It seems to me that Christianity - as I understand it, is qualitatively different from "religion".
I regard Christianity as in essence the commitment to accept Jesus Christ's offer of resurrected eternal life in Heaven, through following Jesus post-mortally.
For a Christian, therefore, life after death involves both a personal transformation (resurrection) and also (implicitly) a qualitatively different existence in a Heaven that is understood in terms of a Second Creation - a creative Heaven entirely motivated by love; and without death, entropy or evil.
This post-mortal expectation therefore provides a frame for everything else in reality; and especially for this mortal life of ours.
But Christianity does not fill our mortal life.
Being a Christian does not provide us with a blueprint, rule-book, ethical code, or detailed external and objective guidance for all important matters...
In other words (properly grasped); it seems that "being a Christian" is not really "a specific religion"
The "religion aspect of life" has been provided by many and various churches through history and today - some of which churches include following Jesus to resurrected life in Heaven as a core element - and these are validly "Christian churches"; but who all in addition offer various and detailed blueprints for daily living.
Guidance overlaps among validly Christian churches, but it also varies.
But each church offers, to a significant degree, that specific and detailed life-guidance in terms of principles, practices, necessary obediences etc. which religiously-inclined people seek; and that complex societies and civilizations required in order to function, and be sustainable.
What I am saying is that "being a Christian" is distinct from being religious; because being a Christian focuses on what happens after we die; while a religion focuses on what we do during this mortal life.
I am also saying that the relationship between the direct Christianity of what happens after we die, and the "blueprint" religion of what we do in this mortal life; is indirect and uncertain.
On the one hand; Christianity-itself does not have many very hard entailments -- and on the other hand; most of the multitude of detail in rule-books, ethical codes, and theologies lacks any solid basis in Christianity.
The true relationship between Christianity and religion is that Christianity comes hierarchically first, above all else, and is the framework for understanding our life and ultimate reality.
Within that framework of aspiration and faithful expectation; there will inevitably need to be something like a religion.
But the scope and details of any religion, even a genuinely-Christian religion, are-not and cannot-be an entailed consequence of Christianity.
Note added: This does not mean that all religions, or even all validly-Christian and self-identified-Christian churches, are equally valid. Some will be more Christianity-compatible than others. But it does mean that one could probably be-a-Christian (i.e. by intending to accept the post-mortal offer of Jesus Christ) while practicing a pretty wide range of religions. And this was, of course, the actual situation among the earliest Christians, before a distinct "Christian Church religion" arose - who, after conversion, seem to have continued practicing (for example) their Jewish, Samaritan and Roman Pagan religions.
2 comments:
The same idea you present here and elsewhere was first introduced to my mind through reading Shūsaku Endō's book Silence, a novel about the 17th century persecution of Catholics in Japan. I find the distinction between Christianity and religion to be deeply true. However, I made mention of this to a friend, a staunch Roman Catholic, and he objected that such a position would make of no account the sacrifice of the martyrs who suffered death for refusing to honor the pagan gods. I am curious how you would respond.
The answer would be too long for a comment; but if you follow the first link you will probably be able to understand from the first few pages.
Post a Comment