Ryan Pettit wrote a thoughtful response to my “Christianity maybe an antichrist” entry of 12/4/2004. He graciously critiques my post, offering seasoned rationale for his claims.
Ryan began his response by offering three definitions of religion, these are useful. He stresses his third definition as the most precise, as it positions a person for thoughtful engagement with the religions of the world. Religion, he writes is: “a system of ideas and behaviors that assist participants in relating properly to their God and the rest of the world.” That feels pretty solid.
The Second Movement of his response began with the powerful statement, “Religion is your friend, Christian.” I returned to his definition of religion, and I thought, “ok, a lot of resonance with this.” From my perspective in laying out his rational for the Christian defense of religion he almost underscores my initial post.
What is the religion that God accepts according to James?
I want to be clear that I am not trying to throw out History, or Orthodoxy. That is not my intention. We are who we are in large part because of “the great cloud of witnesses” that came before us. To throw out history is to fail to know one’s social-self. Anyone who seeks to know God in Christ by the Spirit will find themselves sitting under others who have also walked with God.
If God wanted a religious humanity would we not see signs of religion in the pre-fallen state of the Garden of Eden? Instead what we see is a relationship between God and humanity that is tacitly intimate without need of religion. Or maybe we’d see signs of religion in the New Heaven and the New Earth, here again we see relational imagery in contrast with religious imagery. Our Lord Jesus Christ makes for an interesting study for religion. After all Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God, so if one wants to see what a “religious human” looks like, a Christian will look to Christ; and if one wants to see how God sees religion, a Christian will look to Christ.
Jesus Christ was religious. After all, he was a Jew – a Rabbi. Jesus didn’t walk around areligiously, he was thoroughly Jewish, in fact there was no option. This is one of the most important aspects of the incarnation, Jesus was more radically particular than most Western Protestant Christ-followers are comfortable admitting; Christ was born into a social/cultural tradition; he was born to a specific family, etc. Jesus did not magically appear out of thin air he was reared in such a religious context that likely he would have scarcely been aware of his religiosity (certainly not as we think of religiosity today). Kind of like a fish being aware of water. He lived at a time and a place where there were a handful of distinct groups; for our purposes we could say Jews of that day saw two groups: Jews and Gentiles.
So Jesus Christ was a Jew but he was different Jesus first concern was not Judaism; Christ’s concern is better described as a passion for His Father, love for one another, and the
Kingdom of God. What do we defend when we defend religion?
Ryan’s hermeneutic tweaks a phrase I used. His reworking of my statement reads, “[God] wants us to live fully human lives, and that can only be accomplished if we live according to God’s instructions.” I find it interesting that King David breaks almost all of the Ten Commandments yet he is called a “Man after God’s own heart” while the Pharisees of Jesus’ day kept all the laws and Christ called them “white washed tombs.” So what is God looking for? To suggest that God is looking us to live according to God’s instructions may be to miss the point.
Len Sweet, in his own unique voice says, “There is no point to Christianity;” there is only Christ (I hope you hear Trinity when I say Christ). To make a point is to set up an idol.
I loved Ryan’s emphasis on Divine narrative. The idea that God reveals Godself to the world through history and that part of the privilege and responsibility of those walking in the Way of Christ is to live into that tradition and pass it on. Of course tradition is never passed on without bias and emphasis; this is why prophetic voices are so important, and why religion can be so dangerous. Religions of any stripe often kill their prophets. The gospel which each generation receives is as tainted as the gospel each generation will pass to the next; this is not a reason to despair or give up on faith, rather, it is an act of faith – it is an invitation to live in the Spirit.
By the grace of God and as best as I am able, I love God; thus I love learning more about God. So I study theology. But I study theology carefully and confessionally, for the study of theology can very quickly become an I/It relationship rather than an I/Thou (see Buber). Christian theology is the ongoing joy of the people of God. After 14 years of marriage I still delight to discover the wonder of Lynette; to see her in new light, to be surprised by the beauty of her love. That’s not too far from Christian theology. Theology might be described as the perichoresis of soul, text and culture with the Spirit of God.
