Religion Vs. Relationship

Today some people prefer to say that they are spiritual but not religious. Some claim that Christianity is a relationship not a religion. Recent studies show that America is becoming “less religious.” These ideas lead me to two questions: First, is it really possible to be spiritual without being religious? Second, is it possible to be in a relationship with God without being part of a religion?

The idea of being a spiritual person is that one focuses on things pertaining to the soul as opposed to the physical world around us. Many religious beliefs have to do with the inner nature of humanity, not the physicality of a person; therefore, a spiritual person tends to frequently contemplate religious beliefs.

A religion is “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods” according to Webster’s Dictionary (I know not the most academic source, but it is a good basic definition). Someone who follows these beliefs, ceremonies, and rules would then be a religious person. (Note: Buddhism does not focus on a god or gods, but is typically considered a religion because of its organized belief system and the ceremonies and rules practiced by its followers.)

So if the studies are correct in affirming that people remain spiritual but less religious, it would seem that people contemplate the things of the soul, but do not allow those contemplations to alter how they live. Why is that?

Religion and religious people have gotten a bad name in recent times. Religion sounds rigid and structured, not free and exploratory. Many religious people have been proven to be false teachers and hypocrites—not just in Christianity…but especially in Christianity.

In our relativistic culture, people like to choose their own truth. This involves picking and choosing what aspects of faith they want to accept and practice. Some people reject certain claims of the Bible or write them off as archaic.

This brings us back to the original two questions; can someone be spiritual without being religious? Yes, it would seem that one can so long as the person does not fit into traditional religious molds. However, this new spirituality has a relativistic structure. Because it rejects and accepts some practices it creates an amalgamated idea of who God is.

This brings us to our second and more important question; can people have a relationship with God without being part of a religion? To this question, I would argue that they cannot. Why? Because religion is necessary for defining who God is. Without it, we cannot really know much at all about the being we claim to know.

Is religion doomed? Is religion so legalistic and rigid that it is no longer relevant or needed? Absolutely not, when practiced with integrity religion can lead people into deeper spirituality that will alter how someone lives. But in order for this to happen, one must not get bogged down in the hypocritical practices rampant in churches today which foster the kinds of legalism that kill the spiritual life of a congregation.

To put it differently, one cannot accept religion in a piecemeal fashion. Doing so undermines the authoritative practices of any faith. Accepting part of the Bible is like accepting part of who God is but rejecting part of who he is at the same time. To be truly spiritual, to walk in a relationship with God, one must know the practices (beliefs, ceremonies, and rules) of a faith. These practices become a map for leading people into a deeper faith enhancing the person’s relationship with God.

Do All Religions Lead to the Same God?

Recently I watched videos and read a few articles by Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University.  He writes for a variety of news outlets on religion and has authored several books.  One of his books titled, "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World", claims that different religions do not lead to the same end.

In the YouTube video also titled, "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World",  he links the lack of basic knowledge of other religions, or even our own religion, partially to the idea that all religions lead to the same God, saying this lack of knowledge contributes to the erroneous assumption.

Do all paths to God lead to the same place?

I find his viewpoint refreshing as I've often heard, especially in higher education, that all religious paths lead to the same place and therefore we need to embrace all religions as our own.  This type of reasoning permeates our culture in all areas.  Believing everything is "the same" is said to promote tolerance.  Through sameness we can embrace each other.  This line of thought, though, also loves to promote uniqueness.  But that uniqueness only seems okay when it doesn't imply that someone else's uniqueness might conflict with their own.

A Huffington Post article by Richard Schiffman talks of how we need to be enlightened and see that all religions show the same Truth.  The quote below provides much of Schiffman's argument:

These professors are right of course: religions differ. And it certainly is a fact that these doctrinal differences have been a bone of often violent contention throughout human history. But they miss Vivekananda's deeper point that dwelling on the differences rather than on the far more essential common ground between creeds is a prescription for perpetuating these age old conflicts rather than resolving them. 

Mystics have always observed that the intellect sees divisions whereas the soul perceives the underlying unity of existence. Religion, for mystics like Swami Vivekananda, is the art of returning human consciousness from fragmentation to unity. He would have disagreed with scholars like Prothero who put their emphasis on the differences between faiths. Vivekananda believed that we do religion a service rather than an offense when we remind it of its mission to heal the divisions between us and within us.

In the Wall Street Journal article Schiffman references regarding Prothero's thoughts Prothero states: 

To be fair, those who claim that the great religions are different paths up the same mountain do not deny the undeniable fact that they differ in some particulars. Obviously, Christians do not go on pilgrimage to Mecca, and Muslims do not practice baptism. Religious paths do diverge, Mr. Smith admits, "in the foothills of theology, ritual and organizational structure." To claim that all religions are one, therefore, is simply to claim that debates over whether we have souls (yes, say Christians; no, say Buddhists) or whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) do not really matter because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, "The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials."

This claim is as odd as it is intriguing. We accept as self-evident that competing economic systems (capitalist or communist) and clashing political parties (Republican or Democratic) propose very different solutions to our planet's problems. Yet when it comes to religion we jump eagerly down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world in which, like children in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, all religions are above average....

...Faith in the unity of religions is just that—faith, and perhaps even a kind of fundamentalism. And it does not just infect the perennialists. While popular religion writers...see in all religions the same truth and the same virtue, new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins see in all religions the same idiocy and the same poison. In both cases, Godthink is ideological rather than analytical. It gestates in the dense clouds of desire rather than with a clear-eyed vision of how things are in the ground. In the case of the new atheists, it springs from the understandable desire to denounce the evil in religion. In the case of the perennialists, it begins with the equally understandable desire to praise the good in religion. 

I like what Prothero says.  I never understood how my religion, a conservative branch of Christianity, could be "the same" as all other religions or lead to the same place.  Christians claim one God and Jesus as the Saviour and answer to the predicament of sin.  Perhaps one can draw similarities to the other monotheistic religions but how does that work with a polytheistic faith?  Christianity offers inclusiveness in that Jesus died for everyone and everyone has access to Him. 

I've never understood why this type of inclusive exclusivity creates such a problem.  If I weren't Christian and met a Christian and learned about the core doctrine of Christianity and then that Christian said to me, "All religions lead to the same path, so I think your religion is right also, if you believe it's right for you."  I would think I had fundamentally missed something about what Christianity teaches.  If what Christianity teaches is correct than not every other religion can be right.  (The same can be said about most religions.)

This idea, though, does not necessarily promote intolerance, as often argued.  One can believe in an exclusive-to-other-religions theology and still understand that others have their own views and be accepting of those differences.  Each person makes their own decisions and choices.  If someone wants to believe the world is flat and they need stand on their head for five minutes each day so they can end up in heaven, they can do so.  I don't believe it, and won't promote that religion but I'm also not going to force them to be a Christian if they don't want.  It's their choice.

I believe learning more about all religions increases understanding of why people do what they do.  It also helps everyone making their own intelligent decisions about which religion, or lack there of, they want to follow.  All religions aren't the same and learning why that's the case promotes worldwide understanding.

The other video I watched from Stephen Prothero called, "On Religious Literacy" is also a talk based off one of his books. This one focuses more on how in America we know very little about religion in general.  I suggest watching it.

Xanax and Kierkegaard

I interrupt my remarks on C. S. Lewis to announce that the New York Times has been running a series of articles on anxiety. This one is about Kierkegaard's The Concept of Anxiety. The author notes that in our culture anxiety is conventionally treated with medication. Of Kierkegaard: "Is there any doubt that were he alive today he would be supplied with a refillable prescription for Xanax?"

The same is probably true of Augustine in 386, the year of his conversion to Christ. Many other religious and philosophical figures might, in our day, have been diagnosed and given anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication. A few who come to my mind are David and some other Psalmists, Jeremiah, Boethius, Nietzsche, and the Buddha (the article actually mentions Buddhism in relation to this topic). You can probably think of your own examples.

"Stop writing Psalms. That won't do you any good. What you need is a prescription."
(Picture originally from here.)

Now I have no problem with seeking medical solutions to anxiety. Sometimes there is a medical condition that calls for a medical response; I disapprove of religiously motivated rejection of medical care for a genuine medical problem.

But I think our culture has gone wrong in not seeking a spiritual solution. (What if David, Jeremiah, Augustine, Boethius, and Kierkegaard had taken these medications?)

"No more philosophy for you, Boethius! What you really need is pills!" (Picture originally from here.)

And I think Christians often go wrong in not applying a spiritual treatment for anxiety and depression. Whether or not there is a medical problem, isn't there always a spiritual problem that calls for a spiritual response?

After all, what does Scripture tell us? What do the Psalmists do with their fears and worries and miseries? And what does the Sermon on the Mount tell us to do with our anxiety? And Philippians 4:6-7? Until we can learn to have the Cross and the Empty Tomb always in mind, until we can learn to pray without ceasing, can we expect any amount of medical care to solve all the problems in our souls?

Why I Don't Agree With People Who Have a "Coexist" Bumper Sticker (Probably)

Most of you probably know what I'm talking about when I mention the "coexist" bumper stickers, but in case you don't, I included a picture on the right.  As you can see, the gimmick is that the word coexist has been formed using symbols from major religions or philosophies -- with a call for harmony between the sexes thrown in for good measure.  The underlying message is that we shouldn't be fighting over issues of religion (and again sexual equality tossed in, I guess because no religion has embrace the letter "E" sufficiently), but rather should strive to live with each other despite these issues and differences.


