Religion Versus Relationship

I haven't gone on the warpath here lately, and perhaps it is time; after all, we Lutherans ascribe to both Law and Gospel.

Let me also preface this with a little anecdote.  For many years, I had no response to folks who said that they worshiped God in nature.  I personally agreed with the assessment for in spending time in God's creation, I found myself in awe of the Creator.  But, there was always a nagging voice within me--a nagging voice that felt the idea of "worship" in such a fashion was lacking.  I was never quite able to give voice to it. 

Of course, there were others who gave voice to it.  I vividly remember folks who would say, "I am sure you can find God in nature, but when's the last time a tree offered you forgiveness?"

Such a saying is all well and good for someone who believes in Jesus Christ and is convicted by the Gospel.  It's not so good when dealing with someone who does not have a deep seeded faith.  How does one convince another that worshiping in nature and worshiping in a congregation are vastly different things?

Then, there is the whole religion versus relationship thing.  "I'm spiritual but not religious."  Yeah, I've heard that one a time or two as well.  Yet, many of the arguments addressing this particular pithy saying are based in a faith which is well grounded.  How do you address someone who is convinced their own faith is well grounded and that they are just as right as you might think you are?

Perhaps I wouldn't even be writing this blog post, but the above picture was actually posted by a fellow clergy.  Of all things, I never thought a fellow clergy would post such an picture with such an asinine message.  I mean, this is what passes for apologetics these days?

Why am I so upset?

Perhaps I shouldn't be.  And, please don't get me wrong.  I am not upset at people who do such a thing.  I'm no better than others who choose to go hunting or fishing on a Sunday morning.  My feet are as full of clay as theirs.  But I have been convinced by Timothy Keller and others who say that unless we confront our false gods and deal with them, we will continue to see the decline of Christianity in our society.

Consider me confronting a particular false god in this post--the false gods of nature worship and self-spirituality.

Let's take the above saying and tweak it just a little bit--changing the characters and the setting.  By doing so, I think you will get my point:

Infidelity is a man sitting at a restaurant with his girlfriend and thinking about fishing.  
A man sitting on a boat fishing and thinking about his girlfriend is relationship.

Is my point made?

Both of these particular instances are problematic.  Both show a complete disregard for true relationship.  Both show self-centered behavior on the part of the man.

Yet, we say that one of these is acceptable behavior toward God?

Face it, the reason most folks say they encounter God in nature is to absolve themselves of the responsibility of worship.   "I can worship God in nature," is simply code for saying, "I'd rather not go to church."

If that is your choice, fine.  Admit it, but don't sugar coat it. 

And, if indeed you are spiritually awakened in nature...
If indeed you have truly found a lasting peace, joy and fulfillment...
If you have found a sense of wholeness...

Don't you then think you have the responsibility of teaching others how to find that peace, fulfillment, and joy?  Don't you think you have the responsibility of sharing what you have discovered?  Do you think such a lasting thing should be kept to one's self?

As an old Hindu proverb says, "It takes both individual bees and the hive to produce honey."

Worship is an intensely relational phenomena--nurturing one's relationship with God and with fellow believers.  It is not practiced individually.  It is practiced corporately.  It is focused not on self, but on the other. 

When Jesus is the object of worship, as within the Christian faith, we gather to hear Him speak to us--through the written Word of Scripture, through the proclaimed Word of sermons, through the sung Word of hymns, through the proclaimed Word of forgiveness--and we gather to touch and hold Him in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  These are not things you find in nature.  Period. 

And while we are turning our attention to Christ during this time, He is also turning His attention toward us--strengthening our faith, renewing our hope, and filling us with peace.  This peace and hope pales in comparison to the peace and hope we find in nature, for that peace fades the more we are removed from it.  That sense of well being diminishes when we get back to the "real world."  The peace Jesus offers doesn't fade.  It is a spring of living water.

Why doesn't Jesus' peace diminish when the other does? 

Because it's a part of a real relationship--religion and all.

Do We Have a Purpose?

This morning, as I was running, my thoughts turned to whether or not human beings have a purpose.

Of course, I believe we do.  As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.

But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins.  Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.

Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them.  I think.

Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose.  Plants and animals don't have a purpose.  They are, and they strive to survive.  A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose.  Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth.  As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here.  IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different?  Why should we contemplate our purpose?  The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking.  We are here.  We evolved from other animals.  We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out.  End of story.  There is nothing more to contemplate.

IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.

Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.

IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals?  I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter.  I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings.  They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate.  They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.

• I had two female dogs who wanted to be dominant.  They fought constantly; horribly; terribly; over things my wife and I considered minor.  But any "minor" pack violation would set them off.  We ended up having to keep them separate for over 8 years.
• One day, while sitting in a deer blind, I heard the most God-awful sound.  A hawk swooped down out of the sky and killed a quail right before my eyes.  The strong killed the weak to devour it and gain strength.
• Oftentimes, the offspring of another male is killed by a dominant male looking to spread his genes.  Survival of the fittest and natural selection.
• Beta males and females turn to manipulative ways to further their advancement within particular colonies of species bypassing honesty and justice for self-serving need.
• Again, observations from a deer stand: one morning I watched 11 whitetail bucks in a field.  Half the time they spent eating the other half fighting for dominance.
• Nearly every animal species lives in a hierarchy.   There are those at the top and those at the bottom.  Those at the top live well.  Those at the bottom aren't so lucky.  That's just the way nature is organized for the most part.
• Polygamy is the rule in nature.  Monogamy is the exception.  

Why should we, as humans act any different?  Is there a good reason why we shouldn't perform any differently than what the vast majority of nature's species?  Here is one of the many places those who espouse Dawkins' worldview run into trouble.  IF we are nothing more than animals, then WHY shouldn't we simply act like them? 

I'm waiting...

And will remain waiting. 

Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals.  Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner.  This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead."  Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer. 

Hawking tries from a scientific perspective.  So does Dawkins.  In my estimation, they leave much wanting.  They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world. 

This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete.  Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.

Something more is needed.

I believe we need purpose.