Friday, June 8, 2012
Religious Hypocrisy
Not everyone who seems to be religious really is religious. What we are outwardly, unfortunately, is not necessarily what is going on inwardly. And so, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus next comes to address the issue of religious hypocrisy.
Having discussed the moral and ethical requirements of the Law, Jesus now takes up the duties of religious practice, which in First Century Judaism were mainly almsgiving, prayer and fasting (Matt. 6:1-18). In each instance Jesus warns against doing these things in such a way as to be "seen by men." It is, sadly, possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason.
We do not know what was the actual practice of Jews in the First Century – whether they literally heralded their almsgiving with trumpets, stood on the street corners praying, or disfigured their faces when fasting – it is possible that Jesus was speaking figuratively. What we do know is that the scribes of that day occupied an honored place in Jewish society, and this certainly would have provided the occasion for ostentation. Human nature being what it is, if a given practice is held in high esteem among our peers, our natural tendency will be to take pride in doing it.
But this raises a serious question: what is our real motive for engaging in these activities? A genuine concern to help the poor and a sincere desire to honor God? Or is it really to impress our fellow humans? And if the latter, what religious value does it have? The answer is, none at all. It is, in fact, a species of irreligion: instead of glorifying God we are glorifying ourselves – at His expense! Thus it is indeed possible to do the right thing for entirely the wrong reason.
And in God's sight it is the reason that counts. He looks on the heart, and our real motives lie completely exposed to His view. If, as it turns out, our outward display of piety is really egotism in disguise, then it is abominable hypocrisy as far as God is concerned. And what counts is what matters to Him, not our fellow men. If our motive is really a desire to promote ourselves, the reward we have of men is the only reward we will get. The accolades of our fellow humans come with the price of God's frown.
Is it worth it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not everyone who seems to be religious really is religious.
ReplyDeleteNot every Scotsman is really a Scotsman.
But this raises a serious question: what is our real motive for engaging in these activities? A genuine concern to help the poor and a sincere desire to honor God? Or is it really to impress our fellow humans?
There are other possibilities:
Is it to to permit you to privately feel smug and superior?
Or, alternatively, do you do something out of abject fear of being tortured in the basement for ever and ever and ever?
(apologies-off topic)
ReplyDeleteBob, out of sheer curiosity, have you heard of the Clergy Project?
I found out about it myself only a couple of years ago and I am fascinated by the concept.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
This was how I first heard about it.
It's grown since then and, judging from the comments, has touched many peoples lives.
Just asking. If you'd rather not discuss it then no big deal.
This one I had to retrieve from the spam folder. Sorry about that!
DeleteI might have heard about the Clergy Project on Eric MacDonald's blog (Choice in Dying). I gather that he was in that situation for a while, preaching every Sunday after he had lost his own faith.
There is a kind of duplicity that has been going on for many decades now in the major Protestant denominations here in the US. Most have adopted a kind of liberal theology that denies such cardinal doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ and His literal, physical resurrection. The seminaries largely teach a "higher critical" view of the Scriptures, and few would take the Bible literally. Most of the graduates of these schools, however, are willing to state their true beliefs from the pulpit. They will read from the Bible, make some innocuous comments about the passage read, and avoid stirring up controversy.
The gay rights controversy, however, has made things more difficult for them, since it involves an issue in which a church has to decide what actually to do. The result is a crisis in some of the denominations that have decided to ordain homosexuals and perform same-sex marriages.
The classic critique of liberal theology was J. Gresham Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism," which appeared in 1923.
I just spotted a typo in the reply above. The one sentence should read: "Most of the graduates of these schools, however, are unwilling to state their true beliefs from the pulpit."
DeleteThis one I had to retrieve from the spam folder. Sorry about that!
DeleteNo problem. :)
What do you think of the Clergy Project?
I gather that he was in that situation for a while, preaching every Sunday after he had lost his own faith.
There is a kind of duplicity...
