What If It's Not True?

Will Christian Churches Survive?

by Don Hatch

According to legend, in the year 1510 the Catholic priest Martin Luther ascended the steps of La Scala Santa Church in Rome while praying for the soul of his dead grandfather, which was supposedly in purgatory. When he reached the top he wondered; what if it's not true? What if all the indulgences and dispensations of the Catholic Church are meaningless? After all, the Bible says, "the righteous shall live by faith," (Romans 1:16), so what is the purpose of all the trappings and dogmas of the church? This thinking led to Luther's posting of his Ninety-five Theses Concerning the Practices of Indulgences on the door of the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg Germany in 1517, and to the eventual founding of Protestantism.

I believe, although it is seldom recognized or mentioned, that the Protestant Reformation was one of the most important and significant events to occur in the Western World in the last five hundred years. This Reformation enabled many people to get out from under the yoke of the dictatorial Roman Church, giving them the freedom to think for themselves. In particular it allowed scientists to put forward new theories on scientific subjects without the sort of condemnation and restrictions placed on Galileo by the Catholic Church, when he proclaimed that the sun, rather than the earth, was the centre of the solar system. In short, the scientific and social progress made during the Enlightenment period would most likely have been considerably slower without the Protestant Reformation, and also without the establishment of the Anglican Church in England by Henry the VIIIth.

Luther not only eliminated indulgences and dispensations in his church, he discarded some of the sacraments including the confessional and the last rights. He retained baptism, confirmation and marriage ceremonies and the eucharist, but insisted that in the eucharist there is no miraculous change of substance from bread and wine into the body of Christ, (transubstantiation, which has sometimes been referred to by cynical non-Catholics as cannibalism). Instead, Luther taught that Christ is symbolically present in spirit along with the bread and wine, (consubstantiation). Although, Luther's church allowed increased freedom of thought, there was one matter about which he was adamant. That matter was faith. He defined faith as "a leap in the dark towards a reality that has to be taken on trust. It does not require information, knowledge or certainty." For him, being a good Christian required -

• Faith that there is an anthropomorphic, all knowing, all powerful, benevolent God residing in a heaven somewhere in the universe.
• Faith that the Bible is the divine word of this God.
• Faith that Jesus was the son of this God, born of a virgin, lived, was crucified, rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of God, and would return during the last days to judge the quick and the dead. (As per the Apostles and Nicene creeds.)
• Faith that Jesus died to atone for the sins of believers. (but not non-believers)

It has been faith in these doctrines that has kept the Roman Church alive for nearly two millennia, and the Protestant Churches alive for five hundred years. But, - what if it's not true? What if the Bible is not the divine word of this God? What if Jesus was a mortal human, not born of a virgin and not resurrected? What if his death did not atone for the sins of believers?

These questions are being asked more and more these days by various scholars and even by certain members of the clergy. The implications are mind boggling. If there was no virgin birth, a good part of the Christmas story is a hoax. If there was no bodily resurrection of Jesus, all of the Easter story is a hoax. Thus if Jesus was a normal human being, (but one possessing much wisdom and compassion), rather than the supernatural son of a supernatural God, the whole Christian tradition comes into question and prompts one to ask; will Christianity survive or will it fall apart sometime in the future?

In our present scientific age it is not really a quantum leap to accept that the Bible is a human creation, or to reject the virgin birth and the resurrection, but what about God himself or herself? Sigmund Freud, (1870-1937), the father of psychology, stated, "a personal god is nothing more than a father figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father for justice and fairness and life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of a sense of helplessness". The German philosopher Nietzsche, (1844-1900), stated in 1882 that "God is dead." I believe this to be true, if you think of God in terms of an anthropomorphic, all knowing, all powerful, benevolent being, residing in a heaven somewhere 'up there' in the universe, who answers prayer, and expects dutiful adoration and obedience from his or her subjects. But there are other concepts that could replace the traditional idea of God including the following possible alternatives.

The Dutch philosopher Spinoza (1632-1677) thought of God simply as the principles of the natural laws in the universe, the sum of all the external laws in existence. To speak of God's activity in the world was merely a way of describing the mathematical and casual principles of existence. For him there was no need for the revelation of divine law; the only scripture is the eternal laws of nature. Well known scientists, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have also expressed similar views. Another alternative to the conventional concept of God was put forward by the Gnostic teacher Monoimus almost two millennia ago. He stated, "abandon the search for God and the creation of other matters of similar sort. Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who is within you, who makes everything his own and says, "my God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body. Learn the source of sorrow, joy, love and hate. If you carefully examine these matters you will find them within yourself."

