Front PageWhence Came Religion And Whither Goes IT?
Submitted by bill on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 14:44. Christianity Emerging Church faith society and culture Spirituality
Just what are the beginnings of, say, Christianity? Well, it grew out of Judaism, most say.
But where did Judaism begin? From Abraham? No, not exactly. From the postexilic period when Hebrew leaders from the tribe of Judah (Judah->Judaism) were allowed to return to their homeland (Judea) and rebuild the temple and build a canon of scripture.
So, did Judaism change from what was given by Moses? Well, it had already changed.
Then it might have changed between Abraham and the exodus from Egypt, right? Yes.
Was the religion of Abraham more pure, then? Maybe not.
So if Judaism changed over its history, has Christianity changed? Well, we all know the answer to that one—yes, quiet a lot.
Is there a pure, original that we must get back to? No, and I don't think we should try.
Are we getting better or worse, then? Both.
This quest that I've recently begun to better understand the origins of, and influences on, today's religions, grows deeper and broader with each additional book or source that I open. Not only was there a great parallel change from primitive religions into what has evolved into our modern versions of great world religions during Karl Japspers' Axial Age, but in the centuries just before and after the common era, there was a great religious melting pot in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. The histories of these peoples is not as simple, neat and independent as many assume.
UPDATE: The following paragraph sounds as if I'm one of those in-the-know regarding comparative religion, etc., but I'm not. Much of this is new to me or at least much deeper than I've known.
Those of you who've studied comparative religion, philosophy or ancient history in depth, may be nodding your heads as you read this. But many people—especially those considering themselves religious—have a world view based on a nice, tidy, linear development of technology and culture but with an assumed pure, or mostly pure, religious core. However, the big, burr-under-your-saddle problem is that it just ain't so. Even as religionists argue over religious purity, they are swept along in the same stream of human development as the rest of us.
Still, the knowledge that today's religions are not what many practitioners think, does little to reduce the importance of religion to the human condition and experience. We are religious animals. We just are. Even when we attempt to rid ourselves of religion, we create a new one. Secular Humanism is a good example. While I won't take time now to support this claim, I will suggest that many modern Protestant groups have little more religious ritual than a Lion's Club. The average Atheist's family probably has as much ritual as some Protestant families. With typical family traditions, Christmas and other holidays, ritual tailgate and Super Bowl parties with friends and family, most of the ritual observed by the typical Protestant family is related to modern culture instead of their religious practice. Fundamentalist Christians are even complaining about the efforts of Emerging Church to put some ritual back in to religion. Ritual seems unchristian and Pagan to them. Religion is part of culture and I suspect that the religion—or non-religion—that most of us observe came down to us through family and community, just like the rest of culture.
But it is and was more rich and complex than we usually think about. And I think it would do us all good to understand our origins better. It would also do us good to understand our cultures—including religions—as developing. Because they are.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Iconoclast
Submitted by bill on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 16:40.
Reido,
I sometimes wonder about Abraham. In a primitive culture with gods for every force known, wouldn't Abraham look a bit wacko to those around him? Here's this guy who talks to one god.
There's still much I need to learn about primitive religion. And then I need to reread Abraham's story. But he must have stood out as strange if not hostile. Zarathustra had to leave his village to find followers. And so did Jesus. Not sure about the Buddha, but he did give up his position.
So, I think you're on to something. Abraham probably made his family and friends angry if he didn't participate in the same seasonal rights, etc..
bill
» reply
Your Comment On E-What
Submitted by Ken Silva (not verified) on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 16:50.
bill, what makes you assume my goal is to "dialogue" during my articles? As one would take the time to actually read and analyze what is said in a given piece then they will be "apprised" as to a Biblical world-view. If one doesn't wish to ascribe to that particular world-view this doesn't stop me from liking them. We would just not agree.
As I said in a recent comment at Slice, due to the time we live in when I preach/teach to the general audience I will do it in a more Matthew 23 way. However, when I am approached privately, say like Nicodemus apprached Jesus in John 3, why you might even see that I'm really not such a bad guy after all. Just doing what I see to be my job. I do hope this helps because it sure seems that I do upset you my friend. :-)
» reply
Re: Your Comment On E-What
Submitted by bill on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 21:25.
Ken Silva wrote:
bill, what makes you assume my goal is to "dialogue" during my articles? As one would take the time to actually read and analyze what is said in a given piece then they will be "apprised" as to a Biblical world-view. If one doesn't wish to ascribe to that particular world-view this doesn't stop me from liking them. We would just not agree.As I said in a recent comment at Slice, due to the time we live in when I preach/teach to the general audience I will do it in a more Matthew 23 way. However, when I am approached privately, say like Nicodemus apprached Jesus in John 3, why you might even see that I'm really not such a bad guy after all. Just doing what I see to be my job. I do hope this helps because it sure seems that I do upset you my friend. :-)
Ken,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate that you went to the trouble of explaining your purpose and perspective.
Since I have not enough time now to give a complete and thoughtful response, I'll make just two points.
One of the reasons that I get so frustrated with the behavior that I see too often on Slice (and some other places) is because I can see myself in the mirror. Like the proverbial ex-smoker, I'm appalled at behavior that I struggle to keep in check. However, as iron sharpens iron, we should remind each other when we see the other crossing the line and picking up a smoke—if you know what I mean.
As for the times we are in: these are times in which it is important to show real leadership rather than whipping up anger and division. And Matthew 23 should read like a mirror to all those in religious leadership positions.
Thanks again.
bill
» reply
Agreement
Submitted by Ken Silva (not verified) on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 14:42.
bill, please forgive me if this is a double post. ON my end it didn't show going through.
re. your point one I do understand what you mean. I don't always like what I see in the mirror every day either. I guess it makes us appreciate the grace of God all the more.
And re. point two - Matt. 23/leadership; well, look at that will ya? It seems that we can agree after all!
» reply
confused
Submitted by sofyst (not verified) on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 07:09.
I am still somewhat confused as to why you would say there is not a pure form of our religion that we must get back to.
Even if there is not a linear development, I would still assume there is a pure form of it. Let us say not that Christianity was at its finest and most pure form at the time of Christ or Paul, and has since devolved. Let us assume that even then (Paul's time at least), people still got it horribly wrong. If we assume this, then could we not think of a standard or a Platonic form (if you will) of what Christianity is supposed to be? And if there is such, shouldn't we try to get as close to that in our walk as possible?
Or perhaps you would posit that there is not one true and pure form of Christianity by which we are to judge the different stages of Christianity off of. Perhaps the Pauline Christianity, which may or may not be different than let us say Osteen's Christianity, is no better or worse than Osteen's. Is this what you are getting at?
» reply
Faith in Process
Submitted by reid o (not verified) on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 11:33.
Sofyst
While we wait eagerly for Bill's reply, I may attempt what I think he is saying.
There is a foundational difference between faith and religion. Today they have come to mean pretty much the same thing, but in less developed understanding, faith could lead to many destinations in the journey. Religion, on the other hand, is a point already arrived at. The effort of religion becomes to replicate that destination (or invevitably what man percieves it to be thru his development).
Religion is an image, then, of what the person thinks is the destination previously arrived at. Objectivism will reinforce this thinking with the reification of a form to be duplicated.
Let's see if this helped, or was close.
reido
» reply
Also Confused
Submitted by bill on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 14:39.
Sofyst,
Reido gave probably a better answer than I could, but I'll attempt to explain where I was trying to go.
When we seek a pure religion, we approach idolatry in that religion is itself a seeking of a pure form. Therefore, focusing too much on religion is like focusing on the symbol rather than the thing or concept symbolized.
Bear in mind that I'm an armature on this subject
For primitive people, religious ritual reconnected them with a pure form or archetype of what they wanted to become. For example, before the hunting party starts out, they engage in a ritual that reconnects them with the archetypal hunter. Perhaps an ancestor who was a great hunter, or maybe an animal that's known as a great hunter. The ritual was a means to an end. It was not the end. Religion is only as good as its success in reconnecting participants with the pure form of their goal.
Beginning in the Axial age, advanced peoples became more conscious and rational and developed left brained (perhaps) descriptions and reasoning. They developed toward monotheism from polytheism. But, I contend, we still need religious ritual and myth to reconnect us with the archetypal or pure form of humankind (perhaps the Son of Man?).
This archetypal human would be the Christ for Christians. Mohammad might fit this purpose for Muslims. For the Jews it might be Abraham or Moses but I think Messiah is a more pure form.
The story of the fall in Genesis 3 seem to me the undoing of the pure form of man in the image of God. Humankind, as made in the image of God, is a pure form or archetype. The fall is the story of adulteration of the pure form. Getting back to that form, back to the garden, and back to the ultimate relationship with God is the goal of religion.
Of course one could argue that some forms of religion and ritual are better than others. And this may well be close to the point that Jesus made when he said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The Anointed One is our archetype. Not Christianity. Christianity is effective only to the extent that it brings us closer to the pure form, Imago Dei.
