Is Organized Religion Worth the Effort?

Is organized religion worth the effort?

For me, this question arises at this point in our study of 1 Corinthians because we are about to examine three topics that, for different reasons, may turn off modern readers.

The first topic concerns the physical appearance of Christian men and women as they pray and prophesy during the church service (11:2-16). The second concerns how the Corinthians abused the Lord’s Supper by failing to provide for the physical needs of their poorest members (11:16-33). And the third topic concerns how love requires that people exercise their spiritual gifts in a way that benefits others, not merely themselves (12:1-14:40).

Why might these topics turn off modern readers such as ourselves? The first topic might turn off modern readers because it appears, at first glance, to arrange male-female relationships in a hierarchical rather than egalitarian order. We will see that this is an incorrect interpretation, but first impressions are hard to overcome. The second topic might turn off modern readers because it reinforces the twin notions that organized religion is hypocritical and oppressive. And the third topic might turn off modern readers because it reminds them of the recurring habit of religious people to lapse into forms of speech and action that are simultaneous self-serving and unrelated to the concrete needs of the world.

Old-fashioned, oppressive, out-of-touch. That’s the way organized religion appears to many modern readers.

As a person who has been involved in church all his life, on both sides of the pulpit, I understand why people feel this way about organized religion. I feel the force of their criticisms. I have sometimes felt critical of the church in these ways too.

So, why do I nevertheless consider organized religion worth the effort? Because I believe in love. That may seem like a strange answer, for organized religion so often seems to be about anything but love. But I believe it is a good answer. Let me explain.

These days, we hear a lot of talk about love. “All you need is love,” sang the Beatles (whose recordings are finally available on iTunes). But love has been reduced to a subjective feeling that is ephemeral rather than enduring. What organized religion does is provide an institutional or communal context in which love must be practiced.

Think of it this way. If two “spiritual, but not religious” people disagree vehemently with one another, they are under no compulsion to to reconcile their differences. They never have to see one another–let alone talk to one another–again. If two Christians disagree, however, they have to show up at church together the following Sunday. They have to listen to one another pray and prophesy. They have to take communion together. They have to receive one another’s spiritual gifts.

Church provides an institutional environment in which people must work through their differences toward a loving, just resolution. And that’s why I think organized religion, despite the hassles, is worth it.


Cross-Cultural Servanthood

Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006). $16.00, 216 pages.

In Cross-Cultural Servanthood, Duane Elmer tells the parable of a monkey who sees a fish swimming against the current of a stream (pp. 27-28). Assuming the fish is struggling to survive, the monkey plucks the fish out of the stream and places it on dry ground. At first, the fish flops around–excited to have been saved, the monkey thinks. When the fish stops moving, the monkey feels satisfied, believing the fish is resting contentedly. Of course, the fish is dead.

In cross-cultural exchanges, we intend to serve others, but our efforts may be perceived as exercises of arrogant power. The remedy is Christlike humility. “Humility is mandated,” Elmer writes, “but”–and this exception is crucial–“its expression is culturally defined” (p. 33). We must both intend to be humble, in other words, and act in ways that people from other cultures perceive as humble.

How do we do this? Cross-Cultural Servanthood examines “the process of becoming a cross-cultural servant” (p. 19). Elmer outlines this process with six steps:

  1. Openness: “the ability to welcome people into your presence and make them feel safe” (p. 39, emphasis in original).
  2. Acceptance: “the ability to communicate value, worth and esteem to another person” (p. 58)
  3. Trust: “the ability to build confidence in a relationship so that both parties believe the other will not intentionally hurt them but will act in their best interest” (p. 77).
  4. Learning: “the ability to glean relevant information about, from and with other people” (p. 93).
  5. Understanding: “the ability to see patterns of behavior and values that reveal the integrity of a people” (p. 125).
  6. Serving: “the ability to relate to people in such a way that their dignity as human beings is affirmed and they are more empowered to live God-glorifying lives” (p. 146).