Can you understand or sympathize with someone that would carry on rather than give up their entire life?
It's not a consequence-free choice.
What about a dutiful son or daughter that goes to church every Sunday only to keep their parents happy?
Most have adopted a kind of liberal theology that...
I don't see the connection.
They will read from the Bible, make some innocuous comments about the passage read, and avoid stirring up controversy.
Again, I don't see the connection.
Are you invoking the No True Scotsman?
I think that in Eric MacDonald's case he probably was faced with an awful dilemma. I think that Dan Barker probably was in the same position at one point. I also think that probably most people in liberal churches are perfectly sincere in believing that they are maintaining the essence of the faith while discarding some of "details."
DeleteBut it is one thing to attend a church service in order to please your parents. It is another thing to stand in the pulpit and deliver a sermon about something you don't believe in. If I ever tried that I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!
What is especially unconscionable are some of the seminary professors who openly attack the Bible in the classroom. They are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to be on the seminary's payroll while they attack what the seminary professes to believe in.
Part of the problem here is with the churches themselves. I someone is not sure what they believe in, why would we put him through seminary and ordain him to the ministry? Darwin himself once studied for Anglican ministry, although it is doubtful that he was ever a believer-he came from a family of freethinkers, and his wife, who was the conservative in the family, was a Unitarian! It was his father who suggested studying for the ministry, apparently on the grounds that he was unfit for a medical career. It says a great deal about the state of the Church of England at the time that the Darwins could have thought that the ministry was even an option for Charles.
But it is one thing to attend a church service in order to please your parents. It is another thing to stand in the pulpit and deliver a sermon about something you don't believe in.
DeleteI see both situations as stemming from the same cause.
If I ever tried that I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!
I would imagine that the dutiful son or daughter struggles too. The social pressure to conform and just go along just for the sake of peace is very strong.
If someone is not sure what they believe in, why would we put him through seminary and ordain him to the ministry?
There are many possible reasons.
The first that comes to mind is that the doubts occur because of the seminary and ordination.
Dennet in the video gives several examples of this.
A young person is taught to believe in "the bible".
They go to seminary.
Then they find that "the bible" they grew up with at home and at their local church is only part of the story. There's "the bible" of the biblical scholars.
That gulf will lead a sincere person to puzzle over the differences and not be satisfied with a cookie-cutter "answer".
Another scenario is that the seminary training is initially quite successful in quashing the doubts of the young student...but it only lasts a few years. Then the glow fades and the cold-blooded analysis takes over. The pat answers and the awkward hand-waving become more and more uncomfortable and fake as time goes on. Yet now, the priest is firmly trapped. They have invested the best years of their life in a calling that they no longer believe in. To leave now means terrible struggle and personal loss.
The Clergy Project is a very important thing. I'd like to see it get more publicity. I think it could help a lot of people. In fact, I'd like to see seminaries promoting it themselves. After all, as you said, why put them through seminary and ordain them?
The best thing to do is to make it very clear that such a project exists and it exists for a reason and that a priest trapped in such a life is no good for the church and no good for the priest themselves.
Gideon's Army and all that.
Christians are shockingly ignorant of their own bible.
As an atheist, I am stunned by the number of basic facts that the average Christian is ignorant of about their own holy book. I'm not talking about obscure stuff. There are nasty stories in the bible that take your average Christian totally by surprise. They've never heard of it because it's not in the popular "Top Ten" sermons that you would endlessly hear in any normal church.
Most Christians have no idea where the bible came from or what got left out or indeed why a bible was collected in the first place.
Darwin himself once studied for Anglican ministry, although it is doubtful that he was ever a believer-he came from a family of freethinkers, and his wife, who was the conservative in the family, was a Unitarian!
No True Scotman.
You cannot read a man's mind.
Try it in reverse...
"Darwin himself once studied for [insert your personal brand] ministry, he was clearly a true believer-he came from a family of conservatives, and his wife, who was the arch-conservative in the family, was a preacher's daughter!"
Yet it does not follow that that such credentials will demonstrate that the person described is a "True Christian". The man could be a total snake.
You cannot read a person's mind like that.
It says a great deal about the state of the Church of England at the time...
(...Ah, wait. I know this one...)
The Church of England was not a "real Church", right?
You may want to take a look at "The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin," by Benjamin Wiker (Regnery,2009). Wiker looks into Darwin's family background, and notes, among other things, that Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a well-known freethinker. The book is a fascinating read and pretty well documented.
DeleteAnd your right, the Church of England, per se, is not a real church. It is a state church with a secular monarch as its head. As such it is a parody of Christianity (although from all that I know about her the present Queen is perfectly sincere.) You may want to see my comments about Martin Luther, below.
Wiker looks into Darwin's family background, and notes, among other things, that Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a well-known freethinker.
DeleteGranted that it's all true it still changes nothing.
My point stands. You can't read a man's mind for good or ill based on his family connections. It's self-serving.
No True Scotsman.
And your right, the Church of England, per se, is not a real church.
In a puff of smoke, millions of Christians vanish in merry old England.
No True Scotsman.
What about...the Catholics?
And in God's sight it is the reason that counts. He looks on the heart, and our real motives lie completely exposed to His view. If, as it turns out, our outward display of piety is really egotism in disguise, then it is abominable hypocrisy as far as God is concerned. And what counts is what matters to Him, not our fellow men.
ReplyDeleteThis shows why piety to a supreme god in a hierarchy of concerns is... well, not just execrable and intellectually indefensible but the very root of immorality, namely, the ability to rationalize away another person's claim for equal dignity and respect. This is what lies at the very heart of why believers are such a danger to others, their insistence that we owe not just fealty but all that we are to their jealously possessive yet capricious god. We are to be as slaves to this delusion and it just so happens that in spite of overwhelming evidence that no one regardless of piety seems able to get a handle on which god, which version, is the right one, we can trust to the likes of faith-based belief alone that the delusion outranks scepticism about its veracity. This is the necessary belief - that faith alone is justification enough to empower just action - to do terrible things to others, very often hidden under the cloak of piety under the cloud of doing 'god's work', bringing into being - into the world - god's Word, bearing the torch of god's wisdom and god's love, showing us non believers the Way, the Truth, the Light.
It is this assertion - that we focus on what's important to Him - where the religious delusion manifests into a dangerous mental illness, for how can any of us determine what 'him' is... let alone what 'him' desires from us... when all rests solely on our faith-based belief? Yet this does not stop the religious from trying to impose their faith-based beliefs on others by directly and intentionally reducing their rights and freedoms, to make them subjects of this hydra-like divine tyranny. After all, the submission of a hindu garners results strikingly different than the submission of a muslim, the results in law and culture which stands contrary to the results of a christian submission. But none of that really matters so much as long as we submit, you see, and allow the religious our respect for their exercising their mental illness at our expense.
Religion poisons everything and it all starts in the mind of the person willing to empower the notion that some hair-brained faith-based belief is sufficient cause to justify all manner of crazy.
Freedom was born on April 18, 1521, when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and declared: "Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply,I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." As someone else put it, the fear of God is the fear that drives away all other fear. Get rid of God and either you are a social misfit or a slave of public opinion.
DeleteGet rid of God and either you are a social misfit or a slave of public opinion.
DeleteThere is no object in this sentence to get rid of. It's delusion... unless you can show me evidence for its existence in reality.
Get rid of belief in god and you are well on your way to improving the human condition; at the very least, we can start dealing with what is. It would be a glorious beginning but people want their delusion to avoid having to take responsibility for themselves, their motives and desires and purposes and meanings. Losing their imaginary friend, their parental Big Daddy, is pretty scary for most people. Many simply wish to remain special sheep and be righteously led by the pious, by their 'love' of their lord and master, because its so comforting to think there's this magical presence who thinks that in exchange for their belief they receive that special consideration from worldly concerns... as well as membership with the community of other believers. A little bit of poison is perfectly acceptable... especially if it directly harms those outside of the tribal in-group. It's so patently juvenile it's pathetic.
