I’ve seen this video posted by several people on Facebook today:
While I appreciate how this artist exalts Jesus Christ there is something seriously wrong with “Jesus v. religion”. It is a false dichotomy. Jesus himself was a very religious Jew. He went to temple. He didn’t disagree with the temple and sacrificial system, but like the Hebrew prophets before him he challenged the abuse of it. He participated in the feasts and holy days. He was baptized and he taught his followers to baptize. He knew Torah and he knew how many in his day interpreted Torah. In fact, he modeled many of his actions around motifs found in the Torah and his later followers interpreted his actions through this lens.
The author of the Book of Hebrews, the Apostle Paul, the Evangelists, and other early Christians didn’t attempt to explain Jesus in language distinct from the Judaism Jesus would have practiced but through the Judaism of his day. Jesus was remembered as a sacrificial lamb, a high priest, a prophet, a king, a new David, a new Moses, a new Adam, the Son of Man, and many other “religious” images.
Why am I nitpicking? Simple. Over the generations it has been easy to frame Jesus the post-religious lover of God v. the traditional, archaic religious Jews of his day. This is not the message that was intended by the Evangelists, the Apostle Paul, or the other early Christian writers. Rather, Jesus was seen as the one who followed Israel’s God as he should be followed. It wasn’t “religion v. relationship”. It was Jesus reshaping the people of God around himself. This is very different than an outright rejection of religion.
Eventually we begin to hear people pitting Jesus against Jews, or Muslims, or even Christians. Jesus is used as a poster-boy for people who want some mystical connection with him, but dislike the practices of others. It is “I don’t feel comfortable in a church so Jesus must not feel comfortable there either.”
If Jesus stands against anyone it is not because they are “religious”. Yes, some religions and religious practices can distract us from Jesus, but so can being irreligious!
If you participate in the Eucharist, if you were baptized, if you gather together to worship, if you pray, if you meditate, if you sing and play music, if you observe holy days, if you do any of these things you are using religious practices to connect with the risen Christ.
Let’s frame this as it should be framed: Jesus is against our sinful, anti-God behaviors. Jesus is against our worship of false gods and no-gods (and yes, sometimes religion can be a tool for this). Jesus is against our abuse of neighbor, our selfishness, our greed, our gluttony, and those practices that dehumanize us. Jesus is not against religion vis-à-vis religion.
Hey JohnDave,
Very well stated. Let’s not forget this false dichotomy has often been used to paint St Paul as being anti-Jewish or supercessionist. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment of this poet and his poetry, and think we should take the sentiment to heart while letting it remind us that we need to think critically about how we understand our faith, how we practice faith, and the interaction of faith and religion. I’m reading some canonical studies right now that emphasize the importance of thinking well about canon, canonization, epistemology, and the epistemic parameters we unwittingly superimpose upon our understanding of faith. Thanks for posting!
Pingback: Why I Love Jesus but Hate (bad) Religion? | What I See
I agree, Brian, and I commented on someone’s post about it. I essentially thing it’s not entirely accurate and a little misconstrued — but the heart and message of it is cloaked in post-modern chatter. The heart is accurate, the facts, not so much.
And it’s just not very good spoken word…full of cliche metaphors (and some stolen ones) and unnatural rhythmic flow (ie, quite sing-songy).
Thanks so much for your thoughts on it’s theology quality as well.
Excellent commentary on a very foolish video. I think it’s exceptionally gracious of you to respond to such empty-headed nonsense. The popularity of this attests to the sad state of religious education in this country. Leaving aside questions of accuracy, the argumentation (I won’t even call it “logic”) of this is completely devoid of structure.
But hey, it rhymes and is punchy and has trendy music and camera angles so, hey, it must be right.
Sigh.
Hi Brian LePort,
Thank you for this good response to the video. It is shared on my Facebook wall by a few friends too.
Your note is most helpful.
@Brian, you identify the argument as a false dichotomy, which is true (it is). The argument also contains another fallacy, namely “hasty generalization”
It is true some ‘religious’ folks lack faith (and are hypocrites), however that observation cannot be ‘generalized’ to the entire body of religious folks (even if you include in that group religious folks of other religions). Thus the ‘hasty generalization’ being made, is to be religious IS to lack faith.
I think people are looking at both the video and the article without a shared definition of religion. How do religion or religious actions, faith, lifestyle, and a relationship all fit together? The video seems more of a harsh and probably needed criticism of the church more then the broad generalization of religion.
