Religious identity

[grandvizier1006]

My favorite topic, religious identity, here we go again.

For some people, this is simple: They believe dogmas of Christianity, so they're Christian, or they don't believe in any gods, so they can call themselves atheists. But some of us end up somewhere in no-mans land where no label seems to fit.

I've came across pretty interesting mixes: Christians who don't believe in Jesus and atheists who worship gods and so on. Sometimes I get feeling that alot of people don't really care about how much sense their identity makes for others.


- Is finding religious identity important? Should we just believe and practise what we think is right, and not worry about what we should call it?

- If somebody understands particular religion, like Christianity, in very unique manner, is it okay to redefine what "Christianity" means, or would it be better to find some other name for their religion?

- Does identifying with religion or world view come with obligation to fit in it?

- Have you ever struggled with your religious identity? How did it turn out? Want to share your story?

- Your advice for people who are in religious identity crisis?

We should be worried about what we call it, to some extent. If you say you're a Christian, for example, but also worship Ganesha, than you're not really a Christian so much as someone who claims to be a Christian but also worships Ganesha. If you were an actual Christian than you would understand that Jesus asks for no divided loyalties. I understand that "actual Christian" is a bit of a loaded question for all of the agnostics and atheists around here, but just indulge me for a moment That said, yes, it's important to find religious identity if you're one of those people who both feels like he/she needs it and sort of "gets to choose" (I have no qualms about "not being able to choose" my Christianity for numerous reasons).

I think it depends on whom you are referring to. Is this you the individual, with the specific definition, or another person like a fellow believer? If it's you, then yes, you ought to re-define your definition if it turns out that there are some nice Christians who don't believe exactly as you do. I believe that is part of what being a reasonable Christian is about--if you're loyal to Jesus than differences, minor or major, mean little. If anything, that "elephant and blind men" analogy works just as well with church denominations. However, there are still a few non-negotiable aspects to a religion, and if you don't follow one of these then you don't necessarily qualify as being a part of that religion. In Christianity, for instance, the divinity of Jesus is important because if you believe He is merely human than He obviously could not have atoned for your sins. (You could object and call it circular reasoning as to why, but I'm no good at debating ) So it would be better to find another name for your religion if you think it's one thing but is clearly in conflict with the non-negotiable aspects of the belief system. Even "non-mainstream" religions, if I'm not mistaken, have something like that. You can't say that you think nature spirits are evil if they are deemed as benevolent or neutral in the religion. You can't say that one religion is "more true" than another in Ba'hai'ism (no idea how to spell it) or that one of them was just a lucky fluke with no relation to the Ba'ab.

Yes. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's dishonesty and self-deceit. Someone like Obama (not to get too political) cannot say that he is a Christian and then show that he is not one by disrespecting, cherry-picking, and misunderstanding its doctrines. I would be more comfortable with Obama saying he's an agnostic or simply vaguely religious. If you join a religion, you ought to either follow it or pick something else.

I'm in an environment where I only have 3 or so denominations of Christianity to pick regarding religious options (although I could have been a closeted atheist/agnostic, and "coming out of the church" would not have been bad at all). So while I have struggled with some religious identity issues, it's not the kind where I went experimenting. I wouldn't mind giving my testimony, if you'd like.

Find kind, well-meaning representatives of every religion you can. Value the ones that are honest with what they believe, rather than those that try and defend their beliefs/actions of other believers/tone down stuff about their religion that could alienate newcomers/seekers. Once you have all of your options on the table, evaluate yourself and decide if your personal moral values can do one of two things: 1) Fit in with the religion's, or 2) Be willing to re-think them for the sake of the religion.

Christianity is one of the latter, and while it's been great for me, even growing up in the Bible Belt I have had to change my own personal values because I found that even though I had gone to church for years I wasn't quite a Christian for a long time. I'd say Christianity is one of the more repugnant options, since it requires that you surrender your personal convictions and admit that you are flawed and not the best person to run your life. It was painful for me to admit that I knew pretty much nothing and that I needed change, but the result was worth the pain

 

[Cearbhall]

Catholics have dogma but in the United States the Catholic denomination is very small and most here are protestants which have very few rules other than to love one another as God loves us.

