"Imagine...no religion too."
Sometimes I am surprised at how antagonistic some Christians are toward religion. Recently a video of a spoken word artist placing Jesus over against religion has gone viral. Many Christians seem to enjoy it though they don’t realize how paradoxical this must seem to outsiders (read my concerns in “Remember, Jesus practiced religion too!”). Contrary to their self-evaluation they are religious people. If you tell an atheist or agnostic that as a Christian you don’t have a religion, but a “relationship with God”, you come across as mincing words or as someone who lives in a state of denial.
Whether or not you think Christianity is a superior religion to other religions for the very basic reason that Christianity focuses on Jesus Christ (an assertion with which I would agree) it is contradictory for a Christian to oppose religion vis-à-vis religion. Christians are religious. We pray, meditate, sing songs, play music, participate in sacraments like baptism and Eucharist, give alms and offerings, read from our Scripture, gather together as a community often on a particular day of the week, observe holy days, proselytize, and so forth and so on. We are not areligious. Our “relationship” with Jesus is not free of religious practice like one’s relationship with their parent, sibling, or spouse.
I understand what Christians are saying when they place Jesus against religion, but I think we need to abandon this project because it is not the best way of saying it.
Let me push this a bit further: Even if we Christians think Hinduism or Islam insufficient because it doesn’t include Jesus Christ the Son of God who brings people to God the Father do we prefer a world without religion?
Some people will solicit religion to support their evil deeds (e.g. al-Qaeda). Others have used their atheism to do the same (think of some forms of communism). People are good at justifying their actions. We can use anything to support our goals and aims. So religion itself is not the root of evil. On the contrary, for many, religion gives them a sense of moral obligation. It causes them to seek something higher than themselves. I know it can cause people to stop thinking, but often it forces people to think deeply.
In other words, “religion” is something of a blank slate as regards its impact on the world around us.
If I were not a Christian I’d probably be agnostic. As a teenager I claimed to be a Deist because I was pretty sure some god or gods existed, but I thought this god or these gods were impersonal and disinterested in our species. I am not someone who wants to be religious for the sake of being religions. In fact, if I weren’t a Christian I’d find much freedom in agnosticism since I wouldn’t feel obligation to much anything beyond my own self interest. Yes, without Christianity I’d be quite the jerk. (If you don’t believe me go introduce yourself to some LePorts from my family line. You’ll see what I mean.)
Even at that, I think religion forces many people to think about morality, right and wrong, justice, and their treatment others. Much like political affiliation or nationalism it can be used for evil, but often it is used for good, at least more good than individualism or anarchy!
Surely, one can act morally without religious beliefs (though the grounds for such actions are difficult to sustain at times), but that is beside the point. I wonder if Christians who speak against religion, knowing very well that the whole world is not going to convert to Christianity tomorrow, actually believe that it would be a better world if the only two camps were Christians and atheist/agnostics/Deists? When Anthony Flew went from being an atheist to a theist many Christians fell out of their chair with excitement because an intelligent person presumed that there was a god rather than no god. Many of these same Christians will mindlessly chant that religion is stupid, misguided, or even evil. Why?
I am a Christian because my religion includes Jesus Christ. I am religious and yes, I think Christianity is the best religion in the world because of the person at the center. In fact, I think Jesus is the only Savior of humanity. While God may use other religions to bring people to him I confess that through Jesus alone comes salvation (though I am an inclusivist so I am open to Christ’s work being applied to those who do not know him). Like the Athenians who met the Apostle Paul I think many religious people are good, moral, and in a better place in the world because of their religion than if they abandoned belief altogether. This doesn’t mean I think we should settle for letting religious people go their merry way without proclaiming Christ crucified and risen, but concepts like “god”, “worship”, “morality”, and the like are not negatives when we preach the Gospel. In fact, they may be areas of shared interest that allow Jesus to be better understood (though, admittedly, they can prevent someone from being open to Christ).