I think the video does a good job of glorifying Christ over man-made religion (Col 2:23) I don’t think it is talking about true religion (James 1:26-27), but more the hypocrisies we have come to know from actions of man. I think one could easily show that he is talking about the religion towards the law of Moses. Great for showing us our weakness, but nobody will be saved by it alone (Rom 3:20)
I think the guy is less off base than these comments believe. Look at Paul’s use of the word religion in Acts 17 “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.”
Paul speaks of a time when he was pretty solid in a religious sense:
“If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith– Phil 3:4b-9
It even appears that Paul in that last passage set up a dichotomy of “man made religion” on one side, and Jesus on the other. Good works of my flesh vs Jesus…if you will. Paul counted anything he would have had from the works of the law, which I believe you could call religion, as nothing when counted against Christ.
What if it is not really Jesus versus or against religion, but Jesus IS GREATER than religion, which I think is a Biblical dichotomy, consistent throughout the Scriptures.
I’m just saying the guy is less off base than these comments would leave, I’m not saying he’s lining up perfect here, but hey he’ll boast in these weaknesses!
As for his cliches, sure maybe their are a few, but its also full of a lot of Scripture too. Nothing cliche about that in my book.
@David: Indeed, the Apostle Paul has been one of the greatest victims of this false dichotomy. Either he is the one who promotes “justification by faith” over against religion (which is part of why Luther struggled with the Book of James) or he is the one who made a religion out of the grassroots Jesus movement. Both views are distortions of the truth.
@James: Agreed, his heart toward Christ is a positive thing but his way of framing it is where the error can be founds.
@John: I’m no expert in spoken word, so I am not sure how to compare it to others.
@Joe: Thank you.
@Sze: Thank you.
@Andrew: True.
@Leslie: Agreed, there does seem to be confusion over what we mean by religion. This is part of the problem that I have with the video though. It assumes “religion” is “bad” by default. Even if the artist thinks to himself that he is not attacking “good” religion but only “bad” religion that doesn’t come out in the video.
@Josh: As I said to Leslie above my problem is not that he would attack false religion, per se. If this is what he is doing he is not clear. Rather, he is pitting Jesus against religion in general. At least that is how the video is understood by most.
As far as Paul’s views one could argue that he found the religion of the Athenians to be a useful bridge to proclaiming the gospel and therefore not bad, but merely not sufficient.
When he denounces his pedigree it is exactly that–a pedigree. He is saying his Jewishness means nothing without the Messiah. He isn’t denouncing religion.
Likewise, when we speak of “works of the Law” there has been much, much, much discussion on this matter by Pauline scholars over the last few decades. I think we can summarize this as not “Jesus v. religion” but Jewish identity as determined by particular acts of obedience to the Law (e.g. Sabbath, circumcision, etc) v. identity in Messiah. This is more about Paul’s Jewishness again, not religion. Again, we must consider the message of the Book of James that calls for us to be religious in the right way.
I have not seen the video (can’t at work!) but in my thinking Christ’s most vicious enemies were the religious leaders of His day. And maybe their resistance to Him was because He presented something so revolutionary that their entrenched religious mindset could not accept it (only the undeducated, the sinners who had nothing to lose could). He made claims that went against the accepted understanding, He claimed to be divine..I think in this sense religion can be a wall against God. One of the most jarring moments in my life was when I realized that if I had been living in Christ’s time I would have rejected Him too and this is because I had so much theology in my head that my theology and my way of thinking would not have permitted it. I think this is why He says that we have to be children first in order to enter the kingdom, we have to be vulnerable, open to wonder, open to trust.
@Ruben:
If we use this logic we could say Jesus opposed the “political” leaders of his day, therefore he was anti-politics. We could say he opposed the “Jewish” leaders of his day, therefore he was antisemitic. Yes, the leaders were religious (very few in Jesus’ day were not religious to some extent), but this doesn’t mean that Jesus opposition from and toward these people can be ahistoricized into “Jesus v. religion”.
@ruben I agree with Brian’s point above, but disagree that his enemies were ‘religious leaders’.
Rather they were ‘hypocritical religious leaders’ which are not the same. Clearly there were some ‘religious leaders’ who were silent advocates of Christ (such as Joseph of Arimathea [John 19:38][Mark 15:43][Luke 23:50], Nicodemus [John 3:1,4,9][John 7:50][John 19:39], and possibly Gamaliel [Acts 5:34]). From the narrative we cannot really differentiate one from the other, but clearly not all religious leaders were Jesus’ opponents, though certainly all of the hypocritical ones were.
Hey, David! Thanks for stopping by. This was actually posted by Brian LePort. I wish there was some way for WordPress to bold the author’s name or something. Anyway, I’d be interested to hear more about the canonical studies reading you’ve been doing. Maybe sometime in the next couple weeks we can do it over coffee.
To the extent that religion names the human attempt to control and dictate the terms of our relation to God, the root sin of Adam and Eve seeking to be gods ourselves, then God hates religion, as Barth so effectively argued in Church Dogmatics I/1.
To the the extent that religion names the structure and expression of the covenant as God has constructed it to be between God’s self and humans, then you are correct.
The trouble is we are equivocating, using the same term to refer to things that may look the same but are diametrically opposed. We need to work on disambugating these two approaches. The video is right about the first as you are about the second. Hopefully we can not talk past each other on this and recognize that too often we follow the Pharisees instead of Jesus in how we understand and practice religion.
The Whole Point to the Video is being overcomplicated. Its very simple and it is true. Religion by definition is just a set of beliefs followed by rituals and rules. That is not how God wants us to live our lives. Yes God gave us rules for us to follow, but he wants us to follow with our heart not just because of the fact that we need to or else we will go to Hell or just because… Our Father in Heaven gave his only son so that we can now have a relationship with him. A relationship not a religion. That is the whole point; for people to stop living by a set of rules and regulations only, and to start living the way we were created to live. To live our lives with the holy spirit in our hearts and to actually allow it to transform our lives.
@Christian Baptism/Communion are rituals; do you categorize them as falling in the domain of ‘religion’?
BTW I’m jealous of your cool boxy icon thing. It seems to be uniquely generated on your email address, and I’m not keen on the green chaotic one I’m stuck with ….
@Michael:
I agree with your qualifications. Religion as good or bad is determined by how it is practiced and what it produces.
@Christian:
I don’t think it is an overcomplicated. It did not do a good job of avoiding a blanket condemnation of religion vis-à-vis religion. Furthermore, Christianity is not a religion void of “rules and regulation”. Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. He taught his disciples how to love neighbor more than self, turn the other cheek, and the like. We can call this “relationship” all we want, but it is “rules and regulations”. When we follow Jesus we are promised grace, but not antinomianism.
What works in pop culture doesn’t always work in academia. I think when people refer to “religion” in most (pop) circles, they aren’t making an indictment on the literal, theological definition of religion — but on the attitude, brokenness and ugliness of religion (what Brian called “Bad religion”).
This is why, though I see error and some broad-brushing in the video, it’s nevertheless a needed criticism and good message, even if using some naive hyperbole, framing the role of the Church on earth.
And Brian, though the Church has “rules and regulations,” it is not “about” rules and regulations. This is a good message for the unchurched to see IMO.
Fallacious on one level, helpful and needed on another. I mostly agree with Leslie in that regard,
I think one of the problems with this video is its reliance on a particular definition of religion that most people would never adopt if they weren’t previously indoctrinated to accept it. I grew up in the church and so I kind of get the whole “Christianity’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” thing, but only kind of. It still depends on a definition of religion that is overly complicated and not one anyone would ever arrive at intuitively. When I think of religion I think of a set of beliefs about God and how we relate to him and he to us. Pretty simple. I don’t automatically think about rules and rituals though I don’t necessarily think those things have no part in it. The highly nuanced way of looking at religion that this video relies upon is not a very helpful one. I suspect that if I were to tell an unchurched person that I was a Christan but not religious I’d get some blank stares at best and maybe be dismissed as someone who was being disingenuous.
I think the problem is, this “religion vs. relationship” argument relies on a definition of religion that is only used by Christians who are trying to prove that they hate “religion.” I’ve never heard anyone who isn’t a part of an evangelical circle describe their religion as their attempt to earn God’s favor.
@JohnDave:
Hey man, yeah, I thought it was your post, but I’m grateful for the post either way. Let’s catch up soon.
