margins of an Empire. "submission" means something different in such a context. submission is to physical lords and masters, people against whom god represents a deliverance. in such worshippers we do not see christianity as either self-abnegating nor hedonistic. we see a celebration of the powers of life as they are able to conquer death. see for instance the preservation of the old "christus victor" interpretation of the death and resurrection in the eastern orthodox tradition.
america is a relatively affluent country, in the sense that america could be said to be the pinnacle point of integrated global capitalism. we live "in the Empire," we pay its taxes, we buy its products and services (built in large part by slave armies in the "territories").