de-conversion

53 Comments Add your own

• 1. The de-Convert  |  July 11, 2007 at 11:51 pm

  I think many of us have gone through or are going through the attempt to separate Christianity from religion. We lump all the negative things of Christianity (such as a mean God) and label it “religion” then find the positive things (such as being compassionate) and call that “Christianity.” Problem is there is no method to the madness.

  Paul

• 2. 20 gram Soul : Religion vs Christianity  |  July 12, 2007 at 12:33 am

  [...] a concept I hadn’t come across before – an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian: [...]

• 3. Richard  |  July 12, 2007 at 12:36 am

  I think it’s certainly possible that this person is being dishonest about their religion, but that doesn’t mean that an irreligious Christian isn’t possible.

  I’ve outline my thoughts in this blog post.

• 4. Simen  |  July 12, 2007 at 1:18 am

  I’ve lost the understanding of where the discussion thread on that post is going, so I don’t know who you refer to, but anyway: ask them to define religion. You’d bet they will have to include some kind of belief in the supernatural or gods, unless they want to exclude Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. (and if they do, they’ve simply made the word religion useless, necessitating another word for essentially the same concept.)

  I would also ask, then, if you’re not religious, why the hell are you claiming to have a relationship with a poorly documented guy 2000 years dead, who in his delusion believed himself to be God? If that’s not religious devotion, I dunno what is.

• 5. HeIsSailing  |  July 12, 2007 at 1:27 am

  Rather than find a concise definition for “religion”, I think it may be more helpful to see what needs all religions seem to address. From what I can tell, all religions, Christians or otherwise, address the problems of 1) suffering and 2) ignorance through transcendent means. I think that wraps them all up – at least the religions that I am familiar with.

  TA, I used to wear a hatpin that said “I am not religious, I just love the Lord”, and my reasoning was similar to your commentor’s. “Religion is a way for man to reach God, but Christianity is God reaching down to man” was the phrase I used, and at least a similar one that our commentor no doubt uses. And I think separating our beliefs from all those other “religions” (gasp) is a way for Christians to make their beliefs legitimate.

  Christianity is the only religion which saves through God’s grace. So the saying goes. Therefore it is not a religion. The problem I have with this logic is that any unique feature of a religious system can be combed out and used as justification to make it stand apart from the other religions.

  Case in point, the Buddhists:
  “If it is thought of as a belief in a supreme being to whom one prays for redemption, security, favors or relief from suffering, then, no, Buddhism is not a religion.”
  – http://www.buddhistinformation.com/is_buddhism_a_religion1.htm

  The Hindus:
  “…contrary to popular perception, Hinduism is not just a religion in the tradition sense of the term. Out of this misinterpretation, has come most of the misconceptions about Hinduism.”
  http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/hinduism.htm

  The Jewish:
  “Judaism is not merely a religion! Judaism is a total essential being.”
  http://www.jewishmag.com/60mag/religion/religion.htm

  If I looked harder, I bet I could find lots more which reference nearly every “religion”.

• 6. bry0000000  |  July 12, 2007 at 2:36 am

  I think the way to discover the roots of this disassociation of spirituality and religion can be found in the symbiotic relationship between Christianity’s need of people and people’s need of Christianity.

  Christianity, mainly those who benefit by the power relation granted via Christianity, needs a way to eliminate the stigma of religion while keeping the core ideology. Therefore, they embark on a relabeling campaign. They label adherence to the bible and a personal relationship with Christ as not religious while still keeping all the tenets of Christianity, therefore, not altering at all the power structure that Christianity creates.

  Christians wish to eliminate the stigma of religion but still keep their means of existential purpose. Due to rigid structuralism, Christians will engage in an illogical removal of a label that describes their faith while keeping the exact same structure that conforms to that definition. In doing so, they trick themselves into thinking they are not adherents to a religion but participants in a non existent personal relationship.

• 7. Epiphanist  |  July 12, 2007 at 6:31 am

  Religion is a broad term usually referring to sets or systems of beliefs or values strongly held, usually in agreement with a group of like minded people, in this context about supernatural powers and deities, as mentioned. Being a broad term it is easy to apply it indiscriminately to lots of situations without actually making anything any clearer. The belief in a personal relationship with Christ would be the core belief of many Christians. The other beliefs in the set may not be relevant or attractive. Things like the Nicene or Apostle’s creeds can be hard to swallow as many writers on this site are eager to point out. So, I guess the argument here is whether one core belief constitutes a religion. Please yourself, I would say!

• 8. superhappyjen  |  July 12, 2007 at 8:32 am

  I think the issue is thinking for oneself. An irreligious person doesn’t need the Pope to tell him what God wants. Whether theist or atheist, this person has his own morals and beliefs that are not seperate from (or at least not completely dependent on) the Church. At least that’s my take.

  And I don’t think using dictionary definitions is helpful in this case, since most people have their own personal (usually intuitive and difficult to express in words) definitions.

• 9. superhappyjen  |  July 12, 2007 at 8:33 am

  oops I meant to say “seperate from” and not “not seperate from”. Not a Freudian slip I hope.

