Not a terrible idea on its face, but religion isn't the kind of thing you can pull on and throw off.
A lot of the power of religious institutions comes from the networking effect between members. The ceremony and morality play bind the group together and give them a common purpose.
But joining a religious institution means coming in at the bottom and conforming to the pre-established dictates. Leaders compete to appear the most righteous. You can't come in and simply make religious sounding noises to hijack the movement. You need to court leaders and lobby them into taking your side, often by parroting the devotions and proving yourself capable of bringing in more followers.
I think there's mileage in appealing to religious organizations with an adjoining secular message. And I think there's value in partnering with religious groups to pursue popular goals.
But I don't think you can just
take religion back
Not without immersing yourself within the faith in a manner that grants legitimacy. And that's hard for a secular person - particularly a sincere one - to achieve.
I'd actually typed up a little on that last point but I deleted it because my post was getting to be too long... That's the point that always trips me up, though. I'm trying to learn a little more about some of the early Christian atheists - I figure there might be something useful there? I've also been reading up on the history of major divisions in the church since those are always good opportunities to grab power.
I mean, I'm familiar with the gnostics somewhat. But I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian Atheists". Pretty much by definition, a Christian is someone who believes the Gospel stories and subsequent testimonies are accurate.
Specifically, I was thinking of the heresy of Jesuism, but I really meant atheist in a more classical sense. I guess agnostic or even skeptic would have been a better word choice, but still not quite right... I'm referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
And side note, there's an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church's history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn't take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven't read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven't read but goddamn that is a funny title).
I’m referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
I see what you mean. I just... don't see a lot of political mileage in Deism. The idea of the Clockwork Deity is interesting to theological academics, but not terribly inspiring for activists or revolutionaries.
And side note, there’s an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church’s history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn’t take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven’t read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven’t read but goddamn that is a funny title).
That's cool as hell. But I'd consider it more of an exception than a rule.
Not a terrible idea on its face, but religion isn't the kind of thing you can pull on and throw off.
A lot of the power of religious institutions comes from the networking effect between members. The ceremony and morality play bind the group together and give them a common purpose.
But joining a religious institution means coming in at the bottom and conforming to the pre-established dictates. Leaders compete to appear the most righteous. You can't come in and simply make religious sounding noises to hijack the movement. You need to court leaders and lobby them into taking your side, often by parroting the devotions and proving yourself capable of bringing in more followers.
I think there's mileage in appealing to religious organizations with an adjoining secular message. And I think there's value in partnering with religious groups to pursue popular goals.
But I don't think you can just
Not without immersing yourself within the faith in a manner that grants legitimacy. And that's hard for a secular person - particularly a sincere one - to achieve.
I'd actually typed up a little on that last point but I deleted it because my post was getting to be too long... That's the point that always trips me up, though. I'm trying to learn a little more about some of the early Christian atheists - I figure there might be something useful there? I've also been reading up on the history of major divisions in the church since those are always good opportunities to grab power.
I mean, I'm familiar with the gnostics somewhat. But I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian Atheists". Pretty much by definition, a Christian is someone who believes the Gospel stories and subsequent testimonies are accurate.
Specifically, I was thinking of the heresy of Jesuism, but I really meant atheist in a more classical sense. I guess agnostic or even skeptic would have been a better word choice, but still not quite right... I'm referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
And side note, there's an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church's history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn't take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven't read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven't read but goddamn that is a funny title).
I see what you mean. I just... don't see a lot of political mileage in Deism. The idea of the Clockwork Deity is interesting to theological academics, but not terribly inspiring for activists or revolutionaries.
That's cool as hell. But I'd consider it more of an exception than a rule.