For some time now there has been a sentiment floating around, which frequently gets summed up as "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion". This has spawned a broad array of responses and variants, culminating recently in Jefferson Bethke's video seen here. With the video, however, came a flood of comments that ultimately raises the question of whether or not this sentiment is theologically correct. Jefferson describes his stance under his video by saying:
A poem I wrote to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion. In the scriptures Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At it's core Jesus' gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered. This poem highlights my journey to discover this truth. Religion either ends in pride or despair. Pride because you make a list and can do it and act better than everyone, or despair because you can't do your own list of rules and feel "not good enough" for God. With Jesus though you have humble confident joy because He represents you, you don't represent yourself and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with God!
Similarly, the blog post where the article picture was pulled from uses this definition:
1. An organized system or institution of belief based upon the traditions of men instead of the pursuit of friendship with God. 2. The act of playing church, exchanging internal truths for external performance; substituting spiritual relities with carnal rituals.
Random House dictionary, however, defines 'religion' as:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
By this definition, Christianity is absolutely a religion. And by simply comparing these, the source of the problem becomes clear. The reason so many people are reacting negatively to the videos and comments denouncing religion isn't that they are presenting false theology, but because they are not using a universally accepted definition of the term - which is an incredibly common problem and will undoubtedly show up again in this column.
That is, when one says, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship," the statement only makes sense to those who use that particular definition for the word 'religion'. To everyone else, it just comes off as though the speaker does not understand the subject matter. After all, the Bible itself proclaims that there is such a thing as right and proper religion. But then, we portray to the world a divided front by arguing amongst ourselves about whether or not the statement makes sense, rather than coming together and finding out why this difference in definition is happening.
The problem here is that the English language, at least to most people, lacks a sufficient term for this usage that is accepted universally. The reason for this is actually rather simple: if there was a word that meant, specifically, "any belief system created by man" and another that meant "the one true belief system handed down by God", there would not be a consensus on which religion gets to use which term. Every religion would use the latter for themselves and the former for everyone else, and atheists and agnostics would use the former for everyone and disavow the latter word entirely. So we end up with a situation in which people would like to succintly describe the Christian faith, as what makes it unique, and lack a short way to describe it. What, then, can we do? Well, allow this article to offer three bits of advice.
For those taking the anti-religion stance: perhaps reconsider your choice of words. If you are, in fact, presenting theological truth, then try to find a way to ensure that your audience understands what you're saying. Remember that there are a lot of terms and usages that make perfect sense within the church but are not sufficiently understood outside of it. Consider your audience.
For those arguing against the above group: consider the way this discussion is being looked at from the outside. Will arguing over semantics show the world the love of Christ, or will it show them that we are a divided and argumentative lot? Consider offering clarification rather than condemnation. Remember that many of these people are not offering anything theologically inaccurate, but rather truths about our faith that aren't translating as well as you may like.
And for anyone who actually takes the stance that feeling right and being moved spiritually are actually more important than theology: knock it off. As Paul Washer once said:
We live in an age that says, ‘I don’t want any of that doctrine stuff, I just want Jesus. I don’t want any of that theology stuff, I just want God.’ Well, there’s a problem there. When you say, ‘I don’t want theology, I just want God’ you’re saying I want all the benefits of God, but I don’t want to know anything about Him. When you say, ‘I just want Jesus, I don’t want any doctrine.’ Doctrine comes from a Hebrew word meaning teaching. You’re saying: ‘I want all the benefits of Jesus, but I don’t want any of His teaching.’
Christianity is a religion, founded by Jesus, so that through Him we may come into a right relationship with God. Be careful that we do not emphasize any aspect of that to such a degree that we lose sight of the rest.
Comments