Is religion more than a system of beliefs?
Came across this video that argues religion is more than a belief system, but rather a communal practice. The presenter uses the celebration of the ascension not because the followers believe it happened, but because the followers act as if it is true.
Something to think about.
Something to think about.
Comments
Religion is complex, and the way it is portrayed as mainly about "belief" is off-putting to quite a bit of interfaith sociological work. It is not surprising that we talk of interfaith rather than inter-religion or interbelief conversations.
Sorry ...
I was going to say it but knew you'd be along shortly.
Beat me to it.
The root of the word "religion" - "Religiō was often used for a sense of right, social obligation, and caution (similar to being bound by oath).", or later, Rule as in the Rule of St Benedict.
Interestingly perhaps, I took the train down to Lichfield today to see an impressive icon exhibition in the cathedral there.
They've also got a splendid table made from a giant oak that fell into the East Anglian peat 5,000 years ago.
I was struck by how much variation there was on familiar themes and how something of the artist's personality still comes through despite the very prescribed rules and protocols.
The iconographer was there painting and fielding enquiries. She explained to all who stopped to chat that they are intrinsically linked with prayer.
Yes, they are 'works of art' but can't be separated from their primary purpose as objects of veneration and vehicles for prayer.
In the same way any communal practice associated with any religion is going to express the particular beliefs and values of its adherents.
Lex orandi, lex credendi I think.
I'm funny on this. Totally in favour of infant baptism and an open as possible communion table, but "belonging" just doesn't cut it for me personally. I never feel more alone and out of place than when a preacher is talking about experiences I can't relate to "you know how sometimes God answers our prayers with a 'wait?" - erm, no, I just don't get answers at all - what happens, happens, or when everyone else seems to just believe it when I'm always "I really don't know if God even exists" - that's when I find myself asking why am I here? I don't want to be.
Perhaps it is otherwise amongst other people.
Not everyone and not always, but I think the structures, liturgies and thought-processes of religion draw people in and give comfort. Much like conspiracy theories.
Over the last year I've had a particular reminder of how my faith experience is different from many. As I've moved back into the Methodist Church I'm working through the process of accreditation as a local preacher, which includes a series of occasions when a service I lead is assessed. That assessment includes a self-reflection form covering preparation for the service, the service itself, and reflections following that to be discussed with tutor and mentor. Within that form is a question that I (usually) find myself unable to answer, "where was I particularly aware of the presence of God?". I'd not really thought about it before first encountering that question (and, needing to find an answer), but I never "feel" the presence of God - those who can go to a Cathedral or somewhere like Iona and feel that it's sacred space, those who can feel God in a Taize prayer session or praise band medley, etc ... well, that's something I don't feel (or, rather if I feel anything it feels manufactured and a result of what other people are doing to me rather than clearly God). My experience of God is (almost) always in retrospect, looking back over months or years and seeing how what I've learnt and how I've changed, and seeing the hand of God in that - so a word like "particular" and putting that question exclusively in the context of the actual service doesn't even make sense to my experience of recognising the presence of God. Chatting recently with another trainee preacher, and she said she also struggles with that question because her experience of the presence of God is usually during the preparation for the service rather than in the service itself.
I know that in meeting, we all have different, and sometimes (often) opposing and contradictory beliefs. We are not all consistent in our set of beliefs. But our "Religion" if you want, is our gathering together in silence.
And I think we are seeing more and more people practicing their religion while holding beliefs that deny the faith they claim to hold. But the go through the actions because it looks good and pious.
I think faith is a personal collection of beliefs. Religion - that is performative art, sometimes driven by aspects of your faith. Sometimes not.
But then I am a cynic.
Presumably some human behaviours we see will eventually be crystalised into a religion. Maybe it will develop from that bunch of people who believe in alien abduction, but it could equally be from that other group who share make-up tips on social media.
People with similar world views tend to be attracted to each other. When groups form, rules develop. It happens in all spheres of life. Religion is just another example.
I 'get' this, although it isn't something I encounter that much in my present church circles. We don't tend to have preachers talking about this, that or the other experience, rather short homilies that draw something out the Gospel passage for that particular day.
But previously ... yeah, in spades and then some.
As Shipmates will be aware, I spent a long time in charismatic evangelicalism and whilst I wou;dn't write-off 'experiences' per se, I tend to think that charismatics use highly inflated language to describe things other people would put in a more measured way.
So, charismatics might say, 'God told me to do X ...' whereas others might say, 'I thought I'd have a go at X ...' or 'I had an inkling to try X ...'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have thought you'd be getting much 'over-egged' stuff where you currently are. URC isn't it?
I'm quite an 'affective' person in that the words of hymns, art, architecture, iconography and the natural world can move me deeply. Human beings are wired to respond to certain cues, but the extent to which we are 'affected' varies from person to person and depends upon a whole range of factors.
