Not Just For The Sake Of It

I was hearing someone else talk about Christianity being about ‘a relationship not a religion’ and reflecting on what they meant, but what they actually said.  What they meant was to highlight the crucial pivotal role intimate personal relational input is to understanding Christianity.  What they said was that Christianity is not a religion implying that religion is a bad thing.

Of course religion is not a bad thing at all – that’s why we need to have the word ‘bad’ before the religion for it to be a ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ religion.  Outside that, criticising belief systems because of their reference to rituals and routines is a bit shortsighted.  After all, consider the best relationships in your life and even they are reliant on some level of routine and some rites – all fundamental to functioning religions.  There are certain rites that observed in relationships.  Just because we don’t state it as such, doesn’t mean it is not such a thing.

For example my wife expects me to make her a cup of tea at the same time I make the hot chocolate for the girls before they go to bed.  It’s a rite.  I don’t do anything particularly spectacular as I carry out that task.  I don’t lift my hand to my wife and draw attention to the fact or intone sombre mutterings or ecstatic utterances in praise of my wife and blessing the tea bags, but I do it all the same time and one of the rhythmic elements of Dryden Family life continues.  Deborah and Abigail ask for hot chocolate.  Dad makes hot chocolate. Mum asks for a cup of tea as well, and Dad complies and the world is a wonderful place.

I hardly then say that Dryden Family is not about rites and routines – it’s about relationships.  On the contrary I celebrate the power of relationship in the context of those rites and routines.  Likewise religion is about celebrating spiritual and supernatural connection in the context of certain rites and routines.  The problem comes in, however, when those rites and routines are devoid of their heart’s intent.  When they are done just for the sake of it.  A bit like doing a routine thing without reflecting why you do it and savouring the reason to relish doing it.  It no longer has it’s value – the cup of tea for the wife doesn’t taste as sweet or refreshing.

I have no problem at all stating that my faith in Jesus Christ is a religious experience – it just so happens that this religion is based on a relationship with the Light of the World.  Funny how some people who talk about relationship and not religion say the phrase … religiously … with an outlook, behaviour and attitude that fits rather neatly and snugly in that which belongs to … a religion!

One of the things that I’ve learnt in the last year or two is just how I want that religious experience – and that relationship to be based on actions done not out of duty, obligation or mindless routine, but out of a conscious awareness of my gratitude and love of Jesus Christ.  At the moment that means everything is up for grabs, because I again need to be sure and relax in the ever dynamic understanding that I do what I do because I love it.  Not just for the sake of it.

(Blog Note: If you know anything about me, you’ll know there’s an important date in the calendar coming very soon – expect one or two changes around these parts in line with the implications of that date.)

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

dmcd

2 thoughts on “Not Just For The Sake Of It

  1. It had come to me, many years ago, what the difference between Christian faith and religion is:

    Religion is man’s ways of pleasing his version of God. Since the world holds tight to so very many versions of God (though they are not versions at all but lies), religion has become a filthy word to many Christians.

    Christian faith is doing the will of The Father in Heaven, who’s voice we hear. “My sheep hear my voice . . . “.

    The Christian’s aversion to “religion” would indicate a knowledge of what is absolute and true.

    By His Grace.

    1. I really get where you’re coming from depending on your definition of religion. Yet I’m still drawn by the responsibility to pursue pure religion as defined by James – which is the gist of my response to the ‘anti-religion’ ethos.

Leave a reply to buttermilk80 Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.