A Definition of Religion

On Wednesday, I'll likely be tested on my professor's definition of religion which reads as follows:

Religion derives from the haunting realization of ultimate powerlessness in an inscrutable world, where each person harbors the unquestioning and irrational conviction of the possibility of gaining mystic security by somehow identifying one's self with what can never be known.

He goes on to both quote and state that it is a "'never-ceasing attempt to discover a road to spiritual serenity across the perplexities and dangers of daily life' (Sapir), manifesting itself as a system of symbols which acts as the vehicle for establishing powerful moods and motivations through a) the formulation of conceptions of a general order, and through b) rituals to act them out (Geertz)."

Further:

"The components of the religious experience include a configuration of emotional states: Fear, awe, hope, love, the plea, and belief or faith, and sometimes ecstasy; emotional states that are brought within the context of ultimate values and transcendent truths which generate commitments to certain types of social action oriented to penultimate concerns, THE MOST ULTIMATE OF WHICH IS THE REALIZATION OF THE INEVITABILITY OF DEATH." (emphasis mine)

I suppose it's a fine definition as far as it goes. Fifteen years ago, I would have (and did) hop right on board with this and similar sentiments about religion in general and Christianity in particular. So what changed? On this day when the majority of the Christian world recognizes that something truly extraordinary, if not downright impossible, took place some 2000 years ago, what changed is that 10 years ago I ran headlong into a spiritual brick wall named Jesus Christ and became convinced over the course of the next 13 months that he did indeed die for MY sins according to the Scriptures,

and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the 12, after that he was seen of above 500 brethren at once . . . After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles, And last of all he was seen by me . . . (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

With that in mind, I was reading in the book of Hebrews this morning as communion was being served.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For both he that sactifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I WILL DECLARE THY NAME UNTO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH WILL I SING PRAISE UNTO THEE. And again, I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM. And again, BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHICH GOD HATH GIVEN ME.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; AND DELIVER THEM WHO THROUGH FEAR OF DEATH WERE ALL THEIR LIFETIME SUBJECT TO BONDAGE,

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:9-18)

And continuing on, in chapter 7, something occurred to me earlier in the course in a discussion of the evolutionary pressures that have affected what males and females find attractive in each other - males - youth and curves and ability to procreate, females - power and ability to bring home the bacon.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,

WHO IS MADE, NOT AFTER THE LAW OF A CARNAL COMMANDMENT, BUT AFTER THE POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE.

For he testifieth, THOU ART A PRIEST FOR EVER AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

For the law made nothing perfect, BUT THE BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HOPE DID; BY THE WHICH WE DRAW NIGH UNTO GOD. (Hebrews 7:11-19)

Lots of quotes, I know. Maybe not the most decisive set of verses that would demonstrate the crucial difference between "drawing nigh to God" and "formulating conceptions of the general order and rituals to act them out", but I've hung my hopes on someone with the "power of an endless life", and that's okay by me. Does this "better hope" give me "spiritual serenity across the perplexities and dangers of daily life"? You bet it does. However, unlike my previous state of relative calm in the face of the "inscrutable", which was based mostly on the assumption that science would eventually provide answers to all of the unknowns and make religion obsolete, this hope is something that I have "AS AN ANCHOR OF THE SOUL, BOTH SURE AND STEADFAST, AND WHICH ENTERETH INTO THAT WITHIN THE VEIL." (Hebrews 6:19)

Did I ever mention that I LOVE Hebrews? Try reading some verses from there during your communion service sometime.