The Counterpoint of Christianity

The gospel cannot be institutionalized, because if it were, it would be segregating...

Imagine the following scenario: The place is an evangelical temple. A person without any important title in the Christian hierarchy is expressing an unusual message to denominational temples, as the words point to the principles taught and practiced by Jesus. When she finishes, she is approached by someone who asks: - Why did you only talk about Jesus and not even mention the great characters, like David, Job and Abraham? Did you imagine? Strange scene, isn't it? However, one day I myself was approached to explain myself in the face of this question.

Here's my answer: - Are you questioning me for reflecting with you on the main character of the Bible? Isn't talking about love, forgiveness and compassion in your interest? I leave this responsibility to the leaders of this temple to focus on what matters least.

Such words caused astonishment to my questioner and the dialogue ended there. I am bringing up this situation so that we can talk a little about how far a religious-Christian system can be from the legacy of Jesus, even with his name displayed on its walls – in large letters – for everyone to see. The Old Testament is, and perhaps always will be, the model for Christian institutions. Is there any moral crime on top of this reality? In my view, no. However, the message conveyed to the faithful based on this model must be rationally questioned, but this happening, there is a risk of changing the perspective of those who submit to priestly councils. Such a risk brings with it an even greater risk (in this case, risk to the priests themselves): that of being questioned by followers enlightened by logic. Some, with a rancidity towards religiosity, claim that religious leaders are, necessarily, corrupt and – for this reason – they exploit the needy for what most affects the day-to-day life of a human being: financial poverty. However, I don't see honesty on the part of those who generalize these facts, as there are leaders who act like this because they believe it to be correct. In their case, it is difficult to conclude that there is exploitation, as the conviction that they are fulfilling a divine command (for example, the law of tithing), makes them "unconscious" of the exploitation they make of alienated believers. Despite this, they are providers of fideisms, that is, theological doctrines that have (as their main characteristic) contempt for reason. With that, they create loyal followers who, deceived by the eloquence of euphemistic missionaries, turn a blind eye to the gospel of Jesus.

Returning to the general context, sacred temples continue to spread around the world full of young people and adults moved by emotional moments that feed emotional needs and alleviate the weight of guilt and resentment, which is good from a palliative point of view.

However, what problem can there be in these emotional cases that evangelicals are so attached to?

In the religious interpretation of the gospel of Jesus that makes arrogant believers see themselves as holders (often, sole holders) of the knowledge of salvation. They believe in a successor transcendence of repressive rituals that restrict autonomy and freedom of reasoning.

Believing is an appropriate attitude, as long as your conviction does not build prejudices against those who do not identify with your customs. While this is simple to gain agreement, what we've seen is moral condemnations stripping away reputations.

As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with the existence of religious temples and I even see them as important in a social context. But if an institution says it is Christian, it does not mean that it is in essence, and this can be seen when we see members who do not know the practice of forgiveness, for example.

Religious apprentices believe that forgiving is the same as forgetting what happened in the past and since they cannot erase it from their memory, they think that there is no possibility of forgiveness for those who caused harm. They are selfish for not knowing the power of sharing; they segregate those who are in greater need and still judge them by saying that they are financially needy as a sinful consequence; thus, the religious course follows as if it were natural for a human being not to know how to live with compassion and love for others. In the first century, Judaism was based on the belief in self-election (today, this statement is still seen a lot); that the kingdom of God was won through sacrifices and rituals that proved human faithfulness; the Mosaic laws prevailed with a strong power of subjugation of others and, with that, the priestly authority overcame the miserable ones who hoped for remissions for their sins; sins determined by the Jewish law itself.

On the contrary of all this, Jesus showed a much simpler path [but not an easy one to walk] which consists of detachment, forgiveness, understanding, charity, faith and the greatest of all virtues: love. These are attitudes that do not fit into the religious-Christian system, as the consequence is the intellectual independence of the faithful and this, in no way, can be accepted by those who need to keep them in an ideological prison; and promoting the illusion of salvation coming from a religion is what remains for those who survive on the ignorance of others.

According to the ideas of Jesus, we should never remain in a religious dependency; he, in turn, would invite us to live as part of this world. Whoever is convinced that he does not belong to this world knows nothing about the gospel of Jesus.

The gospel cannot be institutionalized, otherwise it would be segregating. Rather, Jesus' legacy is unifying.

This good news (which is summed up in his teachings), therefore, is the counterpoint of Christianity.

Anderson Cruz.

Writer, therapist and graduate student in philosophy.