Elmer is G. W. Aldeen Professor of International Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. His book is clear and simply written, mixing theological and sociological analysis in balanced measure, and using illustrations from his life and career, as well as from the lives and careers of others.

I highly recommend this book to Christian missionaries, pastors, and laypeople who work in cross-cultural or multi-cultural settings. It will help them understand how to better communicate the gospel in word and deed. It will also help them examine their own motives to make sure they are serving rather than patronizing others.



Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day (October 3, 1863)






A. Lincoln

Permissible, But Not Beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1)

The Daily Word will begin after the following book review blurb…


Alister McGrath, The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010). $22.00, 210 pages.

Recently, so-called “new atheists” have been making loud noises about how stupid and wicked religion is. Richard Dawkins thinks belief in God is a “delusion” to be replaced by scientific thinking. Daniel Dennett views religion as a “spell” that needs to be broken. Sam Harris longs for “the end of faith,” whose absolutism he thinks leads only to violence. And Christopher Hitchens argues that “religion poisons everything.”

Alister McGrath disagrees….

To read my complete review, go here. To receive my book reviews via email, subscribe here and make sure to reply to the confirmation email.



First Corinthians 10:23–11:1 concludes Paul’s argument about eating food sacrificed to idols. He prohibits eating such food at religious feasts in pagan temples, but he permits eating it at dinner parties in private homes on a case-by-case basis. First Corinthians 10:23–11:1 outlines his reasoning on the latter subject.

First, Paul argues that the responsibility to love others takes precedence over the rights that knowledge confers. Verses 23–24 read:


He then argues that idol-food, in and of itself, raises no moral issues for Christians. Verses 25–26 read:


But given the first and second points, he argues that believers should not eat idol-food if a person raises an issue about it. Verses 27–30 read:


Finally, he argues that believers should reflect God’s glory in all they do. 1 Corinthians 10:31–11:1 reads:


Two things strike me about 1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1—indeed about the entire argument of 8:1–11:1. The first is the robust knowledge that guides Paul’s thought process. Paul’s argument proceeds out of a deep commitment to truth and a deep rejection of superstition. But the second is that robust love that animates Paul’s commitment to people. He knows idols are nothing, but he loves people who continue to mistakenly believe they are something.

At the outset of my comments on 8:1–11:1, I noted that few modern Christians—at least in the West—deal with the problem of food sacrificed to idols. Our temptation, therefore, is to breeze through or ignore what Paul writes there. But now that we’ve revealed Paul’s thought process, we can see how applicable it is to modern times. Do we relate to others on the basis of the knowledge that confers rights, or do we relate to them on the basis of the Christ-like responsibility to love them?

Knowledge and love. Rights and responsibilities. These are very modern issues, aren’t they?

“The Passionate Intellect” by Alister McGrath



Alister McGrath disagrees. Instead, in The Passionate Intellect, he argues for “the intellectual capaciousness of the Christian faith and its ability to bring about a new and deeply satisfying vision of reality.” Furthermore, he argues that a “theologically informed discipleship of the mind sustains, nourishes and protects the Christian vision of reality, thus enabling the church to retain its saltiness and capacity to illuminate.” Compared to this vision, the “simplistic metanarrative [of the new atheism] can only be sustained by doing violence to the facts of history, the norms of evidence-based argument and the realities of contemporary experience.”

McGrath holds dual doctorates from Oxford in molecular biophysics and historical theology. He is chair of theology, ministry, and education at King’s College, London, as well as head of its Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture. He has written A Scientific Theology, a three-volume systematic theology in conversation with the natural sciences; The Twilight of Atheism; two books in critique of Dawkins: Dawkins’s God and The Dawkins Delusion; and his prestigious Gifford Lectures, A Fine-Tuned Universe.

Knowing McGrath’s background, readers might not crack open The Passionate Intellect, intimidated because they think it an academic tome. Those who do so will discover, instead, a work of popular theology and apologetics self-consciously in the tradition of C. S. Lewis. McGrath writes clearly and gracefully. Those interested in pursuing the subject matter further can peruse the twenty-two pages of footnotes at the end of the book.