I'm surrounded by Catholics in the US. There are 78 million there.

 

[Nanopants]

My favorite topic, religious identity, here we go again.

For some people, this is simple: They believe dogmas of Christianity, so they're Christian, or they don't believe in any gods, so they can call themselves atheists. But some of us end up somewhere in no-mans land where no label seems to fit.

I've came across pretty interesting mixes: Christians who don't believe in Jesus and atheists who worship gods and so on. Sometimes I get feeling that alot of people don't really care about how much sense their identity makes for others.


- Is finding religious identity important? Should we just believe and practise what we think is right, and not worry about what we should call it?

As far as I understand, Christianity didn't even have a name until well after it had a good number of converts. I've heard that it was first referred to by its earliest followers as simply "the way", but some were labeled Christians by outsiders, meaning "little Christs." Similarly, the first patriarchs didn't call themselves Jews or practitioners of Judaism, they simply believed in the "I AM," the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "I am that I am" is really a non-label if you think about it, and there's something profound about that in my opinion.

- If somebody understands particular religion, like Christianity, in very unique manner, is it okay to redefine what "Christianity" means, or would it be better to find some other name for their religion?

I would say it's not open for invention. If we re-invent it then it's only an invention, nothing real, and very far from the truth of God if that was what we were looking for to begin with. It is open for discovery, and exploration, on the other hand, if one takes it seriously enough.

- Does identifying with religion or world view come with obligation to fit in it?

That depends on what you mean by "fit in." As far as conformity is concerned, Christianity teaches of a "conformity" as in a "transforming" sense into the image of the Son. We were never told to transform ourselves, or to conform ourselves to fit in with other people.

- Have you ever struggled with your religious identity? How did it turn out? Want to share your story?

I have wondered at times just like most people. Personally I think it's sufficient to know God, and to believe in the testimony and the revelation of Christ. Most of the struggle I have had with identity comes from others who think they know everything and try to label me and put me in some kind of a box lol.

- Your advice for people who are in religious identity crisis?

Follow your dreams.

 

[JackofSpades]

Follow your dreams.

Hmm. That's how I got into my current state of neverending identity crisis, too many dreams and they're incompatible with each others! Or if they are compatible, that must be in some sense that defies any existing labels.

While I think that's in itself very good advice for spiritual walk, I'm willing to bet that it's more likely to cause identity crisis than solve one.

 

[Nanopants]

Hmm. That's how I got into my current state of neverending identity crisis, too many dreams and they're incompatible with each others! Or if they are compatible, that must be in some sense that defies any existing labels.

While I think that's in itself very good advice for spiritual walk, I'm willing to bet that it's more likely to cause identity crisis than solve one.

Ok, but isn't the crisis itself driving one to find the answer to the problem? If so then, perhaps the crisis could be what is needed to arrive at the answer.

P.S. that was actually a bit of e-humor. I'm actually a little surprised that even my stupid jokes can cause problems which then lead to realizations.

 

[JackofSpades]

P.S. that was actually a bit of e-humor. I'm actually a little surprised that even my stupid jokes can cause problems which then lead to realizations.

lol! I'm foreigner remember, I miss alot playful usages of language. If you had said "Follow your bliss!" I would have got it tho. But nvm, I think it turned out more interesting this way.

Ok, but isn't the crisis itself driving one to find the answer to the problem? If so then, perhaps the crisis could be what is needed to arrive at the answer.

That's one way to see it. But for another point of view, I think there are also Pandora's boxes in religious world which, after being opened once, can not be closed again. So opening them all accidentally can lead to undesired consequences.

I know people who have lost their faith and are miserable about it, incapable of finding it again and are very unhappy without it. It just makes me feel that living in happy illusion (or in world view which is at least partly illusion) can be sometimes better option than being brutally honest and digging to deep, if that risks losing something precious in the process. Please note I said "sometimes", not "always".

There have been times when I've wanted to go back to point X or point Y myself, but it has simply not been anymore possible, it would be like trying to forget how to read after once learning to do it.

 

[TheGirlOnFire]

lol! I'm foreigner remember, I miss alot playful usages of language. If you had said "Follow your bliss!" I would have got it tho. But nvm, I think it turned out more interesting this way.

.

What is follow your bliss, i'm a foreigner lol am so using that excuse from now on

 

[JackofSpades]

What is follow your bliss

It's phrase used in New Age- stuff, with various meanings.

 

[Tess]

First of all:

The church i went to was part of the new froniters, i loved the pastor and the people very friendly......

I grew up in a New Frontiers church! Been in one my whole life!

Right, onto the question:

My favorite topic, religious identity, here we go again.

I study this at university. I spent two whole years on this topic, so my answers here are gonna be a mix of the academic answer and my opinion! I'm going to try to explain the academic answer to the topic and then I'll just answer the rest of what I think. Feel free to skip the academic part if you're not interested!

- Is finding religious identity important? Should we just believe and practise what we think is right, and not worry about what we should call it?

- If somebody understands particular religion, like Christianity, in very unique manner, is it okay to redefine what "Christianity" means, or would it be better to find some other name for their religion?

Study of Religions answer
I'm going to try and explain the academic answer to this whole topic, but sorry if I don't explain it very well, I'm used to having 5000 words to do it in!
The academic answer is that all 'religions' are just labels. For instance, what I believe as a 'Christian' may be completely different to what another person believes and they also say they are a 'Christian'. Scholars argue that there is no unifying 'element' to Christianity (or any religion) ie, there is nothing that all 'Christians' have in common, therefore, there is no such thing as 'Christianity', it's just a label (I personally would be inclined to disagree with this, but this is the answer in the field).
The same theory goes for all religions, and this can be seen more clearly in different examples: When the 'West' first came into contact with the 'East' and new 'religions' such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. these 'religions' did not yet exist; scholars studied what people believed and put them into categories such as 'Buddhist' based on what they believed, in effect 'creating' them as 'religions'. The people holding the beliefs and being categorised saw no need for the labels. (This is all to do with colonial power and Orientalism if anyone's interested but I won't get into that). Anyway, this is true of all the 'isms' religions, they are labels created by the 'West' to categorise people.

I may have explained that terribly but I tried! :o

As you can see, following this theory would mean that the answer to basically all of the questions goes something like "It's all just arbitrary labels anyway so it doesn't matter. It's a 'Western' construct."

My answers

In terms of how we identify, I think that everyone is obviously free to call themselves whatever they like, and if they want to make a new name for themselves then that's fine too! However, there is a lot of truth to what Inkfingers said here:

No. When words become protean it becomes impossible to communicate meaning...which aids confusion not comprehension.

All words are essentially just 'labels', nothing means anything in itself; therefore we can only communicate via mutual agreement on what a word means, so in that sense, we couldn't function if everyone just decided to label things themselves, so we should consider that too.

- Does identifying with religion or world view come with obligation to fit in it?

I feel a lot of pressure to 'fit in', to 'pick a side'. Which is silly, because studying what I do, I know that it's all just labels anyway. But I think it's natural, I think everyone wants to belong.

- Have you ever struggled with your religious identity? How did it turn out? Want to share your story?

I struggle with this all the time. I wouldn't say I have much of a 'story'. I identify as Christian while feeling like my views aren't the same as a lot of Christians, and like I've said, I do feel pressure to fit in, even though it shouldn't matter. It doesn't help that my faith and beliefs change as I age; as I learn new things and develop my opinions on things, I feel like I fit in a different kind of 'label' (if that makes sense). Right now I would confidently say 'I identify as Christian' but a year ago I would have said 'Welllll, I'm a Christian... but I'm not like most Christians'. So, yeah, how I identify changes. But it's all just a label so it's okay.

- Your advice for people who are in religious identity crisis?

Advice would be try not to worry about fitting in - because that's all it is. I know it's hard but you are who you are, you don't need to pick a side.

