"Master, grant that I may not so much seek ... to be understood as to understand."
- Prayer of St Francis of Assisi -
Following up on my last post, 'Religion in Two Senses,' I felt it would be helpful to offer a sample of good articles written supporting or condemning 'religion' in the two senses I outlined. Then I hope to name three points of critical common ground that will enable us to see the authors' unified concern and agenda.
'Religion' Condemned
To review, the type of 'religion' that some authors condemn is the Christless religion marked by words like religiosity, self-righteousness, spiritual abuse, control and hypocrisy -- the dead religion devoid of grace, compassion and mercy -- the religious malpractice to which Christ issued repeated 'woes' in Matthew 23. This is the 'religion' that subverts and displaces the revelation of Christ by attempting to achieve or maintain in the flesh (Gal. 3) what Christ alone authors and perfects (Heb. 12, Eph. 2).
'Religion' Affirmed
On the other hand, the type of 'religion' that the authors affirm is the pure and undefile religion of James' Epistle or the worship in Spirit and in Truth of John 4. This 'religion' is identified by the prophets and apostles as centered on Christ--the faith once delivered (Jude) or the gospel we received (1 Cor 15). I personally prefer to call this 'living faith,' but when described as 'religion,' it also carries the sense of Christ-ordained faith practices (baptism, Eucharist, obedience to Christ, etc.) and community (i.e. gathering, beginning with 'two or three are gathered in his name'). It is the religion of self-giving love, peacemaking and forgiveness we read about in Micah, Amos and the Sermon on the Mount.
In this latter sense, Brian Zahnd clarifies his position to highlight how Christianity is 'delivered' and 'received' in that biblical sense:
There is a sense in which it's true that "Jesus didn't come to start a religion." But it's equally true that the coming of Jesus would inevitably result in a religion (or religions!). Religion is how we pass on the faith from generation to generation. Without religion everyone has to start from zero and make their own discoveries. And very few are capable of this. We might think of science as the "religion" of passing on scientific knowledge from one generation to another. If we require each generation to make their own scientific discoveries in the name of "authenticity," this isn't going to make the world more authentic, it will just make the world a whole lot more stupid! To say, "I'm against religion" is pretty close to saying, "I don't care if my grandchildren are Christian or not." I tell people if you have a relationship with Jesus, you can thank the Christian religion for making this possible.
I agree with Brian as I understand him here, and yet I can promise you: Brian is against 'religion' in the first sense--it's just not the word he uses for it (usually). I can make that promise cecause I know that he is against religiosity, self-righteousness, spiritual abuse, control and hypocrisy. Indeed, he has paid the heavy price of publicly echoing Jesus' woes against the other "religious echoes" of the politicized culture wars and their Christless "civil religion." He squares off against these powers week after week. And on the flip side, he is a persistent voice for the 'pure religion' described and affirmed above. To hear him unpack James' use of the term, you can find the podcast entitled "I'm not just spiritual; I'm religious" by clicking HERE (it's #27).
So again, in the interest of hearing each other, I distinguish the uses of 'religion' according to the adjectives modifying it, the questions being addressed and the author's intention in context. To see the two uses in action, here are a few samples from either direction.
'Religion' in the negative:
Greg Albrecht: President of www.ptm.org and the man who initiated the journey of the World Wide Church of God cult into the orthodox Christian faith. That movement eventually became two independent ministries: Plain Truth Ministries and Grace Communion International.
Article: "What's Missing? Unplugging from Christless Religion."
Fr. Alexander Schmemann: (1921-83) Orthodox teacher in Paris and New York, where he was Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary.
Article: "Christianity is the End of Religion."
'Religion' in the positive:
Common Ground
Now one advantage I have in assessing these arguments is that I know and love some of the key proponents for what might be mistaken as opposing views. Clearly they do have different opinions on whether the term 'religion' should have a positive, neutral or negative default setting when used alone. But I'm very satisfied that they use the terms in contexts that make their particular usage clear. Here is where we get to practice listening carefully to what the other means and intends -- if so, we get to see through to our shared concerns and commitments. For example, knowing Greg Albrecht and Brian Zahnd as I do (two of my best friends), I am quite enthusiastic about what they are both addressing in common. Here is what I see.
1. They point out where Christ is missing.
They believe the fundamental problem in any religion or spirituality is always going be this: Christ is missing. In the article cited above, Greg says "The missing dimension in all of this religion is Jesus Christ, his humility, his servant leadership, his love and his mercy." So too, in Brian's Christmas 2015 podcast #11, what is at issue? Losing Jesus. That is, call it what you will, but a spirituality or a religion sans Christ is no longer true Christianity.
Note: CWR is never about something less than Christianity (defined by Greg as Christ-centered and grace-based). It never dissolves into, 'I'm not religious; I'm spiritual.'
2. They resist self-made counterfeits.
They believe that when Christ is missing, what replaces him will be a self-made counterfeit. Brian addresses self-made spirituality and partisan politics in religious veneer; Greg decries man-made religion that supplants God's grace. Whether its a religious cult or a civil religion, they are seeing the same unclean spirit even while resisting it on different fronts.
3. They preach a more Christlike God and a more beautiful gospel.
They believe that the best response to these shared concerns is one and the same: a more Christlike God and a more beautiful gospel. And by that, I'm not talking about my book (published by Greg, foreword by Zahnd), but rather, the revelation that so many of us have been receiving and proclaiming: that the Incarnation of God in Christ is such good news that no self-made spirituality or religion holds a candle to it (though they may show up with the proverbial torches and pitchforks). The authors I've referred to in this article are in solid agreement on that. And where we use the term 'religion' in different ways because we must sometimes answer different questions, hopefully this clarification will help us understand why the other does and says what they do.
As for me
I have chosen to live what seems to some like a contradiction. I am a active member of the Orthodox Church and I am editor-in-chief at Christianity Without the Religion. For those who might judge from a distance, the two worlds seem incompatible. But that assumption would miss the Christ-centered and grace-based essence of Orthodoxy. For those who judge it by outward appearances and condemn its unfamiliar forms as inferior to their own spirituality, listen: robes and candles and carefully crafted prayers don't make one religious (in the negative usage). Judgement and condemnation make one religious.
On the other hand, assuming that Christianity Without the Religion is uprooted, free-floating spirituality with no substantive form or content is equally mistaken. How was it that Greg and his colleagues succeeded in leading an entire movement out legalism, control and spiritual abuse into orthodox belief and grace practice in under a decade? It was through their commitment to return to the Scriptures, examine the creeds and anchor themselves in a motto of grace alone, faith alone and above all, Christ alone. They are doing the difficult work of ministering to religious refugees and healing the spiritually abused. In that light, to judge or condemn them for resisting the word 'religion' seems uncharitable and, again, quite like Jesus' religious opponents.
I also have the privilege of being the primary editor of both Clarion Journal and the CWR publications. So to avoid further confusion (as if), when I write for CWR, I will honor the mandate of CWR by normally using 'religion' in its negative sense. When I write write about 'religion' in the positive sense, I will refer to it rather as 'living faith' or 'the faith once delivered.' When others write using 'religion' in the positive sense and prefer that term, those excellent articles will appear here at Clarion. So I am not of two minds whatsoever, but the blogs themselves will delineate the two usages, with the expectation that readers can easily note authors' intended meaning in context and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sometimes it feels like we need new words to delineate these things, doesn't it? I encounter similar issues with the word church, and when I encounter it I usually have to stop an instant to clarify in my mind which "version" of church is meant.
Posted by: grant | February 13, 2016 at 06:07 PM