This idea of God as a spiritual quality within ourselves, is similar to that espoused by Tom Harpur in his latest book, The Pagan Christ, and perhaps this is as close as we can get to defining what has been called God in the past. Rather than revering Jesus as the only son of God, only through whom salvation can be attained, consider instead that everyone possesses a spiritual spark within themselves, or putting it another way, everyone, not just Jesus, is a child of Providence. Eliminating Jesus as the sole son of God, and considering him as one of the prophets, gets rid of the exclusiveness of Christianity and opens up the world for Christians to investigate other religions as well and vice versa.

Before leaving this discussion on God, I would like to quote some words from a Unitarian Universalist pamphlet on "Views of God." In Tintern Abbey Wordsworth describes God as, "A sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused, whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, and the round ocean and the living air, and the blue sky, and in the mind of man: a motion and spirit, that impels all thinking things, all objects of all thought, and rolls through all things." And finally, utilizing the "keep it simple" principle, God might be considered as "simply the ultimate mystery within which we all must live."

If in time, the alternative concepts of God and Jesus presented above become widely accepted as a substitute to the conventional Christian beliefs of the past, what does this bode for the future of the Christian Churches? The Protestant Reformation created a major fork in the road of Christianity when Luther broke away from the Roman Church. Could it be that another major fork in the road, or even a dead end in the road, will occur sometime in the twenty first century? Will more and more Christians find that they are having difficulty mustering up the unconditional faith demanded by Luther, and begin to look elsewhere for a non-ecclesiastical sense of spiritual fulfilment? Surveys show that only twenty percent of Canadians attend church services on a regular basis and the percentage is lower in Europe, (for instance only seven percent in England), and if past trends continue, these numbers will decline further leading to the possibility that by the end of the present century, Christian Churches will not exist. This may not be a bad thing because, as Freud has said, "religion belongs to the infancy of the human race; it has been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It has promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity has come of age, however, it should be left behind."

I agree with Freud. Christianity has outlived its usefulness, is causing more harm than good, and should disappear. Why? Because certain things occurring today are very disturbing, particularly in the United States where the separation of church and state, so wisely established by the founding fathers, is being threatened in a very real way. Furthermore, the archaic Catholic Church still condemns artificial birth control and abortion, and now some American Catholic Bishops are advising their parishioners not to vote for candidates that believe a woman should have freedom of choice in these matters. Very scary. Even more scary are the problems created by the Protestant religious right born again fundamentalists. George W. Bush, the self proclaimed leader of the free world, is a born again Christian who honestly, but naively, believes his God is directing him to eliminate evil on our planet. Alarmingly, he is also toying with the inane idea of amending the U.S. Constitution in order to prohibit gay marriages. Bush receives a great deal of backing from these religious right people who comprise a significant portion of the population, large enough to be a major force at election time. In addition, many of these same people support the Jewish cause in Israel because they believe the Israeli/Palestine conflict signals that the world is approaching the last days, and that born again believers will be raptured into heaven when the end of the world occurs. Logic and common sense, I believe, would dictate that this is nonsense but unfortunately, the existence of these beliefs is a reality . What is also a reality, is that these evangelical/fundamentalist churches are holding their own while the mainstream middle-of-the-road churches are in decline. Hopefully however, our youth and future youth will see the spuriousness of the fundamentalist born again approach and also reject Catholic doctrines such as an infallible Pope, a celibate priesthood, and opposition to artificial birth control and abortion, causing these churches to gradually decline and eventually self destruct.

Forecasting the future is of course, a very uncertain business and the present overall downward trend of Christian church affiliation may not continue. However, I think it will, although it will be slower in the United States than elsewhere. Assuming that the decline does continue throughout the twenty first century, an important question arises. What will replace the present Christian Churches for those people who want to belong to some form of organization that is engaged in a search for the meaning of life, that will help provide some form of spiritual fulfilment and provide instruction in morals and ethics for their children? Many people have a social need to belong to a group of people like themselves and have a built in propensity to reach out for some kind of anchor that will bring peace and contentment to their lives. So what form might such a future organization take?

Perhaps a place to start is to ask, what percentage of the population is seriously concerned about spiritual matters and may wish to belong to a church-like organization? The latest Canadian census determined that 18% of Canadians do not profess to belong to any religion. Although many of these people probably have little or no interest in religious matters, some at least will be concerned about morality and ethics and might be interested in exploring agnosticism and non-theism, and belonging to a humanist type group that appeals to agnostics and non-theists. Other surveys show that although up to 75% of Canadians believe in God, only 20% attend church on a regular basis. This leaves 62% who apparently adhere to some religion but do not participate in the activities of their church. These are sometimes referred to as the water, rice and dust people or the hatch, match and dispatch people, who use their church principally for christenings, weddings and funerals. Such a high percentage of adherents (62%), as opposed to active members, (20%), suggests that there are many who prefer to have religious type ceremonies, rather than civil ceremonies and might be more active in their church if it more adequately fulfilled their needs.

