UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE

a system. But when the concept of a system is treated as the sole unifying factor that brings its different elements together into a whole, it becomes clearly mistaken— and this is the central error of this line of thought. This approach studies religion mainly as a “system” of life. In its view, the overall framework through which the entire religion can be understood is its being a system. In reality, the essential nature of religion is that it defines the relationship between God and the human being. Religion is not merely a legal system like other systems; rather, it represents the inner bond between a human being and God. Once religion is put into practice, it does include all those elements which together may be described as a “system of life.” However, being a system is only one outcome of religion in practice. It is a secondary feature, not the essence of religion. Studying religion under the theme of a “system” involves the same kind of error as that made by those who proposed, for the study of the human being, the theory that man is a social animal. It is true that, once practical details are taken into account, a human being does become, in one sense, a social or civil creature. However, the social or civil aspect is not the essential nature of the human being; it is only a manifestation of that essential nature. The true essence