• 10. Heather  |  July 12, 2007 at 8:41 am

  **The belief in a personal relationship with Christ would be the core belief of many Christians. **

  Does anyone know if this belief was consistent throughout the last 2,000 years? today, it’s often that one needs a personal relationship with Jesus, and yet that phrasing isn’t in the Bible. It would be an inference, if anything. So was it consistent, or is the phrasing a modern development?

• 11. Brad  |  July 12, 2007 at 9:03 am

  Heather,

  The term is a modern adaptation (in language only) from the Greek phrase used repeatedly throughout the NT: “In Christ” or “in him.” In the garden before His crucifiction, Jesus prayed to God the Father that “they” (those who believed in him) would be “in him” as he is in the Father. He is definitely talking about personal relationship here, and John reinforces many times in 1John and elsewhere.

  TA,
  Also, considering how badly Christians are stereotyped because of the complaints raised against hardcore fundies (totally legitimate, I agree), how is an attempt to set themselves apart from fundamentalist Christians a bad thing? From the few snippets you quoted from this commenter, I would have to agree with Him. Yes, it is an attempt to distinguish from the common view, and yes, it is also an attempt to distinguish from other world religions. If one believes that Jesus truly is THE way, THE truth, and THE light (as the tenets of our faith and the bible proclaims), then one should also believe it is very different from the rest of the world’s religions.

  If this blog is truly a resource for skeptical or de-converting Christians, would not a better path be to engage in dialog with existing Christians in a way that doesn’t insult them?

  “My conclusion? These Christians are dishonest about their religiousity. They are dishonest because they are embarrassed. They are dishonest because they are ignorant. They are dishonest because they proud. They are dishonest because they are arrogant. They are dishonest because they want to be more special than they actually are.”

  Your conclusion is as close-minded and prideful as those you accuse. I believe Webster defines that as “hypocrisy.”

• 12. Slapdash  |  July 12, 2007 at 9:22 am

  ***Jesus prayed to God the Father that “they” (those who believed in him) would be “in him” as he is in the Father. He is definitely talking about personal relationship here***

  I don’t quite follow how “in him” = personal relationship.

  I’ve asked before the very same question Heather has. It seems that the ‘personal relationship’ lingo is a pretty modern, western interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. IOW, I highly doubt Calvin and Luther were throwing the phrase around. I blogged about it here: http://slapdashgal.blogspot.com/2007/06/jesus-lets-cuddle.html

• 13. lostgirlfound  |  July 12, 2007 at 9:50 am

  I’m struggling with what this all means, too. But I’m a part of a “religious” institution that I really don’t want to be apart of. Still, I have “faith” that there is a God who has created and sustains life. I no longer call myself a “Christian” because of what that means to so many people. But there are certain things — concepts, experiences, whatever — I believe to be true. I think this is where a lot of irreligious people fall. Not throwing it all away, but trying desperately to separate the crap from their faith. Not wanting to put their need to believe in themselves or “natural” phenomena, but so disappointed in “religion” and its institutions that they just can’t stomach being associated with it anymore.
  My most recent experience? “On the Edge” at http://www.lostgirlfound.wordpress.com

• 14. Heather  |  July 12, 2007 at 10:12 am

  Brad,

  ** Jesus prayed to God the Father that “they” (those who believed in him) would be “in him” as he is in the Father. He is definitely talking about personal relationship here, and John reinforces many times in 1John and elsewhere. **

  I agree with Slapdash here. To say “in him” doesn’t really follow as a personal relationship for me. I have a personal relationship with my parents and friends, but I’m certainly not ‘in them’ nor are they ‘in me.’ So why does saying ‘in Christ’ automatically translate into having a personal relationship? It’s almost something that seems to be read back into the text.

  Plus, much of Paul’s letters also reference that it’s no longer him that is living, but Christ living in him, which would also cause complications in the ‘relationship’ aspect. I actually think using the term ‘relationship’ diminishes the concept of ‘in Christ.’

• 15. The de-Convert  |  July 12, 2007 at 10:47 am

  Many many years ago, a Catholic co-worker of mine rocked my view of my faith with a very simple statement. I was attending what I considered at the time, the greatest church in the world. Worship was awesome and the preacher was charismatic & entertaining.

  I asked him if he ever attended my church – with an obvious smug that if he ever did, he’d no longer be catholic. After all, their church service was boring & scripted.

  He answered in the affirmative and said he hated it. WHAT? How could anyone hate my church?

  He went on to say that we (charismatics) attend church to “get” something out of it. We look to God as Santa Claus and do all these emotional things to “feel” God.

  On the other hand, he goes to church to respect and honor God. It wasn’t about what God could do for him or how God could make him feel or really about having God as a “best friend.” He simply believed in honoring God because he’s God.

  Those words festered in me for years until one of my steps away from fundamentalism included enjoying simple Lutheran worship services. A radical shift for a Rhema grad

  Paul

• 16. The de-Convert  |  July 12, 2007 at 10:58 am

  Heather,

  I believe for many centuries, Christianity more focused on the traditions vs. having a “personal relationship” with God.

