The confused dogmatism of the "I'm pro-God, anti-organized religion!" crowd

Rev. Dr. Susan K. Smith is the senior pastor of Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. She attended two different seminaries (Yale and  United Theological Seminary) and has written four books. Her message, according to this post on the Washington Post "On Faith" blog?

Organized religion is too often a turn-off for people trying to figure out life. Religions tend to be dogmatic, too doctrinaire, with policies, premises and practices which honor the human spirit at the expense of the God mandates.

On this side, the Bad Stuff: organized religion, dogma, doctrine, policies, premises, and practices. On that side, the Good Stuff: the God mandates. Since Smith, the critic of organized religion, is the senior pastor of a church, I do wonder: is her church organized? Does it have set meeting times? (Yes, it does.) Does it have recognized leadership? (Of course!) Does it have any clearly defined beliefs, doctrines, policies, premises, and practices? (I bet so.) And did it take time at two seminaries to learn that organized religion is bad, while "God mandates" are good? (Probably.) While complete answers to those questions might not be readily available, some of Smith's dogmatic, doctrinaire remarks suggest that those answers, if available, would not make much sense:

God says love everyone; religions at least imply that it's OK to love some people and treat others badly.

How, I wonder, does Smith know that God says we are to love everyone? I hope she doesn't say, "The Bible," since the Good Book is, by all accounts, both a product of organized religions (Judaism and Catholicism) and full of dogma and doctrine (Ten Commandments, anyone? Sermon on the Mount? Paul's Epistle to the Romans?), not to mention policies (see Acts 15, for example), premises (how about John 1:1-3?), and practices (read, say, 1 or 2 Corinthians, or James). And if not the Bible, what? On what premise does she base her claim about God and love? And on what factual basis does she say, carte blanche, that all religions "at least imply" it's okay to treat some people badly? Really how, what does she mean by that?

God says be compassionate; religion too often equate compassion with weakness. God says do justice; religions often manipulate real justice into a justice its members can tolerate, and in effect,leave the masses behind. God says all people were created in God's image; religions too often try to "correct" that view and use the Bible or other sacred texts to justify classifying people, some as worthy of good treatment, and others as subhumans, not worthy of consideration.

Whoa, whoa, brakes! Warning: glaring logical inconsistencies strewn wildly everywhere with no concern for limb, life, or reason. She clearly operates from the premises—dogmatic, doctrinaire premises—that God 1) exists, 2) is active, 3) is personal, 4) is Other than mankind, 5) is rightful judge of man's actions, 6) is superior to mankind, 7) is morally pure and objective, 8) upholds objective truths re: justice and compassion, 9) imbues man with certain sacred rights, and 10) is opposed to most of what religions teach. All of these points, if I'm not mistaken, reflect a religious perspective that is organized, dogmatic, doctrinaire, and bursting with premises.

Some religions teach that God intended for everyone to be wealthy; God recognizes that there are people who are "the least of these" and mandates that those who are blessed with more bless others so that they will have more. Religions tend to make their adherents comfortable, cocky and arrogant, while God's requirements constantly scratches away at our ability to be comfortable and yearns for us to see human suffering for what it is and, in our discomfort, do something.

Alright, enough of this bullying of the good word "religion." Let's take a look at what it actually means, drawing upon the venerable Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion involves service and worship of God, which Smith seems to actively supports; it refers to a set or system or religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, which Smith obviously possesses; it includes a cause or principle ("God mandate"!) held with ardor and faith. Again, ditto.

Which apparently means that Smith is a religious person who is religiously devoted to bashing religion. This is what some people—me, for example—call cognitive dissonance. But there is more to it, as Smith's religion-drenched, anti-religious spiel readily suggests:

Religions would make God a conservative or liberal, a Democrat or Republican, but God is none of those. If anything, God would be an Independent, and would want more people to be that way. Religion tries to teach people so that they will recognize and fit into the status quo; God would urge people to see the status quo and work against it, not for the sake of enmity, but for the sake of change.

Religions point fingers as to who is right and who is wrong; God embraces the "good" and the "bad" alike. Religions put people out; God gathers people in.