@everyone who has commented on the definition of religion issue:
The issue of definition is one piece of the puzzle, but I think it is worth noting that underlying assumptions offer another way of critiquing the religion vs. relationship dichotomy. That is to say, it’s not only the potential or actual reality of a shared definition of religion (for example, Luther was not quite willing to accept St James’s view of true religion [cf. James 1:26-27]), but what one assumes about others’ understandings of even agreed upon definitions. For example, two or more persons might agree that religion consists in (to use a couple of Ninian Smart’s well-known seven dimensions of religion) doctrinal beliefs, ethical frameworks, rites and customs, etc., but one of those person might see assume a non-relational practice of all these dimensions while another might assume that doctrine, ethics, etc. are intrinsically relational (e.g., covenant theology which assumes that the aspects of religious thought and practice are founded upon God’s expression of and expectation of relationship via covenantal expectations). I’ll leave ontological and epistemological points for another time/place, but it’s worth considering that events, practices, rules, and rituals have historically since the earliest centuries of the Church (and before, in Israelite religion) been understood as a means of grace, as a way of relating. It is simply nonsense to say that one is in a relationship with another if there are no means (practices, beliefs, expectations) by which one is so related. E.g., It would be absurd to argue thus: I have a relationship with my mom, who gave birth to me, though I never talk to her, never join her for a meal, never celebrate or mourn with her, never commemorate important memories or moments of our shared lives via rituals (like birthday parties, anniversaries, etc.), never talk to others about her, don’t speak with her, give gifts to her, receive gifts from her, nor listen to her, don’t share in her experiences. If the only aspect of our relationship is the fact that she gave me birth, and thus life, but no acts of relating have followed since, then to call it a relationship is less than meaningless.
Pingback: Page not found « Near Emmaus
Pingback: Christianity against religion? « Near Emmaus
@James: I’m not addressing it as an academic though (I’m using a blog). I am addressing it as a Christians worried about how other Christians speak of Christianity. I think Justin’s point is a good one (below comment)–Jesus v. religion is something made up in Christian circles. I don’t know that it makes a lot of sense to outsiders. We may think it is relevant, but I think it is just another one of our insider slogans.
@Chuck: Good observations.
@Justin: Agreed.
I’ve given this topic further consideration here: http://nearemmaus.com/2012/01/12/christianity-against-religion/
I think theres many definitions of Religion, so it really depends on how you define it yourself.
Like for me, I don’t see worshipping, gatherings, church, etc. as a religious routine, i simply see it as love. If that’s simply just a routine, i guess me telling my wife i love her and me kissing her is all just a routine?
@T: Even if these actions are done in love they are religious. It is one thing to kiss one’s spouse. It is another thing to take bread and wine, speak of it as the broken body and shed blood of one’s Lord, to pass it around, eat it, believe it does something for one’s soul, and to do it because it was a tradition handed from generation to generation for two thousand years as a form of worship to a deity.
I noticed the video as well, and was not surprised. I read not too long ago, a philosophy professor noting that people are unaware of the fallacy of equivocation. Eric Reitan wrote “the fallacy of using the same term in different sense in the course of a single argument or discussion, without noticing the shift.” (Reitan, 16). As you mentioned, it is a false dichotomy. Moreover, it ignores the cultural aspect of a large part of the New Testament (I’d estimate about 30 years of Jesus’ life
).
@Roger: That is another fallacy indeed. I’d say Jesus’ religious life began on the eighth day of his life when he was circumcised!
Brian, of course many other bloggers are biting on this one too:
http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=4970
I think it has some semblance of meaning to outsiders. Of course this is all subjective. But it’s all in the same line as a Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus — and though the rhetoric isn’t technically accurate, I find the spirit of it all basically saying: “All that ugly stuff you’ve heard about religion — the wars, the bickering, the gay hating, the abortion-bombing, the judgementalism, etc” — this is not what Jesus is about. In fact, I think most people will agree with the whole “I like Jesus but not the Church.” They see a disconnect in the (albeit limited) knowledge they have of Jesus and what their perceptions are of the Church.
So why I get yours and Scott’s objections (see the link), and this is all making for wonderful dialogue, I also get the simplistic, one-dimensional meaning of the rhetoric that is being used.
I agree it’s not technically correct, it can be misconstrued in bad ways — but I don’t think it confuses unbelievers, and who’s worried about dogmatic atheists? They think it’s all fairy-tale Hocus Pocus anyhow.