  Paul

• 17. agnosticatheist  |  July 12, 2007 at 11:09 am

  Interestingly enough the idea that “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian” is really a step in the de-conversion process – but you don’t know it until you look at it in retrospect.

  Every Christian who is there today will vehemently deny that – however, check back here in a few years

  aA

• 18. HeIsSailing  |  July 12, 2007 at 11:23 am

  Heather asks:
  “Does anyone know if this belief was consistent throughout the last 2,000 years?”

  A personal relationship with Jesus, that is one as if we walk with him and talk with him like he was our best buddy first came about in the 18th century – I think. But for most of the last 2000 years, Jesus was worshipped through liturgies and creedal statements. I wish I could reference this for you, but I am away from my books at the moment.

  I had an interesting experience that was very similar to The de-Convert’s. I started attending Catholic mass about 2 years ago, and at first was not even sure if these guys could even be considered Christians. But as I learned why they held the customs that they do, why they recite liturgies and kiss certain relics and on and on, I at least began to understand why this *could* be a legitimate form of worship as oppossed to my old Baptist Church’s version.

  I also heard a few interviews with Eastern Orthodox clergy that describes their customs, and why they worship God the way they do, and I have to tell you, it made a lot of sense. Not that I necessarily agreed with all of it, but I at least understood that not all Christians are comfortable with a personal one-on-one with Jesus. Some would rather treat him as a more holy and regal figure – and I think that has been the dominant view through most of history.

  I have an article on my own twisted view of a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus coming out later today. Stay tooooned.

• 19. HeIsSailing  |  July 12, 2007 at 11:30 am

  Aa sez:
  “the idea that “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian” is really a step in the de-conversion process”

  You think so? I don’t know – I was saying that 20 years before I became an apostate. That is one long deconversion process!

• 20. HeIsSailing  |  July 12, 2007 at 11:38 am

  Brad sez:
  “If one believes that Jesus truly is THE way, THE truth, and THE light (as the tenets of our faith and the bible proclaims), then one should also believe it is very different from the rest of the world’s religions.”

  I agree with this – Christianity does make claims that it is different, and even exclusive from all the rest. The problem I think is there is a jump that needs to be made from being different from the rest, to being outside that set all together. I cited a few sources above after a simple google search that shows how Jews, Hindus and Buddhists can all legitimatly claim that theirs is not a “religion” because of certain unique characteristics in each “religion”. It is, as you say, ‘attempt to distinguish from the common view’, but this attempt can be made by nearly any religion.

  I am not saying it is dishonest, because honestly, I held the view that Christianity was no mere religion for many years. I guess it is just now that I have broadened my scope a little, I see that Christianity really is like all the rest – and also has unique characteristics, just like all the rest.

• 21. Heather  |  July 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm

  Thanks HIS.

  **A personal relationship with Jesus, that is one as if we walk with him and talk with him like he was our best buddy first came about in the 18th century – I think. **

  I think this perspective almost sets my teeth on edge, just because it seems as though the Gospel writers, or Paul or James or any of them, would’ve been a little shocked over that perpsective. The one-on-one relationship seems to make it be too human, if that makes any sense. Although that could be because the concept of Jesus is often associated with a physical, human-shaped body — which you can have a relationship with the body. But given how Christianity treats Jesus as God, it almost reduces the whole spiritual aspect.

  That, and it keeps the focus on us as people, and much of the NT is about going beyond the self, and embracing something bigger. The ‘best buddy’ aspect is almost involving the human ego.

  Here’s another random question, and not asked in the insulting fashion: when Christians pray to Jesus, who exactly are they praying to? I know the automatic answer would be ‘God,’ but if the mental picture is the body that walked around 2,000 years ago, are the people in fact praying to the human personality?

• 22. Brendan  |  July 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm

  The Christian myth has as one of its hallmarks, a lack of respect for “religion” and tradition. A “Christian” religion is an oxymoron in a sense, as one of the foundational teachings is that religious authorities and tradition are not a substitute for the direct experience of the “Kingdom of God.”

  But there’s a counter-revolutionary element that can also trace itself back to NT mythology. That’s why the Bible is a hopeless mess.

• 23. Stephen P  |  July 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm

  It is true that it is very hard to define precisely what a religion is. However ever since the word ‘religion’ was first used in English (probably around the twelfth century) the main religion of native English speakers has been Christianity. So any definition or usage of the word ‘religion’ which excludes Christianity is about as sensible as a definition of the word ‘ocean’ which excludes the Atlantic.

  Someone who says “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian” is not necessarily dishonest – but he or she is surely pretty confused.