I say all that to say this: I’d rather live in a world with religious people than a world of atheism and nihilism (yes, yes, I know, not all atheist are bad, immoral, and purposeless). While I would that every man and woman knew Jesus Christ by the Spirit I don’t expect this to happen tomorrow. Contrary to John Lennon I don’t want to imagine a world were there is no religion. I don’t think it would be a world of peace. I think it would be something much worse.
Well said. Talk such as Bonhoeffer’s about “religionless Christianity” is interesting, but it comes down to mere wordplay. It all depends on what you mean by “religion.” So, like everything, it comes back to language. =)
Thank you for a good post about the religion of Christianity.
@Jeremy
True, it depends on the language game within which one finds his or herself. That being said, I think rethinking the use of a word is a worthwhile exercise. Religion is one of those words, especially in evangelical circles.
I had a long conversation with a friend last night that said he was struggling with the idea of Christianity and what he thought about the Bible. His hypothetical was, “if somehow all memories and forms of writing were some how wiped out when we woke up tomorrow, I don’t really know or think we will start to come up with stories about talking snakes, forbidden fruit, and women that eat it and mess things up a bit” and this got us discussing natural theology. Of course I don’t think we’re going to start coming up with the biblical narratives, but there is something within us that seems to reach out for something beyond what we observe through our five senses. He agreed and said with that line of thinking, then we’d all just have to assume agnosticism/deism. That got us talking bout the resurrection. I said that was the game changer for me. If God really rose Jesus from the dead with all of its implications, then I am all in. So if the revelation of Jesus Christ is true, then all he calls for, teaches, and models looks very religious to me. Imagining a world without religion seems impossible, since it seems throughout history, humans have sought after the divine.
Now the distinction the guy makes in the video is that rather than man seeking God, Christianity (or a relationship with Jesus) is about God coming to man…which is correct, but understanding Jesus outside of religion is a little silly. To do so also threatens understanding him in his historical context, which is shaped by a Second-Temple Jewish worldview! It seems similar to the first quest for the historical Jesus and trying to pull some formless guy out of where we find him and form him into our ideologies and try to link them with some obscure, demythologized version of himself that looks an awful lot like cultural leanings to “spiritual, but not religious.”
Of course, everyone posting this video understands “religion” to be short-handed for judgmental, hypocritical, rules based moralism, rather than the grace we find in Jesus, but I think it does lead some to want to ignore and genuinely hate religion. Like a comment on the video that said “I haven’t been to church in 15 years because of such and such, so I just read my Bible and pray, etc.” Not that everyone is going to do this, but there’s obviously a correlation.
I posted this video on Facebook with a comment saying “I guess he would have a big problem with the fact that Jesus was deeply religious?” and got little response as opposed to those who praised it.
@Cris:
You are exactly right. The non-religious Jesus is essentially the trickle down influence of concepts like those that were made popular in the first (maybe even the second) quest for Jesus. I hope that the scholarship of the third quest will trickle down to the popular media sooner than later. We need to remember Jesus the Jew is our risen Lord.
Don’t you think, by our makeup, we are all religious; whether, atheist, agnostic, or Christian? I can’t imagine a world where there is no religion … even John Lennon’s wish, if it came true, would simply result in that kind of religion. People who ‘think’ they are non-religious use this as a rhetorical cloak to get themselves off the “faith” hook and presume that they simply believe (if they even think this hard to begin with) emperical facts (as if emperical facts don’t require an epistmeological apparatus based upon a metaphysical apparatus or invisible intangible realities) V. naive religious people who operate with blind faith. I don’t like to let said people off the hook.
@Bobby
Yes, it could be argued that even an atheist or an agnostic person is religious. This would make it nonsensical for a Christian to self-identify as non-religious. Even if we limit “religion” to bare minimums like belief in a deity, worship practices, rituals, and so forth there is no getting around Christianity as a religion.