I don't get particularly exercised whether I or anyone else has some kind of special 'experience'. As I've noted before on these boards, the RC apologist Ronald Knox said that he'd never had a 'religious experience' in his life.
If we do have particular 'experiences' let's be grateful for them. If we don't then let's be grateful for whatever else we have instead.
I'm a sucker for old Welsh hymns in the minor key and I can get moved by oratory (whilst remaining on my guard against it) and hwyl.
But we are all different.
I presented some lyrical poetry to my poetry group last week which had moved and touched me greatly (not mine, someone else's) but the rest of the group couldn't see why I was so enthusiastic about it.
Which is fine.
I'm not sure I would say good/bad rules. I would probably say suitable for the group or not. Likewise the true beliefs might contain elements that are untrue and vice-versa. Or they might be poorly expressed rather than untrue.
Yes. But it's often the - erm - keener - types who find themselves preaching. I mean, who wants the ponderings along the lines of "I'm not really sure if any of this is true, but if it is, God's probably a bit like this..."
I mean, I'd love a sermon that started like that, but you don't tend to get it, do you?
Yes, similarly, I'm more moved by the arts, mostly music, never dance. Sometimes what some people might think is a bit banal. I could try to explain why I'll be covering The Winner Takes It All at the next Open Mic, or why I've never been able to perform some songs because I break up before I get to the end, but it's too individual.
Seldom anything religious or religion adjacent though. I sometimes think I was meant to be an atheist but something went a bit awry somewhere.
My middle school choir students are working on an arrangement of "Seasons of Love" from the musical RENT right now, the central question of which is: "How do you measure a year?" My internal answer is always, "According to the church calendar." because I really do continue to mark and enjoy the changing of the liturgical seasons. We're about to pass through another Ash Wednesday, and that will be meaningful to me.
To the OP, I'd say absolutely, but I'd also caution that one of the most off-putting things about Christianity is its tendency to judge belief, and then fracture accordingly. I don't know how long ago what one believed superseded how one lived, but my deconstructed understanding about Jesus is 99% doing the things he encouraged, and only 1% (maybe less) about what I believe about him.
I too have received precious few answers to prayers, and I too have seldom if ever felt the 'presence' of God (whatever that is) in the throes of liturgies. Not that I don't feel things in those moments, but they're much easier explained in ways other than the supernatural.
If, as we Orthodox declare, 'God is present everywhere and fills all things' then yes, the divine energies work 'through' the natural world and created things - such as the sacraments - whether we are consciously aware of them or have particular experiences or not.
We normally say 'filleth' or 'fillest' because we are annoying that way, but you get the drift.
'We had the experience but missed the meaning,' as Eliot put it.
'Or even a very good dinner.'
A priest I know, who used to post regularly here, uses the analogy of Terry Gilliam's animated foot that descends from the clouds to splat people in the early Monty Python series. Many of us see God's action that way - an external 'splat' that comes from above, whereas the work of God suffuses all things in a more 'lateral' and organic way if we can put it like that.
You mentioned precious few answers to prayers. Can you please expand on this a bit?
I don't think that's really necessary. It can be taken at face value.
This must be a happy thing for you, and I don't mean that flippantly. I just can't access anything like that at all.
Ananias and Sapphira would like a word. I mean, apart from the visible foot...
All religions have rituals. Some are very formal. Others are less so. The point of the question is are the rituals more important than the beliefs. Are the meditation rituals of Buddhism more important than taking refuge in Buddha? Are the daily prayers in Islam more important than believing in the belief that God is absolutely one?
Ha! Yes, but as with other scriptural references it depends on how we interpret the passage ... he said trying to wriggle out of it ...
One way of looking at it would be that it's a NT echo of Nadab and Abihu being 'struck down' for offering 'strange fire before the Lord'.
It's a bit like the story of how Herod was 'eaten by worms and died' after he was struck down by an angel - Acts 12:21-23.
How does anyone know he was struck by an angel? Did they see it happen?
Or was it a case of the early Christians interpreting his sudden and unpleasant death as divine judgement?
This may sound like a cop-out but whilst I do tend towards a 'conservative' view that scripture reflects historic events, I don't necessarily believe that they happened in the way the scriptures record them - we have to allow for literary and didactic considerations.
I s'pose what I'm trying to say is that if someone apparently recovers from an illness in response to prayer, it's not some kind of 'zap' from above but rather God working in and through the body's natural processes, the skill of the medics and so on and so forth.
That doesn't mean I'm undisturbed by passages like the one in Acts 5, or the OT examples of fire and brimstone. Nor, to respond to '@The Riv does it mean that I blithely glide along with no 'struggle' in my faith.
I don't have glib answers. I don't think scripture and Tradition/tradition offer glib answers either, unless we take a rigidly fundamentalist approach.
My default approach, though, in dealing with stories like that of Ananias and Sapphira is to think, 'What lessons are we meant to take from this?'
In this instance the lessons are clearly that we ought not to take churchy things lightly as they are to do with the work of God, nor are we to act deceptively and for our own gain.
I don't find speculative answers very helpful, such as, 'Perhaps they were so shocked and ashamed that they had heart attacks ...'
Or people linking the closing of the Red Sea to a tsunami caused by the eruption of Santorini and such like. And I've heard all manner of things like that.
'We know in part ...'
It's interesting to speculate what Manna might have been or why the quails suddenly arrived as if on cue or what the various Plagues of Egypt might have been ...
But ultimately we aren't going to have everything neatly cut and dried.
That's all I can say, really.
'What I have written, I have written.'
Whoops! Perhaps I shouldn't quote Pilate.
But if we adopted a 'Who knows, eh?' stance on every issue the threads here would be very short indeed.
There aren't many fundamentalists here these days, if any.
I would often find it very difficult to answer a question about when, in a service, I felt particularly close to God; though sometimes he seems to take delight in surprising me. But I don't think that particularly worries me because a) I'm probably not that sort of person anyway, and b) how I feel is not particularly relevant to what I am doing and why.
I'm not necessarily sure this is true - perhaps it's down to the traditions in which I've moved, but ISTM that the majority of the people I've known to lead worship have quite frequently had powerful experiences of God's presence while leading.
Heh. If that's so, no wonder we get along.
I could say slightly more than that about it. I draw on two other thinkers, one of whom is Bourdieu, in that his idea that participants' understanding of a technology and therefore the technology is changed by their participation in it.
The other is Lefebrvre who is primarily a sociologist of space, but I want to apply his central argument and change it slightly. There is a context that is determined by societal parameters within which a congregation exists, and the performance of belonging is conditioned on this. However, each individual creates their own participation within the congregation, which can be distinguished from the actual technology of belonging as performed by the Congregation at a given instance.
I can also argue that there are feedback mechanisms within society, but these, too, have changed with time.
I'd be interested to hear more about this, although it appears to me as you have presented it here to be a feedback mechanism of people who are making informed choice about the groups they are joining and are aware that this is what they are doing.
I'm not sure how many religious groups are like that, in the sense that as an all-encompassing system that they have been born into, they might not have much conception of life outside of that community.
To me it's about having a belief framework and other people who essentially share (much of) the same framework scrabbling for power positions within the group.
I don't see anything in what is described that assumes it has to be a conscious choice.
Can you explain this in layman's terms? It reads like a post-grad sociology thesis to me and after reading it twice I still can't make any sense of it whatsoever. I know what the individual words mean - most of them (what's a context in this - erm - context?) but the rest of it is totally incomprehensible. I'm sure it's a me problem - academically I'm so STEM aligned that you could slice me open and read F=G×m1×m2/r^2 - but it sounds interesting if I could only understand it.
I'm sure that's right and applies across the board.
We wouldn't talk of 'leading worship' in my particular neck of the woods but clergy have told me that they do sometimes 'feel' something very special when they celebrate the eucharist.
But not always ...
Likewise with people in the choir.
I'm uncomfortable with the term 'performative', although yes, an Orthodox Liturgy is a form of liturgical 'theatre' but contrary to what people might think, we don't 'ham it up' as much as I've seen it done in some settings.
Lord have mercy on me for sitting in judgement.
I think most people in a social setting are trying to see if they fit in. I do not believe this is something particular to churches; rather, as social creatures, for most of us, being part of a group is important for our survival, so we instinctively make an effort to fit into social settings we find ourselves in.
Now any group will have normative behaviour, some of that will be for legal reasons, some will be brought in from wider society, some will be because of the nature of the group, and some will be what might be called local practice. So in a church, certain procedures for safeguarding, the terms of insurance are followed because of the legal implications of not following them. Other practices, such as what is served as refreshments after worship, in my lifetime in the UK, this has changed from tea to coffee, or what is considered acceptable to wear to church, are largely based on societal expectations. Still other things will be based on Biblical interpretation, tradition, wider institutional rules and expectation such as the way the Eucharist is conducted, and the congregation's practices around statements of belief. Finally, there is always a layer of local custom which largely acts as the glue to hold the other three together. For instance, in my first PhD congregation, they had the practice that after a church event, you put away your chair. Nobody ever asked anyone to do that; just everyone did.