Assuming that a significant portion of our future population would support some form of institution that fulfilled their spiritual and temporal requirements, just what form might it take? Back in the 1960s, Harvard professor of world religions, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, wrote a book titled The Meaning and End of Religion, suggesting among other things that the word religion would eventually disappear from our vocabulary. He also points out that the word secular did not come into general use until around 1850, in effect separating our lives into religious and secular segments. Although, it is possible to designate some activities as religious and some as secular we only have one life, not a secular life six days a week and a religious life on Sunday. Every day of our life should be lived according to an agreed upon set of ethical and moral principles, and if desired, these principles can be discussed and celebrated in a sanctuary on Sundays in an atmosphere of thanksgiving and reverence. Therefore, the foundation of any future kind of an organization expounding non-ecclesiastical spirituality, imparting sound morals and ethics to children with its members participating in a celebration of life on our magnificent planet, should rest on a sound set of principles, not on religious creeds. However, getting agreement on a set of principles could be difficult. It could also be difficult to select a name for such an all inclusive organization. I say all inclusive because it should be attractive to astute thinking people of all the existing world religions, and humanists, but not using the name of any of them. For the sake of argument, I will propose the name Celebration Fellowship and submit the following as a suggested set of principles.

The members of a Celebration Fellowship would be people who are seeking justice and fairness in society and wish to eliminate discrimination and intolerance. They would promote the art of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding. They would believe that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities and they would believe in the separation of church and state. They would believe humans have a right to privacy, should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, and to exercise reproductive freedom. All should have access to adequate health care and be able to die with dignity. They would affirm their principles as an alternative to religious fundamentalism, and ideologies of violence, and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in service to others. They would believe in optimism rather that pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. They would be deeply concerned with the education of their children. They will want to nourish reason and compassion. They will believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings and that science and technology can contribute to the betterment of life. They will abhor war. They will be against the funding of religious schools by governments. They will insist their members adhere to their established agreed upon principles, ie, practise what they preach. The do as I say, not as I do approach would be frowned upon. And finally there must not be any suggestion of guilt or fear such as the kind propagated by Christian fundamentalists who insist that unless a person is born again and saved by the grace of Jesus, (who supposedly atoned for our sins), they will roast in hell.

It will be noted that there is no reference to the supernatural in any of the principles stated above. It will be left to each individual to decide how they view what has been called God, (perhaps in the manner suggested previously), and to decide whether or not there is an afterlife. Many people may wish to take the agnostic approach stating that you cannot know whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, so why make it an issue? Or alternatively, they may wish to take the non-theist approach that there is no God nor an afterlife. These different approaches are, of course, a possible source of conflict. It will be essential that all members be completely tolerant of the others. And perhaps most important of all, there must be a genuine sense of non-ecclesiastical spirituality inherent in individual members and in the group as a whole. This spirituality can take many forms including admiring the beauties and wonders of nature. (Is it too much of a stretch to consider Mother Nature as a substitute for God?) Great music can also inspire spiritual feelings. Falling in love is surely a spiritual experience, as is the miracle of birth. And finally, what can be more spiritual than celebrating the privilege of being alive on our amazing planet earth. Hence the name, Celebration Fellowship.

The material put forward in the previous paragraphs is forecasting events and situations that could happen sometime in the future, but is it possible that there are orginizations already existing that are expounding principles similar to those listed above? The answer is yes there are at least two, Unitarian Univesalism (Hereafter referred to as Unitarianism) and Humanism. UNITARIANISM Unitarian congregations are made up of people of all religious beliefs as well as agnostics and non-theists. Their liberal outlook should be naturally attractive to all those who do not accept all of the supernatural aspects and trappings of Christianity. Its emphasis is not on doctrines but rather on principles, not on salvation but upon living today and living it fully, deeply, with passion and compassion. It is a movement that appeals to people with inquiring minds and who have generally shied away from traditional religions in an effort to find a better alternative that gives a feeling of peace of mind and contentment while still satisfying the important need of belonging to a group of like-minded people. Could Unitarianism be a logical candidate to eventually replace most mainline Protestant Christian churches if they continue to decline? It is worth investigating.

