Blog

Business development and communications for growing businesses.

The Need For Religion

Some people do need religion.

My friend Mike Todd shares some thoughts about our tension with growth played out in the idea of evolution.

“The fundamental question in this line of thought is whether or not you believe in evolution. The evolution of humanity, of consciousness, of thought, and of faith. I’ve said before that I believe that God never changes, but our understanding of God certainly should. Always moving forward, always expanding, always freeing God from the current box we’ve trapped God in, into–admittedly–another box, but at least a larger one. A trajectory of movement, of growth, of expansion.

If you don’t believe that, then what you want is religion. Something fixed, rigid, unchanging and infallible. Until it fails miserably. Until it is so out of phase with the world around it that it either explodes and dies, or makes a sudden, lurching shift, a dramatic change in it’s unchangeable tenets, then replants itself firmly in the ground as the world around it continues to move.”

I was struck by the his comment, “If you don’t believe that, then what you want is religion.” One of the things I dealt with heavily in Discovering The God Imagination is the construction of the religious construct in human history.  As human beings we need to deal with our own sense of guilt and perception of God.  So we invent religion to do that.  We attempt to bribe God, even though God doesn’t need the bribe.

Yet here we are two thousands years after the cross and we’re still dealing with it.  And Mike’s follow up suggests why.  We want something rigid and fixed, unchanging and infallible.  We’re willing to participate in the religious system because we’re that broken.  We need to try our way first, to discover it doesn’t work. And one of interesting things about the narrative in Scripture is that God was willing to meet our demands, to meet us in the midst of our own broken religious system and say, “Okay, I’m up for that.  I’m willing to go that far to help you through this.” God uses the religious system to remove it, to reveal its lack of efficacy, to exhaust its validity as a system for dealing with the root problem.

Hmmm.

Image courtesy of Bartlomiej Holowaty

About the Author

Jonathan BrinkI am an business development and communications consultant. I am also the senior editor and publisher for Civitas Press. I recently published, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole, New Christianity. (Civitas, 2011)View all posts by Jonathan Brink →

  • http://www.makeesha.com makeesha

    kind of like what God did when the Israelites demanded a king?

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Mak, I think God meeting our demands happens throughout the entire story, but that’s an important one.

  • David

    Jonathan, I love this ! There is something to be said for stability in faith and doctrine and something people can hold on to as if to say this is rock for me. rnrnBut on the the other hand, we do evolve in our thinking and expereinec with God. If not we surly stagnate at best. rnrnI think thats one reason I like your blog so much. You and others who comment, make me think and ask needed questions. rnrnJust want to thnak you for your efforts and work you put into this blog and your thoughtful responces to comments.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      David, thank you for your kind words. I have appreciated you taking part in this conversation because you provide a good perspective.

  • http://marginaltheology.wordpress.com Annie

    Isn’t this pretty invested in a particular view of human progress? It’s just all a little too enlightenment for me. The fundamental question is not do I believe in evolution, it’s do I believe that human history is on an upward trajectory of progress and improvement. Do I? No. I don’t. It isn’t that I think it’s devolving. It’s just that I can’t think of anything more modern (read: Hegelian) than the idea this. It’s a perfectly lovely meta-narrative and I don’t buy it.nnI also don’t think it’s so clearly the case that the “rigid” and “fixed” doesn’t work in some general sense, where rigid and fixed are opposed to a constant, changing evolution. I think there’s a great deal to be gained by staying with a set of practices over a long period of time–a lifetime, even. It is our tendency to flit from one idea or thought or practice to another but I don’t think that’s to our benefit. nnI realize I’m the minority on that point, at least around here, but I think it’s a dull but necessary truth.

    • http://marginaltheology.wordpress.com Annie

      That should read, I can’t think of anything more modern (Hegelian) than an idea *like* this.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Annie, are you arguing specifically against McLaren’s perspective laid out in A New Kind Of Christianity here? Or something more general?nnI ask because we can’t ignore the basic reality of evolution in the cosmological process, but is it the defining narrative. Are human being evolving? Its actually one of the arguments I do make in my book and I hope at some point you can read it. It take a very different spin that Brian, but do argue for an evolution of thought and maturity of understanding in the human narrative. Much of the story is our coming to terms with the reality of grace. That’s an evolutionary process of coming to terms with reality. We can’t know grace until after the Tree of Knowledge, but it’s a central part of God’s original makeup for creation.nnOne of the real tensions the narrative of Scripture does produce is that religion exists long before God every establishes a Jewish Tabernacle or the Ten Commandments. It was embedded in culture. So much of the story is God removing our need for it, yet recognizing that we have to go through it, as opposed to around it.nnSome day I hope you can read my book to see if your understanding changes.

