Thoughts on “Religious Affections”
“Religion” has been explained to be an attempt to explain or understand the Creator. The noun “religion” can be actually be traced to the French root “relier” which implies the idea of “connection”; that is, “to rely.” Is your life characterized by commitment, devotion and practice, service in worship of the Creator on whom you rely? In other words do you demonstrate a mastery of divinity, or are you mastered by divinity?
Human beings exist either in the state of action or the state of non-action. If we are not caused to move or act, then we will remain at “rest” until we choose to move. Jonathan Edwards, in his master-work “
Religious Affections,” explains the nature of humanity is to be inactive unless influenced by our affections. “These affections are the ‘spring of action,’ the things that set us moving in our lives, that move us to engage in activities.” In other words, we are disinclined to act unless our own purposes are served. Edwards continues, “When we look at the world, we see that people are exceedingly busy. It is their affections that keep them busy. If we were to take away their affections, the world would be motionless and dead; there would by no such thing as activity.”
The implication of this is that we would not be religious if our affections were not somehow connected to the action of religion. It was this very concern that drove Edwards to write his controversial work because here he exposes the intertia that drives one’s religiosity as either true or false religious affection.
Now much greater and more qualified writers than this one have already plumbed the great depths of Jonathan Edwards’ bibline contribution, so this is not an attempt to add to the plethora of compositions that already exist on the subject; rather, the point is to explore a question in order to find an immediate application. This is why we began by finding an agreement as to what “religion” means.
If one says on any level, “I am religious,” then he must be prepared with an apologetic regarding his motions of religion; that is, is he dependent on the objective supernatural reality, or is the spiritual realm reliant on him? The same test must be given to the one who says, “I am not religious” with the implication that by his obvious non-dependence, he expects the spirit realm ignore him as he ignores the spiritual realm. What does it accomplish, to declare ourselves “religious,” “spiritual” (or non religious, for that matter) and to whom do we intend to impress with such a declaration?
We would like to think of ourselves as religious, but have confused the whole purpose of what it means to be spiritually dependent, reliant. Consider the act of prayer. Should prayerfulness be only for the sake of building up spirituality, then we are thinking more highly of ourselves and our religion is empty for the practice is inverted and frankly, quite exhausting as we attempt to support ourselves. “
And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, ‘So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’” (Matthew 26:40-41)
Prayer is not powerful unless connected to the power source. We do not pray to see the spirituals move, but to align ourselves with God’s plan to glorify His name in Christ Jesus. If the prayer of the righteous man availeth much, be reminded that his prayer is not much availed because he is righteous, but because of Him who is righteousness.
Conversations with Muslims brought this to my attention: the reading of sacred texts does not exalt one’s spirituality; however, the failure to do so underscores his inclination to love self more than God, thus breaking the 1st Commandment, and drawing into question his ability to maintain faithful religion. To many, religiosity is measured by how much they immerse themselves in sacred writings, perhaps even dedicated portions to memory. My conversation with three individuals on two separate occasions made this clear. Though I’ve read the Qur’an, I’ve not dedicated any time to re-reading or to memorization (I find no need to), but when I tell a Muslim I have two questions from the text, and I open the Qur’an to those passages, each time I’ve been met with gushing apologies for personal failure to know the sacred text as well. They are astounded that an infidel has read or even knows where to turn in the text.
Before we find ourselves shaming someone else, consider what one’s devotion time may be like. How much time does one spend in reading the scripture? Admittedly, most would agree that we don’t spend enough time and we wish, desire, promise to dedicate more time to reading scripture. Tomorrow we will have forgotten our promise while cults and –isms spend more time dedicating portions to memory because the enemy knows he can undermine based on our ignorance of that we only call precious for the sake of religion. Our religious affection is false because we love ourselves and our time more than God, who deserves the attention of all heart, mind, soul and strength.
“
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” (Hebrews 4:12-13)
God knows why we want to be religious. Our conscience tells us something is wrong and that only God can correct the problem. Our problem is that we are not dependent, reliant on Him. Religious affection (we must be reminded by Edwards), is either self-serving, or it is God-serving. In other words, either our practice of worship is out of complete devotion and love for God, or it is out of love for self.
Consider the preachers who love to preach. They love the art and practice of preaching but have yet to hear the proclamation and application of God’s Word in their own lives. This kind of religious affection is no different than that seen by the Pope’s visit to Mexico in 1979. People spent months and money preparing for the visit and the streets became a mob when he arrived. When the Pope was there, all things pertaining to daily living came to a grinding halt. When the Pope left, people wept. Car horns honked and people flashed mirrors at the plane as it circled Mexico City. A great show of religiosity, but no change in people’s lives. Much religious affection, but no dependence on the Creator for life or godliness.
Consider further those who recreate for themselves the scenes of Christ’s crucifixion. People allow themselves to be flogged, wear crowns of thorns, be spit upon, etc. While some are nailed to crosses, some are tied on. Who is more religious? None of them because they are trying to merit God’s attention by reenactment and have separated themselves from what God already accomplished for them in Christ Jesus. “Religion is like a vaccination. People get enough of religion to get inoculated against the real disease.” (John MacArthur, “
The Destruction of the Apostates.”)
“There are many religions which know no divine welcome to the sinner until he has ceased to be one. They would first make him righteous, and then bid him welcome to God. But God in Christ first welcomes him, and so makes him penitent and redeems him. The one demands newness of life, the other imparts it. The one demands human righteousness as the price of divine atonement; the other makes atonement in order to evoke righteousness.” (J.S. Whale).
Religion fails if it cannot speak to men as they are because the religions of the world care more for the religion than for humanity. Religion should be unique to the Christian so his religious affection, his spring of action, his motive for action is his uncompromised, obedient love. God has been at work to move men from where they are, separated from Him, to be reconciled to Him in Christ Jesus.
