A Religion of Irrelevance
Browse Outlines Table of Contents Chapter 6: Religiosity
Finding Freedom from the
Browse this Chapters Outline
Confines of Human Tradition
Religiosity is closely related to what we have so far described as a legalistic mind set. It very often involves the dividing of what we see as our ěreligionî on one hand and what we believe, either consciously or subconsciously, to be reality on the other. On a conscious level such thinking turns our religion into nothing more than a surface experience that has no real power to change us or to shape our thinking. On a subconscious level it often leads to a weakened, insecure, and ineffective faith. We may confess whole heartily and with strong conviction that our Christianity is what we believe to be the basis of true reality, yet if there are any underlying doubts they will affect how we perceive and live out our beliefs. If we hold to our religion, but deep down on a subconscious level are not fully convinced it is the basis for something true and real, then we can not be rational in our every day thought processes. We will exist between two worlds where reality is fuzzy and uncertain. Such doubts persist when we feel inadequate to properly defend our beliefs on an intellectual or philosophical level.
In our modern culture few seem to recognize such a mind set as absurd. The failure to recognize such absurdity makes it difficult for the modern mind to relate to the Christian message in such a way as to powerfully influence its concepts of truth and reality. Most people tend to believe that it is totally rational to accept, to varying degrees, or even to embrace the popular philosophies of the day, and still call themselves a Christian. The fact is that many people are not taking the time to sit down and think about what they believe, and they can not discern from what source their beliefs are coming from. They randomly pick and choose their ideas about life from a variety of sources, failing to realize that their choices are totally arbitrary. They tend to build a worldview based on feeling and knee jerk reaction, often accepting without question naturalistic and pagan philosophies that go against the very theism they espouse.
The evidence that this way of developing belief systems is predominant in our culture is reflected in the now popular idea that theistic religious faith is a private matter, not something we should bring out into the public arena, and certainly not something we should allow to influence governmental policy or law. This is a totally ridiculous notion. If we claim to believe in a divine Creator but still believe such thinking, or allow it to go unchallenged, it is a sure sign we are being influenced by some concept of reality inconsistent with what we profess to believe. How did our culture ever come to accept such irrationalism?
We must start by defining what is meant by religion in this particular context. According to the first definition in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary religion is: ě1. belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe.î Under this definition, those that are convinced of the reality of a Creator are genuinely religious. But under the perception of the modern mind, which has been thoroughly saturated with post-modern thinking, defining oneself as religious is a direct path into social irrelevance. To be considered religious, in the traditional sense, is viewed as being irrational in one's approach to reality. How have so many today reached the conclusion that Christianity is not a rationally based concept?
Let's review some of the earlier discussion in order to overlay the ground work for what's coming. We know from what we talked about earlier, that Christian paradigms were what originally gave birth to modern science. In turn modern science began to assist man in defining reality. As those who favored a naturalistic view of Darwinism began to dominate the halls of higher learning their influence began to filter down and shape common perception. This had a corrupting influence on some elements of science, but even in this corrupted state it continued be a powerful force in reality definition. In spite of losing some of it's objectivity it continued to be perceived by most as retaining it's original objective and unbiased foundation. This is not to say that most of science is still very objective in practice, but it is clear that from a philosophical and academic standpoint it it has become very subject to materialistic presumptions.
As a result, the typical modern mind now believes that this new corrupted ěscienceî defines true reality, while Christianity defines a separate and basically irrational religious reality. If one is an avid naturalist that believes the existence of matter is the basis of reality, (a very small segment of the population) then this way of viewing life is the logical conclusion to come to. But if one does not buy pure naturalism then there is a need to accept at least two, if not many different kinds of reality (i.e. modern ěscientificî and theological, or religious). It is the wide spread confusion, within the Christian community, over what constitutes true reality that is at the basis of the it's failure to effectively influence culture.
Religiosity is a result of such confusion. It is the natural outgrowth of Christians who are overwhelmed by a secular age, a body that is floundering and uncertain of its identity. It is easier to envelop ourselves in religious ritual and tradition rather than face the question of reality, which would require a confrontation with modern philosophies on an intellectual level. Most of the Christian community, feels woefully inadequate for such a task. As long as this is true it will be very difficult to break out of our ěreligiousî mold, and be seen instead as a philosophy that demands serious attention on a rational level.
To define ourselves as religious, in today's terms, is attempting to work within a hazy framework of mistaken presumptions about reality. Of course the modern world will continue to defined us by its narrow preconceptions, but we must at least make an effort to redefine ourselves, and I see very few within the Christian community attempting to do so. Most, I believe, do not recognize the problem, or if they do, have accepted that this is the way it is and not much can be done about it. But, as theologian J. Gresham Machen pointed out:
We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation...to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.
[As quoted in John W. Whitehead, Religious Apartheid (Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1994), p. 203.]
When we fully understand the preceding facts, we then realize that our constant focus on ěreligionî has become the very thing that causes us to appear irrelevant. The modern mind does not understand the difference between naturalistic philosophies and true unbiased science, and Christians do not know how to effectively refute what is perceived by most, not to mention many Christians themselves, to be rationally deduced factual ideas that disprove or at the least make Christian belief superfluous. The sad fact is that many modern Christians believe modernism's view of who they are more than they believe the traditional biblical view.
In order for the the body of Christ to shed its suffocating cloak of religiosity it must successfully assimilate the rational and the supernatural--begin reclaiming its leadership over the intellectual world, all the while demanding a return to objective and unbiased approaches to science--dismiss and ignore those who would define it under the modernistic concept of religion, and redefine itself in a rationally basedrealitysense.