Different opinions about
the essence of religion

Speaking of Religion
The Rev. Dr. Tim Griffin

Over the years, different answers have been given to the question of the essence of religion. Recent answers, arising out of the skeptical and scientific bias of the modern period, often emphasize social control through threats of punishment or reward in an afterlife.
For example, Marx held that religion is an "opiate for the masses" designed to pacify the poor with promises of rewards in an afterlife while the wealthy enslaved them in this life. Nietzsche also maintained that religion is a means of social control, but he held, in contrast to Marx, that religion is a system devised by the weaker members of society to control and dominate the naturally superior individuals among them.
In this connection, Nietzsche and Marx were following a line of thought that may be traced back to Plato. He had asserted, in one of his more pragmatic moments, that even if belief in reward and punishment after death is not true, it is good for the belief to be fostered as a way of controlling behavior.
Less skeptical and more faithful answers have been provided to the question, however. Jesus taught that the essence of religion is found in the Torah’s teachings about love of God and neighbor. He illustrated the meaning of "neighbor" in what has come to be known as the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10: 29-37).
However we often fail to appreciate the full force of Jesus’ parable. In part, his intent was to show what it means to be a neighbor. The despised Samaritan, in contrast to the priest and Levite, satisfied the law of love by caring for one beaten and left for dead.
But the parable also shows that those despised and condemned by the "faithful," as a Samaritan would have been by Jesus’ Jewish audience, can realize the essence of religion by fulfilling the law of love. In other words, Jesus shows that the judgment of conventional religious wisdom is flawed when it judges according to standards other than love.
(In order to see this point more clearly, substitute your own despised group for the Samaritan. Doing so will tell you much about Jesus’ sensibilities and about yourself.)
The Sufi poet Rumi also identified love as the essence of religion. In one of his poems emphasizing this theme he says: "The clear bead at the center changes everything. There are / no edges to my loving now. You’ve heard it said there’s / a window from one mind to another, but if there’s / no wall, there’s no need for fitting that window or that latch. (The Soul of Rumi, p. 53).
Rumi’s point is that when we learn to love, we discover that the walls of separation built up by our judgments and prejudices are unreal. When we love, we join the clear bead at the center that changes everything by changing us.
There is a sharp contrast between these perspectives. Those who accept the former perspective erect walls to keep those they condemn out, while the latter see love as the heart of religion and condemn none except those whose greed and hardheartedness harm others.
The former are suspicious of and threatened by those who think or live differently, and they see God as an enforcer of a sterile conformity rather than the creator of a vibrant diversity. The latter understand that religion is not a system of rewards and punishments. The point of religion is love and relationship. They realize that the love they have for God, others and themselves is a gift from God — a gift that cannot be earned.
In response to this love, they work for justice, not because they believe they will thereby "earn" God’s favor, but because it is the proper response of love. And the former are concerned with their individual salvation, while the latter are concerned to minimize the suffering of all humanity, particularly the suffering of the marginalized.
When the contrast between these positions is presented so starkly we may wonder how Marx and Nietzsche could have supposed their caricature of religion was legitimate. But before we dismiss this caricature out of hand, it is worth reflecting on whether it is not an accurate portrayal of what often passes for religious belief and practice. And we should ask ourselves if it is not an accurate portrayal of our attitude as well. ••
Father Tim Griffin is priest-in-charge at the St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, at 1946 Welsh Road in Bustleton.