Why the history of the Word 'Religion' Matters
… and why it matters to our discussion here.
Linguistically, Old English derives from an old German (Saxon) dialect. Hence we refer to people, language, things as 'Anglo-Saxon'.
Modern English draws not only from its Old English roots, but also from many other languages - including Latin, even though it is not in the family of Latin languages such as French and Italian. When I attended school in Australia in the 1950s and '60s, I learned about the Latin and Greek roots of many of our words - including how to deconstruct the words to arrive at their "original" meaning. We use many Latin words even today in all of our writing and speaking genres - most of the time we don't even realise we are doing so. My grand-children of today don't spend much time on Latin and Greek roots at school!
The word 'religion' has suddenly become a popular word again as international and internecine wars and skirmishes become daily news.
Over the years, the English/Latin word religion has experienced considerable evolution of meaning. As far as I can tell from my study and research, the point at which this word was introduced into the Latin language is all but impossible to identify. The idea behind the word was doubtless present in the days of the Roman Empire somewhere between the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 and the so-called conversion of Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337 AD). I suggest it may well have been introduced during Constantine’s reign. We’ll return to this in due course.
But not too far into the history of this word, it was generally understood as a system or collection of beliefs that has to do with appeasing gods and goblins. Few if any civilisations have ever lived without a strong belief in spirits and powers above and beyond the mere human. These beings or powers are generally viewed as responsible for the regulation of the natural order – the things that humans appear to have little control over or little understanding of. As more knowledge and control is gained, for some, the perceived need for these ‘spiritual’ explanations wanes.
As time wore on, the word religion became a classifier for, on the one hand, any formalised system of beliefs that explained life and the universe beyond human control; and, on the other hand, a measure or ‘canon’ of the worthiness and acceptability of people within the sphere of influence of that particular belief system.
For hundreds of years, up until the time of The Enlightenment originating in the 17th century, ‘religion’ as the explanation for life as it was known was the accepted state of being. People who followed no religion or an ‘unacceptable’ religion were termed ‘pagans’ – literally, country-dwellers; rustic people. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on knowledge and scientific pursuits and explanations, challenged religious pursuits, beliefs and explanations.
For those of us in Western, English-speaking cultures today, the word religion has undergone significant evolution during the development of nations such as the United States of America and Australia. The PBS television Documentary series “God in America” is an excellent source for understanding a lot of this modern evolution.
Closer to my lifetime, in the 1940s and 1950s, the meaning of the word religion took an interesting turn when, for some, it came to mean what I consider to be the opposite of its general cultural meaning. Some writers of the time [A.W. Tozer for instance] used the word religion to describe people who were renewed spiritually, and clearly and powerfully energised by the Holy Spirit. They were nominal believers and ‘got religion’ – which meant they went from being simply church-attenders to being fire-brands for the Spirit of God and for the good news of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ.
Consequently, like the word ‘christian’, the word ‘religion’ is a seriously misunderstood and misused word. It has come to mean many different things (as I’ve pointed to above) but, in the process, lost its root meaning. Literally, the word means the 'process of tying up again or re-binding' (from Latin). And, it seems, few have any interest in its original meaning.
The first ‘christians’ were those who followed the Christ. They were called this by the society of their day which spoke, on the one hand, with a certain contempt for them and what they stood for and, on the other, with a certain amazement at how they loved one another. They stood for freedom – what else would one expect? Some sort of contest between religions can be argued. Their cry became, 'We have no king but Jesus' - which was a profound threat to both secular Emperor and popular secular worship rites and practices.
But theirs was no contest between religions; it was a contest between religion and freedom. By (original) definition, religion is how you undo freedom and freedom is how you undo religion.
For far too long, ‘christians’ have peddled a story of bondage while saying they were preaching a gospel of freedom. Neither they nor their converts are christians by Christ’s definition; they are acting more like the Pharisees of Jesus' day.
'Keeping the rabble in line'
Let’s return to the Constantinian era for a moment. Governments and civil authorities of the day (as they do in our day) survived by ‘keeping the rabble in line’. The first christians were ‘rabble’ to all forms of authority, and before a few centuries had passed (persecution only serving to embolden the christians), another method had to be found to quell the rabble’s freedom. In exchange for status, money, property rights and protection, ‘christian leaders’ agreed to quell the rabble’s freedom by a process of institutionalisation. The method of choice was, as I alluded to earlier, to take away people’s freedom by stealth and make it look and feel like they were actually getting increased freedom (usually called ‘choice’) in the form of deals done to give the institutions respect, power and real estate. [What's changed!]
I suspect they said something like (in Latin of course), ‘Let’s bind them up again, but in something that we control (church and state in collusion): priests, theology, rituals, buildings, programs and acts of charity.’
The ‘bind them up again’ part would have been the Latin word religion.
You see, religion is not a particular philosophy or type of philosophy; it is the process of quelling people’s freedom, binding them up again, initially without their knowledge or consent. The philosophy behind it can be theological or political or both. In the case of what we know as “the church”, I believe it was both.
Since then, different brands of religion have developed which are particular philosophical constructs. And this has spilled over into the fracturing of what were once unified, solid and specific sets of beliefs. The so-called christian church split in two, then each of those split into factions. The so-called protestants were of a thousand different opinions and each formed their own collective sets. I cannot think of any religion that has not fractured into many parts. Further, I have lived and served in many local churches over the years, and even there, not one of them could be said to have solid unity, even at the level of their constitutions and statements of belief. In fact, the quest for unity and for the maintenance of the unity of the Spirit seems to be little more than a quaint oddity or an impossible dream.
What religion has created is a world full of quasi-spiritual institutions. And those institutions are so adamant and precious about their beliefs that they will fight and kill one another over them, despite the fact that the God they say they worship specifically commanded against killing one another and against arguing over fine points of theology and against taking one another to court to settle disputes. Our institutions matter a great deal to us; and God’s household matters so little we will ignore it and trash it for our own institutions’ sake.
Thankfully, God is actually God. Our institutions matter not so much as a nose-pick to God; while His household is His entire will from start to finish. Is it not time for us to get new spectacles and see things as He sees them? Is it not time for us to “discern the Body of Christ correctly”? Is it not time for us to get with God’s program instead of insisting He get with ours?
'Religion' in the New testament
Now doubt some will say, "but hang on, James 1:27 talks about religion and implies that there is 'a religion' that God the Father accepts and approves of."Not really - not if you're thinking in terms of modern conceptions of religion; and here's why.
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin. The use of the English/Latin word in the English translation of James 1:27 is completely invalid in my view; it assumes all the historical and cultural baggage the word has carried with it for hundreds of years. The truth is, the Greek equivalent of the word religion is anakampsei, which does not appear in the New Testament texts.
The word that does appear (in James 1:27) is threskeia - and its right and proper meaning describes how one's love and adoration for God plays out in one's human relationships in the here and now. It refers to what author and theologian Richard Foster is talking about in his book Celebration of Discipline: spiritual disciplines; the daily practices of disciples of Jesus. Indeed, I suspect James was actually contrasting real Jesus 'worship' with secular and pagan 'worship' of his day.
All this lays the groundwork for a consideration of nine key elements that make up much of modern 'church' life - as we shall see.
No comments:
Post a Comment