| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We have seen that there are a number of explanations for the universal tendency of humankind to objectify religion. Some of these explanations seem to carry more weight than others. It would not be correct, in my view, to record and analyze these explanations without also adding the Christian perspective held by myself.
The suggestion made by Norbeck, Davies, Warnac and others that people are unresponsive to the abstract, and need something concrete to relate their faith to, is no doubt true to some extent. It seems that some objectified features are appropriate for most people, because God himself included objectified elements in the Bible.
The Old Testament is rife with classic structures of objectification, ranging from strictly delineated sacred space in the temple, to a detailed cultus surrounding that space.
It is interesting to note that in the New Testament, we find this level of objectification radically truncated, though still not eliminated altogether. There is absolutely no provision in the New Testament Era (which I take to have begun at Pentecost) for any form of sacred space. The provision for sacred space in the Old Testament is reinterpreted by Paul, Christ, Peter, and the author of Hebrews to correspond to the assembly of true believers in Christ.47 The early Christians may have continued to relate to the temple for some time, although this is condemned in Hebrews and elsewhere.48 Likewise, there was no claim made in the area of sacred time, or a religious calendar.49 Priesthood was attributed first to Christ, and secondarily, to all believers, making formal priesthood obsolete.50
There were two specific features to New Testament Christianity that suggest objectification-- water baptism, and the Lord's Supper.51
We could speculate on the likelihood that God may have provided objectified forms in the Old Testament period because He realized that the people at that time would not stay with any religion that did not have such structures. Therefore, the sacred space and the cultus served the purposes of providing a point of unity for the nation, teaching spiritual truths (many about Christ), and providing a tangible expression for a people who would not have been willing or able to maintain their spiritual identity without such structures. We already know that God was prepared to speak to the people in their own historical terms, as demonstrated by the relationship of the Deuteronomic code to Hittite suzerainty treaties.52
On the other hand, at the time of Pentecost, the universal indwelling of the Holy Spirit would enable the people to remain faithful, and would provide a more personal avenue of relationship. God therefore dispensed with the "shadows" or "elemental things" that had served as a tutor before.53 Yet even at that time, some objectification was allowed, for the sake of the special kind of fellowship that is possible through these ordinances. As Warnac observes,
"The two worlds of God and man, heaven and earth, spirit and matter meet preeminently in the religious symbol. Even the etymology of symbolon, from symballein (to cast together), suggests this."54
While recognizing the value of symbols, the Christian historian is also acutely aware of the spiritual dangers of objectification.
Even in the Old Testament period, there was a tendency to look to the symbols themselves, rather than to the reality they expressed. As Brow points out,
"...the prophets constantly had to fight priestly rapacity and the misconceptions of the people. Where there were no prophets, priesthood and temple worship always degenerated into the ugliness of priestcraft."55
Likewise Norbeck, speaking from an entirely secular perspective says,"...religious acts tend to become goals in themselves. Histories of religions provide many examples of rituals rendered meaningless by the passage of time but which are nevertheless tenaciously retained. Empty of their original significance, the rites themselves have become goals which the members of society are under compulsion to reach by faithful performance."56
Therefore we must conclude that from the Christian perspective, there are benefits and dangers in objectification. Because of this, it would be perilous to introduce new features of objectification which are not authorized in the Bible, without carefully and repeatedly differentiating between the wine and the wineskins.57
What then should we conclude regarding the "unresponsiveness to the abstract" thesis advanced by Norbeck, Davies and Warnac? To this I answer that, in my view, such an explanation is suspect. It is too easy to assert that the "great unwashed masses" are not as smart as we are. On the contrary, there is frequent response to the abstract on the part of common folk both now, and at various times throughout history. The New Testament is very lean on objectification, and long on abstract truths. Yet, the authors address their letters to the rank and file of the church, not just to the leadership.58 Also, substantial history in the Christian church demonstrates that this kind of thinking has led to the disenfranchisement of the laity from ministry, and from access to the Scriptures. The thinking that says, "They can't understand the Scriptures, so let us give them a picture of Jesus to relate to..." is foreign to the New Testament.
