When words are defined with precision and when language is used consistently, many confusions will vanish. This is true of confusion about many subjects, but spirituality is a prominent example, since ambiguous and careless definitions are often used in discussions about spiritual/theological issues. Correctly identifying the nature of spirituality is of particular importance, as it is related to the only facets of reality which can ground objective meaning.
Spirituality is an emphasis on the human spirit (consciousness) with, in many cases, a particular affinity for theological matters. Contrary to the derisive comments of some religious people, it is certainly possible to be "spiritual but not religious," although there is nothing to gain by ignoring theology in favor of non-theological spirituality. It is a brute fact that there is an uncaused cause [1] (a deity), and thus anyone who is not concerned with discovering a possible personal nature of this uncaused cause, if such a thing can be known, ignores the very thing that serves as the reference point for the significance of human existence.
Some might say that the temporality of human life means that spiritual pursuits are not worth striving for, but human life being finite can only make the pursuit of spirituality and theology all the more urgent. Certainly, spirituality can be complex, and theology can strike some as intimidating. Yet complexity does not render the discovery of spiritual truths either impossible or irrelevant to life. If there is no theological purpose, there is no meaning in any aspect of human existence--spirituality is therefore relevant to every aspect of our lives, since the significance of anything hinges upon it.
One myth about spirituality treats it as if it has no place in modern life. However, this is utterly false. That at least one's own spirit exists is self-evident, because its existence can only be denied due to the fact that it exists. That an uncaused cause exists is fully demonstrable (and is nothing short of absolutely certain, despite the ridiculous assertions of many apologists to the contrary). That issues of existential meaning are inherently spiritual is also fuly demonstrable.
Spirituality is at the very foundation of human existence. Recognition of this might vary from person to person and civilization to civilization, but it remains true even if denied by the most influential people of a culture. The ramifications of spirituality might be unpleasant or foreign to some, but they are there for every willing person to discover.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
I'm glad you brought up the "spiritual but not religious" part. I don't really know how to answer when sometimes people ask me or someone else if they're religious. Because what does it mean to be religious? Is being religious simply believing in God? Does it mean conducting yourself a certain way? Is it going to church every week? Giving to charity? The answer seems to change depending who you're talking to.
ReplyDeleteIn my walk, I think I would say I'm in the camp of another common Christian phrase which is "it's more of a relationship than religion". Even before I got more into rationalism, I always thought Christianity as unique from other faiths because of it saying that good works aren't what give you eternal life whereas other religious systems (as far as I know currently) say that you must do this, and this, and this work and if you do a well enough job, you might gain entrance into heaven (or some desirable afterlife). If you mess up, you're screwed!
But because I'm Christian I do good works because it's the right thing to do and allowing God to work through me to become more like Him. It's that inner sanctification that produces more authentic fruit, rather than having a skin deep piety just going through the motions. Or having a constant fear of falling short and losing eternal life. Does that make sense? What do you think?
If I use the word religious, I usually just mean it as a reference to someone being committed to a particular religion. You're right about it being vague in many cases, though. It is sometimes used in a highly arbitrary way. In my experience, some people seem to consider someone religious for simply doing things like going to church on Sundays, even though many of these expectations are not even rooted in mandatory obligations. James 1:27 does describe genuine religion as involving thorough moral character, but it is more common to find that someone is considered "religious" for adhering to legalism (such as by not using profanity or by not viewing entertainment with sexual content) instead of living out actual Biblical morality.
DeleteChristianity is a religion, since a religion is an organized theological system, but it's a religion that is centered around a relationship between God and humans. I don't know how many minor religions there are around the world, but I have yet to find one with a soteriology like that of Christianity! I do think it is intruiging that many people overstate the lack of human effort that leads to salvation, however. Doing things like giving to the poor or shunning injustice can't save a person, but the very act of committing oneself to Christ, which the Bible repeatedly describes as being required for salvation, is something that one must do to receive eternal life.
It is so important for Christians to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing and because doing so expresses love for God, not because they are paranoid about losing their salvation. I'm actually an agnostic at the moment about whether or not someone can lose eternal life, but I know that I don't live in constant fear that I have forfeited it. I have committed myself to living for Yahweh and Jesus and I strive to obey their commands. I am uncertain about whether loss of salvation is possible simply because I can think of seeming evidence for both sides. Every time that the Bible seemed to offer support for two sides of an issue, I quickly realized that it was clear that it actually only affirmed one of them (annihilationism and egalitarianism are examples); I just had to start with the verses that are at the very foundation of a matter and work from there.
(My bad, I meant to reply to your comment)
DeleteYeah you're right, the issue of apostasy has been a confusing one for me as well. There are scattered verses from what I've seen that like you said can suggest either side. On one hand there's some warnings from the Apostle Paul about not being led astray in sin. And yet there are also verses suggesting that whoever accepts Christ, the promise is fulfilled, they get eternal life. You can't be concerned about apostasy if you can't lose your salvation anyway.
Then you got some hypothetical scenarios to think of. If someone truly placed their faith in Jesus to atone for their sins, would it be possible to just one day somewhere in their lives say to God that just kidding they take it back? Is he or she still "saved" afterwards? Does God have to revoke the grace? Or perhaps could it be that they were never truly saved and just talked the talk, or elaborately deceived themselves into thinking they actually accepted Christ? Jesus did talk about how you would know a christian is genuine by their "fruits" (Matthew 7:17-18).
Could it possibly be that you can come to a certain point where your actions and in turn yourself have become so morally depraved that God HAS to take away your salvation? Like there's an event horizon to cross that turns you from saved to unsaved? God instead in this scenario is the one that cuts YOU off?
Yikes, I know these are a lot of heavy, complex questions; I don't mean to just drop them onto you all at once hahaha. These are questions that I still go back and forth on.
No worries!
DeleteThere is definitely a lot to sort through on this matter, which is one of the reasons why I write far more about Biblical ethics than I do about Christian soteriology. The former is much clearer and far more relevant to my daily life than knowing if I can lose my salvation. I have yet to see a legitimately sound argument for either conclusion about loss of salvation, but I do know how God expects me to live either way. Thus, that is what I largely focus on. Whether or not people can either forfeit their salvation or be rejected by God after becoming saved, salvation is still rooted in commitment to Christ, and the vast majority of our Biblical moral obligations are still clear.
For some reason, I'm just not personally mortified by this issue. Perhaps it's because the Bible describes God as being quite willing to accept people who turn to him. I have been frightened far more by other matters! For instance, before I discovered how to prove that there is an external world of matter, I was fairly anxious about knowing if one existed, but I've never been overwhelmed by a sense of dread about whether or not I can lose my salvation. I'm very thankful for that!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete