Sometimes one hears certain Christians make a claim like that given above. They even often use the word "religion" as if it was a dirty word, and state that "God hates religion". Their objection is not simply to religious error or a false religiosity, mind you, but rather to the word itself. For them, it can even conjure up images of "empty rituals" or "works righteousness."
It is a very paradoxical situation, for it is not atheists or secularists objecting to "religion" here, but some good and sincere brothers and sisters in Christ. To be honest, in such a case, my first thought is that any Christian who makes such statements is clearly using Humpty-Dumpty language [1]. After all, it is quite evident that if one goes by the definition of "religion" found in the dictionary, then Christianity most certainly is a religion (even though it is much more, of course). It would be hard to dispute that at all. Obviously, therefore, such Christians are not going by the common usage of the word, but instead are giving a completely arbitrary meaning of their own, for whatever reason. It wouldn't be too much to say that it has turned into a fad of sorts (though admittedly it has stuck around longer than fads normally do.)
With that understood, let me emphasize that I do see the truth which they are trying to express, and I agree with it, (though I do disagree with the way they express themselves since, admirable as their motives are, they are nevertheless distorting language.) What they are really trying to convey is that one must have a personal commitment to and trust in Christ. They are stressing the relationship aspect of Christianity. Insofar as they do do, they are entirely right, for Christianity is a relationship. One's religion cannot simply consist of giving intellectual assent to certain propositions, going to church, performing good works, etc. All of those things are good in their proper context, of course, but if that is all a person's religion consists of, it is worthless. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor 11:1-3)In other words, love is key. Love in this context (or, as older translations put it, "charity"- in Greek "agape") is by its very nature indicative of a relationship between persons. Without such a loving relationship with the Triune God, any exterior devotions or good works are completely without value. On the contrary, one would instead fall under the condemnation proclaimed by Christ against the Pharisees:
You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me [.]' (Matt 15:8-9a)However, such a condemnation that Christ gave would not apply to "religion" in general, but only to a merely external show that did not spring forth from love of God. In fact, nowhere in Scripture do we see "religion" (in and of itself) condemned. Rather, the word is used in a positive way (cf. Jam 1:27). So to define "religion" in such a derogatory manner is to conflict with Scripture just as much as it does the dictionary. That much is clear.
In addition, however, I would also like to comment on a related subject, that of the relationship (no pun intended) between the exterior, "institutional" aspects of the Christian religion, and the interior, loving relationship that a Christian has with his Savior. Some even see the former as in in tension with the latter (and that is why they object to "religion"), but I disagree. Let me explain.
Throughout Scripture, God's relationship with His people is often represented by the image of a husband and a wife. In other words, it's a "marriage". And I think that's a good image. Indeed, I believe such an image applies, not only on the corporate level, but even on the individual level. Our own personal relationship with God is like a "marriage".
Now, a marriage is obviously a relationship in which the two parties love each other. It is not reducible to simply a "piece of paper" or any external aspects. If the latter was the case, then something would be very wrong with that marriage, to say the least. Yet it is equally obvious that while marriage is a relationship, nevertheless a marriage is also an "institution" that consists of external aspects. There is a ceremony involved that inaugurates the marriage. There is "a piece of paper" that recognizes it. Throughout the lifetime of the marriage there are external signs ("rituals", so to speak). There are special dates set apart (such as one's anniversary). There is no dichotomy between a marriage being a relationship on one hand, and yet on the other hand also being an institution with external aspects and "rituals". It's both at the same time.
So, too, one's Christian faith consists of having a personal relationship with Christ. Yet at the same time, such a faith nevertheless is joined to external, "institutional" aspects as well. On the one hand, if one reduces his religion to only the external aspects, there is a serious problem, just as if his marriage only consisted of a "piece of paper", so to speak. But that doesn't mean that the "piece of paper" is irrelevant. That is because we recognize that a marriage doesn't merely consist of two people loving each other. Rather, it has external aspects as well. And the same is true of Christianity. It is in its essence like a marriage, in that it is a relationship that expresses itself externally, both on the individual level, as well as on (as we see Scripture itself presents it) the corporate level. That is simply one of the implications of the truth that "the Word was made flesh." Such an "Incarnational" view of Christianity is, I believe, both in accordance with the teaching of Scripture as well as what we know about human nature.
So is Christianity a religion or a relationship? The answer is both.
Incidentally, for those who would still object to calling it a religion, however, there are a couple of points I think they need to keep in mind:
First, insofar as they deny Christianity to be a religion, then however noble their motives or whatever truth they are trying to emphasize by doing so, they are nevertheless guilty of distorting language in an Orwellian manner. Moreover, they have also eliminated any rational grounds for objecting to others following suit, including those who have less worthy ends in view when distorting language. (Any such complaints will quite legitimately ring hollow and seem hypocritical). After all, when that person himself has no problem arbitrarily redefining words, like religion, whenever he feels likes it, then what's good for the goose…
Second, if someone denies Christianity to be a religion, then (at least in America) he is inviting the taking away of our liberties. After all, such a Christian cannot very well appeal to the first amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom against an increasingly anti-Christian state if, by his own admission, Christianity is not a religion. If he objects that any government arguing the first amendment doesn't apply to Christianity would be simply playing word games, I answer: Exactly. But remember that, in that case, it is such a Christian who would be giving the government the green light to do so by playing word games himself first. Any such government would simply be following his own example, and taking him at his word, after all. Therefore, he needs to be more careful in his use of language. How we use language has consequences.
In other words, while Humpty-Dumpty language is fine in what is admittedly nonsense literature like the books of Lewis Carroll, let's try not to bring it into the real world. Even given the worthiest of motives (as I grant is usually the case in this example), it nevertheless has undesirable results.
Notes
____________
[1] The term "Humpty-Dumpty Language' alludes to this passage in Lewis Carroll's book Through the Looking-Glass (1871), a sequel to his Alice in Wonderland:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t- till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master- that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them- particularly verbs, they’re the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!"
No comments:
Post a Comment