Hmm, if an idea is a heresy or not is something that is to be
tested on the grounds of theology, not mere labels or mudwords to
throw around in hope that they stick.
If C.K. is talking about the elimination of dead ritual and dogma
in the conduct of faith then I would agree with him. However if
such a statement is made with the assumption that having a direct
contact with God would generate a totally new system of work that
is better then the older established one is just that, an
assumption. If you would want to call this new work a religion or
not is really a matter of labels, but I have always supposed that
one ought to do religion for God's sake, and not religion for
religon's sake, if it has become that way, then it ought to be
dismantled.
But I do not for a moment think that God is too small that He has
to work in any one way. Granted many of the so-called revolutions
turned out simply to be a restoration of that which had been lost
to dead ritual and dogma. Also I note that Jesus didn't come to
destroy the law by abolishing it, but rather by completing it with,
as Aslan would put it: 'a deeper magic from beyond the beginning of
time'.
So some might want to call the walk of faith a religion, some may
want to call it a relationship, what I do know is what it is, and
certainly what it is also not.
