The other day, I was sitting at Starbucks when I truck up a conversation with an employee. We got on the topic of where we came from (Portland, OR) when a man sitting across the way joined in. He was originally from Southern CA, lived for a while in San Francisco, Florida, then eventually ended up in Muskegon, MI. Although a painter by trade, we caught up to him while in the middle of a political campaign in which he is running for Congress as a West Michigan representative in the Democratic party.
Frankly, I saw this as a great opportunity for me to stretch myself a little and work the conversation in such a way that I could invite him to E. Paris CRC’s Summer Celebration.
The conversation revolved around the idea of community. His optimism was magnetic and he had great energy. He confided that he had been raised Greek Orthodox but left the faith of his youth, and then about 6 years go began “formally” attending church again. Frankly (again) this sounded very much like politiqing, the words of someone trying desperately to earn votes by establishing common ground when he really has no idea what he’s talking about. (For the record, one of the things I find so attractive about Obama is that he claims he’s Christian and actually sounds and acts like too. With him, you know he knows what he’s talking about.)
I felt this political candidate was too idealistic – he was speaking as if community was the solution to all our problems: If we could only get people out of their houses and interacting with their neighbors – getting to know who they live next to – life would be so much more enjoyable (this is why I thought something like the Summer Celebration would be something he’d be interested in).
In an effort to plant a seed, I stated that I agree with him that building community is a need for our society. I went to say that unfortunately – from a cultural perspective – the only communities people have available to them are their religious communities. He responded with an observation that every religious person thinks they have God (can’t disagree with that). But then, the ultimate of damning postmodern statements (and the reason he won’t get the W. Michigan vote) came out of his mouth: “But God is bigger than any single group and people need to recognize that there is just as much validity to someone elses beliefs as there is to their own. Religion and spirituality are things to help people get through the ebb and flow of life and we need to respect what others have found to work for them.”
Do I really need to explain why his thoughts are a problem? Likewise, do I need explain why I think his sudden “church attendance” is more political than anything else?
A recent poll conducted by – of all duos – Associated Press and MTV found that nearly 85% of people between 14-24 consider religion to be a major part of their lives. We still have people running around trying to get elected to office, claiming that they best represent the ideas of the constituency, yet at the same time treat religion and spirituality as by-products of human life – as something that can and should be tossed aside for the benefit of society as a whole. With so many up and coming voters hold fast to their beliefs that idea has got to change…it WILL change. And a lot of people are going to detest every minute of it.
I suspect the Boomers will cringe at the thought of American politics re-invoking the name of God after so many of them fought for so long and so hard to do away with God in the public sector. God – in some form – is making a comeback.
Something else this study found (although I would hardly consider it a discovery since I basically fall into the above category and have been aware of it for a while) is that young people are also very tolerant of the beliefs of others, even when they contradict their own. That can be both a blessing and a problem. In any case, that’s much different than what the hopeful-Congressman was promoting. He was promoting a society in which religion remains a personal, never-talk-about choice, where-as young people see it as an integral, public display of who they are. One says that in order for there to be peace everyone needs to shut up about what they believe, while the other says that peace comes when we can be “true to ourselves” and accept one another exactly as we are in full. One sees religion as a crutch to help us do good things for our neighbors – on sort of weekly personal pep-rally. The other sees it as a defining trait intimately tied to the person they are – reject one, and you automatically reject the other.
I told E. Paris yesterday that the key to breaking into the apartments across the street will be to break down walls. The people who live there have a certain impression of what sort of church they are – right or wrong as it may be. I will agree with my congressional conversant, great things happen when people get out of their houses and become a real community. In order for real community to be established, stereotypes need to fall. In our case we need to crush the false impressions yet still maintain a message that Jesus is Lord! No “if’s,” “and’s,” or “but’s” about it…
People Talk