Mitchell, Brody, Silly, and Shelby
We've all heard of politically correct. How about "religiously correct?" That should really be a term. It's applicable. And these days, the religiously correct thing to say is that we're against religion and all for faith.
Except it gets a little formulaic. "I'm not religious. I'm just spiritual." It's like we flex our Holy Spirit whenever we say this. "Oh, religion? Yeah, I have no need for that, because I'm Christian and counter-intuitive like that."
Then we call out people who do things that look "religious" instead of "spiritual." Reformers call out Catholics. Pentacostals call out Reformers. People of the "Church of Christ" denomination claim that their not a denomination and anyone who does belong to a denomination isn't part of true Christianity (even though denominations are necessary in a world where not everyone comes to the exact same conclusions on some of the deeper questions of the Christian mystery). Then, offering up their alternative, each denomination, church, and individual shows their way of being Christian that is so good that it doesn't need religion.
Yet I take a step back. I look from the outside. People who don't belong to Christ look at the church, and what do they see? They see Christianity, and then Islam and Judaism and Buddhism and so forth. They are all belief systems — religions — with their own unique creeds, codes, and conducts. To many, Christianity's belief in a community in Christ is inherently a religious one. If someone wants something purely spiritual, they might instead go to Buddhism, or Confucianism. Definitely not Christianity, because it simply doesn't stand out in the way that we claim it does.
So perhaps we have to be a little more honest and reevaluate the way we experience this faith.
People still say, "No, you don't get it. Just look at it. All we do is love each other and read the Bible and follow Christ's lead. It's not about what we do, but accepting Christ's forgiveness!"
Ah, okay, now that you put it that way...
No, it still sounds religious.
Now, reading the Bible isn't a bad thing. Following Christ's lead isn't, either. And loving one another most certainly should be commended. It's just that, to be honest, we do use religious language to frame these ideals and put them into context.
Religion doesn't save you. Absolutely not. Yet, it's something that often leads people to faith, isn't it? Just like the Bible does. Technically, the Bible itself doesn't save you. Neither does the Message it's preaching. It's the actual historical fact of Jesus' death and resurrection — and the proceeding Grace — that saves you, if you accept it. Yet, nobody's going to deny that the Bible is important and should be embraced by Christians. So why not religion? Properly understood, religion is a guide that helps us get to the point where we can make our confession of faith, and after that it can be a healthy expression of faith.
When people criticize Christians who are "religious," I think that they should step back and think about what it is that they should really be criticizing. As it happens, I'm not incredibly "religious" most of the time. I'm proud of what I do and the life that I'm living which, to the untrained eye, looks secular. Yet, I don't harp on my friends who express themselves in more visibly religious ways. I'm very happy for them.
What, then, is our real concern? It's when religion, as a system or as a name brand, becomes the vessel for salvation. It's when we begin to promote Christianity instead of Christ. Or more subtley, when we begin to promote "being Christian," because it's the religiously correct way to say "Christianity" without making it sound like we're promoting organized religion. It doesn't have to be organized in order to be religion, you know! Any framework through which we interpret reality becomes, in effect, our functional religion. It's an inherent part of being human. Therefore, religion is inevitable, because we're always interpreting something. The question is, will proper faith lead us to a proper religion?
More specifically, if religion replaces Christ, it's really a sign that we've reached the point that we don't believe in Grace. It might be a part of the religion, sure, but the religion doesn't spring from the faith. The religion comes first in the matters of the heart. We put our faith in that, and we lose sight of Grace. We aren't saved by Grace — we're saved by "being Christian." Christ doesn't have all the answers — Christianity does. We start believing that a certain set of behaviors, mixed with the right attitudes, will get us going in the right direction.
That's essentially the same thing that happens when we're saying that we're spiritual instead of religious. We've learned the religiously correct terminology, the words that the censures inside our brains haven't so easily detected yet. The word "spiritual" is still essentially religious, though. If religion is ultimately our framework for understanding reality, then spirituality is another form of religion, only in this case it is a personal religion. We should pay close attention to not put spirituality in place of Grace, either. At the end of it all, it only becomes another way in which we "control" salvation so that it seems more acceptable and predictable.
It's come to the point where religion and spirituality, to me, only appear to be two different names with separate connotations but ultimately the same definition. Even the golden word, faith, is often just a synonym for these. The only difference between faith — that is, true faith — and religion is that someone can technically have a religion and not follow it.
Against many, I wouldn't be surprised if most of this is really only a straw man argument. I think that most of us realize that religion has its place. Still, I think that it's an appropriate reminder, and a call back to continual confession that by Grace alone we are saved.
Sincerely,
John Hooyer
P.S. I told you that I was going to call you Silly O'Wacky for the rest of the month, and I stand by that statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment