Religious Fervor or Veneer?
by Steve Watters on 06/06/2008 at 11:15 AM
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and other atheists are currently selling lots of books claiming that religious fervor is a tremendous force for ill in our culture and that much good would come from eliminating it.
But just how much of a force is religion in the lives of most believers? In a commentary for Wall Street Journal, Wheaton College professor Alan Jacobs claims that we might be putting too much faith in faith. In responding to the general perception that "for good or ill, the sheer impact of religion is enormous," Jacobs is skeptical:
I have my doubts, and they begin with personal experience. I am by most measures a pretty deeply committed Christian. I am quite active in my church; I teach at a Christian college; I have written extensively in support of Christian ideas and belief. Yet when I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is "not so much." The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day -- these are, if truth be told, far less indebted to my Christianity than to my status as a middle-aged, middle-class American man.
Of course, I can't universalize my own experience -- but that experience does give me pause when people talk about the immense power of religion to make people do extraordinary things. When people say that they are acting out of religious conviction, I tend to be skeptical; I tend to wonder whether they're not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all.
So what exactly is Jacobs saying here -- that atheists are overstating their case and that much of the ugliness that gets marked up as religiously motivated activity is often just someone applying a religious veneer to justify their less-than-religious agenda?
Is that insight helpful or problematic?
1. John D. said the following at 11:30 AM on Jun 6:
To what extent, and in what ways, are we do be different from the world?
We may wear the same clothes as the world, drink the same coffee, drive the same car. (Whether we should boycott everything from Starbucks to Disney World is a discussion we've already had.)
Entertainment choices are more complicated: our faith should lead us to eschew things like "Sex In The City" or X-rated rap music.
The fact is that we ARE different, inside if not outside, and to the extent that we allow our faith to influence our choices in life, we will have an impact on the world. (I have often thought that if believers in the United States ever did make an all-out effort to live according to our Christian beliefs, we would be persecuted just as our brethren in China or Indonesia.)
Harris, Dawkins, et al don't bother me very much because I know that our God is alive, and their flawed philosophy will not dethrone Him.
Perhaps if believers did a better job or living out their (our) faith, the atheists would stand up and take notice. Perhaps they would end up wishing they had never challenged us to rise out of our stupor.
2. Kate said the following at 11:31 AM on Jun 6:
Ohh thanks for posting this. The "religious veneer" is a concept I am constantly trying to explain to people (it rarely seems like they understand) and I will start calling it that now. Maybe the visual will help!
I completely agree that negative things in politics/societies are over-blamed on "religion" and not the wayward, sinful human hearts and motivations of the people in power who are or claim to be involved in that "religion."
3. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:41 AM on Jun 6:
So what exactly is Jacobs saying here -- that atheists are overstating their case and that much of the ugliness that gets marked up as religiously motivated activity is often just someone applying a religious veneer to justify their less-than-religious agenda?
I think that to some extent this would be true...but then I think of the people on here who speak up with such incredible conviction on certain issues. And I realize that there may be some truth to what the atheist guys are saying. Thing is, the kind of religious fervor you get out of the people on this blog isn't typically found in people that have a lot of power.
Personally, my beliefs have influenced the vast majority of my decisions in life. In real life, I'm not as outspoken as I am here, though still opinionated...But the music I listen to, the books I read, the movies I watch...while not all with the "christian" label, the choices I make in media consumption has always been driven by my faith.
I keep my mouth shut when I'm mad at my boss because I think about how I'm honoring God in being just as disrespectful to him as he is to me. I think about it when I'm choosing what to eat, whether to go to the gym, whether I should do my dishes or play a video game...
I don't ALWAYS do it, but its something that I find is always at the back of my mind.
Is that insight helpful or problematic?
Its frustrating if it is, in fact, true that people will take their own personal agenda and apply a religious twist to it. Like slavery or selling indulgences or crusades and the inquisition.
I'd say that that insight is helpful in trying to combat some of the negative thoughts given by the world towards the church. However, I would find it problematic when we DO try to genuinely stand for our beliefs. Are we forcing our own private agenda through religious means or are we truly motivated by what we believe is right due to our own religious beliefs?
4. Chris B. (VA) said the following at 11:42 AM on Jun 6:
This insight does shed some light on the surprising number of people commenting on recent Boundless articles who support (actively or passively) gay marriage...