 

[JackofSpades]

It doesn't help that my faith and beliefs change as I age; as I learn new things and develop my opinions on things, I feel like I fit in a different kind of 'label' (if that makes sense).

Makes loads of sense at least for me. I think if person grows spiritually and discovers new things, that naturally creates need for new definitions.

I think the idea of steady religious orthodoxy with everything locked in place is sort of wierd, if compared to other areas in life. In every other area of life: in our physical body, in our psyche, our understanding of world etc. things being under constant change is usually seen as a normal sign of life (and often as sign of good health). I personally think it is so in spiritual life aswell; feeling the need to change something in our definitions of our religion can very well just be sign of growth and life, not negative sign at all. But that's just how I see it.

 

[Nanopants]

All words are essentially just 'labels', nothing means anything in itself; therefore we can only communicate via mutual agreement on what a word means, so in that sense, we couldn't function if everyone just decided to label things themselves, so we should consider that too.

Nevertheless, it does happen, so we have to adapt.

Makes loads of sense at least for me. I think if person grows spiritually and discovers new things, that naturally creates need for new definitions.

I think the idea of steady religious orthodoxy with everything locked in place is sort of wierd, if compared to other areas in life. In every other area of life: in our physical body, in our psyche, our understanding of world etc. things being under constant change is usually seen as a normal sign of life (and often as sign of good health). I personally think it is so in spiritual life aswell; feeling the need to change something in our definitions of our religion can very well just be sign of growth and life, not negative sign at all. But that's just how I see it.

Actually there is biblical sense to this. Language is treated as a very significant subject in scripture, e.g. the story of the tower of babel, and subjects like spoken blessings, curses and blasphemy. Actually the bad stuff like blaspheming (speaking evil of ) God would not be possible if language itself were not corrupted by people who through malintent, imagine these ideas assigned to the language they use, and if that's the case, then we can also be affected in negative ways by corrupted language.

You are right that language cannot be unchangeable. Even if Christian religion refuses, according to the scriptural prediction, it will not always be the case:

For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language,
That they all may call on the name of the LORD,
To serve Him with one accord. -Zeph 3:9

 

[JackofSpades]

Yes. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's dishonesty and self-deceit. Someone like Obama (not to get too political) cannot say that he is a Christian and then show that he is not one by disrespecting, cherry-picking, and misunderstanding its doctrines. I would be more comfortable with Obama saying he's an agnostic or simply vaguely religious. If you join a religion, you ought to either follow it or pick something else.

I have to mention that history has at least one wonderful example about succesfull attempt to redefine meaning of some label, the reformation. It ended up redefining many things on what Christianity is about for the world.

Martin Luther and other reformers practically created new religion, and insisted on calling it Christianity, even if they refused to fit in with Christianity as it was known at the time. It turned out that nowadays their version of Christianity is widely accepted as proper interpretion of it and has extended the meaning of term "Christian". But by the time it was done, not so much. Reformers version of Christianity was at conflict with many very central aspects of Christian faith in those times. They rejected authority of the Church, pursuit for holy life and asceticism. Those might sound like distant things for nowadays Christians, but for people of the time, it was somewhat similar thing as throwing Bible out of window would be now.

I find it wierd if protestants are very much against redefining of what Christianity means, since that's excactly what people who found their churches did hundreds of years ago.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I was raised in Presbyterian churches, which for the most part were pretty normal, but at some point I did get a vibe from other people saying "Only Protestantism is true". I've heard some people say Catholic and Christian separately, like they're not even Christians or something, which is just rude and untrue.

Although as a Protestant, I think the Reformation was still a good and much-needed thing for the faith, although I will certainly admit that many good ideas from Catholicism were sort of lost, and like you said a lot of them are very intelligent. I think I would have been a great Catholic if I had been raised in it

I think a second Reformation might be needed, but it will have to be made within the context of Christianity around the world and in light of our faith's history. It wouldn't necessarily be a liberalizing reformation, but it would focus more on compassion and how to treat non-Christians rather than being a moral bastion against them. But I think the non-Christians would have to sort of being willing to discuss stuff as well, and they'd have to understand us while we try and understand them.

 

[Cearbhall]

I've heard some people say Catholic and Christian separately, like they're not even Christians or something, which is just rude and untrue.

I've always found this to be extremely ironic, seeing as the Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian church...

 

[grandvizier1006]

Yeah, apparently at some unspecified date when they became too beaurocratic and structured they were "un-Christianized"

Seriously, though, while stuff like monasticism isn't directly endorsed by the Bible and one could argue that it isn't needed and that the Catholics added on traditions, that doesn't make them un-Christian. I think if it as sort of like this: If you believe this and that, you're a Christian. If you believe a dozen other things, then you're still a Christian so long as nothing is clearly at odds with the Bible--or maybe even just your interpretation of it, for something like homosexuality.

I've got an eccentric grandmother obsessed with "end-times" stuff. She believes in tons of things related to spaceships and Jerusalem and whatnot (we're not exactly sure WHAT her end-times belief is, specifically, it's just full of conspiracy theories), but we still consider her a Christian even though she has said things like, "the Bible says that you're an adult when you're 21", and "Now that's not in the Bible, but I believe it!"

 

[keith99]

I have to mention that history has at least one wonderful example about succesfull attempt to redefine meaning of some label, the reformation. It ended up redefining many things on what Christianity is about for the world.

Martin Luther and other reformers practically created new religion, and insisted on calling it Christianity, even if they refused to fit in with Christianity as it was known at the time. It turned out that nowadays their version of Christianity is widely accepted as proper interpretion of it and has extended the meaning of term "Christian". But by the time it was done, not so much. Reformers version of Christianity was at conflict with many very central aspects of Christian faith in those times. They rejected authority of the Church, pursuit for holy life and asceticism. Those might sound like distant things for nowadays Christians, but for people of the time, it was somewhat similar thing as throwing Bible out of window would be now.

I find it wierd if protestants are very much against redefining of what Christianity means, since that's excactly what people who found their churches did hundreds of years ago.

If the 95 thesis were a song the chorus would be about indulgences.

The reformers first sought to reform the Catholic Church. It was no tuntil this proved impossible, that the Church was unwilling to give up such a source of income, that they separated.

Looking from the outside I'd say a lot of the Protestant Church is in the same boat now, being unwilling to give up good sources of income that are in conflict with any reasonable understanding of Christs message.

 

[grandvizier1006]

What do you mean, Keith? What does this have to do with money?

 

[JackofSpades]

I think a second Reformation might be needed, but it will have to be made within the context of Christianity around the world and in light of our faith's history. It wouldn't necessarily be a liberalizing reformation, but it would focus more on compassion and how to treat non-Christians rather than being a moral bastion against them.

That sounds good. Out of all human traits, I think compassion is difficult to overrate.

But I think the non-Christians would have to sort of being willing to discuss stuff as well, and they'd have to understand us while we try and understand them.

Sounds like a plan, I'm in!

If you like, you can quote one point (just one for starters) of something I've wrote on this thread which makes you feel that I don't understand Christians as well as I should, and I'm willing to contemplate it, and if necessary I'll do some minor study related to topic. I won't promise to change my mind about anything tho, but understanding others a bit more is always a good thing.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Will do! Also, I like Phillip Yancey as well. The Jesus I Never Knew was really good, giving me new insights into something that I had thought I had known well. If I was in the evangelizing business I would basically make that required reading

 

[grandvizier1006]

Well Jack of Spades, after checking out your posts I will say a few things on your musings.

Emotional validity is very important in terms of what will appeal to a person. But there is also logical, rational appeal. I think many people aren't Christians because it seems illogical to them (and at first glance it does look pretty illogical, but some people take a second look and find it to be very logical once they study philosophy, science, etc., which they conclude as indicating evidence of a Creator God and then deciding that it's the Christian God, although that probably takes a while and your results will vary, of course). So I don't think a good reason as to "why not everybody wants to be a Christian" can't just be chalked up to a failure to appeal to logic or emotions.

You personally may prefer emotions, but some people prefer logic. I think I might have a mixture of both, since it was ultimately a personal, emotional experience that led me to Christ. I might also add that this was completely independent of everyone else and of my upbringing.

You seem to be thinking that it's up to the church to draw people in and make them decide, "Yep! THIS is where I fit!" I don't mind that you think that, but ultimately one becomes a Christian--and to be clear, I mean a practicing, genuine Christian as opposed to merely a cultural Christian (although you can't really "tell for sure" if someone is "truly" a Christian or not even if you got to know them)--not because of what a church or a building or people do to make them "fit in", but because they have decided that they will let the Judeo-Christian God shape their identity.

That's kind of a scary thought, to some people. Many people like the idea of being autonomous and not being defined by a label, especially one like "Christian" where they might feel like they get lumped in with a bad group or absorbed into some kind of collective, whether they like it or not. But the thing about Christianity is that it is full of paradoxes. My individuality prior to Christ was there, but looking back on the shape I was in I have to say I was a pretty typical person in that I surrendered to the unfairness of life.

I don't blame you for being sort of like, "Christianity looks nice, but I just don't know..." but if you're still a seeker, I'd suggest something.

Don't make it about other people. Just make it about you and God. Do you trust that you can take care of yourself and in your own morals, or are you willing to trust God? It's a tough question for some people because they're afraid. But I can say that it was the best thing that ever happened to me, to feel God's love That was certainly an appeal to my emotions.

As for absolutism in religion, the thing is, certain basic tenets about Christianity are kind of non-negotiable--essentially everything in the Nicene Creed will do, ignoring all of the early debates about the personhood of Christ between the miaphysites and the non-miaphysites. Other than that, though, I find that the Bible gives a lot of leeway on many issues, and in my mind it's a bit deliberate so that there can be a sort of limited diversity among believers. There are liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians, and some may not be actual believers in God's eyes, not because they rejected some specific rule or doctrine, but because they make no effort to follow Him and use Him for personal gain or consider their identity in Him secondary to some superficial, worldly identity.

I, for example have Asperger's. Do you know how much "autism activism" and "autism pride" there is? What's the point?! Around the time I became a Christian I had this identity crisis. I thought that I could not be "both" a Christian and a person with Asperger's, although I desperately wanted to be. I felt that being a Christian meant "normal behavior" and conforming to a set of rules. That's just Pharisee-esque thinking which has unfortunately affected the church badly. Yes, there ARE rules, but people will inevitably break them. In Christianity, you get reassurance that you are forgiven from breaking those rules. You can move forward as a genuine person rather than a self-described "rebel" whose only morals consist breaking ones that you pretend are merely arbitrary but actually acknowledge due to your desire to identify as a rebel.

I felt that autism-spectrum disorders encouraged a sort of rebellion (despite the "Aspie's" paradoxical love of rules! ) whereas Christianity represented conformity. I was always sort of a passive person, so I had no problem following rules if they were fair. But I also felt incredibly worried that I could not conform to an impossible social standard and that I would be ignored by my fellow believers. And if I went off to go join other people with Asperger's, they'd just reject me upon finding out I was a Christian.

I found peace once I realized that it was best to surrender the "autistic identity". Having Asperger's doesn't define who I am, although it does define my life experiences. It stopped defining me once I turned to Christ, and that, for me, was pure liberation. 1984 was so right with the whole "freedom is slavery" thing. Adversely, I found that slavery is freedom.

However, this is all stuff that you honestly can't understand well if you're not a Christian, no offense. I didn't get it before I became one and wouldn't have if someone told me. My point here is that you're making Christianity out to be like a sort of club with a bunch of varying branches--I don't blame you for having that approach. You're not the first non-Christian I've seen who said that, actually. My point is that with Christianity your decision upon whether you "join us" or not is not based off of the effort of people who already believe--it's based upon your personal connection with Christ, and whether or not you are willing to submit to Him. "Submission" certainly doesn't sound fun, but think of it as submitting to the terms of an insurance plan rather than the whims of an impartial, grandiose being

I wish you luck in your search for truth