Religious

What does it mean to say that you are “religious”? I’ve often heard Christians say they aren’t “religious” but rather have a “relationship” with Christ. Some of those same Christians will then claim that atheism is a “religion”. So in response to the accusation of being too “religious” we are effectually saying, “I know you are, but what am I?” Is this just a matter of semantics or can we actually say something definitive?

I think it’s clear that most people use “religious” to refer to churchy-type people. A Bible-thumper or a Muslim performing Salat, a Hassidic Jew with tassles, a Buddhist priest or a Catholic nun. Really it is used for people who take their faith “too seriously”. But is that too narrow of a semantic range? Does “religious” have to mean zealous devotion to a particular organized faith?

When thinking about religion I think it’s helpful to hear the definition given by Tim Keller, a Presbyterian pastor in Manhattan, given in his book Reason for God:

Let’s begin by asking what religion is. Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.
– Keller, Reason for God (Riverhead, 2009) pp. 15-16

He goes on to give an example of a pragmatic materialist who operates out of that worldview.

Some call this a “worldview” while others call it a “narrative identity.” In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone’s life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say “You ought to do this” or “You shouldn’t do that” reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about “what works” – but our view of what works is determined by (to use a Wendell Berry title) what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that “works” is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human.
– Keller, Reason for God (Riverhead, 2009) p. 16

By this definition then everyone has a religion, whether “thought out and reflected upon or not.” But is this just a Christian position that is not shared outside of our dictionaries? I will appeal to Dictionary.com, as much as it may pain me to do so.

re-li-gion (noun)
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

It seems to me that from these points “religion” isn’t limited to either a belief in a supernatural realm or even theism. It does say “especially” dealing with “superhuman agency” but it is not limited to that idea.

It may be fair to say then that those deemed “religious” are actually just more devout in their worldview than others. It would follow then that by these definitions that everyone falls into the category of religion because everyone has “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. However, we Christians have to be careful with that statement, because interestingly enough, the Bible’s use of the term is much closer to our popular usage.

The Greek word threskeia, translated “religion”, is used four times in the New Testament. According to BDAG it is defined as “expression of devotion to transcendant beings, especially as it expresses itself in cultic rites, worship”. One would think then that the Bible speaks positively of such a term, but rather we find a different tone.

Paul talks about legalism and excessive rules: “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” and says, “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and ascetism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:21,23) Here he is saying that all these rules that make you seem religious actually do nothing to change your heart. In essence, giving you an appearance which belies your inward being.

James writes, “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” And “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:26-27) Here James is basically saying, “Hey, you call yourself religious but you don’t watch what you say about other people and you don’t care about those who can’t help themselves. That “religion” is worthless.”

In the TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), threskeia is said to have a good sense and a bad sense. The good sense is found in the second part of the James text, “Religion that is pure and undefiled….” Interestingly thought it is the bad sense which “indicates that expressions denoting a religious attitude to God find little place in NT Christianity, for here one’s attitude to God is the response to God’s claim, and in distinction from cultus the Bible speaks of faith as the obedience of the whole person to God.”

I believe it is then the case that if someone is called “religious” because they are devout or “take their religion too seriously”, it is just the case that this person is really just living out their worldview, just as any committed atheist does. However, if this person is called “religious” because they are “holier than thou” or because they have an appearance of caring for others and don’t, then this is a serious accusation that ought to be addressed. It is far too common that religious people have these kinds of double standards. Just something to think about in these kinds of discussions.