In chapter 30, McLaren contrasts "organized religion" with "religion organizing for the common good." Do you think religious groups can be vital centers of organizing for the common good? Why/How? Why not? (300-500 words)
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am glad that McLaren has made this distinction. It is important to separate the doctrine of organized religion from progressive change. This is what we have been debating all semester. On the one hand, religious groups can promote change through providing a platform for discussion and community action… but the question is whether or not they would be willing to take a leading role. Whether or not they would, it needs to start at a local level. It would have to be the decision of each local church (for Christians) to begin a path towards change. It takes continuous urging and organization to be successful. Are the leadership teams at these churches ready to dedicate themselves fully to such a task? Are they ready to invest their efforts not only to their mission of spreading God’s word in order to save people’s souls but also to encouraging people to live proactively? It would require them to almost split their time and take some attention away from the individual’s “saving” that they focus so much on now. It may be uncomfortable for them to consider this. They would have to be completely convinced that this call to change is really the word of God. And who is to say that it is? Brian McLaren? How can they be convinced if what they are working towards now is a different strain of the religion? For this reason, it would also take several mobile, active members of the church to promote this change and win over these leadership teams. And these new missionaries must be trusted people within the Christian community… so who will take the leading role? That is the real question.
ReplyDeleteOf course religious groups can become vital centers of organizing for the common good, but they are not right now. They are focused on a more individual type of religion. Because the good works McLaren is calling for far outreach one’s own community, it would take extreme enthusiasm from everyone involved. The time has come to stop talking and start acting. If a few large churches begin as examples, maybe others will follow. That is what it would take.
And if it begins in the Christian community, our hope is that it would spread to other religions… but that is as debatable as the churches beginning this new mission in the first place. A lot of things must be changed and reorganized before this can really happen and take hold in the religious community. The biggest obstacle, I think, is getting people to rethink their religion and purpose in life. If that hurdle can be jumped, the rest should fall into place.
I think that many religious groups already organize for some sort of common good; it's just that what is considered “common” might not be ideal. The majority of people going to church probably have good intentions towards others; I don't think that anybody wants others to starve or be exposed to the elements. But the common good for religious groups becomes the group's well-being itself, and aid extended to others is limited. I always hear about the “community” that is the Catholic church from volunteers. Like when one person needs something, all of the members can come together to make sure that they have it; like when a member is ill and in the hospital, they can be sure that other church members will visit him, and bring his family food dishes and other things like that. Doesn't that sound great? But there's still something about the whole concept that makes it difficult to work on a larger scale – larger as in on a world scale. Why can't this same sense of community exist globally? Perhaps it's the lack of a personal relationship between so many people. But to think of it as only being able to really care for people we can physically see and interact with, makes our humanity seem limited. Which is sort of a disturbing thought.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that there are many people who do care about conditions of people outside their circles, but I feel that the way religions sometimes try to reach out to these people is fundamentally flawed. What I mean is that lots of churches organize “mission trips” that aim to go out and help or aid another group of people. Which is great. But the whole mindset needs to be changed. Going somewhere and helping to clean a building is awesome, but aren't there more important things to be done? Donating food and money is fantastic, but it doesn't help anybody become more employable or any better off, except for they can they can worry about next week's meals instead of today's. It's frustrating because it's cyclical, and it's difficult to break out and really pull somebody (or a group) out of poverty, or even hunger. And since it's such a daunting task here at home, then it is easy to see why today's “common” good is limited to our own groups. It's like McLaren has been arguing all along; this can work, but it's imperative that we reshape the narrative.
Religious groups definitely have the ability to be the centers of organizing for the “common good”… but the question is whether or not this type of organizing can be implemented on a global scale. I think that many religious organizations start with good intentions; however strict religious dogmas, that is a part of organized religion, can get in the way. From my experience in church I can remember do many things for the members of our church, and the community. We would visit and make food for sick members of our church, go to soup kitchens, and go on mission trips. However, I feel that all these actions did nothing to change the faulty system that our world is experiencing. No one, from my experience, within these organizations seemed to understand why these problems exist in the first place. They are just doing these services because that is what they are taught they have to by their “organized religion”. This is so they can go to heaven and be good members of the church. The idea of the common good must be redefined; it can no longer be based on self serving actions and ideas. The narrative must be taught a different way that allows people to realize why problems exist, how we are connected, and what can be done to change it. Putting a band aid on the world’s problems will never change anything, especially if people are unknowingly perpetuating these global issues. Organized religion creates limitations in terms of what the people involved are taught is important. But if an organization understands, and is passionate about global issues, then centers of organizing for the common good could have religion driving them in the background. These types of groups are known to work on smaller more localized scales. However, maybe if this could catch on then the world could be made up of small religious groups working for the common good. Smaller communities could create a reconnection, which most people are lacking, with human beings. This reconnected could then be applied to the world, which may change many of the issues we are experiencing; just by changing how we treat each other. I think smaller community religious groups of organizing for the common good have more of chance than large ones. It seems that any organization that becomes too large has negative implications; even if there are good intentions. For this to work I agree with McLaren, a new narrative is essential.
ReplyDeleteIf the common good is considered more important than good "in the name of ____", then I do believe that religious groups can be centers of organization to help faces the issues that cause suffering in this world. Religion is a force, an undeniable force in the world. There is often debate on the negative or positive place of religion in the world, but there is little debate about the power/influence that religion has on the people of this world. If religious groups organize and move in any direction, such movements must be considered.
ReplyDeleteReligious groups can be centers of hope, and can offer an avenue for real change to real problems. This all must be considered in light of the face that such groups could organize to do the opposite. Just as much as a religious group could organize to do good, the same groups could organize to have a "negative" impact on the world.
In any case, religious groups can be very influential. To say that they couldn't organize for the common good would be very foolish, but to also not consider the ability of the same groups to cause harm is just as foolish.
History has seen it's fair share of religious groups aiding the relief of suffering and contributing to the suffering in many of the issues at hand. Ultimately, there is potential there for religious groups to "do work" to "do good" and to be vital centers of organization to "do work for the common good."
McLaren brings to light the potential and powerful nature that a religious narrative can have on people. His ideas about framing a story in which people find themselves caring and working for the common good is a moving idea. Who knows how plausible any of this really is, but the reality of the power of religion and the suffering of the world leaves one to wonder if religious groups will find more ways to organize for the common good.