In the first reading, we have a Joshua whose imagination was hemmed in by an accepted status quo. He was closely associated with Moses’ ministry and therefore felt strongly that he knew how things should stand. He could not imagine a sovereign God working beyond the established parameters, whereas Moses could. This scenario is replayed in the Gospel where John also encountered non-disciples performing miracles in the very name of Jesus. For the Lord, “good deeds” were not the preserve or prerogative of discipleship.
A relevant question is what characterises discipleship and does it require membership? Last week, we conceded that despite wealth’s propensity to weaken one’s readiness to follow the Lord, the essential quality which grounds our discipleship is basically commitment or fidelity. And this brings us to a modern development in society that reacts strongly to membership in organised religions. In the consideration of affiliation, we now have to deal with the reality of “none”. These “nones” seem to constitute a growing percentage of the population who categorically reject any association with institutional religion. They rebuff membership.
The divide between affiliation and non-affiliation is a good place to help frame our conversation[1] on religious belonging. Many “nones” specify that they are spiritual but not religious. By this, it means that they do not reject the Transcendent or the instinct for the supernatural in a human person. They eschew institutional religions for different reasons—history of violence committed in the name of God[2], teachings which do not accommodate the current approach to personal “identity” and corresponding lifestyle choices. A way to describe the paradox of the “None” is one who believes and desires authenticity but is not interested in tying himself or herself down to prescribed and expected behaviours. Obligations would very much offend their sense of freedom.
In an enlightened world of practical science and technology, unverifiable or unexplainable religious claims have to be banished to the realm of the private. Religion is deemed useless in the public square because it expresses nothing more than one’s own belief. It is within this theatre of personal faith that “spirituality” finds its greatest freedom. It makes more sense to be a “none” because one can claim a modicum of association with the transcendent and yet enjoy the liberty to live according to one’s definition of what it means to be connected to a higher plane.
However, Jesus was a deeply religious Jew. Contrary to popular belief, He was not anti-religious. He was not even anti-Pharisees. He was nowhere near a “bon vivant”. But, swayed by a prevailing wind of “anti-establishment” and “class conflict”, we may have unconsciously developed this impression of Him. But Jesus was never hostile to religion. He was strongly opposed to the lack of coherence between belief and behaviour. Jesus’ religious fervour was never independent of His Jewish background. In fact, the Jewish state and religion are based on Israel’s relationship with God and for Jesus that was the ground for His religious practices. Thus, we can see that belonging or membership is not merely a matter of being “in” a religion. To belong in a religion is to believe with commitment and to avoid commitment without conviction.[3]
Still, can one be a “none” and be saved?
Definitely. Whether one is religious or spiritual, what is important is commitment to God. The modern Post-Vatican II 4th Eucharistic Prayer articulates this view must succinctly: “those who take part in this offering, those gathered here before you, your entire people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart”. Salvation is offered to all, whether “spiritualist” or “religionist”. What is required for heaven is a “sincere heart” that seeks God and a commitment to follow Him through one’s conscience.
Today, like the “nones”, it is easy to embrace a view of religion as a force for evil. So many are inspired by the concept of unity in diversity and that there should be no differences arising from religion. If commitment is central and membership is peripheral, then why belong to an organised religion like the Catholic Church? This “universalist” notion “spirituality without religion”, that is “Jesus yes, Church no” runs smack into the Great Commission that Jesus Himself gave to the Church. For those who find it hard to “swallow” the necessity of organised religion, then we need to find a way to navigate what Jesus meant when He charged the Apostles to “Go baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The Church, which belongs to “organised religion” is Christ’s gift to the world. Either we believe that or we will have to continue to make embarrassing excuses for our belief and our association.
The Church is the context for which St Paul taught that in her, there is to be no more Jew or Gentile. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally. In the light of religions’ history of inauthenticity, of human failure, the rejection of religion might sound reasonable. Religionists do not always practise what they preach. Here, a moral to remember is not to behave rashly[4] because others have behaved badly. Whether the present narrative accepts it or not, the Catholic Church has played a pivotal role in shaping the world for good. She truly is Christ’s gift to the world.
Finally, to reiterate, belonging to an organised religion like Catholicism does not mean that God cannot work outside of it. He can. So what is this membership about? We live this critical demand of belonging to the Church in which we are both convinced and committed. It is the only way for us to ensure that the world will know that religion is truly a force for good. In terms of “sacramental theology”, God desires the Sacraments. If Jesus is the Sacrament of God, then the Church is the Sacrament of Jesus. In Him, the Church is His choice instrument of salvation. Our lives must reflect this truth. Having said that, God’s salvation is not bound by membership in the Church and the means not restricted to the Sacrament of Baptism.
In terms of membership, whether we like it or not, the “nones” will become a regular feature in our religious landscape. They challenge us because we, meaning spirituals and religious, occupy the same space in terms of our need for meaningful relationship. What they differ is the need for rules and regulations. Here we are clearly not speaking of salvation but rather of the need for relationship. Thus our conversation with the “nones” must proceed along the necessity of relationship. St Cyprian said, “One cannot have God as our Father without the Church as our Mother”. Religionists may be terrible sinners but that does not invalidate the “none’s” need for relationship with God. Our manner of living should witness to the fact that through the Church we are nurtured in our relationships with each other and with the Lord. With God, rules are not restrictions. In fact, attention to rules and rituals helps to focus on the relationship we must have with God.[5] In this respect, those who are outside, well represented by the “nones” are helpful. They seek authenticity and thus they challenge us. Their desire for authenticity purifies those of us who believe but are not committed and those of us who are committed but not convinced. They can help us to be better Christians, better witnesses of Jesus the Lord.
____________
[1] Dialogue is fraught these days. Our hubris is believing that our discourses follow the tenets of enlightenment as we have rationally embraced diversity in our inclusivity. Truth is, we cannot be more mistaken. “Echo chambering” appears to be our gift to the illusory world of intellectual discourses. The algorithms of our social media are already corralling us into the prisons of “think-alikes”. Or, if not, they prevent certain topics from even surfacing in our search results. Conversations that avoid canonised positions are hard to come by. Truth is not only the pre-requisite for enlightened speech. Love too…
[2] Bear in mind that one of Enlightenment’s project is to curtail the power of organised religions because of their propensity to foment religious intolerance. Europe lived through many religious wars and the Enlightened must avoid that.
[3] A Pharisaical position. They lay heavy burdens on people without themselves believing in what they teach.
[4] Commit spiritual suicide. Disbelieving in Jesus’ Church because of some members of hers who sinned.
[5] The more important God is, the more “formal” our relationship is. Formality sounds stiff but its main purpose is to prevent us from descending into a contemptuous familiarity.