In passing on tradition we run into the issue of institutionalization and reification. When I was a preteen looking forward to attending my church’s youth group, the youth group decided to hold a youth retreat. Everyone loved it. The next spring they held another retreat. Well, the following year the spring retreat was a given. By the time I entered the youth group the spring retreat had been institutionalized. The group that created the retreat to serve the group was now serving the retreat. This is reification in action. Peter Berger handles this masterfully, “Reification implies that man is capable of forgetting his own authorship of the human world, and further, that the dialectic between man, the producer, and his products is lost to consciousness” (Berger 1989, 89). As a Christ-follower writing to a different audience then Berger was, I would want to stress that Christian religious tradition is not a human creation apart from God. After all, the hope of Glory is that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. God by the Holy Spirit is the unifying person of the social construct we call Christian religion.
Earlier I suggested that Ryan’s “Christian defense of religion” might underscore my initial post; let me briefly unpack this. Ryan’s defense is one that every human takes. We return to what we think we know to be true because it feels solid. It’s a lot like a battered woman returning to her abusive husband; a classic case of our solution being part of our problem. Christ always comes to us and says, “Surrender your confidence in anything but me. Trust me.”
God in grace uses this “Balaam’s ass” we call Christian Religion. God has used it and I trust/assume God will continue to use it until the great day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The day when religion melts away and we see and are seen, we know and are known, and the oneness at the tail-end of Christ’s High Priestly Prayer is experienced in fullness.
But until that time we live in the paradox of honoring our traditions while deconstructing them as an act of love. This is a relational move of faith, trusting in the Holy Spirit of God. It is ancient-future (to borrow from Robert Webber), but it is neither ancient nor future – it must be both. And so I am a student of theology, who loves the church of Christ, yearns for the relational reign of God and question all of it to the Glory of the Triune God reveled in Christ and present by the Spirit.
Religion loves rules; Christ breaks them. People rely on religions; Christ bids us to trust him. He invites us to lay down that which we think we can and should rely on to become humble servants, hosting meals of bread and wine to a hungry and thirsty world – not religiously but out of Divine love.
Ryan, thanks so much for the gift of engagement. Midrash is the work of the church, its the process of Orthodoxy; may God continue to give us grace as we wrestle, as we live and as we love.
peace, dwight
Dwight writes:
"Earlier I suggested that Ryans "Christian defense of religion" might underscore my initial post more than he undermines it; let me briefly unpack my claim. Ryans defense is one that every human takes. We return to what we think we know to be true because it feels solid. Its a lot like a battered woman returning to her abusive husband; a classic case of our solution being part of our problem…"
*Ouch* I think Ryans point may have been a lot simpler – hes really keen on defending the meaning of terms. So it is, in fact, not uncommon for him to write long things like this. So this isnt a knee-jerk reaction, a safety mechanism for Ryan. This is what he does all the time. Its not so much the sentiment (I think) that he is bucking against, as the tinkering around with theological terms. Not that tinkering is bad necessarily, but the church has thought about these things for a long time, and often we have good reasons for holding onto terms – even terms with bad connotations these days.
But I dont know why Im defending Ryan. Here I am closing ranks…
Oh, all this is say (ought I to say it?) that without sounding like a filthy postmodernist (a joke, sorta), that both of you are right – to a degree. So much of the New Testament – but specifically Im thinking Galatians – seems to lead the way Dwight is. Its focus is not on "religion" (in the loose sense of the word) but on a kind of radical freedom that rests on obedience to the indwelling Spirit. But then again, religion hold a vital place for all of us – the canonizing of scripture, the passing on of the creeds – cut these and watch the mess.
So, is there a way between "We return to what we think we know to be true because it feels solid" and "Religion is your friend, Christian"? I think so. Can we respect long-standing terms and yet have no respect for the cold-hearted idolatry we often fall into – worshiping and praying to God so we can somehow get out of loving and obeying Him? Is this kind of theological discourse possible? Yup. (For precedent, see "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton and "Telling the Truth" by Fredrick Buechner).
Thanks for your comment Phil. I went back and reread my reply/post and became keenly aware of a defensive tone that I hope is not characteristic of my writing.
As I reread my reply, I was aware that I responded I/it more than I/Thou thus my actions invalidated my concepts. My posted response highlights for me, how easy is it to create systems of exclusion rather than invitational relationships. Part of me would like to remove my reply, and another part of me says that this is the very engagement must take place. Nonetheless, Im ashamed of my response. Ryan, please forgive me for responding defensively rather than seeking to hear and receive in the service of Us.
Maybe thats what I get for posting in the wee hours – I probably should have slept on it.
Peace, dwight
Dwight, think nothing of it. I honestly didnt read any defensiveness into your tone. Debates, etc. in philosophy classes have made me insensitive to many forms of what some may call "harshness" in the heat of battle…er, examination of the issues. I thought it was well written, and I enjoy the interaction. Heres another post for ya. Come on over.
