Skip to main content

Religion Revisited

I used to believe that my religion caused me to be unrealistically disciplined and separated from the world. In my mind, in fact, "religion" was a word with strong negative connotations, something wholly separate from the word "faith." To me, religion was mechanical in nature, that hollow practice of denying yourself certain things-- not because of a changed heart, brought about by a personal and loving God-- but out of duty. The god of religion, to me, ordered you to be something without telling you why; while the God of faith freed you, changed you for the better, and welled up in you a desire to be more like him. The god of religion was like any other god: impersonal, demanding, and untouchable. Because of the way I felt my life was going (specifically in my late teens and early twenties), I tended to be ashamed of my faith, because it wasn't genuine.

Indeed it wasn't. My belief system was neither informed nor tempered by the stabilizing presence of friends and fellow believers. Instead, I lived out my own version of Christianity, one that seemed to me very much like that of the monks of ancient Christendom (I'm exaggerating some). I'm learning, however, that this tendency to deny yourself, while still a very spiritual thing, is not just "religious," but very, very human.

Before monks ever became associated with the word "ascetic" ("someone who abstains from the normal pleasures of life"), in fact, and long before I grew to practice my own (often skewed) belief system, men and women were denying themselves for things ostensibly separate from any religion. I am convinced, in fact, that men like Epicurus-- who held that a person should deny bodily pleasures-- still influence our worldviews today. Given the extremes to which they would go to be prepared for war, however, a more telling example of this asceticism was the Spartan soldier. Hopefully, the following illustration of the Spartan life will show that asceticism was present before the Christian church came into formal being.

From birth, a Spartan was expected to be strong. To test the child’s strength, the mother would bathe it in wine. If the child survived, he or she was taken to the tribal leaders to determine whether or not it was strong enough to be raised. If it was not, the child would be left to die on a mountain called Apothetae, “the Place of Rejection.” If it was, it would be raised until age seven, when a male child entered the military.

While in the military, the child could expect only the most basic and difficult living arrangements. These children were required to endure, for example, an event called the “gauntlet,” in which they would run around older children and be flogged (sometimes to death). Since they slept in the open, wearing only light clothing, they would sometimes put thistles in their palettes because the prickling feeling made them feel warmer. After leaving this military school, some of these soldiers were sent with nothing into the country to survive on their own. It was only after this, at age twenty, that the Spartan became a soldier in a group called the “syssitia.” He lived in the same barracks, ate with, and relied on the other soldiers, with very few comforts. He was encouraged to marry, but could not live with his wife until age thirty. These soldiers purposely stayed away from luxury, fine foods, and leisure, because they wanted to remain disciplined and devoted to the state. Their legacy has become so famous, in fact that we use the word “Spartan” today to describe someone who lives with great discipline and simplicity.

This is just one example of extra-religious asceticism, but it is enough for me to see that devotion and worship are very human characteristics. The target of that devotion, I'm finding, will determine-- as it did with me-- a person's attitude toward others and toward himself. In short, what you worship is what you become.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as