Summer has come and gone. In the busyness of summer I had dropped this series (and posting altogether) but still have a few more entries I'd like to address. If you haven't seen the previous "cliches" I challenged, head back through the blog archives from earlier this year. This post will address a fairly common cliche which I think also misses the mark a bit, and that is the proposition that "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship." Part of the question as to whether or not this cliche holds is of course what we mean by "religion." As with most things, there are a variety of definitions proposed. Most think of religion as a system of beliefs and practices. Others may define it as belief in the "supernatural" or as a representation of some mental or non-spatial reality. Marvin Wilson, in his book Our Father Abraham suggests the ancient Hebrew would have understood their religion as a journey or pilgrimage, as walking with God. Part of what influences one's definition of religion is, of course, their starting point. A Buddhist might have a different definition of religion than a Muslim or Jew. In his Philosophy of Religion, Keith Yandell suggests a "neutral definition" of religion is one which does not inherently presuppose a particular religious system. He suggests "a religion is a conceptual system that provides an interpretation of the world and the place of human beings in it, bases an account of how life should be lived given that interpretation, and expresses this interpretation and lifestyle in a set of rituals, institutions, and practices."
So, is Christianity a religion? By all accounts of the definitions offered above (a system of beliefs and practices, belief in the supernatural or some non-spatial reality, a journey or pilgrimage with g-God, or Yandell's fuller definition), Christianity is a religion. It has both beliefs (whether creedal or confessional) and practices (both liturgical and sacramental). It recognizes a supernatural reality. It contains the same expression of journeying with God found in the Hebrew Bible. It is/has a worldview which informs (or at least should) its adherents' identity and practices. The rub with the opposition of calling Christianity a religion is partly because of the inference of some kind of legalism being inherent with the definition of religion. The emphasis then, on Christianity as a "relationship" comes not from an examination of standard definitions of religion and reflection on the makeup of Christianity, but rather from the assumption that there is some sort of merit-based system inherent in all other religions. As many "New Perspective" authors have argued, this is not the case at least in Judaism, in which God initiates the relationship with Israel while likewise requiring a proper response (beliefs and behaviors) from the people. We might refer to this is a straw man of sorts, in which all other religions are characterized negatively in order to elevate Christianity. This does not mean, of course, that Christianity is not unique in many respects. But the antinomian (anti-law) sentiment from which the "not a religion" statement flows is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. The "new covenant" of Christianity, as with the "old covenant" (to use Paul's terminology) is initiated by God and entails expectations of belief and behavior (with right behaviors flowing from right beliefs). One need not look far in the New Testament to find imperatives (positive commands) and prohibitions (negative commands) abounding. So what is the difference between "old" and "new"? It is not that the "old covenant" represents some failed attempt at self-salvation. Rather, what the new covenant brings is a "greater glory," according to Paul (2 Cor 3) in which our identification and union with Christ ("in Christ") and the impartation of the Spirit, regenerates, reforms, and renews God's people to live in obedience to Him. It is not that religious beliefs and practices are done away with but that they are enabled to be fulfilled completely through the revelation of Christ and the provision of the Spirit. I suspect that part of what also drives the "relationship not religion" sentiment is the radical individualism in the West in which we believe (mostly implicitly) that "me and God" are all that matter. In other words, communal identification largely does not inform how we view ourselves as Christians. It is instead an internalized and individual belief. This could not be farther from the New Testament portrait of a community formed by God in which the formation of individuals occur. But having inverted identity from group-primary to self-primary, we fail to recognize that to be a Christian is to be a part of the family of God. The most dominant term of self-identification for believers in the New Testament is αδελφοι ("siblings"). So it would be better to say Christianity is a relational religion in which we are rightly related to the relational God (Father, Son, and Spirit) and likewise relating rightly with His people (i.e., the Church) and His world. This entails, then, an empowered obedience to His commands (a subject for another day) and the participation in the "rights" or "rituals" of the faith (baptism, communion, etc.). To miss the relational aspect of Christianity (and especially the formation of that relationship through the believing community) is to miss a central piece of the equation. But to oppose it being called a "religion" might put us in an even worse state, where obedience is seen as optional or even negative, beliefs as pliable, and the individual as the arbiter of what faith is all about.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories
All
|