5. Rachael said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 6:
Assuming the professor is a believer, I appreciate that in this excerpt he wrestles with or questions his personal motives. Doesn't seem like he's proud of or condoning (his feeling) that his faith doesn't motivate his 'small' daily decisions ("if truth be told", he writes...).
To some extent, I think I understand his feelings in his last paragraph, although I think that faith might motivate a lot of extraordinary things.
As for his words that " I tend to wonder whether they're not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all."
-->While this may be true, and perhaps should be recognized more often, it should also be recognized that it is that God shapes our motives and impulses, even if we feel God isn't involved in the process...
Anyway I do appreciate his comments, actually. I think he is reflectively questioning people's motives.
Sometimes in Christianity there is the thought that people be a certain way or do a certain thing because they are a Christian. I don't think that they often consciously think that that is the reason for certain things, even if they say and believe so. Like if a Christian is very friendly...would they say it is because they are a Christian that they are friendly? Non-Christians can be very friendly as well...I guess my opinion is that the friendliness is not always connected with the fact that one is or is not a Christian, but that God's spirit can work through both types. The Christian, however, does have the Spirit living inside and should be seeking to live out the fruits, while the non-Christian does not have the Holy Spirit as a guarantee and is instead influenced by 'common grace' (not sure if I'm using this term properly).
I don't think every smile or 'good action' necessarily has good motives behind it, and I think we should look at our motives. Sure we may serve. Is our conscious motivation to serve God or is it more of an impulse? For me, I think often "serving God" is an impulse. God is ultimately in control, so hopefully always or sometimes the way I respond to the impulse is honoring to Him. HOWEVER, there must be times when I serve that I do not honor Him in attitude or because of pride or selfish reasons or whatever. Sure, there might be a tiny bit of God-honoring something in there, but it could also be overrun by selfish motives.
I bet this is becoming really hard to read. This topic is just fascinating to me, but I'm not articulating it well and I don't have my thoughts all down pat.
But basically I think it is neat for one to question his or her motives, and I think a lot of times we act out of impulse without consciously and really thinking "I'm doing this for the glory of God." HOWEVER, God can shape our impulses and we can honor him even if we don't realize we are honoring Him. Conversely, we may think we are honoring Him when we really are not and are acting sinfully.
On the service, I think of ministry as serving God. But deeper in my heart, I kind-of think of it as "fun" or a "hobby". I don't want to think that by "technically serving God" I am honoring Him more than someone who may not appear to be "serving God" but may be honoring Him more invisibly through relationships, doing mundane tasks well, attitude, etc.
Wish I could talk about this topic with someone. Probably my mom would understand my thoughts :). I guess that another thing I'm getting at the idea of invisible servanthood and how that may be equal to or greater than "public" (noticeable) servanthood...
Sorry if this is all unclear and convoluted, but, these things are interesting to me, and I wish people would question the appearance of holiness (with regard to their own "acts of service" and in general) more often, and really, truly recognize that God can be served in many many many ways, and in many many invisible ways.....
I guess I feel theoretically passionate about invisible servanthood...hopefully my theory will more often match my practice, though....it is very easy to "serve", but how often do I invisibly "serve serve" where my audience is truly God alone...?
"I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." - Phil. 3:14
(by the way I'm sorry if my motives or ideas in this post get misinterpreted; I'd appreciate any grace and am not writing to attack any individual, but more advocating a questioning spirit and desire for invsible servanthood...)
6. Tim T. said the following at 12:09 PM on Jun 6:
Jacob's perspective applies the assumption that going to church, being active, and helping the poor constitutes a "committed Christian".
His attempt to apply the lack of religion in his common daily life to the values that put Christians at odd with atheists simply doesn't work.
If you have conviction in those values, then ultimately atheists and Christians are at odds on how we choose to live our lives.
I think its problematic that "devoted Christians" like Jacobs lack God in their daily lives because it reflects the broad complacency that has settled across suburbia because of our lack of need.
Thus, I really dont think Jacob's perspective is a valid representation of the radical values Christ sought to bring forth.
7. Helkias said the following at 12:10 PM on Jun 6:
Alan Jacobs can only speak for himself and may have his suspicions as to the motives of other Christians but our model Jesus Christ was anointed of god and went about doing good(Acts 10:38). His model has been followed by many people including Martin Luther King Jr., William Booth and many others who were driven by their faith to change the world. It's not that we have too much faith in faith- we haven't worked it out properly- in effect we have little faith in faith.
We should be driven by our faith to do what we do, and this extends far beyond what we don't do eg boycott certain movies but what we actually do- feed the homeless for instance, or declare the gospel.
If you're not doing things because of your faith, maybe you should critically appraise whether your faith is big or if it's based on something else entirely.
Spoken as one not there but growing in faith.
8. brx said the following at 12:39 PM on Jun 6:
I think it's interesting how much of the common Judeao-Christian world view is chalked up as 'unfounded religious belief' by non-Christians. Even the basic Ten Commandments -- when God gave them to Israel and they became publicly known among other nations, the Bible says Israel was esteemed for the wisdom in it's law -- it was evident to those who thought about it. I get the impression that society is losing its ability to think critically and instead is willingly being dragged away by its feelings and sensual desires. Perhaps this is what upset God when the Bible spoke of Israel prostituting herself to other nations - giving away her true value in exchange for fleeting pleasures.
Grace, peace & truth.
9. Andrea-Elena said the following at 12:45 PM on Jun 6:
Unless one has the Holy Spirit --- and the atheists do not --- then one cannot test the spirits to find out if someone's motive for serving another --- doing good--- is truly good (that is, born of faith working through love, because he/she is indwelt, empowered, and willed by the Holy Spirit [Gal. 5:6b]) or is a mere seeming good.
Those who say that religion does little for society or is detrimental to it have it ALL wrong. Of course. (They just don't think so.) True, some "religions" are detrimental in that they lead to destructive actions. (But ultimately the core of their detriment is that they are false religions and lead to humans' destruction because those religions are ones people choose instead of choosing the one true God.)
And therein lies the problem: atheists are being pragmatic --- they look at the good action and the good outcome or lack thereof. They want to blame the motive, the worldview, the basis for the "wrong" actions and for the inaction. But they end up blaming the wrong worldview and truth. And they don't realize that the actions they want --- truly good treatment of one another --- comes from the very religion they rail against: Christianity. Or let's say: The Way (because it IS the way, the truth, and the life.....or rather He is [John 14:6]).
If one watches The Question of God, the Bill Moyers series in which C. S. Lewis's beliefs and Freud's beliefs are contrasted, one discovers that in the roundtable sessions (during which Christians, "spiritual people," agnostics, and atheists discuss morality and ethics) secular humanism's philosophical arguments fall apart because they have no true premise upon which to build. (Those proponents kept stating that humanism is built upon the idea that all humans have worth. But the participants could not state why humans have worth. They kept saying, "They just do.")
Christian ethics and morality build upon a solid foundation: God --- who He is, what He does, and His revelation of Himself and His ways.
True, we cannot prove to those who refuse to believe, that He does exist and that He is who He says He is.
But --- taking the premise that He does exist and that He is who He says He is and He can do what He says He can do --- then the truths upon which our lives are built are based upon the most powerful Truth, Reality, and Being there ever was, is, and is to come! Someone outside of us... a Hope that says we are not thrown upon our own resources and inner selves to try to *cue hiney-clinching action* conjure up the change we wish to see.
Becoming the change we wish to see in the world? Only possible if Someone else changes us.
WE are the problem. Jesus Christ and His shed blood and His resurrection power is the answer.
What have the atheists got for a solution?
People can think what they see is a veneer. But are they looking with eyes of faith born of the blood of Christ? Or are they looking with eyes of unbelieving-in-Jesus cynicism?
So... ultimately, our duty, responsibility, and privilege is to do all for the glory of God... that He truly is seen, acknowledged, and worshiped.
And He has that under control. He is Lord, whether others recognize Him as such or not. Now let's join Him in the work of reconciling humans to Him.
Speaking of which..... I'll go back to my work tasks now. ;o)
10. Andrea-Elena said the following at 12:56 PM on Jun 6:
Helkias:
That's just the point: we have too much faith in our own faith itself (our believing) and too little faith in God Himself.
We are not to stand on our faith. We are to stand on grace. (*ht to the song "Shifting Sand," by Caedmon's Call*) To stand on Christ's work, on who He is.
I want to be driven not merely by my belief but by Christ Himself --- that my belief is merely the action of the muscle of faith that exercises because He IS. That belief is not merely what I know in my mind... but how I live my entire life. Or rather... how Christ's life is lived through me. (Ah, this is a great mystery how this reality works, is it not?!?)
Knowing Him --> believing Him --> obeying Him --> pleasing Him --> glorifying Him --> making Him known among the nations.
Notice where the flowchart starts....
Perhaps we, the church at large, have been too long at DOING faith and DOING church and not spending time with Him, at His feet, marveling at who He is and reveling in who He is... like a tree digging into rich soil, soaking up the purest water, and basking in the most life-giving sun.
I do join with you, brother, in the sentiment of being "one not there but growing in faith." I too am as you describe.
Let us seek Him. The faith in Him will come as a result.
11. Derek Wong said the following at 1:51 PM on Jun 6:
While we live in the world, we are by no means of the world. We are at our core different, and that HAS to affect who we are if that change is true.
That is why I do things like listen to Christian artists even if they're not always explicitly singing about Christian things. I do that because I feel like what comes out of them is already different simply because they're different at their core.
So I disagree with that professor, even while I can see the point about people using Christianity as a scapegoat for things that the actual belief system did nothing to incite.
12. IMO said the following at 2:50 PM on Jun 6:
"Unless one has the Holy Spirit --- and the atheists do not --- then one cannot test the spirits to find out if someone's motive for serving another --- doing good--- is truly good (that is, born of faith working through love, because he/she is indwelt, empowered, and willed by the Holy Spirit [Gal. 5:6b]) or is a mere seeming good."
Kind of off-topic comment ahead:
I think we need more blog posts on the Holy Spirit. :)
As Christians, we have the 3rd Person of the Trinity in us...it is the Spirit that enables us to lead godly lives that glorify God. I don't think there is enough attention paid to the Holy Spirit.
It is exhausting/defeating and impossible to lead a Christian life WITHOUT the Holy Spirit...
13. Helkias said the following at 2:58 PM on Jun 6:
Andrea-Elena
I agree with your post about faith being in God not ourselves, but I put it like that for rhetoric (the post by Steve Watters is worded like that, even though I am sure he did not mean we should have big faith in faith).
Also, could be wrong but the word faith is being used broadly here as in, "I am of the Christian faith"...
14. Sissy J. said the following at 4:11 PM on Jun 6:
I think a lot of you are missing the point. There is a good deal of what we do day to day that is neither Christian or not Christian. It's just living everyday life. This idea that we have to be super spiritual warriors shaking with fervor every waking moment is just absurd.
The fact that I might be preoccupied with making sure I have dinner ready on time does not depend on my being filled with the Spirit or not. Jacobs overstates the case, and this blog, by use of the word "fervor," repeats the error.
15. alex said the following at 12:24 AM on Jun 7:
I think it is interesting what was commented on as 'testing the spirits' - we should remember to be kind in our judgments of non-chritstians and atheists b/c it is true that they cannot have access to the Holy Spirit, who is a great enabler. We ought to present ourselves as people who laid down our pride and self-sufficiency in order to recieve God's forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice. It is an easy thing to forget, but the difference between Christians and non-Christians is that door of PRIDE. We shouldn't make it more difficult for non Christians to walk through than it already is, if that makes any sense.
16. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:01 AM on Jun 7:
The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
On one hand, there is empirical evidence that religious people--especially conservatives--are more charitable than the non-religious. Their regular adherents also divorce less than those who do not attend church regularly.
On the other hand, studies from the Barna group are suggesting that the lifestyles of "born again" Christians--defined in very specific terms--are not that much different from those outside the Faith.
Ergo, it could probably be said that, in America, the Church "has a form of Godliness but denies its power."
On the other hand, that is not to take away the impact that the Christian has had on the modern world.
Once murderous societies--such as the Auca Indians in Equador--abandoned their savagery, thanks to the spread of Christianity (via the Christian missionaries who paid the ultimate sacrifice). Where were the atheists?
The Christian is leading the charge against child trafficking. (Gary Haugen chronicles the work of the International Justice Mission in his book Terrify No More.)
The Christian is also providing the lion's share of relief efforts to starving people, inside and outside the U.S.
Go into any major city, and show me where all those Atheist soup kitchens are?
Even with international relief efforts, the secular efforts are very underwhelming. The United Nations, which makes the Louisville Archdiocese pale in comparison, comes to mind.
17. Marie said the following at 8:43 AM on Jun 7:
It is easy to be nice to people that are nice to you. It is hard to be nice to those who are not nice to you. Is the first any less God-glorifying because it came without a struggle? Sure, the struggle helps us to examine our motives and puts our resolve to the test to keep going in that direction; But the actions we do without struggle are for the glory of God as well.
Maybe a more accurate picture would cmoe from looking at the things you don't do because of Christ in you? Sure, as a woman, I love romance... but Christ in me is what keeps me from picking up the latest Harlequin or watch the latest PG-13 movie.
Or i don't spend all of my money before tithing and go out and buy shrimp and steak. If I were living by my natural urges I would do those things... but since I have brought that part of my life before Christ I know and have made a habit of doing that which is of more importance.
Not to say that everything in my life has come under the dominion of Christ yet... because I'm not dead yet.
18. Bethany M said the following at 7:06 PM on Jun 7:
Whatever Mr. Jacobs may be saying politically about people using faith as a cover for personal motives, I was more disappointed with this excerpt:
"Yet when I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is 'not so much.' The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day -- these are, if truth be told, [not] indebted to my Christianity."
This surprises me and disappoints me, especially because of his self-proclaimed 'committed Christian' status. True, many of the things he listed are the 'disputable matters' that Paul speaks of in Romans 14:1. However, I would contend, with the support of Dr. Del Tackett's The Truth Project curriculum, that God has something to say about how we should handle these areas, including media discernment, leisure, arts and entertainment, thought life, etc. Basically, the whole foundation of TTP is that there is no direction you can travel in which God has not spoken.
This doesn't mean believers won't have a variety of tastes and preferences. But it does mean their personal relationship with the Creator of the universe through His Son Jesus Christ should definitely have an enormous effect on their choices in all of these areas!
19. Rabenstrange said the following at 1:59 PM on Jun 8:
I think Mr. Jacobs makes a good point. Though more than half of American's claim to be Christians to some extent, I think it is apparent that very few live in a way that is radically different from the way their un-believing neighbors do. In my conversations with Christians, few can honestly say that their daily actions are driven by a desire to glorify God (I certainly couldn't make such a claim).
I think the church is infected with a great deal of worldliness and we should all pray that God would once again open our eyes and ears so that we can hear and follow his leading.
20. Chelsea Moore said the following at 5:14 PM on Jun 15:
Sissy J. had the following to say on Jun 6 at 4:11 PM:
I think a lot of you are missing the point. There is a good deal of what we do day to day that is neither Christian or not Christian. It's just living everyday life. This idea that we have to be super spiritual warriors shaking with fervor every waking moment is just absurd.
The fact that I might be preoccupied with making sure I have dinner ready on time does not depend on my being filled with the Spirit or not. Jacobs overstates the case, and this blog, by use of the word "fervor," repeats the error.
-------------------------------------
Thank you, Sissy J.
While there are a lot of well-thought-out and well-written posts here, me thinks there is much ado about nothing.
As Christians and human beings, we don't need to reflect, respond or react to everything. Sometimes it's just best to "ignore 'em".
Chelsea
21. Brandon said the following at 3:45 AM on Jun 16:
I think Jacob's article hints at what I think is a real problem for Christianity. If Christianity is true, then those with the Holy Spirit would have some kind of observable difference in their lives/behavior that non-Christians do not have.
The apostle Paul even lists what the fruit of the Spirit are, yet I see no observable difference in exhibiting that fruit between Christians and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Raelians, atheists, agnostics, humanists, people who don't even care to think about religion, and so on.
And I'm talking about devout Focus-on-the-Family type Christians. People who realize that being a Christian is a personal relationship with God, not just some set of creeds you assent to and then go on with your life. I grew up in a Christian home, went to a Christian school, a Christian church, (all of them of the FOTF type of Christianity) and I know no one's perfect. But trust me, I'm talking about the same ordinary, trying to surrender to God each day, born again Christians that most of you are.
I have seen no overall observable difference between Christianity and any other religious group or non-religious group. I'm not talking about "these people go to a church" vs. "these people go to a synagogue", either. I'm talking about the kind of moral behavior that should be unique to people who are actually following the one, true God.
Is going to heaven the only difference between being a true born again Christian verses not being one? Is there any advantage here on earth to being a Christian? If so, why don't Christians stand out?
By the way, every Christian denomination seems to claim that they stand out (in a spiritual sense) among the world: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. They all believe that the fruit of the spirit that they demonstrate confirms their theology. But they all demonstrate it no differently that any other group.
What specifically should I be looking for? If Christianity is true and Christians have the Holy Spirit and no one else does...it should be observable shouldn't it?
In my experience, it is not.