The point of departure I use to test the veracity of whether a socially engineered phenomenon is plausible is one of purpose. Purpose as a yardstick seems to withstand the test of time even if we can trace a matter to ages before we came into existence. It is purpose which also seems to precede most of the changes allowed and accepted in a given community. It is because of the ever changing nature of social engagements that one needs to adapt without compromising an entrenched identity- purpose is the prime facilitator of change without compromise. If the car moves from point A to B, it is fulfilling its primary purpose. If a phone makes and receives calls, it is fulfilling its primary purpose. We can truly improve and add secondary and more enhanced features and attributes to cars and cellphones- yet what good are those when cars no longer transport and phones no longer communicate? Will we not seek to address the thing by seeking aid to reinstate its primary purpose?
Socially, religion has been seen as the beacon of morality. The prescriptive power of religion is one used by patients themselves. Religion is seen as an antidote to the root of all social evils i.e., the human condition. It is a generally accepted fact that all faith based institutions aim to alleviate social evils. The whole concept of sanctity dispels anything which falls short of goodness and perfection. Religious institutions are the vanguards of the sacred codes of moral living- whether they are relative or not, whether they are legally recognized or not. It is hard to find a faith based institution explicitly condoning adultery despite the lack of legal sanctions against it. Despite the tacit acceptance of some institutions on matters concerning sexual orientation- the debate still remains a robust and sensitive one. Whenever morality, ethics and justice is concerned- the purpose of faith based institutions is brought to the light. This is not to limit the role of religious institutions as those who have a monopoly on what is socially acceptable or not, but rather to highlight that their primary purpose has and always will be to remedy the human condition and its levels of manifestation.
I will always be concerned with the Christianity around me. I will concern myself with it for it has concerned itself with me. It has concerned itself with the lives of many and in its path, it has not skipped mine. It appealed to me effortlessly as access to a faith based institution had little to no administration. No registration fee was asked of me neither was I compelled to buy any books save one which was sometimes given out freely (I am referring to the bible). The only degree Christianity was offering me was one in life and all it took was one confession to enroll in this university. Religion found purpose in my life as it transcended the constraints I systematically inherited: constraints of poverty and uncertainty. At a time where a family i was a son and a brother in fell apart- it gave me a place of belonging. Indeed, that which we have seen, that which we have heard and that which we have held, I write about. When a faith based institution fulfills its primary purpose, a social engineering of moral significance takes preeminence. One can only imagine how many other thousands of people find experiential profundity in Christianity, no wonder why so many denominations exists- unity is not uniformity! I feel these things are worth mentioning. I feel it would be highly erroneous of me to judge a belief or a school of thought based on the way it is abused. Christianity in its essence aims to do well and bring out every ounce of virtue lying deep within humanity.
It is really futile to raise an antithesis against faith based communities in hope that they are done away with. The waves of secularism and humanism have long failed in rendering these religions irrelevant. The plethora of literature on the need to fight patriarchy fails in challenging patriarchal institutions which have their foundations upon the blood of men of old. Indeed, all pragmatism ever achieved against these institutions is contributing the saying that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. No adequate substitute exists on a level which remains relevant to the masses in governing lives, families and even countries in certain instances. I say this with much conviction, as no textbook has been able to refute the authenticity of many personal experiences I have had because of religious influence- it is almost taboo to try and disprove the existence of God to many people. For such reasons I find it impossible to detach myself from the Christian community I have been influenced by- despite having reservations of my own.
From where I am sitting commercializing faith based products has become a lucrative venture derailing the primary purpose of a faith based community. I do find myself fit to judge on this matter for I write as one who forms part of the laity. I speak as one who forms part of the target market. I speak as one who forms part of the poor- the group being exploited here. As the poor we have filled the pews and have been the recipients of many monologues given in the name of Jesus. We have been taken ransom a times solely because we have sought to answer a call to an upward life of greater moral standards (and sometimes supernatural exploits). There has been a pressure unprecedented that has us wondering whether we are economically equipped to afford the ‘move of God’ in our lives. We the poor fill the pews and are called faithless whenever we second guess parting with our peanuts when a ‘special offering’ is raised. We the poor are troubled in purchasing the books, CDS and other miscellaneous products. We are systematically unable to afford goods of spiritual growth and so we sit wondering whether they were indeed produced for our equipping. We the poor still struggle with inequality as citizens of the state, why is the same inequality brought into faith based institutions? How far have efforts to alleviate poverty within communities gone- how effective is my Christianity in this regard? Where is the morality in my poverty not being practically addressed but rather over looked?
When faith based institutions adopt a culture of flamboyance and affluence, a distorted image is sent forth to those looking from the outside. When the yardstick of ‘Sunday best’ is one of a ‘corporate image’- capitalism is exposed as the root cause of such trends. From where I am sitting, I cannot help but empathize; for the view from the pew strongly suggests to me that the clergy themselves are also victims of a ‘dog eat dog’ world.
What do you see?
