Note: This is just something to consider. It is not an attack on anyone’s faith. I certainly have no issues with most of the teachings of Jesus, I aplaud most of them. Rather, this post only questions the legitimacy of ‘the church.’ As many of us have discovered, organized religion is about power and control. One may want to consider stepping outside of that box to determine one’s own path rather than one dictated by an institution. One’s spiritual journey should be personal, not a bludgeon to be used against others.
A piece of bread is declared to be the body of a sacrificial victim.
A chalice holds the blood of an executed man.
People kneel to take part in a ritual whose central symbols are death, sacrifice, and redemption.
Viewed through the eyes of an outsider, it does not seem holy. It seems eerie.
Over centuries, the Church has built a massive edifice out of these images—not of stone alone, but of dogmas, rules, and authority. Where there may once have been a direct spiritual experience, an institution emerged. Where there were questions, answers were prescribed. Where there was a quest, obedience took its place.
And so, millions of people wear the image of a dying man around their necks. Not a laughing teacher. Not a seeker. Not a person calling for inner freedom. But a tortured man. A body nailed to the wood.
An instrument of torture became a holy symbol. How strange that actually is. Imagine another culture building its identity around the public execution of a human being.
Would we recognize spirituality in that?
Or would we speak of a morbid cult?
Perhaps a deeper truth about religion and power reveals itself here:
Whoever controls the interpretation of guilt also controls the interpretation of redemption.
For millennia, people have been told that something fundamental is wrong with them. That they have fallen. That they are guilty. That they must be saved. An institution that places itself between the individual and redemption thereby becomes indispensable. For whoever first convinces people of their neediness can subsequently offer them the path to salvation.
That is how dependency arises. Not through chains. But through articles of faith. Perhaps this is the Church’s true masterstroke:
Not to liberate people, but to convince them that freedom is possible only through the Church itself. The history of Christianity might originally have been an invitation to inner transformation. The history of the Church, by contrast, often became a matter of managing guilt.
The one turns the gaze inward. The other directs it toward authorities.
The one asks questions. The other proclaims.
The one seeks truth. The other claims to already possess it.
But what if the great mystics never came to explain people’s unworthiness to them? What if they came to remind them of their dignity?
Then the true tragedy would not be the crucifixion of a human being. But rather the centuries-long transformation of a potential teaching of liberation into a system of spiritual dependency.
Then spirituality would not be redemption from innate guilt. But rather liberation from the very idea of having been born guilty.
And perhaps the true search begins exactly where symbols lose their power.
When no institution stands between the individual and the truth.
Then only the quiet and uncomfortable question remains:
Who am I when no one tells me anymore who I am supposed to be?
Perhaps therein lies the deeper message of many historical symbols: their original purpose was not to divide people, but to serve as a reminder of a unifying bond greater than any party, any ideology, or any flag.
Huter der Irminsul
Leave a Reply