There is always the doctrine in religion in its original form but though it is relevant to the modern society in 2014 and beyond, it does not seem to appeal. Thus in past decades, the houses of divinity faced with diminishing congregations realized that they need new ways to attract back the crowd.
This cannot be by the no-brainier conservative ways and quoting verbatim from the scriptures but by pastors, monks or clergy men giving personal narratives and pushing forward the doctrine in the their own words and real life experiences of society. The latter appeal and are more relevant somewhat.
Effectively they are writing their own scriptures that are very much more appealing than the standard texts in the old and seemingly archaic passed-down scriptures. Often instead of delving on how to be pure and close with God, they touched the hearts of men in the crowd by dwelling in what drives their worldly passions and their senses.
To add to this, there is the context that needs to be changed to make the delivery of the doctrine more attractive. There is also the need to jazz up the place of worship to be in tune with the times. There is need to make the church appear like a place that is fun. There is the need to involve the congregation in every aspect of group worship.
Not only must the pastor talk and wow the crowd, the crowd must take the lead as well. The pastor, monk or priest is just the master of ceremony like in a place of entertainment. But the difference is that the people at the house of divinity did not come for entertainment. Like in a place of entertainment, they however do come to be involved and be part of the revelry, fun or celebration.
In the whole process of jazzing up the context of delivery of the doctrine, the emphasis is more to connect and to involve and there is real danger of derailing from the main purpose which is the doctrine of the prophet or founder. There is still the call to woo men to be in the crowd and beef up the mood but in the process to connect, there is less focus on being correct.
The call to connect takes precedence over correctness and propriety. This has gone on for some time perhaps decades. People just go to a temple or church for a good time to have fellowship and sensual placation, to eat and to be merry and to follow up later with more of the same in a pub, disco or a place for supper or dinner.
With the emphasis to connect rather than to be correct, a temple or church may lose its focus. The Word or Doctrine is just an excuse to connect and that is a concern.
The call of the Word or Doctrine is the call of God for men to clean their souls and be close to purity of Divinity but may have devolved to be a call to be merry and have fellowship with men in the name of Divinity. They end up closer to the ways of men rather than the ways of divinity.
That is why there may be loss of spirituality and there is need for the very men who go to a church or temple to seriously give some thought of how to connect with Divinity rather than with men. That is a real need if men are to do justice to the good works of the founders of religions.
In 1969, Lord Bo Tien first descended and said that the inner truth had been and would continue to be buried over the years by layers of add-ons by men. There is need to separate what were added from the basic inner truth so that men of religion can focus on the inner or basic truth of God and salvation.
Since then the way things go in a house of God is more of a concern when in the name of God and saints, a house of God becomes more a house of men for men to connect with men rather than with God.
Men may thus end up going to a house of God and saints to please men and themselves rather than to please God and saints by purifying and saving their souls.
If a house of God can be compared to a flower, then we can understand why Lord Bo Tien is concerned when he says that insects will be attracted to a flower but blame not the flower for insects coming to it for nectar.
There is the need to constantly remind ourselves to connect more with Divinity rather than more with men. If there is more of the latter, then idol worshiping of men at the pulpit will result and the consequence is cult culture, if not it is the devolution of the house of God to being more of a grass root or community / clan organisation to serve society needs which admittedly is not at all bad but still good and laudable.
In the eventuality of the latter, the danger is that being a religious organisation and not a bonafide social organisation, the trappings of a true blooded social organisation will likely not be there. This may be because there is element of cult or idolizing of the religious leader. Then the laws of the land may not be properly heeded. This may be due to sheer apathy, over trust with lack of checks and balance and idolizing of leadership.
Religious bodies must remain ever divinely orientated rather than orientated around men. They must be for men to be more God orientated rather than Man orientated. Give this some thought.
But if they are too overtly God orientated, the houses of God will likely be not popular with the masses. There is need to find the fine balance of connecting with men and connecting with God.
This is yet another subtle example of yin yang balance that the sages of Tao in old China talked about. This is a principle emphasized by Lord Bo Tien and is universal to all. It is depicted by the feet of the lord saint in his image - the balancing of elements.
There is need to be God orientated and people focused though not pastor, monk or man focused. The man who is leader at a house of God is only a servant or facilitator to the congregation. The men in the congregation are not servants of the human leader.
That leader is not the superman idol at a house of God even if he is like one. Do not idolize him when we are not even to idolize God and saints but to live in the Word.
Idolize not God and saints but in not doing so, do be mindful not to end up idolizing the men who are the clergy even if they are marvelous and like supermen. Do not idolise men however good they may be as priest, pastor, monk, elder or clergy.
There is the need to constantly remind ourselves to connect more with Divinity rather than more with men. If there is more of the latter, then idol worshiping of men at the pulpit will result and the consequence is cult culture, if not it is the devolution of the house of God to being more of a grass root or community / clan organisation to serve society needs which admittedly is not at all bad but still good and laudable.
In the eventuality of the latter, the danger is that being a religious organisation and not a bonafide social organisation, the trappings of a true blooded social organisation will likely not be there. This may be because there is element of cult or idolizing of the religious leader. Then the laws of the land may not be properly heeded. This may be due to sheer apathy, over trust with lack of checks and balance and idolizing of leadership.
Religious bodies must remain ever divinely orientated rather than orientated around men. They must be for men to be more God orientated rather than Man orientated. Give this some thought.
But if they are too overtly God orientated, the houses of God will likely be not popular with the masses. There is need to find the fine balance of connecting with men and connecting with God.
This is yet another subtle example of yin yang balance that the sages of Tao in old China talked about. This is a principle emphasized by Lord Bo Tien and is universal to all. It is depicted by the feet of the lord saint in his image - the balancing of elements.
That leader is not the superman idol at a house of God even if he is like one. Do not idolize him when we are not even to idolize God and saints but to live in the Word.
Idolize not God and saints but in not doing so, do be mindful not to end up idolizing the men who are the clergy even if they are marvelous and like supermen. Do not idolise men however good they may be as priest, pastor, monk, elder or clergy.
