Christian but not Religious?

[Thistledew]

I have heard this from a few different sources recently: "I am Christian and believe in God and Jesus but I hate religion and think it's wrong. All you need to do is read the Bible and love God".

It seems to me that one would have to perform the most tortuous mental gymnastics to arrive at this position. For a start, the dictionary definition of 'religious' is having a belief in a deity/deities and/or following a Holy text.

It seems to be that people are realising that there are a lot of negatives in religion but still want the security of having a benevolent deity caring for them. They seem to reject a 'rule based' religion - ie having to conform to any particular code of behaviour or lifestyle in order to call oneself Christian, and a dislike of traditional religious practice.

The thing that makes me uneasy about this is twofold. Firstly, it ignores the fact that there are still 'rules' to be followed: you can't just go and create your own definition of what god is or how god would behave, but have to confirm to what is an accepted definition. Same with Jesus and ideas of the afterlife and evil etc. There seems to be no awareness of how these concepts have been redefined by the Christian religion over the last 2000 years.

Secondly, is the change in emphasis from 'doing' to 'believing'. I know that Christianity has always been more about belief than action (unlike Islam, for example) but this seems to be taken to extremes. Gone are the days of your wooly Anglican priest who was happy to confess that he struggled at times with his belief in god but knew that as long as he kept up his prayer and religious reflection god would be happy with that and would still love him. No, this form of Christianity expects your belief in and love for god to be constant. The trouble with this is that it soon becomes another stick to beat people with: you have suffered misfortune and god has not answered your prayers? Must be because you don't love him enough. I had a conversation with someone who told me quite seriously, when I pointed out the famines that god has allowed to ravage Christian Ethiopia that she "couldn't be sure how committed those people were in their faith", unlike her, who as a white, middle class, landowning woman with a large family, has always been blessed with god's abundance. It just seems bizarre to me that it is seen as a positive, less harmful, more egalitarian way of doing things to set rules about how people are supposed to think, rather than just what they do. They are still rules. They are still a way of making a division between those who are doing 'the right thing' and those who are not. It still seems to walk and quack like a religion to me.

I really don't get why these people are trying to distance themselves from the idea of religion. Why not take ownership of the fact they are religious but say 'but we don't like how the old religions are doing things so we are creating a new one'.

Or have I missed something? Is it actually possible to be Christian but not religious and that this is a new and better way of doing things?

I think of religion as being man-made rules or dogma in the NAME of religion, and so if someone says to me "I read the bible and believe in God but I'm not religious," then I take that to mean they are following and living what they believe rather than following what they're told by the popular voice of religion at that time.

This could also explain what you say about the difference between the rules they are following and the rules other so-called Christians are following (you mentioned they have changed over time). I suppose it would be fair to say if someone is following the bible then they would perhaps have a more traditional Christian outlook, rather than the new "everything goes" viewpoint where everyone can decide to God is. Often that actually contradicts the bible!

Thistledew, you speak of them protesting outside abortion clinics versus other Christians who choose "not to harass venerable women", but they would see it as they are acting as the voice of protection for a vulnerable and defenceless unborn baby about to be murdered.

The idea that you can be Christian and not religious is probably part of the generic spiritual but not religious which is part of out post modern spiritual landscape. Part of what it means to be a Christian is being part of a Christian community and traditionally that community has met on a Sunday in church. With 24/7 lifestyles it is harder to get to church on one day so many churches have midweek services these days and services outside of churches.

As to headinhands point - when an individual discovers that God agrees with 'their own deep seated opinions' that is idolatry and the Bible has some quite strong words on that.

I am a Christian but I wouldn't describe myself as particularly religious. I associate that with the hypocritical behaviour of the Pharisees that niminy described and I don't want to be associated with that. Having said that, many people who know me would probably describe me as religious because I have a faith and go to church most weeks.

The disconnect in people's minds between 'being Christian' and 'being religious' in today's society is a quantifiable cultural phenomenon.

According to recent polls, only a fraction of those who identify themselves as having a religion - in this country most commonly Christianity - also identify themselves as being religious.

Here is a link to some survey results. It is from the British Humanist Association, so does contain some bias in presentation but the numbers are interesting.

humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

I think people nowadays differentiate between having a religion in an almost cultural identity sense (being Christian) and practising a religion in a pious and fanatical way (being religious).

Many people call themselves Christian because they feel affiliated with Christianity by culture, tradition and upbringing but don't particularly feel they need to do much about it. It's just what they are - they agree broadly with the moral principles in the Bible, think getting married in a church is the 'right thing' and might like to go along and sing some carols at Christmas. They might also see their religion as a private, personal matter and not want to be thought of as overtly churchy or religious.

But even those who attend church regularly can be loath to think of themselves as religious.

I feel that many people - Christian and non-Christian alike - are responding to the Zeitgeist in ascribing negative connotations to 'being religious'.

Whereas describing a person as 'religious' might once have conjured up thoughts of a regular church goer, principled, upstanding, moral and committed to doing 'good works' in the community, the word now tends to makes many think of that church goer as someone who is self-righteous and narrow-minded, who is apt to have 'funny' out-of-the-dark-ages ideas about gay people and the place of women in society. Many might also imagine people who think they are good Christians but go through the motions of prayer and ritual without inhabiting the actions mindfully or incorporating the spirit of their religious practices in day-to-day life.

Church bodies don't help by clinging to values that are now seen as prejudiced by secular society at large. Even some of the people in their own congregations yearn for change in the 'official' line.

I don't think many people will embrace 'being religious' in the sense of more actively immersing themselves in their Christianity until there are some fundamental reforms within the Church. But reform is difficult when one of the central tenets of the belief system is that the status quo of that system is intrinsically perfect and unchangeable.

Hmm I get what you are saying Out. However what you say here,

But reform is difficult when one of the central tenets of the belief system is that the status quo of that system is intrinsically perfect and unchangeable.,

I'm not sure I agree with. The church does change and has. Divisions have always been an issue. There is not full church unity yet, although this is something that should be aimed for.

"10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you." (1 Corinthians 1:10-11 NIV)

So the 'status quo' does change except that the church seeks unity, as the the faith should be unified. IMO individual Christians and different denominational churches should, continually, examine themselves, to ensure what they have done / believed in faith, is indeed in faith and not clung onto in their own pride.

^Not that Christ changes. He remains the same. It is our understanding that is refined and develops.

Hi Capsium, thanks for responding. I think what I was trying to say is that there is within Christianity the idea that there is one unchanging right way of doing things in accordance with the Bible, a way that is not influenced by the fads and fashions of the day. Once a part of the Bible has been interpreted in a particular way, the interpretation tends to crystallise out and be seen as an ultimate truth in itself. It can be difficult to get people to accept a new interpretation or way of doing things, as this would suggest a problem with the original interpretation or way of doing things, or to get people to accept that a particular interpretation might have been acceptable in the culture or mindset of its day but require updating in modern times. I'm thinking, for example, about the attitude towards homosexuality or women in leadership positions. I think this sort of inbuilt rigidity or resistance to change, or the idea of one correct path, regardless of cultural context or social mores in the community at large, can lead to problems.

Out I agree. The rigidity is sort of intertwined with the nature of faith and what is right being unshakable. However I think humility and recognising our own fallibility should always come into play here, which counters unshakability, in terms of, there are some beliefs that should be shaken.

We should always question whether our actions are motivated by faith and love or something indeed more selfish. IMO people can be selfish accidentally too, just because new ways of thinking, to them, can be so counterintuitive.

The Bible shows, to me, the huge range, in terms of how God's love can be manifested, through Christ and different people in different situations...so attempting to predict exactly how people should act in love, in every situation and judging them if they do not meet our own limited expectations, just does not fit IMO.

Outwith is the rigidity you are speaking of inherent in Christianity or is it manifested more broadly among human ways of thinking?

I think you have very accurately represented a particular perception of Christianity and, indeed, a particular kind of Christianity, but one that isn't universal either now or in the past. So what you say about people being unwilling to accept that a particular interpretation may have been considered true and authoritative in the past is accurate about some issues among some groups. There is a wide diversity of opinions among Christians - as should be evident from the small sample who post on these boards - and frequent clashes of interpretation of the Bible.

But the wider question you raise about whether Christians should modify their interpretations of the Bible in response to the 'cultural context or social mores in the community at large' is a complex one.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see the Church moving closer to the mores of the community at large with regard to homosexuality. I don't think there is a good Biblical case for regarding homosexuality as sinful, and I think there is a good Biblical case for saying that God wants us to flourish as who we are, not who we are not. In that case I think it is absolutely right to move towards contemporary culture.

When it comes to women in leadership I celebrate the fact that my church has at long last accepted that women can occupy leadership positions at all levels.

But there are times when there is a vast distance between the church and current social attitudes. The church (in its widest sense) is more consistently critical of capitalism and its effects on the poor than any political grouping. The Roman Catholic church is the largest single organisation campaigning against the death penalty. The church positions itself against the consumerism and shallowness of contemporary culture. Speaking for myself, I want the church to hold out against contemporary mores in these cases.

It's complex, isn't it. Maybe the church moves too slowly; maybe the church is too rigid; maybe the church should stand firm; maybe the church should resist the urge to conform to fashion. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is the near-exclusive focus, both in the church and by its critics on issues of gender and sexuality.

As to headinhands point - when an individual discovers that God agrees with 'their own deep seated opinions' that is idolatry and the Bible has some quite strong words on that.

No I don't mean god is persuaded by that person but that it just so happens that your values are similar to gods, I assume this is what draws most people to religion? You aren't drawn in by being repulsed by the values of it are you!

"You aren't drawn in by being repulsed by it"

I'm not sure it's the values of religion that draw people in, so much as an encounter with God, or a sense of the numinous, or the sense that there is more than the material, or that here is a place that feels like home.

In many ways God's values are deeply challenging: live faithfully, give recklessly, love unconditionally, side with the poor and outcast, abandon the illusion that you can manage all on your own thank you very much.

Niminy, good to hear from you! You and Capsium are helping me to refine my thoughts.

I think any system of ideas is capable of becoming rigid, particularly if those ideas are thought of as sacrosanct and not subject to review and modification. Religious beliefs are very much part of identity. If someone feels their identity is under threat because their religious views are being questioned or undermined, that can lead to rigid thought processes - a fear response. Taking these factors together, I think that rigidity of thought might manifest particularly strongly in the religious domain, although to different degrees in different religions.

In Christianity, we find the aim of uniting behind a common set of values, laudable in many ways, but intolerance of variation - a sort of rigid thinking - can also be a consequence of the push for one unified creed.

In Hinduism, on the other hand, we find a much more loosely connected set of ideas and practices. There is a choice of paths, and more of a sense of harmonious co-existence than the need for absolute unity.

That is probably why Hinduism has managed to avoid major schisms since its inception but the history of Christianity is beset by schisms.

Of course, some sort of cohesion is required or a belief system loses its identity completely. So there will always be that tension between unity and flexibility and people will have different ideas about the correct balance.

I do not think the people filling the pews in the old days were all decent pillars of society with impeccable moral values, nor do I think that those doing so now are all sanctimonious prejudiced hypocrites. I was only talking about society's perception of reality, rather than reality itself. It just seems to me that there has been a shift towards viewing a religious person in a less complimentary way than was previously the case. This might be related in part to the fact that these days it is the fanatical types with more extreme views that tend to get hold of the microphone and create a distorted picture. The press is also unlikely to write about religious people going around being moderate and reasonable because it would be dull.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the Church adopt the attitudes of society at large in an indiscriminate fashion. There should be a symbiosis between secular society and the Church, with each open to learning and benefiting from the viewpoint of the other. So I would like to see the Church being receptive and sensitive to outside influence, whether secular or from another religion, but able to filter incoming ideas thoughtfully and with integrity. I agree that the Church ought to stand firm against the rising tide of consumer madness. Shopping malls are the new cathedrals where people go to gawp and worship at the shrine of conspicuous consumption. It is very dispiriting! All this frenetic buying of baubles, bangles and designer label stuff we don't need at Christmastime makes me feel very bah-humbugish!

I'm not sure it's the values of religion that draw people in, so much as an encounter with God, or a sense of the numinous, or the sense that there is more than the material, or that here is a place that feels like home.

But you chose to ascribe that experience to a specific god out of the available gods. And chances are you went for the god of your culture. And there's a difference between finding a rule difficult to follow even though you recognise it's goodness and being repulsed but it. Were you ever repulsed by the notions of goodness and love and mercy?

In many ways God's values are deeply challenging: live faithfully, give recklessly, love unconditionally, side with the poor and outcast, abandon the illusion that you can manage all on your own thank you very much.

Those values are commonly held human values, they exist in people of all faiths and no faiths. And if god sides with the poor how come they have the worst and shortest life experiences, if that's having god on your side then I'd rather take access to health care, education and clean water every time given the option. As for managing on my own? I personally don't, I rely on many many people, as they do me. With regards to a god, I just have no reason to think I have any choice but to not rely on one seeing as there is no evidence that there is one, or at least one that is interested in humans. Going back to god siding with the poor, why don't the military just drop bibles out the back of the Hercules when they're delivering aid to famine/war torn countries?

manage all on your own

can you give me examples of situations that you demonstrably put trust in god? situations where you work stuff out in a different way

Out

If someone feels their identity is under threat because their religious views are being questioned or undermined, that can lead to rigid thought processes - a fear response

Whilst completely human and understandable, any actions motivated out of fear of people, are not particularly faithful ones,

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:7)

In Christianity, we find the aim of uniting behind a common set of values, laudable in many ways, but intolerance of variation - a sort of rigid thinking - can also be a consequence of the push for one unified creed.

It is interesting, though, Romans Chapter 14, that I linked to, speaks of the individual development of faith knowledge and understandable and personal relationship with God.

"5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."(Romans 14:5)

So it is in this context, in the presence of a personal relationship with God, individual development of faith, knowledge and understanding and our love for one another, that church unity must be sought whilst still acting with love and tolerance towards one another.

Understanding not understandable. Typo.

^ that is when I talk of knowledge and understanding.

intolerance of variation

You make it sound like the variations are all minor and petty but thats just not the case. Take the issue of female bishops. When it was voted on even the top echelons of the clergy were split with half think god did/didn't want it. And that's that's within the same denomination. If professional Christians don't even have a clue on what god wants, and the bible is easily bent to any perceivable dogma than how can any one have any reasonable faith in what god is saying to them. It seems like humans are making it up as they go along to someone on the outside.

The potential for variation, in the way understanding and knowledge develops, having a personal relationship with God and individual manifestation of faith but equally coming together in love for Christ and each other, strengthens my faithhead. To me it makes sense that God recognises and accepts us as individuals knowing we can also join together with what we have in common.

Narrative is the perfect way to communicate this, as we each can respond individually to narrative but also there is shared experience through experiencing the same narrative.

"When it was voted on even the top echelons of the clergy were split with half think god did/didn't want it."

That's not true. In November 2012, the House of Bishops voted 44 (for) to 3 (against) FOR the measure. (House of Clergy was 148 to 45, House of Laity 132 to 74. Get your facts right.

My mistake quoting half, but doesn't it concern you how many top flight clergy couldn't discern a simple yes or no from a god they claim to be in direct contact with?

So you just go with the vote? Because more people said yes it means god wants it? As for the others?

How come it changes so much over time. 100 years ago I reckon the votes would have been very different. How come, if the god is the same and christians are listening to god and ignoring their own preconceived ideas, how come there is such change and such disparity? How could you possibly ever know which group were right and which were wrong?