So, I think the "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" line is a bit silly. [Edit: If you need it, here's a quick example of what I'm talking about. But be warned, it will try to play music automatically. Christians of varying tones (and varying degrees of web-savviness) use similar arguments, but this was just the first thing that came up on a Google search for religion and relationship.]
Part of the insistence on relationship terminology is well-intentioned. I think it's meant to help reach out to people who have been burned by religion as such, and that's a noble goal. And I'm also all for emphasizing our relationships with God and other people -- I think that's what it's all about.
However, I don't know that shunning the term religion in favor of the term relationship is always helpful. Semantically, I think making a big deal of the switch is equivalent to proclaiming about one's life with a spouse, "It's not a marriage, it's a relationship!" -- Ok, yes, true, it's a relationship. But that could mean a lot of different things, and our language has all these handy extra words to specify what kind of relationship.
And on the level of interpersonal relationships, we need that specificity because there are different behavioral expectations for different types of relationships -- I have a professional relationship with my boss, which entails reports on how my work is going, and I have a sibling relationship with my brother which entails hugs with a running start (which would knock over any normal person). Not a good idea to confuse these, even though they're both relationships and that's lovely and all.
Anyway, the point is that religion is a perfectly serviceable English word to denote a particular kind of relationship among many others. It's a kind of relationship where people worship God and try to figure out what that does to all the other relationships. Maybe there are some situations where the substitution of terms (relationship for religion) is helpful, but I think it can often mean a loss of clarity.
I think there's even more of a problem, though, in the way people sometimes use this relationship language rhetorically to distinguish themselves from other religious folks -- the implication being that religion is not a relationship and that therefore those professing relationship instead are authentic and are offering something totally different from religion.
Ok, I agree with part of the point here: I think it's true that there are some people who participate in religious activities but are not truly cultivating transformed relationships with God and other people. This is a legitimate concern.
However, I think the terminology switch doesn't really fix the superficiality problem and can also involve some polemics that aren't fair to other religious people. The assumption that religion and relationship are mutually exclusive makes it easy to dismiss people whose religious practices are different from one's own (and therefore more apparent as religious practices -- relationshippy folks still have religious practices). In many cases, these other people would see themselves as pursuing a relationship with God through the elements of their religious practice. And no, you don't have to agree with others' practices -- but I think that talking about religion as necessarily separate from relationship can often lead to a superficial way of shutting down other groups (often in the absence of their competent defenders) rather than engaging the issues respectfully.
2 comments:
Sorry I have not been looking at your blog lately. This is nicely stated - you make a very good point.
Often the phrase is used with an air of superiority, which has no place in Christian discourse.
However, I think many folks are trying (and failing, perhaps) to convey that traditional ritualistic religious worship has at times kept people at arm's length from God instead of bringing them closer to Him (by placing mediators between them, like the priests of the OT, rather than recognizing that every Christian is a priest). And, in contrast, their group is emphasizing the "personal relationship with God" aspect of religion (often, perhaps, to the exclusion of other important issues).
Religious groups that espouse the idea that one cannot speak to God in one's native tongue do not provide a means for the believer to have a personal relationship with God like the one David seems to have had. There too, artificial distance is created between God and the believer.
It is just quite unfathomable that God loves us so much that He really yearns for an intimate familial relationship with us. As John Reese wrote, we are unable to reach up to Him, so, "God came down."
But a balance is important. In this familial relationship, we must recognize that we are not all equals. God is the Father, and He is stern and just, as well as good and loving and kind. He will protect us from harm, but He will also protect the rest of the family from us, in the unlikely event that we become so disrespectful of Him that we become a real danger to our siblings. I believe sometimes the "not a religion but a relationship" crowd forgets this important point. If Jesus is our pal, we are still in charge of our own lives - NOT GOOD! We need God to guide us.
Sorry this is so long - succinct takes editing. ;-)
Thanks for the comment. :)
Post a Comment