A Defence of Religion

"Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural. [Also] a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."
-Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

In making connections with Christian student groups here I find myself surrounded by a strong sentiment that I believe is common in the postmodern church. Over and over I am confronted by negative feelings about 'religion.' Generally, from their perspective "religion sucks, but Jesus is cool." It seems to be manifested by a strong suspicion or even hostility to practices, groups, or persons that seem 'religious.' Deep down, what they are really objecting to is form without substance - actions without faith. Yet it seems to have penetrated so deeply that simply the presence of the forms implies to them an absence of faith. They hold tightly to the gospel of 'me and Jesus;' resisting the presence of anything which smells of 'religion.' They have come to view religion as a set of rituals that prevent people from connecting to the truth.

To begin, I agree that there have been and are times when the church has become comfortable with ritual and forgotten the truth for which it serves as a symbol. We are always tempted to treat the symbol as the symbolized. It is action without thought. This devolution is intellectually and spiritually easier than going through the process of experiencing the truth through the ritual. However, is this truly a justification to eliminate the symbol?

The 'me and Jesus' theology seems to me to contain a certain individualism carried too far. While it cannot be disputed that the choice to follow Christ is one that I must make for myself, it is only in that moment of decision that my faith is only between me and God. Once I have committed to follow Him I am now a member of His body. I am part of His church. The potential of my faith is now only truly realized within the context of Christian fellowship found in the body. We no longer require an intermediary to obtain forgiveness of sin or to be heard by God, but isn't that only the very beginning of the Christian life? For everything else in a Christ-centered life we must act as a part of the body. It is the height of arrogance that assumes that I need no help to live a life worthy of the calling. If I am to understand and act on what it is to be a disciple of Christ, I need other disciples to provide input into my life and they in turn need input from me. No part of the body can fulfill its potential if it is disconnected from the rest. If acting as one part of the greater body is what defines the life of a disciple, what might that tell us about religion?

At this point, I must say that I recognize that first, I am not Paul, and second, no analogy can explain everything about or be fully applied to the idea it is attempting to illuminate. In this light, I submit the following for consideration. A body has a rhythm to its existence. Every day, it sleeps to regain energy. It generally eats at regular intervals daily and it must breath constantly. These are all rituals, if you will, that sustain the proper functioning of the body. If the rituals are not carried out, the body will die. If they are not carried out in the appropriate way, the body's effectiveness will be lessened. So, perhaps, we should not be surprised to find ritual, rhythm, and a certain order within the body of Christ.

From Scripture we find at least three such rituals: baptism, marriage, and Communion. We are commanded to be baptized and to baptize (Ac 2:38, Mt 28:19). The Scriptures do not support the idea that my faith is a private matter (Ro 10:8-10). If I have decided to follow Christ, I must declare it to the church and participate in a ritual symbolizing my new birth out of the death of sin. In the same manner, we don't treat marriage as a private matter between the husband and wife, but engage in a public ceremonial demonstration of the decision they make. While it is certainly true that simply participating in the symbol of salvation (baptism) does not save you, the Bible seems to suggest that baptism is important and should always accompany salvation if possible.

The question should not be whether we sometimes focus on the symbol and forget the symbolized, but rather, would we remember the truth better without such rituals? I believe that we humans have a memory much shorter than is good for us. I know that I often find myself unable to remember my parents' anniversary or a loved one's birthday, much less things in which I did not participate or which I did not witness. Observe how humanity attempts to remember things we deem important. We build museums or monuments or appoint a specific day for collective remembrance. We do not rely on our individual ability to remember and reflect unaided. While it is true that we can become so accustomed to a historical marker that we at times cease to reflect on it in any meaningful way, does that mean the marker shouldn't exist? Does this reflect a flaw in the marker or a flaw in us? Additionally, God Himself seems to think that ritual is necessary if we are to keep the truth in mind. How else can you explain God's commands to the Israelites to commemorate the Passover and the Sabbath (Leviticus 23) or his dramatic statement in Deuteronomy 6? If the symbol was not important, then why did Jesus say "...do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; New International Version, emphasis mine) when He could just as well have simply said 'remember me'? All this seems to suggest to me that it should not be a surprise if our faith is found to be rich in ritual and symbolism. In truth it is not the symbol that is the problem. The problem is our own tendency to succumb to distraction and forgetfulness. At least the liturgy may persist and point the way to those that one day notice and wonder. The tragedy would occur if the liturgy was destroyed; for if the substance was lost and the form cast away, how then could the truth be reconstructed?