Now, nobody teaches anyone else all of this. A participant learns much of it by participating in the life of the congregation. A person, therefore, is largely learning how to behave in a setting by observation. Remember, we do this all the time. At my current church, we rely heavily on long-term members to indicate throughout the mass when people should stand, sit and kneel. Normally, no problem, but last Wednesday one of the signallers is not as sprightly as she used to be at 80+, I ended up at the back as there was nobody on door duty and did not feel up to going up front half way through the first hymn just to let people imitate me so sat at the back near the door for late arrivals. Then there were a lot of newer people there. The result was that the congregation was noticeably late in moving, as it took people a while to realise what they should be doing. I think sometimes they were taking their cue from me. As I was two-thirds back and behind a pillar, that was not easy! Nobody is upset, but it is our mistake, not the new people. Almost certainly, it means on Maundy Thursday, core people will be delegated to sit at the far outside ends of the second or third* pew back, which are the classic places for people to cue the congregation. People are in this situation, looking out for expected behaviour, and the core of the congregation knows that they need to indicate expected behaviour. I would maintain that this is happening more widely if not so deliberately as well.
I have picked on worship because worship is easy to see, but as someone gets more and more into the church community, they come across more and more of the less obvious norms. To know the technology, you need to know which of these you need to perform in order to be accepted as someone who belongs to the congregation. Now, sometimes there are rules about who is a member and who is not, but if you have ever belonged to churches with that sort of regulation, you also know they only go so far. Someone can be treated as a member without fulfilling the criteria, and another person can fulfil the criteria to the letter and still not be treated as a member. So a person needs to find not just what the stated requirements are, but the unstated ones as well. To add to the complexity, some things are optional but can appear central. For instance, on the Patronal at my current church, a lot of us will wear church t-shirts. This is totally optional, just as wearing Marian ones to the Assumption is optional. However, to an outsider, it might look as if it marked the home team, especially as some key members on that team do it. However, no one is asked to wear them, and anyone who owns one may wear one; they are on sale in the church all year round.
So the technology is those practices that taken together indicate that you belong within the community. This is a subset of the congregational culture.
However, from my perspective, what becomes really interesting is when there is a dissonance between an individual's own understanding of who they are and these practices. If the dissonance is small, most of the time the person will adapt to the practice. The bigger the dissonance is harder that comes. Then a person has three options
The congregation's technology is not static for two reasons. Partly because of the active change above. However, it is also not static because of the way people are trying to discern and then practice it. The constant observing of others' behaviour to inform your understanding of what it means to belong means that the question is never finally answered, and the technology therefore stays in flux.
*depends on how you count pews. There is a pew that is rarely sat on because there is no pew frontal, so I tend to treat is a not a true pew and count from one back.
What I'm seeing is you have a whole load of unspoken, unannounced and undirected rules and practices (alongside a load of others which are spoken, announced and directed) which people generally pick up through observation and imitation. Is that fair?
Given what else you must know about me with how long we've both been on this Ship, you can probably see why I'm finding that problematic. And at the same time very illuminating with regard to my difficulties with a sense of belonging.
Does that make sense.
Yes.
Is there anything that can be done? Does it have to be this way?
FWiW I left a G&S society because it was so clear that for reasons I could never figure out I Did Not Belong. So it's not just churches
In many social groups there will be one or two people who are seen as eccentric, or “a character” or “oh that’s very Joan” but they are also seen as integral. So sometimes you don’t have to conform to every little rule, you have to identify the core ones. Sometimes, if you identify someone sufficiently tuned in - they will be able to make explicit the core unspoken rules for you.
That's a very good question. I suppose if we're talking about feeling that one belongs, the success indicator is you feel you belong. I'm aware that's somewhat unhelpful and subjective.
Also, don't forget the double empathy problem; it's entirely possible I interpret "feeling like one belongs" far too strongly and actually a certain amount of doubt in the matter is normal.
Heh, if I were able to pull that sort of thing off I think I'd not have the problems I do.
But here's another thing.
I've been trying to work out how to word this so here goes.
From my perspective, I possess a property no-one else has - I am me. I am the person whose consciousness I experience and whose every thought, hope and fear I know perfectly. There is no other person of whom that is true. That inevitably means that how I see myself differs from how I see others.
I'm sure this figures in the whole question, somehow.
It's not necessarily unhelpful -- presumably you feel more at ease at - say - home than you do in church, and are similarly able to think of other settings in which you feel less/more at ease.
You are the one and only unique KarlLB and let's celebrate that.
Jengie Jon is the one and only unique Jengie Jon and let's celebrate that also.
I am the one and only unique ...
Ok, you get my drift.
Of course you are the only one who is you.
I'm not quite sure I follow your drift. You are you and everyone else isn't.
There's an African saying, I'm told, which may or may not be helpful here.
'I need you in order to be me.'
Our own self-perceptions may will differ from how other people see us. As in the famous lines by Robbie Burns.
I'm not out to minimise our dismiss how you feel, I hasten to add.
'We all feel like that at times, KarlLB. Get over it already."
No, I'm not saying that.