As for freedom in today's sense, Luther stood against the toxin of catholicism and enabled the toxin of protestantism and started the hundred years of sectarian war. We can live without that kind of freedom thank you very much.
That's not freedom in today's sense. Today, we can point directly at July 4th, 1776, where political authority was changed for the first time in history from a trickle down model that leaks some earthly power shackled to faith in some god but created from the bottom up... of the people, by the people, for the people, authority to govern bestowed only by the consent of the governed.
You might be surprised to discover that the founder of modern democracy was -- John Knox. The Reformers had to struggle with the question of whether we are required to obey the civil magistrate if the civil magistrate, (typically a Catholic monarch) is persecuting those who are preaching the gospel (Protestant Reformers). Different Reformers came up with different answers, but it was Knox who came up with the radical solution. Casting aside centuries of legal precedent he went back to the Old Testament and concluded that government rests on a series of covenants - a covenant between God and the ruler, another covenant between God and the people, and finally a covenant between the ruler and the people. If the king is wicked, and violates his covenant with God, then the people's covenant with God requires them to remove the king. Another words, the people themselves are ultimately responsible to determine who will rule over them, a radical notion in post-medieval Europe. This theory was further developed by a succession of thinkers in Scotland, most notably Samuel Rutherford. Change the word "covenant" to "contract" and you have John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. It is known as the "Whig Theory of Government," and James Madison would have absorbed it from John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian theologian, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Madison's teacher at Princeton. Suffice it to say, most of the American patriots saw themselves as "Whigs"; the Tories are up there in Canada (United Empire Loyalists).
DeleteI might also add, regarding Luther, that it took a while for Protestants to realize the implications of their own theology. Luther stated that we are "justified by faith alone," i.e., we receive the forgiveness of our sins by consciously putting our faith in Christ as our Savior. The clear implication of this is that only conscious believers are really Christians -- you cannot pour water on an infants head and call it a "Christian." The problem, however, is that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer and Knox were all working within state churches, and thought that Christianity is something that can be imposed, or at least supported by the state. It took a couple of centuries for Protestants to realize that if Luther was right at the Diet of Worms, that we are all directly accountable to our Creator for our actions, then we must have freedom of conscience -- we cannot allow a human authority to dictate religious belief. What it comes down to is that either you obey God or you obey men, and if you believe in God then you cannot afford to give human authorities unlimited power.
DeleteIn an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God. The only rights you enjoy are those that the state is pleased to recognize. That is why the US historically has had a limited government, while Communist regimes have been totalitarian, (and the main resistance to them has typically come from religious circles).
In an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God.
DeleteI can't believe you actually wrote those words!
What absolute poppycock. I do not know a single atheist who agrees to this. All agree that ahteism in political terms means secularism and, at its core, means a legal respect for fundamental human rights. No totalitarian state agrees with this in action (although many purport to support the principle). Your charge, that an atheist state becomes 'god' is an oxymoron.
As for the suggestion that democracy as it is known in democratic republics was 'created' by religion is equally absurd. Religion depends on submission to its authority for survival; the notion that religion brought about the removal of this submission in the sphere of political leadership is laughable because it is antithetical to religious authority.
That you can twist history to such a degree to argue that up really means down reveals just how polluted is your ability to reason a thread coherently and consistently. The US constitution is a radical rejection of religious authority and not its coddled offspring as you would have us believe. This is a perfect example of you arguing only from necessity, pretending that enlightenment values that emerged after the century long religious wars unleashed by Luther's rejection of the Roman church's authority that directly fueled the birth of liberal secular democracies was actually due to religious leadership. This is so contrary to history that think you are fast slipping into being an historical revisionist of the worst kind: a pious one where your goal is simply to attach religion to be the cause of all good and atheism the cause of all bad. It's a gross misrepresentation of how much blood has been spilled to grant you the right to your opinion and the means to express it without religious sanction.