Some thoughts on religion
After reading many posts on dwightfreisen.blog.com re: arguments for/against religion, I wanted to chime in.
Obviously, how one defines religion will shape the trajectory of the entire dialogue from the outset. So getting clear on our operational definition of religion is critical. Here is the tricky partbecause religious expression is so varied and diverse, attempting to define religion (for the sake of the subsequent discussion) is exceedingly tricky.
While I appreciate Ryans ultimate definition of religion as a system of ideas and behaviours that assist participants in relating properly to their God and the rest of the world, I still find that definition flat somehow. Maybe it is because many religions operate with no tacit assumption of a god(s), or maybe because some religions are not interested in relating properly (if by this we mean in a healthy and constructive way) with the rest of the world (ie. Gnosticism, certain strands of Bhuddism, Hinduism, etc.)
This definition also strikes me as perhaps a more accurate defining of worldview than religion, with the following modifications: a worldview is a system of ideas that illicit particular behaviours that assist individuals in relating functionally to themselves and their world. (that is off the cuff though, so all you worldview experts out there have mercy on me ;p)
Ok, so what definition of religion do I work with? Something along the following lines: Religion is a system of rituals, regulations or rules that individuals and/or communities use to achieve salvation.
Now the term salvation here is designed to be understood as extremely broad. It could be used to refer to transcendence, deliverance, enlightenment, etc. The idea here is that religion is ultimately about chasing after salvation, however particularly conceived.
So if people are buying that definition, here are some meditations that reveal my anti-religion slant.
1. I agree wholeheartedly with Dwight with regard to the idea that Christ cannot be contained by systems or rituals or rites. Ideas can be contained, models can be contained, but people (and certainly the person) cannot. To embrace religion is on one level, no matter how subtle, to embrace a works-based view of salvation where the rules of the game are spelled out for you and get to see if you win in the end. Christ and His message obliterate this as a possibility.
2. Religion is ultimately narcissistic. As a system whose chief goal is salvation (again understood broadly), religion inevitably leads to (at least) an unconsciously self-absorbed worldview. Self-transcendence is incredibly hard to achieve when you hold to a religionusually because the only reason you adopted the religion in the first place was for personal gain, not a personal emptying.
3. While Ryans distinction between Tradition and tradition seemed helpful upon first reading, Im not sure it is. This dichotomy would assume that Tradition cannot be contaminated by tradition, but since tradition is always intimately tied to cultural expression, and Tradition is always culturally situated and expressed, how can one not effect the other? How can we honestly say this is where Tradition ends and tradition begins? That seems like a critical problem.
4. Also, Jesus confounds this distinction (Tradition vs. tradition) in his own ministry. Ryan writes the following:
When Jesus finally came, he did not have a problem with the fact that the Jews had a religion. And It was not a battle over whether religion itself was godly or undogly. Jesus came to rescue Judaism and take it to the next level.
But I could no disagree more. Through Jesus radically subversive acts/ideas leading to the explicit recalibration and revisioning of the Torah and Temple as the centre of Judaism, I believe it is hard to make the case that Jesus was simply taking Judaism to the next level. All over the New Testament the biblical witness is clear: the system is down! (thanks Strong Bad) and salvation (broadly conceived) is now intimately tied to a personthe personmaking religion and its efforts redundant. I think the battle was in many ways over whether religion was godly or ungodly, or perhaps more pragmatically, whether it was useful or useless in achieving its desired ends.
Part of the problem when people talk about being anti-religion is that people think they are saying they are anti-morality, or anti-bible, but this need not be the case.
I do not believe religion (using the definition I offered above) has a use for cultures other than acting as a tutor and bridge until the full revelation of Christ can come. Does that mean I have no moral grounding? I do. Is a world without religion a morally bankrupt one? Perhaps the question becomes can a genuine morality truly emerge in world with religion?
Does my anti-religion stance mean I dont read or see a need for the Bible? I study and read the Scriptures regularly, but for different reasons than I did 10 years ago. I now read to unearth the liberating message of the gospel and align my life and heart with it. I no longer read the bible in an attempt to figure out the system, the rules of the game in order to come out ahead (the last shall be first, remember?).
Through the eyes of religion, the Bible is a foundation, but in reality our foundation is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). The bible is useful (2 Tim. 3:16), but only in eviscerating the claims of religion and systems that seek to set themselves up against the majesty of Jesus.