Out With the New
Wow, has it really been a month since my last post? It certainly isn’t because I don’t have anything on my mind. It is a time/motivation thing. So, since I am writing now I must have something worthwhile to say? Maybe.
I’ve had several conservations over the past couple of years about religion. Yes, probably more than several. In particular though, these conversations centered around the most pure, earliest, oldest or the most correct form of a given religion. There is a continuing effort, it seems to me, by people of all religions to try to “get back to the roots” of their respective religions. It is as if they are saying that the current forms are somehow deficient. I find this fascinating.
Obviously, over time religions “evolve”. As people and cultures change, religious expression and understanding also undergo changes of their own. But, when people become unsatisfied by current religious forms, what are they trying to recover by going back in time? I would venture a guess that there is some connection in their minds between time and accuracy. The older the religious practice, the more pure (read: correct) it must be. Naturally, if this is our position, one would look to the oldest practices to find solace in their religion. But doesn’t this make a fatal mistake? Doesn’t it elevate the people of the past into positions that they themselves would not lay claim to? Namely, that they alone understood what the correct religion looked like or that they were less likely to make errors of judgment? I don’t think the devout peoples in antiquity would touch that with a 10-foot pole.
This grows more acute when there are religious figures in the mix. Even if these religious figures are elevated to some perfection because of some innate power, does it follow that emulating their religious practices would lead one to the correct understanding and practices of a religion? Doesn’t this commit the same error? It removes the figures from their historical setting. If they are a part of history, then aren’t they also constrained in some ways by space and time? I think there is a sort of reverse chronological snobbery at play here. Anything “old” is good, anything “new” is bad. Or, maybe, “the older the better”.
Why were the ancient caretakers of religion any more or less human, imperfect or prone to error than us? I don’t think they were any of those things. I think it is more a modern phenomena. Maybe it is a means to preserve and connect with a larger community. Maybe the current religious experiences are devoid of any real content, meaning or force. But is the answer to this that twe revert back to 2500 year old practices? I don’t think so.