      • http://marginaltheology.wordpress.com Annie

        I mean that the evolutionary narrative is historically rooted in the Enlightenment and the way it’s being used here sounds very Hegelian to me. My perspective on that is unlikely to change because I regard evolution not as a reality but as an explanatory model constructed to interpret available data. I’m not saying it doesn’t have explanatory power. It does. But it’s a scientific model, not a reality. Just as we can’t conflate our theology with God, we can’t conflate our narratives with reality. And since I think there are some issues with an evolutionary model of human progress, I don’t find this particular way of framing the issues very compelling.nnI’d be delighted to read your book. My view on this point is unlikely to change.

  • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com/ Joe Machuta

    I find it interesting that we can look back on roughly 3 two thousand year ages. 1) Adam to Abraham… no formal law mankind in general did not develop relationally with God and instead developed religion. 2) Abraham to Christ… God chooses a peculiar specific people , gives them the law dwells among them and they do not develop relationally but instead develop religion. 3) Christ though today…. God Incarnates, accomplishes redemption and forgiveness, they do not develop relationally and instead develop religion.nnThis was to prove God’s righteousness. Humanity in general missed God’s grace. Israel missed God’s grace. The church has missed God’s grace. God has forgiven all… wants relationship with all… I predict that this two thousand year age that just begun will end religion as we know it and a spiritual shift will be the result…. Amen to evolution.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Joe, when I was writing my book I developed a timeline of God’s interaction with humanity, and the development of religion. It’s pretty remarkable how small the use of religion is from God’s perspective. It’s very short compared to the overall timeline. But when we see it from humanity’s perspective, it’s A LOT.

  • http://twitter.com/miketodd07 Mike Todd

    That Mike guy sounds like a heretic. I can’t believe you would quote him on your blog.nnSeriously, I’ve been struck by a thought repeatedly recently when thinking through this issue. Over the ages humanity has generally held to certain beliefs at certain times: The world is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, those lights in the sky are… well, who knows what they are! We laugh at these primitive ideas now. And yet, we make broad assumptions that these same folks got their theology exactly right, and that it can’t be questioned. nnAnd Annie, that upward trajectory to me is the here/but not yet coming Kingdom of God, so our eschatology enters into it too.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Mike, one of the things that stands out to me in terms of evolution, which may be a terrible word, as Annie points out, is the development of our understanding of grace. From a Gen 1 perspective, grace is not necessary because they haven’t reached a point of judgment that demands it. So they can’t know what it means until they step into the framework that demands it. This is the growth to me in the story. Grace doesn’t make sense yet it is embedded into reality right from the beginning. We can’t see it until we wrestle with it.

      • David

        Jonathan, Just a quick thought. Isn’t Grace part of who God is ? I mean isn’t his creation and us and the entire cosmos part of His Grace in the first place ? rnrnI get what your saying how that Grace showed up when it was needed… but couldn’t Grace have always been there as well as part of Gods Character not unlike His love? Or is this what you are saying when we can’t see it until we wrestle with it ?

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          David, I think grace is a construct that is based on love. It’s the capacity to overcome evil with good. I make the argument in my book that grace was part of God’s original construct, not just something established at the cross. All the cross did is reveal what was already true before the beginning of time. So in that way, we are agreeing.nnThe problem is that grace on this side of naivety is not logical. It doesn’t make sense to forgive unless there is only one reality of good. When we separate reality into good or evil, it requires us to be cautious, which then creates the need for punitive justice. We like a God who kills our enemies. nnI’m saying that we rarely seeing it unless we wrestle with it. But I wouldn’t doubt that some do see it instinctively, be it grace or gift.

          • David

            I need to think about your second para. Forgiveness makes sense to me regardless.rnGood and evil do exist. Need to really try to think this one thru.

  • http://www.fatblueman.tumblr.com JJ

    Hi Jonathan.nnTwo questions. First, I see your book isn’t available for the Kindle yet. Is there an electronic version for sale somewhere? Also, for submissions for the Civitas book project, is there a deadline set? I’ve got something about Japan that I am thinking of writing up.

Business development and communications for growing businesses.