Does this make any sense? My head is swimming, these past couple of weeks. I started out reading Karen Armstrongs new book [http://faithcommons.org/node/643|The Great Transformation], but stopped along the way to fill in my knowledge gaps with some other books. Hopefully, I'll get to a point soon to blog some of this that I'm learning.
bill
» reply
Random Thoughts
Submitted by BLG2319 on Fri, 05/12/2006 - 09:29.
Quote:
Even when we attempt to rid ourselves of religion, we create a new one. Secular Humanism is a good example. While I won't take time now to support this claim, I will suggest that many modern Protestant groups have little more religious ritual than a Lion's Club. The average Atheist's family probably has as much ritual as some Protestant families. With typical family traditions, Christmas and other holidays, ritual tailgate and Super Bowl parties with friends and family, most of the ritual observed by the typical Protestant family is related to modern culture instead of their religious practice. Fundamentalist Christians are even complaining about the efforts of Emerging Church to put some ritual back in to religion. Ritual seems unchristian and Pagan to them.
I had a conversation with my uncle about a year ago about the time I read "The History of God". I tried to explain to him that a religion that did not engage in ritual or tradition would not result in anything meaningful or transformative. He didn't get it. He was so consumed with how to get to heaven he could not accept that the "practice" of religion holds an essential place in society. I think a lot of Christians are stuck in this mode.
I still feel guilty about not going to church on Sunday morning especially since my son came along. What I have discovered though is that Sunday's have become the one a day week my family can rest and just enjoy each other. Somehow I think this is a better use of time.
I remember growing up being confused by churches that used liturgy in their services. What a waste of time I thought it was to chant or pray the same prayer every week. I now understand a bit better why they do it (even if some of them don't know really know why). It connects them to their ancestors in away that contemporary feel good nonsense does not. When a congregation recites the Lord's Prayer, they are particpating in something that fellow Christians have practiced for centuries. Communion is much the same way. Unfortunately in some traditions (Churches of Christ to be exact) the historical and spiritual significance is snuffed out by legalistic concerns.
Evangelical Christianity has cheapened spirituality for the sake of numerical growth to the point that worship services are nothing more than rock concerts and pop psychology seminars. All signs of tradition and ritual that gave times of worship their meanings are gone. It is ironic to me that I once celebrated tradition's demise. I now mourn for its loss.
What I find as I learn about our collective history as the human race is that our religious traditions are completely different yet essentially the same. That I find to be faith affirming. Faith not in my beliefs about who/what God ulitmately is, but in that something greater than myself does exist. Even if it exists only in my mind.
Brian
» reply
Tangential Thoughts
Submitted by bill on Fri, 05/12/2006 - 11:00.
blg2319 wrote:
What I find as I learn about our collective history as the human race is that our religious traditions are completely different yet essentially the same. That I find to be faith affirming. Faith not in my beliefs about who/what God ulitmately is, but in that something greater than myself does exist. Even if it exists only in my mind.
Brian,
This is the “truth” that I'm coming to also. There is a truth (or truths) that is absolute in that it is not held hostage by my theology or philosophy. And I agree with you that ritual has significance.
While I still can't put it all into words yet, I'm understanding that putting others before me grows my faith in myself as well as my faith in humanity. And this faith is what makes living worthwhile, whether there is an afterlife or not. Putting my faith in a theology, leaves that faith vulnerable to failure when the theology fails. Maybe that's why some people fight to the death for their theology (or philosophy). Because, they have no life worth living without it.
bill
» reply
An Important Citation on the history of Religions
Submitted by Dr. Mohamed Taher (not verified) on Fri, 06/30/2006 - 21:55.
In terms of comparative history of religions, I found a citation. The details are as follows:
Influence of Zarathushtrian faith on the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
Zarathushtrianism (also known as Zoroastrianism) is one of the oldest monotheistic religions. First taught among nomads on the Asian steppes, Zarathushtrianism was the state religion of the three great Persian empires, Achaemenian, Arsacid and Sassanian. The Persian Empire extended from India to the Mediterranean. Because of its lofty character, it had a remarkable influence on other world faiths: to the east on Northern Buddhism, to the west on Later Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The date of Prophet Asho Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) varies from 1700 BC to as far back as 4000 B.C. according to some Greek authors. The date of Asho Zarathushtra is not as important as the date with the teachings of Asho Zarathushtra. What Asho Zarathushtra taught is perhaps the very oldest and surely the most accurate code of ethics for man. It might indeed be said that Zarathushtra was the discoverer, or at least the uncoverer, of individual morals. Read the full article
» reply
Still Nomads
Bill
When Abram first left Mesopotamia, we have very little to go on except that he got a call from God to leave his kindred. Tribal custom being what it was, I would think this would have been a tremendous insult to his kinfolk and living generations.
Would it be sacrilege to suppose that there was more to the story?
reido