At the same time, this is a great sermon — play the video and have a talk as faith communities. It’s clear this is not just mincing definitions of “religion” (one more formal, one used loosely and descriptive-like), but pointing out some of the dangers of separating ourselves from the – yes, “institution” and history of religious faith. It makes for great dialogue. We can fine-tune and steer the theological implications of this all, but also listen and hear what is being said. It’s not an attack on churches or even literal religion itself. It’s a pop culture vernacular, a using of idioms to have a Luther-like protest about some of what others perceive the Church to be all about. We can disagree on the wisdom of that road, but I admire the enthusiasm and the passion behind it. To me, it’s one level and layer of people connecting with God in a way they can resolve their objections.
We can love it for what it is. Glad you are posting about it. Lots of people want to talk about it.
@James:
I understand what they are trying to do, but I think the problem with war is war, and homophobia is homophobia, and you get the point. If there things were done exclusively by religious people it would be one thing, but they are not. At the end of the day the adverse effect is a pop-Christianity stripped off the religious elements that make it what it is. This results in church as Starbucks or church as business. These models fall far short of church as a religion.
@Brian I hear ya… and I in no way endorse that Hipster, “church as starbucks” model.
Like the Occupy Movement, and other “revolts,” I’m finding a way to support the bottom-line restlessness, of living in a post-Christian world —- many of these issues are not exclusive from Christianity either. I would argue Christianity itself HAS indeed done itself a disservice in Public Relations. Of course, our family is broad and diverse, and that’s part of the challenge (ie, Pat Robertson).
I enjoyed the topic anyway — both the video and the criticisms. Found both helpful.
Pingback: Does Jesus Hate Religion?
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
Proverbs 27:17
New King James Version (NKJV)
17 As iron sharpens iron,
So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
This verses
It depends on the religion…If the religion is drawing the people away from GOD or if the people are just doing because its a tradition then Jesus doesn’t like it. If the religion is doing what is written in the bible then Jesus will support it.
@Brian LePort
Circumcision doesn’t mean anything …. It was a ritual and a tradition…. Jesus had to do human stuff because He was in a human body. His parents were a Jew and He had to follow their rituals. Jesus is not religious… He is GOD why will he be religious on himself. He knew he was the Son of God and he went to the temple to teach not to be religious.
Brian, check this out. @PastorTullian: Religion And The Gospel http://t.co/1KHEfd6I
@Earl:
It was a ritual and tradition commended by God to Moses. Yes, Jesus participated to fulfill the Law, but not merely to “do human stuff” as if the incarnation is God pretending to be human.
You should revisit your Christology friend. Don’t forget Jesus was a real human.
@Brian LePort
Christ leads by example. His relationship between God the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit as well to clarify) shows much of what we’re meant to do as well. As His communion in the Trinity works…so should the church be united with itself as well as longing for Him.
Jesus was in a human body but he was still the Son of God.
When you say ‘in a human body’ are you denying he was fully man? Are you saying he was just dwelling in it as a vehicle of sorts?
“…my problem is not that he would attack false religion, per se. If this is what he is doing he is not clear. Rather, he is pitting Jesus against religion in general. At least that is how the video is understood by most.”
As with most things, it’s in the eye of the beholder. As I watched the video, it resonated with me because I have dealt with those not living the “true religion” described in scripture. Maybe I wasn’t going deep enough to dig out the false dichotomy, but at first glance I felt I knew exactly what he meant. I think the video will hit different people differently based upon their theology and experiences, much like most other things. I think when presented with the video, it provides an opportunity for each side to explain their perspective vs. dismissing it out of hand.
Pingback: Jesus vs Religion [1] – What Do You Think? | DesperateTheologian
@Brian LePort
No, I’m not denying that he was a fully man ..and BTW we don’t need to look at those links that you were telling us to go.. cause we can just look in the bible. It is living and it is the truth. I’m just saying that Jesus should be the center of everything and not focusing in the religion. Beside There is only one mediator between us and God and It’s Jesus Christ (Accepting Him as Lord and Saviour…. Not Christianity, Baptist, Catholicism and more. You need a personal relationship with Him!
@Brian LePort
Lastly another truth why we don’t need religion to go to heaven….was when the very sinful man that was beside Jesus when they were being crucified, confessed all of his sin directly to the son of God and through his faith he was saved. We don’t need religion, that tells us we are going to purgatory before we go to even… even though it is written than there is only heaven and hell, or we don’t need to be baptized to go to heaven because the sinful man that was being crucified went to heaven without being baptized. The answer of everything we are arguing about is…John 3:16 (New International Version)
John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.