On Religion and Perspectival Explanations

By Glenn Plastina

As an evangelical Christian, the issue on religion can be an enormous challenge. Religion, and those concepts related to it—i.e. religiosity, institution, ritual, spirituality, etc.—are needful phenomena that require careful attention. Secularization is a deep challenge to evangelicals also. While it can be explained that secularization came from within the portals of the Christianity, it is not a threat to Christendom alone, but to religion also. It is evident that evangelicalism has down played the importance of religion; this is perhaps in the emphasis of the evangel (gospel) and missions. But one of the major consequences of this streamline attitude has proved to be disastrous and negative. While there was a widespread support to mission and the propagation of the gospel, the recipients were also deprived of their religious heritage. In fact, in the eyes of the indigenous people, Christianity is the main proponent of “de-religionizing” nations.
The phenomenon of religion, on the other hand, impacted the interest and curiosity of mankind for a long time in history. There have been explanations offered to explore the vast meaning of religion. Some of the point of references utilized to explain the origin of religion was institutional, anthropological, societal, psychological, etc. This only proves that there is no one way of looking at religion. As a phenomenon it can be approached through various lenses. Since it is older than any observer, only a theory can be offered to express its origin, meaning, and destiny. Its nature can be explained based only on available facts. As far as the researcher and observer can avail these facts, it is the only means by which one can presuppose the development of religion in human history.
Of course, explaining religion can never be confined to what is in hand. What I mean here is that: explaining religion can be perspectival.
The exploration of the phenomenon of religion is like doing theology. With available facts in hand, a center point of reference can be a potential lens of explaining the origin, nature, and essence of religion. What made the theories of Weber, Freud, Jung, etc. worked were their originality and eloquence of presenting their cases with convincing support from observable facts. Oftentimes, it is just a believable “speculations” that makes sense. Yet one thing remians: each of them can never do away with the center point by which they do things together. They all need a central perspective in seeing and proving their desired explanations and arguments on the origin, nature, and essence of religion.
This observation looks forward for a potential and new explanation on the significance of religion, not only its relationship with the community, society, institution but to self also. It is something more than psychoanalytical, trans-relational, or meta-phenomenal—maybe a perspective of religion in the light of hope.