Just what do Unitarians believe? What are their principles? They covenant to affirm and promote:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in the congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within the congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• The respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

These are indeed a worthy set of principles that elucidate among other things, the importance of the existence of some form of cohesive community in the lives of humans. It will be noted that the words God and supernatural, are conspicuously absent.

At first glance, Unitarianism would seem to be a worthy candidate as a major and even dominate force in the lives of citizens wishing in the future to belong to an organization based on the principle outlined above and without centuries old beliefs that are becoming less and less plausible. However there seems to be a problem. Although Unitarianism has been around for about five centuries, their numbers are relatively small. There are only 44 congregations in Canada listing a total of no more than 6000 members. Why are there not more Unitarians, when their approach seems so appealing? One reason I believe, is that unfortunately the congregations are somewhat divided. They cannot seem to decide whether they are a religion or a philosophy. Some members want their services to be similar to the mainline churches with appropriate music, although without prayer or scripture readings, while others want the services to be on a high intellectual plain almost devoid of any form of spirituality. I personally feel more comfortable at Unitarian services that at, say, United Church services, but for me there is just not enough of a spiritual atmosphere. I would suggest that more spirituality could be added through the use of live music. There are so many great Christian anthems and hymns that surely could be made acceptable by changing the wording to conform to Unitarian ideals. Having an organ and a choir would add greatly to providing a warmer feeling in Unitarian services that often use only a piano and recorded music. A characteristic of Unitarianism that becomes readily apparent is that the members are mostly well educated and are keenly interested in intellectual pursuits. This perhaps explains why the membership is not large. They may well seem elitist to the average lay person. If they are to become a significant factor in our society in the future, and be a substitute for the traditional Christian churches, they will have to somehow learn how to broaden their appeal. Hopefully they will succeed in this endeavour because if any of the current religious denominations deserve to survive it is the Unitarians. They have much to offer.

Dare one then suggest that sometime in the future, the mainline Protestant churches might decide to forego supernatural beliefs and unite with the Unitarians to form a United/Unitarian denomination? Such a union could provide what many feel is missing in Unitarian services, that is, inspiring music. If this could happen, it would in effect really put an end to exclusive Christian churches because the Unitarians encompass more than just Christianity. This is one possible scenario and assumes as mentioned above, that Roman Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism will eventually fade out in the western world, but is a union as mentioned above realistic? It is difficult to know with any certainty but I think it does have more than just a modicum of appeal.

HUMANISM

Most of the principles that have been suggested above for a Celebration Fellowship were taken from those published by various humanist associations. Like the Unitarian principles, they just make a lot of sense and one would think that Humanism should attract a lot more followers, particularly from some of the 18% of Canadians who mark the "no religion" box on the census form, but this is not the case.

There are less than twenty local humanist associations in Canada comprised of less than one thousand members. Why is this organization not more popular and why is so little known about it? There are a number of reasons including the following. Many of the local associations have low visibility in their communities because the are not actively involved in promoting causes such as the environment, separation of church and state and crime reduction, to name a few. Humanist meetings are often held to philosophize, rather that being pro-active in worthwhile causes. Another problem is that Humanism is often equated with atheism in the eyes of the public. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. It is strictly a personal decision and is the belief of choice for many humanists but unfortunately, the many good and sensible principles of Humanism tend to become overshadowed by the atheist aspect. Humanists should put atheism on the back burner and instead stress the positive attributes of Humanism including the fact that one of the main aims of Humanism is to try and make the world a better place.

Another problem in my view, is that many humanists call themselves secular humanists and emphasize atheism as a prerequisite to being a secular humanist. Secular humanists seldom seem to recognize that humans are spiritual beings with many looking for some form of a non-religious spirituality. Secular humanists often seem to ignore agnostics, many of whom are humanists in their thinking. I think the words secular and religion should disappear from our vocabulary and be replaced with one word that expresses a celebration and reverence for life. Perhaps it could be called simply Humanism, not Religious Humanism or Secular Humanism.

I have heard Dr. Robert Buckman, the President of the Humanist Association of Canada state that Humanist principles and Unitarian principles are almost identical. Would this not suggest that there could be advantages to some form of synergistic union between the two groups that would result in more members and more visibility? Unfortunately, although many humanist are members of Unitarian congregations, there does not seem to be the aura of cooperation that might be expected. Too bad, because tolerance for the views and beliefs of others, is claimed to be one of the hallmarks of both groups.

Whether or not the Protestant mainline churches and the Unitarians ever can come to a common understanding and form a movement for the betterment of society or alternatively whether the Unitarians and Humanists can get together is unknown, but surely the trend of the future should be toward unity, rather than a continuing splintering. One of the main failures of Christianity has been the splintering into over two thousand denominations and sects and it is time for this senseless diversity to stop.