This position was taken by the leadership in the early church, either because it was the easy way out, (in that it spared the clergy from the burden of educating their people) or as Brow, Schmidt, and Richardson claim, because it led to personal gain on the part of a corrupt clergy.
The latter position cannot be ruled out, in my view, by anyone who believes in the biblical doctrine of the depravity of all mankind. Behavior that benefits oneself is always tempting, and anyone who has experience in church ministry knows the urge to take over and "do it myself."
Certainly, the overall effect of objectification has been to create and sustain an intermediary role for the clergy that precludes lay initiative in the vital areas of spiritual life.
For these reasons, I think the "corruption of religion" theory is a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of objectification, especially if we remember that these urges are very subtle in the minds of the various clergies, and that the changes that benefited them were very slow in developing. Later clergy, on the other hand, could look at a long tradition of objectification which tended to sustain itself.
Eliade, who was influenced by the German scholar Walter F. Otto, and who in turn is a clear and major influence on Carmody and Carmody, has a unique empathy for the religious mentality. His reflections on sacred space are useful, as noted earlier. At the same time, these authors, with their postmodern acceptance of the validity of all religious forms, end up negating the truth claims of Christianity, not to mention the logical law of non-contradiction.
We can understand and sympathize with other religious outlooks while refusing to put all truth claims on the same level, namely that of relativity to the individual's experience. While not questioning the sincerity of religious experience for the individuals involved, as Christians, we are unable to affirm that a mere sense of the "sacred" is a sufficient basis for credibility.
At this point the Christian student of religion is confronted by a fascinating question. Namely, if all religious expressions are not encountering the God of the Bible, what are they encountering, and why is it so similar to objectified Christianity?
It seems to me that we have to again look to some universal feature of humankind, or of the cosmos, to account for such a universal existence of these kinds of forms.
This is where the "Magical Elements" theory seems to offer a link. Since magic is what Frazer has called, "the truly universal creed", found everywhere and at all times, and the great religions have tended toward strikingly similar forms, the likelihood of this explanation seems very strong. It would definitely be a mistake to limit our concept of magic to the more flagrant or obvious manifestations, and fail to see what Norbeck has indicated,
"Supernaturalistic ideas of sympathy extend over a tremendous range, far exceeding that of mere initiation or of contagion from direct contact. Ideas of affinity may be applied to any objects..."59
We have noted numerous signs of magical outlooks in objectified religion, ranging from containment of the sacred, to outright exuvial magic. I find myself unable to avoid the conclusion that humankind's craving for control and regularization of the sacred has played a major role in the objectification of religion.
Here lies the greatest danger in excessive objectification. Magic is an impersonal and mechanistic way to relate to God. It is interesting to note that,
"In many primitive societies confession and prayers beseeching forgiveness for sins or aid in maintaining moral standards are both unknown and unthinkable."60
Instead, we find the bare attempt to manipulate the supernatural, or at least to avoid trouble with it. Such a relationship is analogous to most people's relationship to the Internal Revenue Service. It is a legalistic relationship where we do the least we can in order to stay out of trouble. There is certainly no personal love aspect to such a relationship.61
While some sorts of magical notions may account for objectification when considered from the viewpoint of the practitioner, this does not exclude the "Cognitive Restructuring" explanation cited above. While this process would have no place whatsoever in the mind of the worshipers, it may well answer the question posed above regarding what religionists are experiencing, if not the God of the Bible.62 This theory accounts for many hard to understand features of objectified religion using phenomena that can be demonstrated in a psychologist's laboratory. It has appeal because of this simplicity. Part, if not all of this process is likely to be operative in most ritualism.
Taken together then, these explanations form a framework that accounts, in my mind, for most types of objectification of religion. At the same time, it is easier to understand the reasons for the trend observable in the Bible away from objectification, and toward the personal and the abstract-- a tendency that will continue into the future,
"I saw no temple in it, for the Lord, the Almighty, and the Lamb are its temple."63
Ask Dennis a question or share a comment.
Go back to the Objectification table of contents
Browse the Bibliography and Endnotes for "Objectification"
Go back to the Xenos home page
Send Dennis a comment or question