There are so many things to talk about in this post, but I’ll just choose one:
I was always a little put-off when people would say “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship” as if this mantra was so profound that the person hearing it would suddenly understand everything that he never did before. In fact, it usually had the opposite effect on me and would make me wonder whether the person saying it lived in the same reality I did. Yes, I have a relationship with Jesus, but Christianity is also a religion, no matter how you slice it.
Thanks for a great post!
@Leslie: You’re welcome! Indeed, I think some Christians think it is a real sly slogan, but it is nonsensical for the most part.
William Cavanaugh has many good things to say on this topic. He has a good article in the book God Is Not… titled, “God Is Not Religious” (actually a critique of the way the term “religion” is used). I also found his article on Christopher Hitchens (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/12/20/2992074.htm) to show how the modern use of “religion” is essentially meaningless.
Thanks for this post. I definitely shared the video across lots of different avenues of communication and have entered into more than one conversation about it’s content. One of those conversations lead me to this blog (which I am now following, btw, lots of great stuff!). While I agree that the video oversimplifies and maybe even misrepresents Christianity, and we could get into a completely different discussion about it’s quality as a piece, I will say that regardless of those things it has opened new doors for me to discuss Christianity with non-Christian friends and for that, I am grateful. If it gets people asking questions, discussing religion and Jesus and Christianity, and leads people to find answers to those questions, then I think we as Christians need to be ready to receive those questions and discussion instead of shutting down what ignited the discussion.
@Ryan:
I enjoyed that article by Cavanaugh. He does make some important points regarding the difficulty of defining “religion” since many religions don’t affirm the same thing and the trouble causes by making a distinction between the secular and sacred. Thanks for sharing!
The thought of religion means you are doing something because you have to.. So when a Christian says they don’t do religion that is what they are implying.. their actions aren’t done because they have to do it .. we don’t do things because we have to.. we do things because He has done everything already and without Jesus we are nothing!! singing songs and praying isn’t (or shouldnt) be done because we have to.. we do it because its the only way we can show the love and adoration we have to the Savior of the world!
Your wearing your heart on your sleeve in this post Brian, but no one can fault your logic.
There is at least one metric that shows the world is a better place with religion than without, and it is this:
Google: “top ten genocides 20th century”.
Select all socialists and communists in the list representing atheism.
Enumerate the victims.
Even with conservative estimates, non-believers are responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than all of the religious wars in history. Clearly atheism is without morality as just about every existentialist philosopher concludes.
I just think the use of “religion” and “religious” here (in the video) is more idiomatic, and used loosely.
@Andrew Careful with that numbers game. If we count length of history, and not just individual body bags (which is padded courtesy of modern-day technology) it’s not realistic comparison. Besides, there are some levels to the dangers of pitting religion/Christian against Irreligion anyhow. There’s plenty printed on that topic, since it seems to be a common one brought up in debates.
(Also, we often like to throw Hitler on the godless side, and that is a tricky maneuver)
@LCK That’s quite funny. Ha.
Brian -
I have understood your reservations with the video and how [neo-evangelical] Christians can be quite opposed to religion, just like we are opposed to certain terms as tradition, discipline, good works, etc. I think we need to recognise it comes down to semantics. Tradition can be wrong (ala Matt 15:1-6). Discipline can be slavish. Good works (or doing good to be nice) can lead to a wrong focus. But, as I think we would agree together, these words/terms are not inherently evil.
So, with religion, it depends semantically. I find myself approaching the issue differently with different people. WIth the spoken word artist in the video, I would probably take a little time to remind him that religion isn’t evil, we do practise such, etc. And James throw a wrench in our cog with his statement that pure and faultless religion is a good thing when it is expressed in taking care of the poor and disadvantaged (James 1:26-27). But, for a Pharisee-pushing group, I’d use the word address religion (or being religious) as opposed to the work of God.