AND YOU "PROBABLY" DISAGREE WITH THIS SENTIMENT???
On the one hand, I am all for not fighting or killing people over issues of religion.  We are completely on the same page there! What concerns me is not the cry for coexistence, but the potential rationale behind it.  If you say to me, "We should tolerate people with different religious views and strive to live alongside them because ..." -- well,  you and I are still in complete agreement at that point.  The potential disagreement comes from what folks who display this bumper sticker put after the "because."  I think the rationale for coexistence is usually one of two things, which I'll discuss below.  Since I am generalizing and certainly cannot know what each individual means by the bumper sticker, I included the "probably."


I DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT QUESTIONS OF RELIGION AREN'T IMPORTANT 
One of the arguments I encounter all the time is that questions of religion just aren't important enough for us to allow them to divide us (you may have noticed I've just given up on trying to include the "E" at all at this point).  While I don't think that questions of religion have to divide us, I don't think it's because they are somehow frivolous or maybe just so peripheral to the human experience as to not be worth the time and effort it would take to thoroughly explore them.  Let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to religion, and let's focus on what really matters.

Look, you're saying that "time" is just a big loop of infinitely repeating events, and you're saying that we have ten seconds before the bombs explodes, killing all of us.  Are these really the sorts of disagreements that we're going to allow to come between us?

However, in my opinion, the questions that religion raises are of the utmost importance.  In fact, there may not be any questions more important.  The ramifications for the existence of the Divine are astronomical.  If indeed there is a creator deity, then human existence is suddenly defined by such questions as: Why did he/she/it create? What does he/she/it expect of us? What does it mean to be human?  If we decide there is no Divine, then that decision also makes us answer some very important questions: Where does human value come? What is the good and how do we best pursue it, since there is no deity answering these questions for us? Of course these are only the tip of the iceberg type questions.

Don't dismiss religious concerns.  How you conceive of God and how you understand what it means to be human are probably the things that define you more than anything else.  They are questions well worth considering and considering thoughtfully.  


I ALSO DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, SO WHY WOULD THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER
I once had a friend define religion as an attempt to approach the Divine.  For the sake of a blog entry (and not a philosophical or theological treatise), I think that will do.  Certainly if you view religion this way, there are many broad generalizations you can make about how religions are similar.  I get that.  However, the differences between religious systems become quite clear when we start moving away from generalizations such as "religions are just ways of approaching the Divine" and start defining terms.

For example, let's say we all claim to be friends with a guy named "Bob." We start talking about all the great times we've had with Bob, when suddenly a stranger who doesn't know Bob pops into the room and asks what Bob looks like.  See, he's about to go pick up Bob from the airport, but he's never met him.  One person says, "Oh Bob, is this tall African-American basketball player.  You'll recognize him right away."  You say, "Um, no, Bob is actually a short Hispanic woman.  Here real name is Roberta, and we call her Bob for fun."  Then I say, "What are you talking about? Bob is that magical gnome who lives behind my fridge and tells me that I really am special!"  The stranger isn't going to say, "Okay, got it.  You're all basically describing the same person.  I can figure it out from here.

"Bob is dead." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

When we actually stop to define who or what we are trying to approach, we find that the differences become apparent very quickly.  For example, the Christian God

*intentionally created the world

*is actively involved in bringing human history toward a certain end

*chose to reveal Himself specifically through the Scriptures and ultimately through the person of Jesus Christ, who Himself is both fully human and fully divine

*exists eternally as the Triune God

Of course, there are other ways of describing the Christian God, but these four are all essential, non-negotiable aspects of the Christian understanding of the Divine.  And even at the end of this short list, Christianity is already distinct from every other religions system in history in how it conceives of the Divine

Now the stranger asks for directions to the airport.  You tell him to take a certain highway, then a certain exit, etc.   I tell him to take a rocket straight to the moon then spin around in circles until the airport appears.   Our means of approaching the airport are not going to lead the stranger to the same place.  Similarly, various religions make very different claims about how the Divine wants to be approached.  For Christianity, God has made it clear that He only desires to be approached through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Um, we may have missed our exit ...

So, yes, I do agree that we should learn to coexist, but "probably" not for the same reasons that many of the people who have these bumper stickers do.  For me, I believe we should coexist because my religion teaches me that every single human being has infinite value as someone who bears the image of God.  I believe that God loves my fellow human beings and expects me to display that same love when I interact with them ... regardless of their intentions toward me.  

So, what does this all mean? It means that the cry for coexistence is a great start, but it's only a start.  It's not a sufficient statement regarding our differences.

It means there's still a lot of dialog to be had.

And that's one of the reasons why this website exists.