In an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God.
DeleteStrawman.
Painfully silly strawman.
Shame on you.
There's this thing called...the internet.
Plenty of atheists on the internet.
Plenty of famous atheists on the internet.
Nobody is saying this.
(...carefully checks the internet...)
Nope. Nothing.
You just made it up to suit yourself.
It's a sign of weakness on your part when you can't engage with real,living, breathing, atheists and just have to make up stuff about them to make yourself feel better.
Atheists may not be saying these things now, but they certainly did then earlier when they actually had power. If you care to read the details of how a secular state tries to take the place of God, take a look at "Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and Politics from the Great War to the War on Terror," by Michael Burleigh (HarperCollins, 2007). Burleigh is a member of the Royal Historical Society in Britain.
ReplyDeleteThere is also an intriguing blog post on Choice in Dying (Eric MacDonald's blog, June 4, 2012) in which he discusses an address that Sam Harris gave recently at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, in Harris suggested that atheism has to come up with something positive to fill the void left by the disappearance of religion -- something that will give hope of happiness in the here and now, and help fix the world's problems. Has it ever occurred to anyone that this has already been tried? Read Burleigh's book and find out! A secular religion, that aims to create an earthly utopia, and inspire hope and confidence in people -- doesn't this sound vaguely familiar? Sieg heil! In all fairness to Eric MacDonald, his suggestion is some form of non-Western philosophy, but the loss of religion does create a void, which the state will invariably seek to fill.
As for Tildeb's suggestion about "a legal respect for fundamental human rights," in a naturalistic philosophy there is no basis for "fundamental human rights." "Human rights" are in the same category as "God"; to an atheist they are both alike products of the human imagination with no foundation in objective reality. If the one is an illusion, so is the other. This is why atheist regimes historically have not respected human rights.
Atheists may not be saying these things now...
ReplyDeleteNo, they are not. Good of you to notice.
...but they certainly did then earlier when they actually had power.
Who is this "they"?
Quotes?
...the state takes the place of God.
It's a dumb thing to say.
It's like saying "the state takes the place of magic pixies."
Nobody is going to say that.
It's laughable.
I don't think you really understand what is an atheist.
If you care to read the details of how a secular state tries to take the place of God...
I have a better idea.
Stop creating strawmen.
Harris suggested that atheism has to come up with something positive to fill the void left by the disappearance of religion -- something that will give hope of happiness in the here and now, and help fix the world's problems.
Wait. Are you claiming that Harris claimed that "in an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God."
Really?
Really?
Has it ever occurred to anyone that this has already been tried?
So what did Harris say? Be honest. Give the details. Don't just evade or make stuff up.
A secular religion...
A what?
(giggle)
In all fairness to Eric MacDonald, his suggestion is some form of non-Western philosophy...
Some form of non-western philosophy?
Gosh that sounds very vague and boring.
Not very Nazi-eque at all.
In an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God.
Strawman.
Painfully silly strawman.
Shame on you.
Remember your Ninth Commandment.
I think the point is this. People often find a great deal of solace and comfort in religion because, quite frankly, life doesn't given them a fair hand. The problem with the atheist agenda is that it is wholly negative and destructive -- it seeks to tear down the established beliefs in society. What what happens if the new atheist agenda succeeds? Where will the common man go then for a sense of meaning and fulfillment? If he is reasonably well off materially, perhaps nowhere - he is reasonably happy just being a consumer. (And prosperity will probably kill off religion more quickly and effectively than anything that the New Atheists can do -- just give people enough toys and trinkets and they will forget about mortality!) But what happens when there is a major crisis -- a financial collapse, let us say. If they go for a temporal and human solution to the problem, it will inevitably be a political solution. And in a moral and spiritual vacuum the the conditions are ripe for a charismatic demagogue to take power. As you well know, it has happened more than once in the past. What is especially disturbing about the German experience is that Germany was the very epitome of an advanced culture -- educated, sophisticated, and enlightened. All it took was somebody who understood human nature. The rest is history!
ReplyDeleteAnd no, Eric MacDonald does not have what it takes to be an effective dictator.
The problem with the atheist agenda is that it is wholly negative and destructive -- it seeks to tear down the established beliefs in society.
DeleteAtheism - meaning non belief in god - obviously has no agenda any more than your rejection of Muk Muk of the Volcano reveals an agenda with other Muk Muk non believers. (I'm almost too embarrassed to have to point this obvious fact out to you.)
If the point of New Atheism is to be comparable with an atheist agenda, then it surely is intended to be caustic (negative and destructive) to investing superstitious nonsense with legal and social and intellectual and political and economic privilege. You make this sound like a bad thing, that the comfort of Granny living on some meager pension with her dozen cats depends on maintaining with legal and social and intellectual and political and economic privilege or her make believe sky will fall and she'll be sad. Boo hoo. So let's keep granting tax exempt status of some 72 billion dollars per year in lost public revenue (in the US) that could actually improve Granny's pension in favour of privileging the religious so that Granny will be comforted by her beliefs in Oogity Boogity. Besides, improving her pension will lead to her becoming immoral!
Oh, those vile atheists.
You assume without cause that meaning and fulfillment only come from holding religious beliefs. You assume morality comes from religious belief. These are more chestnuts of utter nonsense spouted from the deep well of vast ignorance kept full to brimming called 'religious belief'. In the mind of the religious believer, what's true in reality plays no part in establishing whether or not a causal claim about reality is actually true; all that matters is what the believer believes is true - that religion is the fount of meaning and fulfillment and morality and that's that. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence; we believe it to be true. So forget that the claim to tradition carries no weight in truth value if the claim isn't true, forget that this religious assertion about causing human values carries no weight in truth value if the claim is not true, forget even that what's matters (because obviously it doesn't to the believer in claims demonstrably not true); blame the atheist agenda for revealing the undeserved privilege too many gullible people accord to religion.
What, your beliefs aren't true? Quick... blame the atheist agenda for hurting poor old Granny who should remain poor in order to be told what her meaning is and what fulfills her so that she can be told she's moral.
And you think this is a cogent argument against atheists?
I think the point is this.
DeleteI think the point is that you broke the Ninth Commandment.
Wriggling won't help you.
Let m remind you what you said since you seem to have forgotten:
In an atheist society, on the other hand, the state takes the place of God.
Strawman.
Painfully silly strawman.
Total and complete horse-pucky.
Shame on you.
People often find a great deal of solace and comfort in religion because, quite frankly, life doesn't given them a fair hand.
People choose many religions. They contradict each other.
They can't all be right.
So this means that people are living a lie.
The problem with the atheist agenda is that it is wholly negative and destructive -- it seeks to tear down the established beliefs in society.
No. Again you fail to understand what is atheism and insist on making up your own strawman version.
There is nothing destructive in a disbelief in Vishnu, for example.
You yourself presumably don't believe in Vishnu and a vast range of other oogity-boogity.
Atheists are the same as you. Exactly the same. We just go one god further.
And in a moral and spiritual vacuum the the conditions are ripe for a charismatic demagogue to take power. As you well know, it has happened more than once in the past.
Bob, you are bad at history. You make things up.
Google is not your friend.
What is especially disturbing about the German experience is that Germany was the very epitome of an advanced culture -- educated, sophisticated, and enlightened.
And religious. Germany was...religious, Bob. Very religious.
All it took was somebody who understood human nature.
So, "understanding of human nature" = instant dictatorship?
What a child-like simplistic world you live in.
Where do you get these pearls of wisdom from? The back of a cereal box?
No. 348: ARGUMENT FROM DICTATORSHIP
ReplyDelete(1) Dictators do not believe in God.
(2) Dictators are wrong.
(3) Therefore, God exists