One of the most interesting turns in religion in the last few decades is committed religious people rejecting "religion". They will say "I have a relationship, not religion" or "religion is man seeking God, Christianity is God seeking man." or "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." Aren't they redefining what religion is? Isn't religion any of thousands of ways to connect with or appease a god or spirit world? What actually is religion?
Perhaps some think that religion relates only to ritual, the repeating of certain words or actions on a regular basis to appease the spirit world. Certainly primitive religion is pure ritual with stories to explain the meaning of the actions. Perhaps that is what they are rejecting. But isn't life filled with positive ritual? We brush our teeth every day, we go to bed at the same time, we have little habits with our significant other. Since our lives our filled with ritual, doesn't it seem natural that our religious life is filled with ritual? Even the least ritualistic have rituals they enact. Those who speak in tongues, often repeat the same sound phrases. Those who pray often repeat the same words. Those who sing new songs also sing the old ones. Is it possible to escape ritual in religion? But in this way, ritual isn't a very significant concept in religion because ritual is a normal part of life.
Religion can also be seen as action without intent. Religious people often have a problem with saying they believe one thing but their actions show another. So perhaps these religious people are rejecting hypocrisy. To a certain degree, however, hypocrisy is simply lack of awareness. We all state a reason for one action, but our actions show we are doing it for another. Or our actions have mixed motivations. Hypocrisy is a part of life because we are often unaware of our own motivations-- a careful analysis from the outside might show more clearly why we do something rather than internal consideration. If hypocrisy is a part of life, then hypocrisy is a part of religion, as it is in our family, in our marriages and in our workplace.
Some would reject "organized" religion, or spirituality with a hierarchy, separations of insiders and outsiders, corporate worship, and group dynamics. They consider their spirituality to be personal, and not shared with anyone else. But I wonder about the separation between "spiritual" and "religious" on this basis. If a person reads a holy book daily and interacts with the spirit world regularly, and allows such interactions to effect one's life, isn't that a "religious" person?
The very idea of religion is difficult to pin down. Although most people consider religion to have to do with a god or gods, many "religions" are closer to philosophies, like many forms of Buddhism. Most religions have an authority that they depend on, but many religious people are guided by their own personal spirituality without a holy book or leader. Religion usually includes the belief of unseen personal spirits, but many religions hold these spirits to be insignificant for their daily life. In the end, what is the core of religion? What does a religion actually consist of? When we define "religion" we usually can find a religion that is an exception to that definition.
In a sense, this question relates to a question about words in general. A word like "religion" is messy, as clear as the ocean, as distinct as a fuzzy photo. In some contexts, it has a clear meaning, but if the context is vague, then the meaning of the word is vague. I think we need to remember that words aren't scalpels, but chameleons.
No comments:
Post a Comment