From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:47:41 GMT

In article <fWJTPBe@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec17.030104.1767@midway.uchicago.edu> 
> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) calls me on an important question:
> >>So, in your opinion, why do people join religious movements  today?
> >I think they join for two reasons: one is that most of us know
> >we are alive, and that we have to die; it is important to be able
> >to make meaning in our lives, in order to provide the fullest
> >life we are capable of, not only for ourselves, but for those
> >we care about and those who care about us. 
> >People join a community of faith in order to not make that
> >journey alone; to learn from other's lessons, to gain new
> >perspectives: to be part of something larger than themselves.
> >A community of faith, unlike say USENET, requires people to
> >go out of their way to physically meet, to confront, to accept
> >each other with all that that implies, in order to be fully
> >human, in order not to live in a vacuum.

Let me say at the outset that, I found the whole of Dano's response
thoughtful and thought-provoking. I would have used the word "non-rational"
rather than "irrational" but that is a most piddling quibble. 
 
> I find this very interesting. What you are describing is culture or
> family or tribe, is it not? Are the majority of people so disconnected
> from each other today that religion is required to bring them together?
> Are the only group rituals of significance today religious? Is this
> something that atheists are missing?

I don't think that religion is "required" to bring people together. It
seems to do it well, though. The effects of the decline of ritual behavior
(even secular rites of passage) is largely unknown territory.  Perhaps what
Robert Bly writes about in Iron John could be viewed as a meditation on the
subject.

>And, speaking of journeys we make
> alone, of course each of us dies alone, it is the one heroic act we all
> get to partake in, alone. Is it fear of this one solitary journey that
> encourages people to join religious groups, under the illusion that the
> whole group will pass through as a group and not as
> individuals?

  Christianity doesn't hold the notion that the whole group will pass
through as a group. Recall the old song "You've got to walk that lonesome
valley, you've got to walk it by yourself, nobody else can walk it for
you..." It seems to capture the Christian view that each person must face
God alone.

>Is a religious group a substitute family, where instead of
> a domineering father who forces the family together despite personality
> differences, one has a domineering God image instead, performing the
> same role? And, does a religious group make one "fully human and not
> living in a vacuum," or is it only an illusion? Why is this sounding like
> Bradshaw's dysfunctional family?

  One of the fascinating characteristics of Christianity is the extent to
which people find it psychologically (whatever that means) satisfying. The
Bible tells some cracking good tales that address deep-seated hungers and
fears in people. By way of illustration, consider some of the stories in
the way that Bruno Bettelheim looked at fairy tales in "The Uses of
Enchantment."  As an example, the story of Cain and Abel may be read as the
story of the conflict between an agrarian and a nomadic herding society; it
may also be read as a parable of sibling rivalry with the message that
there are heavy dues to be paid just on a purely human level if you should,
in a moment of anger, actually kill your brother. This psychological
perspicacity, to my mind, keeps the Bible popular in a way that some other
old literatures aren't.
  Thus, God may be depicted within each group according to group needs. The
domineering God forcing the family together is, from what I've seen, more
often than not an expression of the personality of the leaders of a group
who are using Christianity as an outlet for their will to power. I've met
others who call themselves Christians who seemed astonishingly free of any
overt will to power. Not often, though.
		Re: Bradshaw: at some point, some folks manage to come to terms with
their childhood and upbringing. Call it a statute of limitations on
parental crimes. Bradshaw (and others for that matter) have little to offer
them. But these folk may continue nevertheless to find Christianity
rewarding. I would guess that some of the correspondents here on the net
would be willing to vouch personally for this...Gene
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan