When a person says: 'I am really not a religious person', what are we to understand them to mean? I am tempted to say back 'I am not religious either'. I don't see myself as a religious person, but I take it that they would usually think I was.
In a way I want to disbelieve them though: aren't all human beings religious in some way? Aren't we homo adorans?
I guess I am asking: 'what is meant usually by 'religious' in the sentence 'I am not a religious person'?
11 comments:
Here in the middle east to say one is religious (mutadayyin) is a compliment. It simply means that one practices his religion and can be used for Muslims or Christians. A religious man goes to communal worship and practices devotions like prayer, fasting, and reading of Scripture.
There is another word for a person who has somehow gone too far with his religion: mutashaddid. This words refers to someone who, literally, has been caused to become strict or severe.
If you tell people here you are "spiritual" they will probably not have any idea of what you are talking about.
I think most commonly the function of such a statement is I do not wish to talk about these things; they make me uncomfortable. Though there is a fairly common more neutral usage: I am not regularly involved in a recognised spiritual community and/or My identity is not shaped (positively) by any kind of 'organised religion'.
It is definitely a distancing statement.
Question is: how do you respond to it?
As I said my gut reaction is to say 'oh, but you ARE'!
I just say yes, I'm religious.
A girl at my old church regularly wore a T-shirt that said:
I hate Religion (front)
but I love Jesus! (back)
... but maybe that's less useful for conversation, since the statement works better if you (both) are boisterous teenagers.
I think evangelicals often use "religion" as a dirty word, in contrast to something like "relationship", but surely (true) religion is a good thing - the problem is false religion (James 1:26f)?
Well, fair 'nuff. I take evangelicals define religion in the sense of 'ritualistic' and therefore 'semi-pelagian' in our eyes.
Paul described the Athenians as 'very religious': it didn't imply they knew the true god but rather that they were seekers after him, and very busy with religious activity...
I am tempted to say back 'I am not religious either'. I don't see myself as a religious person, but I take it that they would usually think I was.
I recently met a fairly senior Christian leader who not only refuses to call himself religious but also refuses to call himself a Christian (too sectarian apparently and a conversation stopper)! He prefers to think of himself and identify himself not as a certain kind of human, but just as a human - and all the more human for being fascinated and drawn to follow Jesus. So his motivations, as far as I understand them, are both theological (claiming the anthropological high ground) and apologetic (not letting labels prejudice where a conversation might go).
I don't know if I'm willing to stop identifying myself as a Christian (!), but I was intrigued by his bold approach.
Bonhoeffer I think had something like this in mind with his 'secular Christianity' idea he suggested when he was in prison.
Funnily enough it was a bunch of liberal Anglican bishops who promoted it in the 60s!
[Jeremy Halcrow said]:
As Abu Daoud points out the comment makes no sense outside a secular society.
It's a way distancing your 'private' belief from buying into the 'public' institution of the Church and all that means culturally.
From what I have observed, it is usually followed by a 'but'... eg "I'm not a religious person BUT I loved the sermon at your wedding" or "I believe in God BUT I'm not a religious person". It's saying don't put me in an institutional box... treat me as an individual.
[As an aside... In this regard, at least, I suspect we see a similar phenomenum amongst evangelicals with the trend to call themselves 'Christians' but refuse to identify with denominational labels like 'Anglican' or 'Presbyterian'.]
I think it is a response to a couple of cultural forces..
1. As I say above, it is partially an outworking of hyper-individualism.
2. It recognises the widespread distrust of institutions, paticularly in this case the churches. Let's be honest the past decade has seen some pretty bad PR for the capital 'C' Church.. eg child sex abuse etc
3. As we know, there are some fairly high profile criticisms of Christianity that attack the faith not merely on the basis of being untrue but for being immoral. ie homophobic, violent etc. So, in some contexts it is a way of saying, "I'm lukewarm" or "I'm a moderate".. ie "I'm not so dangerously serious about my faith like those immoral fundamentalists'...
[This is a ridiculously late comment, but: I've been on a (working) holiday myself, and missed the original post.]
I am with Abu Daoud on this one, and not because of working in the Middle East: on the contrary, because of working as an expatriate and dealing extensively with (also expatriate) European scientists and other academics, for whom Christian or other religious commitment is the exception rather than the rule.
If asked, "are you religious?", or confronted with "so, you are religious?", I answered "Yes". And now, on occasion, I will also spontaneously describe myself as religious.
This felt odd the first few times it happened, because it's contrary to the (evangelical) fashion back home, but I came to feel it was the only acceptable answer. For when people were asking me this, they had in mind "is your religion an important part of your identity in which you are personally invested; does it drive your behaviour even when you are not on your home turf; are you observant, at least as compared to others nearby?". The answer to these questions is "yes". So when asked, I say "yes".
The "I am not a religious person"/"well, neither am I" discussion may also be a real one, but it is specific to certain times and places and kinds of people, and it is not the only discussion in play. There are situations where it must be let go, and I think there is an evangelical tendency to hold onto it too tightly.
Post a Comment