• 24. pbandj  |  July 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm

  decon

  i think you are being a little unfair to christians who desire to express that they arent all about what people think christianity is. because that is the basic reasoning for saying they arent “religious”. because for many reasons, because of many “christians” who dishonor Christ, peopledont want to be assosciated with “religion”. personally, i try not to use the term religious, because it is poorly defined in most people’s minds.

  now, according to the etymology of latin roots, i am religious. according to the dictionary, i am also religious. but according to how most people (at least the people i know) define religious, i am not.

  i dont go thru mindless rituals for the sake of comfort or tradition or whatever. do i participate in rituals, yes. but are they the pt, no. the pt of my life is to love the LORD God with all my heart, mind and strength, not a ritual.

  is the ritualistic definition of religion fair? no. is it prevalent among today’s american culture? yes.

  so that is why i am careful to use the word, not because i dont know what i mean by it, but because other people dont always mean the same thing as i do.

  peter

• 25. Intergalactic Hussy  |  July 12, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  A relationship with a zombie? That’s not grim… I like when it’s phrased as “reject god, follow Jesus”… that makes sense in that the myth of Jesus teaches to love one another and be nice (though according the the scriptures, it doesn’t appear that way). I can understand not being religious and believing in god (not Jesus as a messiah), that’s makes some sense. But once one invokes “the personal relationship with Jesus”…I’m sorry but that’s from a specific religion…therefore religious.

• 26. karen  |  July 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm

  I have read that Billy Sunday, early 20th century revival preacher and temperance promoter, was the first to popularize the “personal relationship with Jesus” theology. It’s certainly not explicitly biblical – non-Protestant churches don’t reference it.

  I think we can be pretty sure the concept is a modern one that followed on contemporary notions of psychology. We can be pretty sure that the Puritans weren’t talking about “asking Jesus into your heart” or “falling in love with Jesus”!

  Interesting take, TA, on why Christians want to separate themselves from “religion,” and good quotes, HIS, on how other religious traditions have the same impulse. My feeling is that the basic impulse is shame: Frankly, religions have failed in their stated mission, and in their prophetic pronouncements, and everybody realizes this.

  Thus, the impulse to say, “OH, but we’re not religious like those other guys! That was part of my motivation, along with the desire to make Christianity seem more attractive to potential converts.

  Brad,
  Also, considering how badly Christians are stereotyped because of the complaints raised against hardcore fundies (totally legitimate, I agree), how is an attempt to set themselves apart from fundamentalist Christians a bad thing?

  Oh, I was saying “I’m not religious, I have a relationship” when I WAS a fundy. It had nothing to do with setting myself apart from fundamentalism. If anything, we were claiming fundamentalism and setting ourselves apart from those “liberal” Christians and “carnal” (!) Christians.

• 27. Brad  |  July 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm

  To further clarify on the “personal relationship” phrase….

  We are all individuals. For the relationship to be personal, it should be as unique as the individual. For some, that may look more like reverence (as with the above Catholic example). For others it may or may not look very different. Because we all reflect the image of God uniquely, the way we worship, pray, praise, and even read scripture will vary from person to person and culture to culture.

  When Jesus prayed in the garden before His crucifiction for unity with believers in the same way that He is united with God the Father, it was intended to be very personal and very intiimate. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son, as well as God Himself. The Trinity is comprised of 1 God in 3 persons. So, when he prays for the same unity as persons of the Trinity, He is praying that we would share in His identity. That’s pretty personal .

  To say that we have a personal relationship with God, is really (and unfortunately) a “popular” way of talking about Union with Christ. This union is manifested and expressed very differently (and should be) among different people.

• 28. Dan Barnett  |  July 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm

  2 cents here:

  You started with Song of Solomon. I personally believe this book is really God showing us how to have a better marriage through sexual intimacy and trying to glorify God through it.

  Religion vs relationship? I think this is an abused statement by the church at large.

  In the terms of this conflict, religion is not really about traditions in the sense of honoring them.

  The whole conflict is what is the goal of what you are doing. If you try to keep the law and traditions and rules in order to please God, that is religion. That is what Jesus chastized the pharisees for. They thought they could find more pleasure with God by keeping a checklist of rules. Generally these are the types of people who have the skeletons locked away that they’re ashamed of.
  The relationship side is seeing God for who he is, and following Christ’s example of how to live our lives. I think many of the De-c’s here would agree that the teachings of Jesus on how to live our lives and serve others are very good.
  We can’t please God any more or less. We cannot add to what Jesus did for us.

  Traditions are good to follow and uphold, but only if they are followed to honor, not please, God.

  I think that’s it. There were so many comments, I forgot which ones I wanted to respond to.

• 29. Dan Barnett  |  July 12, 2007 at 8:44 pm

  Sorry. TA, that was another post with Solomon.

• 30. Justin  |  July 12, 2007 at 10:30 pm

  As a Christian, I like to make the distinction about being spiritual over being “religious”. I wrote a post on this subject on my blog if you are interested, it’s titled Religion is too Religious

  A separation must be made between being a Christian and being “religious” because of the connotations that go along with “religious” today. I speak mainly of 20th Century fundamentalism which has unfortunately put a blemish on the faith. But regardless, many people will cling to the religion despite the fact that Jesus came to rid us of the guilt and fear religion has over people.

  As for the debate over having a “relationship” with God. I would expect the very bright individuals that come here on a regular basis to understand this concept. One phrase getting attention on this comment section:

  ***Jesus prayed to God the Father that “they” (those who believed in him) would be “in him” as he is in the Father. He is definitely talking about personal relationship here***

  Does it say “relationship”? No…quite an easy observation. But truths within the Bible require more than surface consideration. Let’s not do ourselves the disservice of reading everything at face value. In many cases, it takes moving the mindset to a theological one…which, I admit, isn’t possible for some (similar to those who can’t think from a ‘scientific’ paradigm).