The coming together of existing groups that have similar views is one possible scenario for the future, but another possibility is starting from scratch to form a Celebration Fellowship.

CONSTRUCTING A CELEBRATION FELLOWSHIP

As already mentioned, predicting the future is always a precarious business but one thing is certain. Future events will be determined by our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. As our youth and future young people become better educated, and think more and more for themselves, rather than blindly accepting spurious religious doctrines, they will want to belong to organizations that fill their spiritual as well as their temporal needs. This suggests that rather than attempting to alter existing churches, it could well be worth exploring the possibility of starting from scratch and forming something new.

To begin with, it must be recognized that not everyone in Canada is a Christian. There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, non-theists, agnostics and others. Then there are the Humanists, who are mostly non-theists or agnostics. Humanists, who wish to belong to an organized entity, often attend Unitarian Churches. Therefore, in designing a church of the future from square one, it must be attractive to all citizens who wish to eventually move away from their inherited religion, assuming that not only Christians wish to make a change.

Presumably many of the non-Christian youth of the future will become dissatisfied with their ancestors' religion, that in some cases, pose certain constraining restrictions. Another factor that must be considered is that a sizeable portion of the population will have no immediate interest in belonging to any institution that is composed of people searching for truth and spiritual fulfilment. People without these interests will have other interests such as sports and service clubs but may eventually be attracted to a church-type organization if reforms occur. In any case, any new church should not be exclusive but must welcome everyone who may be attracted to it regardless of religious or non-religious background or views.

In starting from scratch, a logical first step is to examine the needs of future citizens such as those suggested below:

• Future citizens will want to be part of a like-minded social group searching for truth and spiritual fulfilment and one that provides services for weddings and burials.

• They will want moral and ethical instruction for their children. Children should also be taught the origin and history of all major religions.
• They will need help and support at times of stress and grief.
• They may want their church to provide family activities seven days a week. It seems wasteful to have church facilities idle for much of the week.
• They will be concerned about the poor and needy and will want to help make the world a better, more peaceful and more equitable place.
• They will be genuinely concerned with the environment, having great respect for preserving the miraculous planet we have been given the privilege of living on.

While looking toward the future it may be helpful to look at successes of the past and present. A growing phenomenon occurring at the present time is that of the mega- churches that have memberships in the thousands. These organizations provide activities for all family members and are well staffed. They are currently evangelical / fundamentalist types but as more and more people see through their simplistic messages, these churches should decline, leaving a vacuum for people looking for something more intellectual and more plausible.

Just what might a future mega-church look like? They will recognize that different age groups have different interests and take a lesson from the Cineplex movie theatres by having three smaller sanctuaries rather than one large one. One for teens, one for young parents and one for older people with a separate minister for each. There will be a Sunday School providing interesting and informative, (not boring) programs. There will be recreational facilities for all ages and various family activities throughout the week. There will be a psychologist on staff to counsel people experiencing stress. Consideration could be given to including a medical and dental clinic in or nearby the complex, in order to round out the services required by families. Such a complex would obviously require dedicated financial support from its members and a competent qualified manager to co-ordinate all the activities. With today's emphasis on economy of scale, mega-churches, based on the criteria listed above, could well make a lot of sense and fill real needs in the future.

Obviously nobody knows for certain what churches may look like towards the end of the present century, if indeed they are still around. Perhaps some combination of a United/Unitarian church operating out of existing churches and newer mega-organizations might possibly come about.

This discourse began with a question, what if it's not true? In my view the conventional Christian beliefs of the past that required unconditional faith are not truths, and should be abandoned. In their place should be a set of principles that avoid supernatural teachings but promote a set of guidelines that encompass the criteria previously listed. Above all, the idea of a religious life combined with a secular life should disappear. We have only one life to live and every day, not just Sundays, should be a celebration and appreciation of a life lived with compassion and reverence.

In conclusion it has often been stated that there will never be world peace until there is religious peace, suggesting that at sometime in the future there should not be any religions per se. If there were no religions in the form they are today, there would be no religious wars even though there may be other kinds of wars motivated by power, greed, territorial disputes, racial differences, and fear of those who see the world differently from each other. However, this utopian dream is a long way off because in most of today's wars, religion is not just a factor but a major factor with the most significant factor being Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in all its forms seems to be a curse in our world at the present time and unfortunately will not disappear for some time to come. Nevertheless we need to keep trying to bring about realistic and achievable alternatives.

It is hoped that the ideas put forward herein regarding the eventual fade out of Christianity as we know it, and replaced with something better, will provide food for thought and consideration, and possibly eventually serve as an example of reform for the other world religions.