Nonreligious person

How often have you heard that little caveat as prelude to a profound discussion? It surfaces repeatedly on news and talk programs as well as the myriad websites and blogs that comprise our digital town hall. People inevitably chalk being a “religious person” to personal preference, like it's a coincidence of birth or casual choice. It’s not much different than whether someone is a “dog person,” likes Thai food, or hates the Yankees. It’s a value-neutral perspective, with no objective basis in truth or reality.

This notion that someone either is or is not a “religious person” presents significant implications for Christian evangelism. Several come quickly to mind:

Denying truth

First, it denies the universal imperative that everyone needs a personal relationship with God in Christ. Christians understand all people sin, or miss the mark of God’s ideal plan for their lives (Romans 3:23). The natural result is eternal estrangement from God, but we are offered reconciliation with God that lasts forever (6:23). God loved us so much that Christ died to make this happen (5:8). All that is required of us is to acknowledge, “Jesus is Lord” (10:9, 13). When this happens, we make peace with God (5:1), and absolutely nothing can separate us from God’s love (8:38-39).

If the world is divided into the religious and nonreligious, then no single truth applies to everyone. Any explanation of sin, estrangement, redemption and reconciliation only applies to the “religious person” and is limited to that person’s subjective view of reality. The nonreligious receive a get-out-of-hell-free card simply because they are not interested in heaven or hell. It’s just not for them.

Trumping transcendence

Second, it diminishes, or maybe reinterprets, the human desire to seek transcendence—something beyond oneself. This is one of the battlegrounds of science vs. religion. If religion is a purely personal choice, then something elsemust explain all that lies both beneath and beyond the surface of human existence. Ta-da! It’s science.

Unfortunately, too many religious people have been suckered into this dichotomy. They fail to understand faith/religion addresses the Who and why of all the big questions of existence, while science seeks to explain what and how.

Denying spiritual meaning

Third, it glosses over the substantive understanding of the spiritual meaning of events. This probably is a corollary of the second issue. Every day, the news is filled with events that are crammed with spiritual significance—from oil spills, to earthquakes and volcanoes, to wars and global recession, to divorces and car wrecks and a million more. The “not a religious person” crowd can’t possibly mine the depth and complexity of this life if they don’t contemplate the possibility that what happens on Earth is full of religious meaning.

Equating faith with fanatics

Fourth, it unfairly lumps the faithful and the fanatics into the same category. Someone who says, “I’m not a religious person” implies the world is divided into two and only two camps. And then the differences between sweet-spirited people who sacrificially serve others and the zealots who blow up, brand and butcher others in their god’s name.

Gateway to conversation

The idea that the world is divided into religious and nonreligious people presents a significant challenge, in part because it is so pervasive. But we can turn pervasiveness into opportunity—through thoughtful, respectful, directed conversation.

When someone professes not to be a “religious person,” why not ask, “What do you mean by that?” Most people are more religious than they let on, particularly if someone carefully and considerately connects the dots for them. Use the conversation to explore the links between events in the world and what you know about God. And in talking about the God you know, demonstrate how pure religion is all about a relationship with God experienced through Christ.