  The fact that past theologians may have not harped on the relationship aspect (as one commenter mentioned) is irrelevant. That of course implies that theology cannot continue to progress…it would be equivalent to saying scientific discoveries today are unimportant because it wasn’t discovered hundreds (thousands) of years ago.

  A relationship is directly implied through the Bible. How? Well, as many former Christians in this forum know, the Bible goes into great detail about the love God (Jesus) has for people. Love implies a relationship – or at the very least, the desire for one.

  John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down His life for his friends.

  Relationship? Yup.

  God Bless,

  -Justin

• 31. Heather  |  July 12, 2007 at 10:59 pm

  Justin,

  For me, I think it comes down to the way in which the personal relationship is used in today’s culture. It makes the whole aspect too human, and Jesus is a buddy and friend. I don’t see that attitude in Paul’s letters, when he refers to the risen Christ. The ‘buddy and friend’ portion is what one would see in the Synoptic Gospels, but that was a very human element, and so when I see the ‘personal relationship,’ I think of that in terms of them having a relationship with the physical human Jesus in those Gospels. The way Paul uses Christ doesn’t include that human element. It was more of taken part in something bigger than one person, and went so far beyond the relationship that one has with another human. So that’s what troubles me about using the word ‘relationship’ in terms of God. It almost assigns ‘size’ to both the relationship aspect, and the entities involved in the relationship.

  I would just have to ask myself: would the NT writers be able to relate to the theology of the personal relationship with Jesus, as it is characterized today? Why or why not?

• 32. Paul D.  |  July 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm

  Good article, and as a Christian, I think this “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian” meme is as silly and illogical as you make it out to be. I’m sure it has to do with embarrassment and ignorance, just like you suggest.

  I don’t think religion is that hard to define, actually. It’s a belief and behaviour system comprised of three things:

  1. Faith in something (usually supernatural, like the belief in God).
  2. Dogma (i.e. a code of behaviour and ethics)
  3. Rituals (i.e. activities performed to reinforce or demonstrate one’s beliefs)

  Christianity has all three — faith (a belief in God and Jesus Christ), dogma (like the Ten Commandments), and rituals (baptism, communion, prayer, attending church). Thus it is a religion.

  As far as I can tell, all other religions can be similarly identified. When one of these is absent, what you typically have is a philosophy or a mythology instead of a religion — Shinto, for example, which has no dogma, and is therefore not a religion but can be combined with other religions.

• 33. Thinking Ape  |  July 13, 2007 at 12:03 am

  Paul D.
  Thanks and I am glad you agree. However, don’t be to quick to write off religion as “easy to define”. You listed three things that appear common to the western and, especially, Abrahamic religions. Not only are there many religions (remember, I speak about “religions” as in reference to thousands – not just the 10 “major” religions or whatever number they are saying right now) that would have a problem with those terms (faith, dogma, ritual), but one could make an argument that sport or “environmentalism” is a religion (you DID say only “usually supernatural – and many sport enthusiasts and environmentalists definitely have faith in something (almost even supernatural).

  For anyone interested in method and theory of “religion”, be sure to check out any of the following:
  Crossing and Dwelling (Tweed)
  The Invention of World Religions (Masuzawa)
  Between Heaven and Earth (Orsi)
  Guide to the Study of Religion (Eds. Braun & McCutcheon)*

• 34. Paul D.  |  July 13, 2007 at 2:35 am

  Hi, Thinking Ape. I’d be curious to see something considered a religion that didn’t fit my definition (and it’s not “my” definition, I’ve seen it elsewhere). In fact, I think it clarifies that a lot of belief systems mistaken to be religions aren’t really.

  Certainly, I think it’s possible for environmentalism to be a religion if the three pillars are present. Heck, I even think American democracy even counts, the way many people approach and practice it.

  Certainly, the dictionary definitions quoted in the article above don’t really work. Believing something supernatural doesn’t in itself make me religious, and the “supernatural” part might not even be a requirement.

• 35. Thinking Ape  |  July 13, 2007 at 2:56 am

  Hey Paul, I think we’re more or less on the same page than it first appears, since we both are looking at religion as a collection of features than any one definition. The problem I immediately see, however, is that the features are purely arbitrary.You, and at least the original write of the features, think that these are good designations that can include and exclude religions – why?

  This is where I think you and I could really agree.We both see that “religion” probably doesn’t have a single “essence” or intrinsic value. It is a collection of features/characteristics that we can call “religion”. Some of us will include certain religions that others will not. It is very arbitrary, and hence, not “easy to define”. The one thing that I am sure that every religious scholar would agree on is that Christianity, or anyone who believes that there is anything supernatural about Christ, is engaging in “religion”.

  J.Z. Smith wrote that the problem is not so much that there are 50 definitions that can’t define religion, it is that there are 50 that can.

  If I am going to give a course in religions, do you think I could honestly include sports, environmental movements, and patriotism? Do you think that maybe there is a difference between acting religiously (i.e. I watch Saturday Night Hockey religiously) and “religion”?