As for Jesus and his focus of faithful Jewish religion, I agree that is an overall true statement with regards to the picture we get in the Gospels. But while Jesus practiced religion (or even ‘traditions’), he was not bound by them. I am convinced Jesus did not actually come to maintain the status quo, but move God’s kingdom and covenant purposes forward. Hence, the post-resurrection Jesus as glorified Messiah and Lord does a pretty ‘whacky’ thing at the Pentecost of Acts 2. Hence why the gospel invasion and discussions surrounding certain practices (circumcision, special feasts, Sabbaths, etc) were seen as peripheral.
For me, in the end, this is a semantical issue. And I think that true of a lot of words and terms we deal with in biblical-theological discussion.
@James W what you say is true.
Even so, even without actually counting noses the point is made. Atheist’s have no claim (as a group) on moral superiority – this against the argument religion is bad. The point is, even with numbers the areligious are just as atrocious.
Brian – I did tweet something today in your honour.
Jesus in the Gospels was ‘religious’. You & I are religious. Jam1:27 says there is *good* religion. We are not bound by such, but it is ok.
I think that a good summary of the good side of religion.
I’d like to think some of us are against “religion” in the same way that God and Jesus are against “religion”, all the while attempting to live out and practice a religion that they would be proud of. (I use “God and Jesus”, rather than simply Jesus, to show there is some level of continuity btwn OT/NT that we need to realize, embrace and imitate).
@Megan:
Yet I don’t think it is fair or accurate to describe religion as “things you have to do”. No one has to do religion in our culture. This may not be true globally, but in our context it doesn’t make sense to me.
@Andrew:
It’s like I’ve said elsewhere: the problem with murder is murder. Some people are religious and others are not. Their justification for their actions is worth noting, but the action itself is the evil.
@Scott:
I agree that it is a matter of semantics, but this shows how important our word choice can be. Thank you for the tweet!
@Sean:
I understand the aim of those who put Jesus against religion, but I maintain that it is bad word choice.
Heres some food for thought… It was unbelievers who first called us “Christians” not God. The only people who really hassled jesus were for the most part religious folks (Pharisees, etc.) and God never started any religion.
@Scott:
First, the origin of the word “Christian” doesn’t matter all that much. You could call Christianity “Jesus People” or “Messiah Loyalist” or whatever you want, but it is the same religion.
Second, as I’ve said to other, equating the Pharisees with “religious folks” is misguided because (A) even sinner and tax collectors would have had a religious worldview (i.e. there was no secularist) and (B) Jesus and his disciples were religious people. At best, all you’ve shown is that some religious people like Jesus criticized the actions of other religious people like the Pharisees.
Third, if God didn’t start a religion then he had nothing to do with the origins of Judaism and Christianity, or followers of Moses and Jesus, or whatever you want to call these religious groups. Unfortunately, if you are a Christian (or Jesus follower if that term is more fitting) you do think God was behind the Jesus movement (i.e. Christianity) therefore your assertion is nonsensical.
1. Thats the problem, it’s not a religion, it’s a government.
2. To call the Pharisees “religious” is accurate because that is what they were about and the fact that they really couldn’t help anyone verifies it.
3. The only thing that is non-sensical is people’s unwillingness to see beyond their box, which is the same problem Jesus had with other religious folk. God didn’t initiate a “Jesus movement”. He sent His son to fix the breach between God and mankind. God started a kingdom in the garden. Adam and Eve messed it up, Jesus came to fix it and He did. He then preached the good news of he “Kingdom” everywhere He went and went on to tell people what the “reality” of what He was saying actually meant.
Pingback: Jesus vs Religion [1] – What Do You Think? | DesperateTheologian
Brian, you’ll get no argument from me on this point. We’re in agreement.
You’re saying ‘The problem with sin is the sin’, and I’m saying a similar thing that amounts to the same “Where there is sin, there is people; some happen to profess religion, but that people sin is the problem.’
The argument being refuted is that religion is what accounts for it. Remove religion, and we still see the exact same thing (sin, and sinful people) – as we can tell from atheism’s political track record.