God, according to Smith, wants people to work against the status quo (another statement of dogmatic faith, by the way, which also involved a practice) simply because change—any change!—is good (another unproven premise, which necessarily involves creating policies). And yet God doesn't distinguish between "good" and "bad." On one hand, God makes moral judgments (status quo is bad!), while, on the other hand, refraining from moral judgments. God gathers people in, yet he apparently condemns those who are part of the status quo and are involved in organized religion. Well, either God is very, very confused, or Smith is full of sophistic nonsense. I think you know which of those options I choose from my comfortable chair with a bottle of arrogance in one hand and a glass of cockiness in the other.

Just when you think it couldn't get anymore ridiculous, it does:

Throughout our history, religion has raised its head and offered its voice and we have listened, but seldom have we allowed God into our most sacred of spaces. Gandhi said, upon studying Christianity, that if we practiced Christian values the world would be revolutionized. He said "Christian" because he studied Christianity, but the values of which he spoke - love, compassion, sensitivity, justice and mercy -- are not unique to the Christian faith. All three major Abrahamic faiths have those values at their core. The fact is, Gandhi noted, that we don't practice those values. We do religion and leave God out.

Gandhi, of course, was a Hindu. He said, "Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being." Hinduism is not only a religion, it appears to be organized in some fashion or another, having a variety of forms and schools. Hindus don't believe in "God" the way that Christians or Jews do, but instead recognizes some 330,000 different deities or supernatural entities (or murtis). It is, in short, polytheistic. Of course, Gandhi is also famous for saying, "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew." Which means, I gather, that he was also polyreligious. The man was mega-, ultra-, supra-religious! Which begs the question: why does Smith rely on someone like that in her attempt to say how bad religion is?

Well, perhaps I'm being too hard on Dr. Rev. Smith. After all, as she wrote in another post, "God didn't make denominations. People did, and continue to do, if the truth be told." So far so good. Amen! But: "Ah .... truth ... that is the problem. Everyone is looking for the truth and everybody thinks they have THE truth."

Including Smith. Unfortunately, her version of truth is too unorganized to make much sense.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

"God didn't make denominations." That's not far from right. God made a People, then a Church, but denominations are human spin-offs from the Church. Eh?

[Telemachus]

This silly woman's statements are so chock-full of rote aphorisms that I can barely read without wanting to throttle an invisible neck in front of me.

"...religion too often equates compassion with weakness... religions often manipulate real justice into a justice its members can tolerate... religions too often try to "correct" that view and use the Bible or other sacred texts to justify classifying people, some as worthy of good treatment, and others as subhumans, not worthy of consideration... Some religions teach that God intended for everyone to be wealthy..."

All of these can be met with a simple counter-question: "What religions are you talking about?"

Furthermore: "God would urge people to see the status quo and work against it, not for the sake of enmity, but for the sake of change..." Erm, campaign-writer for Barack Obama, LOL!?

Finally, is anyone else sick of people quoting Ghandi? I mean, I'm sure he was a nice guy and everything, but people only quote him because he is an "other," not "polluted" by Western, Christian, Indo-European cultural strains. Otherwise, his oft-quoted statements can be heard coming from the mouth of any un-reflective freethinker from time in memoriam: "whatever floats yer boat, chum!"

[Don Schindler]

Great post Carl, as usual...

Post-modern 'religionists' - (they have no church or dogma- what else can they be called?) should be given copies of Chesterton's Orthodoxy and, using formal logic, be able to refute it.

IMHO, if not -they should be ignored - at least on matters of faith.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." - G. K. Chesterton, ILN, 1/13/06

[Cristina A. Montes]

Telemachus wrote: "All of these can be met with a simple counter-question: "What religions are you talking about?" "

This, too, is what came to my mind. When Smith said that God intended people to be wealthy, my reaction was, "Um...not MY religion. Christ became poor Himself, and then you have the countless examples Catholics who embraced voluntary poverty for Christ's sake."

[Marguerite]

Those who claim to be spiritual without a spiritual base (the church) are like crewmen who throw the captain overboard because they believe they know better than he to chart the course of their lives. They prefer to float along because it's easier than following someone in authority who claims to know more than they. Self-determination or stubborn pride?