  You said tthe “definition” or set of features you promoted could be a good way of excluding some mistaken religions – what examples? I think that using JUST those features, I could easily argue that European soccer, American football, and Canadian hockey could all be religions while Buddhism isn’t.

  And again, I still have problems with the western-centered concepts of “faith”, “dogma”, and “rituals”. What we might think as these terms are completely different than an Asian traditionalist or an Australian “primitive”. It also doesn’t help us that both “faith” and “dogma” are terms that we ourselves cannot agree on.

  Whoops… I wrote one of those paragraphs in the wrong spot. Hopefully it makes sense.

• 36. Paul D.  |  July 13, 2007 at 4:07 am

  I always like a good debate.

  “You said the ‘definition’ or set of features you promoted could be a good way of excluding some mistaken religions – what examples? I think that using JUST those features, I could easily argue that European soccer, American football, and Canadian hockey could all be religions while Buddhism isn’t.”

  Hm… let’s look at those. A sport, like hockey, is dependent on procedural rules and organized events which could count as “rituals”. I don’t really see any dogma in there, aside from generalized notions of sportsmanship and fair play, but these aren’t codified (to my knowledge). I also don’t see that any special faith or belief is involved in playing hockey.

  Even fans, who may follow a sport “religiously” (the use of that term being a metaphorical hyperbole) and have their own rituals for sports-watching, don’t really have anything I could identify as faith or dogma.

  Some martial arts may have dogma, to the point of preaching certain lifestyles and a certain respect for your opponent, but they’re still missing the “faith” pillar.

  As for Buddhism, most schools believe in deities (devas), Bodhisattvas, reincarnation, and other un-provable concepts that surely qualify as “faith”. Buddhism is rich in doctrine and teachings on virtue and enlightenment (“dogma”). It has a wealth of rituals.

  However, some schools, like Zen, de-emphasize deities and other spiritual aspects to the point where there is little faith, and it is possible to practice Zen as a philosophy rather than a religion.

• 37. Brad  |  July 13, 2007 at 11:41 am

  Man, Paul and TA, reading your exchanges are very interesting. I think I agree with both o you, and you definitely seem to be on the same page.

  The aspect of this post that you (TA) point out that I think is correct, is that many Christians throw the baby out with the bath water when they say that their faith is a relationship and not a religion.

  The attempt to shed legalism associated with “religion,” while right and justified, can often go too far in denying the whole history of our faith as well. In so doing, we can lose the reverence of God and pass Him off as a “buddy Jesus” so prevalent in pop culture. This can lead to things as wrong as legalism, but at the other pole.

  There is a relationship with Christ that has been much neglected in favor of legalism, but in no way should that relationship mutually exclude the church or tradition of religion.

  And one tradition I’d like to throw into the mix is Confucianism. Confucius never intended for his tradition of morals and ethics to be a religion, but MANY today and in history past have labeled it as such. I wonder how it fits (or if it does) into the three pillars you have laid out here.

  Killer conversation, TA. Thanks for getting the wheels turning.

• 38. Thinking Ape  |  July 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm

  Brad, thanks – I honestly didn’t see a lot of what the comments were seeing. Just like the Christian “bubble” that is so often created among Christian communities, students can often get stuck in their own academic “bubble.”

  After reading all these comments, I think it might be worth getting into a linguistic history of the term “religion,” since it seems like a lot of people of some misconceptions about how the word “religion” has been used throughout history. If I can make it relevant to this website, I will write another post on the topic.

  Paul,
  I knew writing my paragraphs sporadically was going to make my emphasis confusing. You understand “dogma” and “faith” to mean one thing, but it doesn’t mean that for everyone. You say dogma is a set of codes and behaviours, yet in most religions, that definition sounds a lot more like “rituals.” Actually I am quite confused about how you came up with that definition at all. Dogma signifies what a person deems to be true or false, usually incontrovertibly. This can be moral, but also historical, ontological and epistemological truths.

  “As for Buddhism, most schools believe in deities (devas), Bodhisattvas, reincarnation, and other un-provable concepts that surely qualify as “faith”. Buddhism is rich in doctrine and teachings on virtue and enlightenment (”dogma”). It has a wealth of rituals.”

  Buddhists MAY believe in deities, but it is hardly part of their “faith.” You could take away all those heavenly beings and Buddhists would still be Buddhists. But again, what is faith anyway? I’ve checked out several dicitionary definitions, but they distinguish religious faith from other sorts of faith (i.e. a strong belief in God or doctrines of religion – this, however, would start to merge your feature into one). However, I don’t want to argue whether Buddhism is or isn’t a religion, I believe it falls in the category, but many Buddhist scholars have concluded that it is not for a multitude of reasons.

  But my point was the arbitrary set of features you made, even if they were linguistically sound. You say a+b+c=R, essentially because R should = a+b+c . Why? Because it helps you distinguish what you want to put in your basket of religion. But how did you arrive at those features? In an earlier comment you said

  “I’d be curious to see something considered a religion that didn’t fit my definition… I think it clarifies that a lot of belief systems mistaken to be religions aren’t really.”

