Lewis then addresses the question of 'religion' per se, noting that the term implies that it is one of many 'departments' of life. However, this cannot be true. God has a complete and unending demand on humanity. Hence, there is no action that can be outside of religion. Instead, actions are graded on how much they adhere to God's will. Lewis says all actions are religious or irreligious, but I would formulate it as depending on what God would want the person to do at a given moment, in a given circumstance. Of course, there is not necessarily one, unique, optimal action for someone to perform at a given time. There may be many, and it might depend on the individual's personality, talents, and general state.
Note, that for now Lewis is speaking of religion as a series of actions, and Lewis correctly notes that activities and actions that are colloquially assumed to be secular, may in fact be sacred and religious. If we are to correct this misunderstanding, we must determine what it is that people call religious and why do people build walls between 'religious' and 'secular'.
Lewis correctly takes issue with a religious paper which declared that nothing is more important than teaching children to use the sign of the cross. He asks, "Nothing? Not compassion, nor veracity, nor justice?" However, Lewis' examples of things more important are inappropriate. He states there are concepts and ideas that are more important than using the sign of the cross, when he should have stated, "Nothing? Not giving charity, not telling the truth when a lie is more convenient, not judging truthfully?"
I bring this up not to bit nitpicky but to highlight a point of contention between Christianity and Judaism. In Christianity the seven deadly sins envy, pride, greed, and so on, are character traits, not actions. In Judaism actions are the focus - not that character trait is unimportant, lest we put the entire musar movement out of business, and dismiss Pirkei Avot and whole swaths of the Talmud and Maimonides. But a sin is an action or a lack thereof, while a character trait is what will catalyze a sin.
Now, I bring this up because within the context of Judaism with its laws and ritual commands it is much easier to discuss, if not necessarily to differentiate, religious versus secular actions. There are actions which are scripturally commanded and are thus clearly religious. For example, learning Torah, eating matzah of Passover, giving charity to the poor, and doing kindness to other such as returning a lost object to its owner. Then there are actions that are rabbinically commanded and would also be religious actions, like lighting Chanukkah candles, and various prayers. And then there are a wide range of customs and the like that we may also regard as religious, but where we probably give extra importance to context, like blessing one's children on Friday night.
OK, so all of the above, ritualistic or between man and his fellow are religious. And people may differentiate those actions from what is secular. So, what is secular? Well, presumably people would say anything not part of one of the above lists is secular. But that is not strictly true! I can go watch a movie and maybe that action appears secular. But if I derive lessons from the movie to motivate myself to improve my ways, or as a source of relaxation to serve God better tomorrow, is it still secular? And if I don't use the watching of the movie for a positive purpose, perhaps I'm just wasting time which would be religious in a negative way!
I believe this is what Lewis has in mind. Opening a secular transaction with a prayer does not make the transaction religious. But carrying out that transaction honestly and fairly certainly does.
No comments:
Post a Comment