The right to religion

[wynn]

From an article published in the Harvard Business Review:

...
Value conflicts are not limited to business organizations. One of the fastest growing pastoral churches in the United States measures success by the number of new parishioners. Its leadership believes that what matters is how many newcomers join the congregation. The Good Lord will then minister to their spiritual needs or at least to the needs of a sufficient percentage. Another pastoral, evangelical church believes that what matters is people's spiritual growth. The church eases out newcomers who join but do not enter into its spiritual life.

Again, this is not a matter of numbers. At first glance, it appears that the second church grows more slowly. But it retains a far larger pro-portion of newcomers than the first one does. Its growth, in other words, is more solid.
This is also not a theological problem, or only secondarily so. It is a problem about values. In a public debate, one pastor argued, "Unless you first come to church, you will never find the gate to the Kingdom of Heaven."
"No," answered the other. "Until you first look for the gate to the Kingdom of Heaven, you don't belong in church."

Organizations, like people, have values. To be effective in an organization, a person's values must be compatible with the organization's values. They do not need to be the same, but they must be close enough to coexist. Otherwise, the person will not only be frustrated but also will not produce results.
...
http://academy.clevelandclinic.org/Portals/40/managingoneself.pdf
(all emphases mine)

There is the view that people have the right to be religious - and that thus, religious organizations should cater to that right.
But many people have been disappointed in their efforts to join a religious organization, coming away with the impression that organized religion is oppressing their spirituality.

In the above passage from the HBR article, which of the pastors do you think is right, and why? If neither of them, then what would be the alternative to both of their views?
What about the article author's view?

Should this view of a business person be applied to religion, though?
Should religious organizations be more tolerant, and welcome anyone, even if that person currently doesn't fit in?

What theological, religious, spiritual, social or practical problems (if any) do you see implicit in the views of each pastor?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Anyone not feeling they are a "part" of any religion can easily change to another religion or church if they want to for the most part in the free world. Those that have no alternatives do however have a very bad problem with no other alternatives available to them where they live.

 

[Adstar]

"Unless you first come to church, you will never find the gate to the Kingdom of Heaven."

"No," answered the other. "Until you first look for the gate to the Kingdom of Heaven, you don't belong in church."

The second statement is closer to the truth as i see it.

But. Attending a gathering of Christians may help one in their looking for the Kingdom.

But the second statement is true when it says your not in the church ( the body of Believers) until you personally find and accept the Kingdom.

So you can attend a gathering of Christians as an interested outsider and some things you may hear them say may help you in your efforts to kind the kingdom. But you will not be a true member of that gathering until you have accepted the Kingdom when it comes to you.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

In the above passage from the HBR article, which of the pastors do you think is right, and why? If neither of them, then what would be the alternative to both of their views?

None is right, both of their conclusions are veiled by their vested interests ($$) in benefit of their organized congregation.
The non-biased alternative, quoted in virtually every religious scripture: “The kingdom of God is within each and every living being; do not look for it outside, look for it within your own heart”.

What about the article author's view?
Should this view of a business person be applied to religion, though?

These are very different subjects, but interrelated. The author is very accurate as for business productivity is concerned, but he is not addressing “spirituality” at all.
As a material body, we should be concerned about that: about work, productivity, motivation, etc. But as an immaterial being, that stuff is irrelevant, and it is the point where religion comes in; even the understanding of the content of our dreams become more important than the stuff addressed in the article.

What theological, religious, spiritual, social or practical problems (if any) do you see implicit in the views of each pastor?

Both are wrong because they are being “exclusive”, as in “us and them mentality”; while the truth of religion is universal, and from the very basics it is all inclusive.
Good and bad, young and old, short and tall, big headed, ugly and pretty are all characteristics of the material; and it is what the common son of man uses for comparison. Religion is about the sons of god (spiritual characteristics of men), and we are all equal in His sight, no room for comparison.

The other thing that is very wrong with their statements is that as a requisite to follow god is to join their congregation; and that is not the path for all. There cannot be a universal path for all where if you follow certain rules you will be saved. That would be like saying that everyone should be a christian to reach to the age of 10.
“Oh look, if thou want to reach to the age of 10 years of age, thou shall follow Jesus.”

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Not all religions are like that. Modern Judaism, for example is a religion of laws rather than doctrine. In all but the most orthodox congregations, if you obey all the laws you can be an atheist and they'll still consider you Jewish.