  Can you see how those separate statements create a logical problem? Your second statement says if a “religion” doesn’t fit your features, then it isn’t really a religion, but your first statement says it would be interesting to see if a religion that doesn’t fit into them – but if it doesn’t fit in, then you wouldn’t consider it a religion!

  See, I said I think we agree because we are using more or less the same methodology, I’m just coming at it from another way and I treat religion as a constantly evolving arbitrary concept. There are many features that classify “religion” – you have named three of them, but I would add about eight more and not restrict any core principles to religion. It is partly what makes the study of religion so exciting – we all act religiously, even when we don’t know it, and it was only up until the 18th century that we have ever compartmentalized “religion” – but again, maybe another post.

• 39. Vincent Clubb  |  July 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

  I too call myself a Christian and stay clear of using the word religious. Religion is man seeking after God, where as Christianity is God seeking man. Religion is man’s attempt to redeem himself with God, where Christianity is God seeking after man. Simply, religion is man made where Christianity is the Truth. I know that it is not popular or politically correct to say this but I just want you to know why I believe some Christians say that they are not religious but Christians. Keep up the great work on your blog!

• 40. Thinking Ape  |  July 13, 2007 at 9:26 pm

  “Religion is man seeking after God, where as Christianity is God seeking man…Simply, religion is man made where Christianity is the Truth.”

  Who can argue with that logic? The reason that such notions are not popular or politically correct is because they are absurdist to anyone except the person saying it. A Christian says Christianity is the Truth. A Muslim says Islam is the Truth. A Buddhist says we are all on the path of enlightenment – but they got the inside track. Why not define “religion” as any system that people think they gots da Truth?

• 41. Brendan  |  July 14, 2007 at 7:21 am

  A non-superstitious, non-religious approach to makes a great deal more sense. Christianity is another version of the old mythology. Approached as such, it’s myths are full of profound meaning. Approached as history or ontology, myth is not just meaningless but dangerous and delusional.

• 42. Rev : John Flipsen  |  April 1, 2008 at 5:11 am

  Why is for many the word Christian religion such a bad word,reason may well be their uncertainty of their, Today more and more Christian leaders do start to recognize the chair of Peter.It is this were Jesus was praying for under the Leadership of Rome Christ did pray for this that all may be one as we are one Father.Whether we like it or not that is were it coming to. Look back at the very latest ecumenical discussions which have taken place in early January.As the secretary of the WCC expressed it his hope is that within fifty years we have fullcommunion.

• 43. Lucas H  |  September 17, 2009 at 11:02 pm

  Wow. Imagine me, a Christian, fully agreeing with this essay.

  But you are correct. Those who claim Christianity is not a religion are either ignorant or dishonest.

• 44. Mystery Porcupine  |  September 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm

  This is most interesting. I tried to skim the comments to see if anyone said anything similar to my experience, but I didn’t see it. I’m sorry if I missed it.

  When I was a Christian and said, “I’m not religious,” I did it for a different reason. I saw that people tended to talk about religion as if you could box it up on a package, as if it was only one part of a person. In society, religion could be separated from state, personally it could be put to the side for the sake of a certain type of decision or interaction and then picked up again when it was convenient. In some cases, religion was viewed as more cultural than day-to-day lifestyle.

  I thought (was taught) that a relationship with Jesus was much more than that. It could not be put into any kind of box in my mind or my life – it would influence every decision and every day of my life. Maybe I was trying to say Christianity was better than other religions – of course I was taught that it was. But the statement was not purposefully deceptive. I thought that Christianity demanded much more of me than following a religious code or participating in religious rituals, and that it was more fulfilling as well. It was a living interactive thing instead of a set of rituals or rules. Telling nonbelievers that I wasn’t religious was trying to get them to see that Christianity was a personal way of life, not just a book of rules (remember the Pharisees – that’s what I thought was religion).

  Now that I’ve written all that, there is something else. I knew plenty of people who went to church and it didn’t appear to influence their actions at all…going through the motions of “religion” and not even finding joy or fulfillment in it. That is probably why I was trying to distinguish my “living” faith from a religion.

  Of course, what I thought was a living, breathing, unboxed faith really was just me living out a creed to the extreme. I don’t think there was any way for me to know that at the time.

• 45. Mystery Porcupine  |  September 18, 2009 at 12:13 am

  Perhaps I should add – the whole point of providing the above explanation is that I believe many Christians don’t think THEY are extra special. It’s not necessarily a problem of pride in themselves – it’s that they have bought that *Christianity itself* is special and is different from all other religions. It is THE way after all, so it can’t just be “another” religion. There are plenty of well-meaning, humble, loving people who truly believe this and believe that it helps when they tell other people that Christianity is “more than” a religion. That doesn’t make them right, of course. But it means that our calling them arrogant and dishonest probably misses the mark in many cases. Ignorance may ring true a lot more often – not stupidity, just a limited understanding of religion in general.

• 46. Roy  |  September 18, 2009 at 7:03 am

  Well said, mysterious porcupine. I agree with you.

• 47. Roy  |  September 18, 2009 at 7:25 am

  Off topic, but I must ask, porcupine: Are you involved in the Free State Project?
  http://www.freestateproject.org

  If not, what does your handle mean?

