{"id":536,"date":"2013-09-11T19:42:18","date_gmt":"2013-09-11T08:42:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/?p=536"},"modified":"2013-12-27T14:11:19","modified_gmt":"2013-12-27T03:11:19","slug":"losing-my-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/2013\/09\/losing-my-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"Losing my Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 1991, R.E.M. released their song, Losing my Religion<\/em>. Twenty years later today\u2019s news carried the headline, Britons become less religious<\/em>.[1]<\/a> Spooky. Were R.E.M. prophets in disguise?<\/p>\n

I doubt it. This Thomical attitude is based on many reasons; chief of these is the fact that one cannot lose their religion. A person may change his religion, but it is a sheer impossibility to be areligious<\/span>.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Modern usage of the terms Secular and Religous have led us to the point of believing that the two terms are mutually exclusive. More exactly, the inference is that if you tend to the sacred or religious you believe in a God or god, more or less defined. If you are a secularist, then you do not believe in these things.<\/p>\n

In today\u2019s world, the definition is really driven further. To be religious is to be that poor, deluded soul who pursues myths. You are in need of a crutch on which to lean because the vicissitudes of life are threatening to overwhelm. The secularist is then viewed as the pinnacle of true humanity \u2013 the one who has gained the strength to stand without any crutch.<\/p>\n

These definitions will be found in most dictionaries with all the implications noted. The problem is that the dictionaries are mostly inaccurate. When you look through the definitions, you will generally find a hint that religion is more than a belief in God or gods. The subtlety is usually there in phrases like, \u201ca system of faith\u201d[3]<\/a> or \u201csomething of overwhelming importance to a person\u201d.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, when the clutter is removed, we see that to have a religion is to have a set of beliefs that govern how we live. A person may be irreligious<\/em> but he can never be areligious<\/em>.<\/span> It is simply not possible for a person to function without a basic set of beliefs. Therefore, It is inconsequential, at this point, to argue over who determines one\u2019s beliefs. The critical issue is that everyman has a worldview \u2013 a set of essential beliefs by which he lives. Call it religion; call it secularism; call it what you will; all men have a fundamental worldview<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Support for this is gained from looking at a thesaurus. One such item lists the following as equivalents for religion: belief<\/em>, creed<\/em>, cult, denomination, faith<\/em>, sect.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

This is where we encounter the conundrum and confusion. This same dictionary, under the heading of secular<\/em>, states: \u201cof worldly affairs, not of spiritual or religious matters.\u201d When we put these two sets of data together the problem should be apparent. To be a secularist is to be someone who is faithless, creedless, and beliefless<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

If this were the case, the secularists would all be the ultimate pacifists. They would sit quietly in the corner and say nothing for they would not have anything to say even if they were prompted to speak. Having no creed or belief they would have no principle on which to base statement or opinion.<\/p>\n

As we know, secularists are not generally like this. On the contrary, they are vociferous in voicing their opinions and telling us how and by what standard we should live.<\/p>\n

The same conundrum is highlighted in the Collins dictionary under the head secularism<\/em>. There, we are told that this term means: \u201c1. Philosophy \u2013 a doctrine that rejects religion, esp., in ethics. 2. The attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Note, please, the use of the word \u201cdoctrine\u201d. Does not such a word have religious overtones? So, we are, in essence, being told to reject one set of doctrines in order to adopt a different set of doctrines. Throw out God\u2019s doctrines; accept and operate on Man\u2019s doctrines! Does that sound like a faithless, creedless, beliefless worldview to you?<\/p>\n

How do we arrive at an ethical standpoint without a set of morals? How do we arrive at morals without a set of beliefs? It is completely impossible to have a set of ethics based on nothing. Even situational ethics or absolute subjectivism have some type of belief system that inform them. No man is born or operates within a vacuum.<\/p>\n

Then we are told that religious attitudes should have no place in civil affairs \u2013 this after telling us to believe their doctrine!<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s cut to the chase here. What is the difference between an atheist and a secularist?<\/span> Nothing. One is the application of the other. The person first denies God (atheism) and then tries to build a world without reference to God (secularism).<\/p>\n

At this point, we are once more faced with the myth of neutrality<\/strong><\/span>. The moderns use terminology to imply that \u201cthe religious\u201d are biased and they, the areligious, are unbiased, impartial, and neutral. Yet, as we have seen, their terminology is somewhat contradictory.<\/p>\n

No man is born in a vacuum. No man is impartial. No man is unbiased. Every man has an outlook on life which can be termed as his religion. This outlook may change, but he can never be devoid of a basic world and life view.<\/p>\n

Therefore, when we read that the \u201cBritons are less religious\u201d now, we need to understand what is really being said. Britons are not becoming theological marshmallows without belief, opinion, and conviction. Rather, they are changing their belief, opinion, and conviction.<\/p>\n

A survey conducted in 1983 was compared to a recent survey. These are the results:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Church of England has declined from 40% to 20%.<\/li>\n
  2. Non Christians tripled from 2% to 6%.<\/li>\n
  3. Those with \u201cno religion\u201d has risen from 31% to 48%<\/li>\n
  4. The Congregation of Rome has stayed steady at around 9%.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    When these numbers are \u201ccrunched\u201d what we see is that the 20% no longer represented by the C of A are represented as non-Christians (+4%) or those with no religion (+17%). What we witness is a shifting of camps, not and abandonment of belief, opinion, and conviction.<\/p>\n

    Equally, we should not be surprised at this shift. As the C of A has become increasingly Liberal \u2013 a supposed Christianity devoid of Saviour, miracle, and purpose \u2013 the congregants have realised that they can be the same person without the burden of an external framework and the demands of a formalised structure.<\/p>\n

    This denomination in England, like others here in Australia, has stopped preaching the truth. Instead, they have adopted a worldview that opposes God and robs God of His glory, wonder, and being. In the end, it is but a small step to alter the capitalisation of words. God becomes god and man becomes Man.<\/p>\n

    People do not give up on belief, opinion, and conviction; they simply go into business for themselves; open their own throne room; and begin governing for themselves<\/span>. These have not lost their religion. They have simply established their own in opposition to God<\/span>.<\/p>\n