It is a well known face, with meticulous features and beautiful cascading locks. Soft light drapes itself into the folds of his cloak, an image of divinity passed down through the generations. But also, an image of personal utopia; the one Christians believe we should all imitate. Genesis 5:1 says that “when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God” but we are not to know what God looks like, so when we painted, we created a likeness of ourselves. Does the reverse hold true? When man created God, did we make Him in the likeness of ourselves?
Perfection and Ideology
History has provided us with a lot of facts, but also a lot of questions. We have evidence of traditions, cultures, the entire basis of civilisations, but there are gaps. When I was at school, I was taught about primary and secondary sources. Either would do in a pinch, but a secondary source was never as reliable as a primary. History is made up of secondary sources, decades of lost information that we have tried to fill in since then. But, infallible as we may think we are, there are bound to be inaccuracies. There are theories that the tradition of avoiding pork began contextually, not spiritually, because of an outbreak similar to the now present Swine Flu. Circumcision may have begun purely from a need for cleanliness before we had basic sanitation, but is now tradition (and Jewish law.)
But sometimes, the gap is a little too wide. Take for example the portrait of Jesus. An image of holiness, divinity and beauty, to be sure. But distinctively Anglo-Saxon despite historical context telling us Jesus’ closest contemporaries would be Israeli men. A fabrication of Jesus is not a crime, because there is a gap in history. A Caucasian Jesus on the other hand is a stretch. It seems to be a result of past prejudices. Despite the history they share, many countries of Anglo-Saxon heritage held such deep prejudices towards the Jews (take Shakespeare’s Shylock for example) that they could not have accepted their Messiah looking like one of them. So they folded away that piece of historical context, and continued to create their preferred image of God; the perfect manifestation of mortal aspiration. It is the same practice that allows blended fabrics and pig-skin footballs while transferring the norm from polygamy to monogamy.
I approach this issue (which some may find contentious, and others a mere rehashing) with the same level of analysis that I would critique any other topic of interest. The point of this column is to establish those metaphysical thoughts that skirt the limits of concrete evidence and there is no bigger metaphysical debate than that of religion; the theories for why we exist, and how our spiritual selves should behave in a physical world. I do not have foolproof knowledge that there is, or isn’t a God. Anyone that tells you they do, religious or not, is lying. If you know anything for sure, there is no need for faith. Religious people should have faith that God exists while knowing that they cannot know. It is important to debate on an equal level whereby we can agree that when it comes to the metaphysical, none of us can be entirely certain and with this equalisation of power, it is important that we attempt a real debate as opposed to the sledging match which has occurred between theists and atheists for years. When we can accept that there are parts of the metaphysical which lay beyond our grasp, we relieve the pressure to be “right” or to “win” an argument, and relax in intellectual discussion.
What interests me greatly about religion is the huge influence that man has had upon its formation. When I ask people if they are religious, the answer is often ‘spiritual, but not religious’, a personal separation of God from man. The truth is, that there is very little to religious history if we remove the influence of man, or in fact to knowledge at all. The biblical teachings, the prophecies, the archetypal structures of religion are all based on mediation between man and a higher power. It’s not an unfathomable concept that man is convinced of an interaction with a higher power who offers so much. Religion offers fellowship, comfort, an order in an otherwise chaotic world. If the answer to life’s trouble can be found in prayer, everything begins to structure itself into a manageable existence. Heidegger says “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” – this is obviously the first of all questions…we are touched once, maybe even now and then, by the concealed power of this question, without properly grasping what is happening to us. In great despair, for example, when all weight tends to dwindle away from things and the sense of things grows dark, the question looms.” (I) As an extension of the basic metaphysical question, another of the potentially devestating questions of human introspection is that of eternity. If there is no greater purpose and no higher power, then life is fleeting and inconsequential. So we find solace in the things that bring us Identity, the father of purpose. We wrap ourselves in our nationality, our family values, our religion, and tell ourselves that we matter in the grand scheme of things. Religion acts as a compass, both in maintenance and as a scapegoat. The self-perception of oneself as an innately ‘good person’ governs one’s actions, inspires us to do good, and when we falter, our innate goodness excuses the slips we make.
At the end of the day, spiritualism of any kind is an inclination towards metaphysical happenings. I use the word inclination very deliberately. Belief in a higher power is either from a metaphysical interaction with a higher being, or at the very least a psychological response to a metaphysical concept, things that exist beyond the realm of rationality. A spiritual belief cannot be completely proven (nor disproven – and this fact is very important – do you hear me atheists?) But for some reason, people still hold firm to it, like there is no other possibility. As if religion is the one thing that cannot be questioned or laughed about. As Heidegger states, “If such faith does not continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience. It becomes an agreement with oneself to adhere in the future to a doctrine as something that has somehow been handed down. This is neither having faith, nor questioning, but indifference.” (6)
The point I am trying to make is not in opposition to religion, and if that is what you have gained from this article, then you have severely mistaken me. I could not even begin to debate the existence of a higher power here, and my opinion is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Religion is one of the last areas we, as a society, have reserved from critique and to me that is a shame.
Perhaps I’m wrong and the church is the last spectre of infallible holiness in a failing world. But it seems a very strange thing that the one thing we have had such a huge part of creating, a philosophy which over the years has been moulded to match our mortal will, should not be open to evaluation by its masters.
**Quotes from Martin Heiddeger, Introduction to Metaphysics, 2000, Yale Nota Bene
I really like this Sam. The ‘in-between’ for me here is that which lies between religion and spirituality. To separate the two is a smart move even for those who belong to a religious group.
In my opinion religion, to a great degree, is man-made and our response to what we experience on a spiritual level. Why we do what we do is a harder question to answer.
I also agree that this topic has somehow become taboo. Criticism and discovery are so important in life. Religion is full of intricacy, nuance, tradition and mystery. I love the ‘dusty-ness’ of it and how it feels to unravel little threads here and there. Like many other topics, religion is deep and wide and waiting for us to discover how it can teach us more about the things we don’t yet understand.
A great choice for the ‘in-between’.
“The truth is, that there is very little to religious history if we remove the influence of man, or in fact to knowledge at all.”
This seems like an extremely flippant and tautological statement. You’re essentially arguing that nothing exists outside of human comprehension or orchestration – but if even if that’s true, it’s also an entirely unhelpful statement. Sam, you are human, your audience is human: this entire discussion is a human construction. If we remove the human element, of course there’ll be nothing left!
As to your wider point, that human beings have influenced religion: yes, I agree. We aren’t static creatures; everything we touch, believe, sense, discover or invent carries a trace of ourselves. Although many believers might be understandably unwilling to concede that the divine elements of their faith were constructed by man, most would still concede that the operation of the church has changed throughout history, and that it continues to change. But the same holds true for every aspect of human society: morality, government, secularism, science, education, the arts. To say that we’ve left spiritual fingerprints on the shape of our beliefs is not the same as proving that they are exclusively of our own making.
“Belief in a higher power is either from a metaphysical interaction with a higher being, or at the very least a psychological response to a metaphysical concept, things that exist beyond the realm of rationality.”
I’d contend that this is sometimes the case, but not always. People do not merely look to God for explanations of things they do not understand, but as the genesis of everything they *do* understand: the rhythms of the world, the reason for their day-to-day existence. For the myriad Christians who maintain that a personal relationship with Christ is the key to faith, the idea that their beliefs constitute only a metaphysical interaction holds no water: rather, it is a personal relationship with a being who exists, as rational as any other friendship, but far more sacred.
At any rate, it’s important to distinguish between concepts of the church and Christianity, between the Christian God and all concepts of deity, between faith and spirituality, between religion in general and a particular religion. These are not interchangeable concepts, but distinct facets of an incredibly broad discussion – or at least, they should be.
Nice conversations starter!
I find the comments you shared about faith interesting, but not universal.
Faith, I think, is an entirely non-religious term. The most reasonable definition I have heard is one which ‘religious’ people would find very bland – Faith is a disposition towards a person or object which allows that person, or object, to act freely. Most ‘religious’ people (and I refer to more than Christians) like to use more ambiguous and fluffy words which have little meaning, especially to non-religious people. Of course, the problem with my definition is that it essentially poops all over the word, and idea of un-faith which you’ve used.
For example, can have faith in two things, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and a little green ninja monkey that follows me around. Of course, it doesn’t matter how much faith I have in the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it will either fall into the water, or stay where it is. The bridge doesn’t care whether I have faith in it, but if I have enough faith to convince myself to cross the bridge, it will do its own thing. On the other hand if when I reach the other side of our oversize novelty coathanger, and I am mugged, I can have all the faith in the world that the green ninja monkey will defend me, but whether he has been paid by the muggers to let me get beaten up or whether I haven’t been feeding him enough bananas, when I get beaten up, I do not have un-faith in the monkey, I just put my faith in the wrong thing. The faith that I did have in the monkey is a mistake on my part.
I don’t think it is what could be called a convenience or indifference, but a mistake, if the subject of my faith (in this case the monkey) proves to be “unfaithworthy” because I can only know whether my faith is well placed when I allow the subject of my faith to do its thing. It is not convenient because I have have had the crap kicked out of me by some thugs, and it is not indifference because I deliberately chose to allow the monkey to defend me – although the monkey was apparently a very lame ninja.
The definition I present also implies that the only way to test ones faith is to relinquish control of a situation and allow something, or someone do their thing. This could be a bridge, a car, an accountant, my monkey, even God. The same way that faith placed in a bad accountant is still faith placed somewhere, actually placing faith in your god, whether s/he is real or not is not just idle action, but active idleness, patience and submission.
(p.s. the sumbmit comment button is turning white (the same colour as the text) when I hover over it, you may want to fix this, I’m using FF 3.0.10)
Hi,
Great article Sam. You have a way with words. I think it is very important to provoke questions and ideas on Faith.
My view is Christianity is not about being ‘religious’.
A seemingly universal view of religion implies something you ‘do’.
Christianity is based on what has been ‘done’ in Christ. Christians understand that nothing they ‘do’ can bridge the gap between us and God caused by sin, only in faith and acceptance that Jesus did so when he died for us on the cross.
In accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour, yes our lives change and we ‘do’ things that bring us closer to Him, such as attend church and read His word, but these are a result of first accepting what has been done.
I’m too scatterbrained to leave a decent comment right now but I needed to let you know about something thy was gnawing at me. You spelt devastate, “devestate”, and while your piece lost no meaning and it doesn’t affect the points you were making, my pedantic brain kept bugging me about it while I read the rest of the article (which I enjoyed, by the way).
Sorry for being annoying =/
Listening to US radio I’d say that religion is not reserved from critique here. In fact, its almost a sport. In contrast to Australian media, etc. which I’m use to, the language and expression of emotion is disconcerting at times. Both extremes readily comment and critique faith or lack thereof (or more accurately, religion). The language is extreme and downright disrespectful at times. Talking to other Americans here and using the same phrases to refer to other topics I’m yet to find another field that can be discussed in this way and still be acceptable to the general population.
Apologies for the typo Jordan, I actually made the mistake, knew it was wrong, ran it through spell check and it didn’t come up so the computer fooled me into thinking the mistake was correct – no fair really!
Excuses excuses.
Dont apologise! It’s probably Microsoft’s fault!
And I’m a massive hypocrite anyway, I typo all over the place on my phone.
Anyway, as a point from your article, I assume you’ve probably already seen similar things to the Kerry Prasad collection of Images of Jesus.
There’s other better examples out there but I guess this is a big enough sample to show that humans HAVE moulded Jesus (who couldn’t change his appearance as far as I’m aware) to their own culture and, dare I say it, ‘imagination’?
Hi Sam. Great to read your article and also great to see your on going dialogue with Heidegger. I see that the point has already been made but I must also agree that theology has never been reserved from critique. Perhaps some people have shielded their own myth from such but not theology. It is true that certain institutions have tried to oppress critique but any brief history of Christian doctrine will demonstrate the delicious debates and controversies that have pervaded all Christian theology. Indeed the basic metaphysical and epistemological questions about the divine have been debated since the classical thinkers (and so they should be) and it is clear that it is impossible to separate the disciplines of theology and philosophy (from the theological perspective that is). What is obvious, as is often the case, is that the academy is so far removed from the popular perspective of ‘religion’ that the dynamism of critical thinking in this regard is overlooked. And you are right all philosophy and myth is moulded to met our mortal will. The alternative is some sort of transcendental Gnosticism and then we would have proven the supernatural – god help us all!
Hi Sam,
A few things picking up from Janice. If we read the Old Testament and the literature surrounding it, what we see is religious critique in action. While the OT is the story of the people of Israel, it is also a history of the development of their religion, which changed drastically across those centuries. Indeed, the religion portrayed in the OT is a reflection of the religion of Israel many years (often centruies) after the reported events. The New Testament also records events which formed the early ortodoxy for Christians, from the Jerusalem councils, to ongoing debates through Paul’s epistles. The early centuries saw council after council, talking, debating about what it meant to be Christian, and more interestingly, who Jesus actually was.
The reformation was nothing if not a radical critique of ‘orthodoxy’. The ongoing divergence of Christian expression also points to a subtle critique of Christianity. Of course, academically, theology has always been at the forefront, and while many of its more radical practitioners are labelled ‘heretic’ that does nothing to diminish their function as critics. In fact, it may actually give them the far more powerful title, ‘prophet’.
Hi Sam,
Good post. Topic of extreme importance.
I agree quite strongly with Phil that “Faith, I think, is an entirely non-religious term.” However, my emphasis is perhaps more theological. The central message of Jesus is not perfection, or the perfection of any human ideology but faith working through love which is something entirely different to our conceptions of perfection or absolution (that is perhaps more Islamic). The Kingdom of God, revealed in Christ, comes first through revelation, not through ideological formations. It is beyond our full comprehension, but is first and foremost revealed in the Gospel, and the relationship between Jesus and the Father lead in “power” or “dynamism” by the Holy Spirit, given as a gift by God. As Heiddeger purports and you say, no one with faith ‘knows’ faith. Truth is a Spirit – The Holy Spirit, which works beyond rational understanding, and pushes us beyond understanding to a deeper place, the innermost place; the place which understands differently but which exists at the centre of our being. Relationship with God is not just a science of perfection, rational understandings or philosophical and metaphysical/material absolutes. God makes himself invisible to those who speak of Him from their heart or seek God in such a way. “We prophesy (speak truth/ideologically) in part – We see in a mirror darkly”.
I speak more out of the very secure agnosticism I held myself in (for 10 years) and the way I sought God throughout my life before my baptism into the Holy Spirit. I had no view of sin, and lived by the ethos that if it didn’t harm anybody, why not do it. From disenchantment with this idea, I adopted much of Sartre’s view of existential responsibility, and Camus “angoise”, and the idea that individual was intersubjective and therefore, burdened. I found my “ideological perfection” from philosophers that I fetishised, or ideas that fitted with experience. My heart was little involved, it instead sought intense relationships that might live up to the need only God could fill. I told myself that we could support the weight of a broken world on our shoulders, and most of the existentialists throughout their lives tried to reconile the world to themselves in this way. However, Existence cannot be a Sisyphian ordeal once you meet Christ, His Father and His Spirit, the whole landscape is changed, and metamorphosed.
I think a lot of damage has been done in the Church through ideologies of perfection, but Christ warns us to “watch for wolves in sheeps clothing,” and spoke prophetically both in this age, and when he died on the cross of His body (the Church) being broken for our salvation. This does not mean that the Church exists in some kind of idyllic and harmonious relationship, but as a community of believers, with faith working through love as the “word”; the sword that pierces “soul and spirit, joints and marrow discerning the attitudes of the heart.” Most ‘Church’ history will tell you of splits, schisms and epistemological wars. Often, the ideas brought in churches, by the renaissance, and by the founding fathers of America deeply contravened Jesus’s ontology as both human and divine being, as reconciler, first love, saviour, judge for justice, and the king of ‘agape’ or ‘hesed’. Instead, the Enlightenment ideas of the Republic, of humanity taking its own weight were more common, and religion was a necessary part of the aesthetic of this (re Nazism, and a lot of fascist leaders in Europe today, some in the church).
I can barely express it all, but it comes in His Spirit. If we are like pharisees, if we depend solely on our own understanding, we cannot love God (The Holy Community of father, son, Holy Spirit) and ourselves, and our neighbour. “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.” (Kierkegaard)
1 Corinthians, 2:14: “But the natural man (ideologue) receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword. It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the attitudes of the heart.”
David.