• 48. Mystery Porcupine  |  September 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  Thanks, Roy. Yes I am a Free Stater. I ended up mentioning the Free State Project in a post here, and I realized if I used my real name that people might know me. I am not “out of the closet” yet about my de-conversion, so I chose a handle. Hopefully if someone figures out who I am they will help me keep it quiet for the sake of some family members who aren’t ready for all this yet.

• 49. hedi  |  May 12, 2010 at 5:16 am

  Religion comes from the latin word: religere. It means overwriting. It has to do with following rules, the law. Jesus died for our sins and gave us a new life. Christianity has noting to do with following rules but has to do with belief. And gratitude and love for what God has done makes that we fullfill the rules. It comes from whitin, while other religions the rules comes from the outside. We do’nt have to works or do several rituals, pray fivetimes a do to come closere to God. God came to us and fullfilled everything. We just have to belief that we are saved. Thats why it is not a religion. I am not dishonest, i am not ashamed, í am not ignorant. 15 years ago i became a chritian and for i became a christian i was into boedism, hindoism, etc, etc. All these religions want to do good works and rituals to come closer to God and Yes Christianity is different from all those religions because Christians are saved by God and not by there own works of religion. Roman 3:23 It is what God did. Even Jesus was against religion, Farazees. Its about that God loves us.. He did the work. Its from the inside out.

• 50. Kim  |  June 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm

  My perspective on this topic: I also say “I’m Christian but not religious.”
  Maybe my reasons are different…

  Since my faith in God was not acquired from exposure to religious practices (church, daily prayer, etc), but rather a pervading sense that God has always been in my awareness and heart, I have trouble with people’s expectation that I join in ‘churchy’ activities.
  I like being with my friends there, listening to the Pastor, and knowing Jesus is my Saviour. I don’t doubt for a moment that’s true for me.
  I simply don’t have a routine of ‘devotions’, or saying ‘just’ every 7 words or so.. I don’t even like to pray out loud – whether it be grace at the table or contributing to home meetings.
  I feel artificial somehow if I try to fit into this pattern I see amongst most of my Christian friends.
  It doesn’t mean I don’t love the Lord. I most certainly do, and I’d much rather skip some Sundays than be there looking vacant. I’m far more affected by music, dramatic illustrations of scriptural stories, and movies about Biblical characters.

  Maybe I don’t join in events such as worship rallies, or prayer marathons .. that doesn’t mean I’m denying Christ. It means I want to be absolutely myself in His presence, without habits that I can’t call my own.

• 51. Kerberos  |  June 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm

  “What is this incessant need to disassociate Christianity from “religion?”
  Is it because religion is too structured? Is religion barbaric? Is religion primitive and uncritical? What do these people mean when they say they are Christian, but not religious, or that the essence of Christianity is not religious. What do these Christians see about “religion” that makes them want to deny their religiousity?

  Psychologically speaking, I am pretty sure it is an attempt to set Christianity apart from other religions.”

  ## Close. When people – typically Evangelicals of some kind – say this, they are making a theological point: that religion is what man does to go to God in his own strength, whereas Christian faith, by contrast, is in a God who “comes down” to man, to do for him what he *cannot do* in his own strength. God acts like this, in perfect freedom, because He is a God of grace, whereas man, precisely by being religious, has been trying to recommend himself to God by relying on his own works, rather than on God’s grace. What this means is that by being religious, man is digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole he is trying to escape from – & his very religiousness, far from being good, is sin at its worst, because it gives him the deceitful pseudo-certainty that he can find peace with God without relying on God.

  It’s a fairly basic Evangelical insight. With a lot of implications. More “catholic” types of Christianity have difficulty in accommodating the idea that Christianity is not a religion – they would be more liable to say that Christianity is religion in its true form, or something of the kind.

  The question of structures is not irrelevant, but Calvinism, which is Evangelical, has a very “high” doctrine of the Church, & is very keen on the importance of church attendance. It also pays a lot of attention to Church discipline. Other sorts of Protestestant Evangelicalism have a rather sceptical attitude to the Church and its structures – this is very marked among Dispensationalists.

  Disclaimer: I’m Catholic, formerly Evangelical, and very Protestant in some ways, & very sceptical in others.

  Hope that answers the question.

• 52. Rachel  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm

  When a Christian says, I am not religious they are basically trying to say it is way more than that. Religious is to me is a word that decribes follow a religion just because you believe in it. Which is true in Chrisitians, but Christianity believes in more than that, Jesus is the risen savor to them. A man who died and rose again, and will come back again in the comming years. Having a relationship with Jesus is a real thing, and they are trying to explain that they are different from all other Religions. Because their Savior is not dead like all the other “Gods”, he is real and he is alive in heaven sitting on the thrown.

  - 4 year Chrisitian

  I thought i would put my input in there. (: thankyou (:

• 53. BigHouse  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:32 pm

  Not that I’d care for you to expound on your point Rachel but there are devout followers of EVERY religion who take it as seriously as Christians take their “walk with Christ’. I don’t think Christians get any reasonable claim to some high ground for being above “religious”.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed