You've heard it a thousand times. Heck, you've probably even preached or taught it: "True Christian faith is a relationship, not a religion." Religion is shown to be stifling, soul-crushing, and destructive.
I used to nod piously at such sentiments, but lately I've begun to wonder whether or not the "R" word really deserves such disdain. Let's take a closer look at this embattled term.
Merriam-Webster offers a succinct definition: "The service and worship of God or the supernatural."
Dictionary.com is more expansive: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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."
Here's Wikipedia's entry: "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth."
"Service and worship of God … a set of beliefs … life through reference to a higher power … ultimate truth."
All of these sound good to me. So why do so many Christians rail against religion?
For starters, they probably aren't operating with a dictionary definition of the word. From what I can tell, most evangelicals use "religion" to designate legalism, dead ritual, or oppressive institutionalism. It's used as a foil for fluid and dynamic experiences of faith.
Of course this usage is completely unfair; it acknowledges only the worst manifestations of religion. That's not to say that all religion is true or good. James distinguishes between pure and impure religion, as must we. But the new definition of religion ignores any such distinction and, in so doing, throws the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.
Now I'd be happy to embrace this redefinition and join the religion-hating choir, but I sense something sinister behind it. I fear there's a subtle, self-serving incentive for religion's abrupt demotion. I think religion connotes two ideas with which we're uncomfortable.
The first is authority. The word "relationship" sounds egalitarian and democratic. But religion is different. Religion means there's someone or something above you. In the case of Christianity, it's God and the church.
Religion also implies collectivism. You can have a relationship with God on your own, but religion happens in a group. In a culture obsessed with independence and individualism, it's not difficult to see why these two associations make us uncomfortable.
So I propose that we keep the word religion around, if for no other reason than that it challenges independence and individualism—two ugly idols of our age.
share this
Tags used in this post:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2969
Comments
While the intent of this article appears to be well-meaning, it misses one glaring fact. Jesus did not come to establish a religious devotion to God, but a more all encompassing relational devotion to our Lord and Master. Jesus' longest recorded speech in Scripture apart from the Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew 23 where he vehemently condemns the empty and self-serving religion of the Pharisees.
The dictionary defintions that you have shared are ones that we can live with. However, we cannot restrict our faith at its core to merely the observance of and devotion to a set of rituals and practices that in their essence define what religion is in practice. By the way, the concept of relationship has everything to do with authority. It is not simply a benign warm fuzzy. Rather, it is a vibrant encounter that can temper one's emotions and will for the purpose of bringing true change into the life of an individual.
I am fearful that your definition of relationship as it relates to how God communes with His people is woefully inadequate to communicate what is meant in Scripture and by those who want more out of our faith than a religion that might have a measure of impact upon our minds and not our spirits.
Posted by: Michael Cooper | June 25, 2009 9:16 AM
Wow. You are courageous, Drew--actually speaking a kind, public word for religion.
I'd pray for you, but we all know that Jesus hated the religious and only hung out with fishermen, tax collectors, and women with, uh, too much perfume. In religious settings, when he preached in synagogues and rearranged the furniture in the Temple, things didn't go so well.
Oh well. (and yes, that's where he discussed spiritual issues--not in the polarized holy places in Jerusalem or Gerazim).
Nice try.
Posted by: jarrod | June 25, 2009 10:14 AM
C'mon, Jarrod. Jesus was raised religious. When he was 12, he befuddled the sponsors of his youth group. Countless young people today are following his example.
And he went out of his way to be baptized. You gotta be religious to do something formal, like that.
He took his small group on a mission trip. 12 guys visiting a homeless man in a cemetery on the other side of the lake. How religious is that?
Posted by: SallyB | June 25, 2009 10:22 AM
Thanks for the comments! Michael, I agree with you that I probably didn't give "relationships" their due. They can be iinclude authority, and Jesus definitely preached a gospel of relationship (after all, he called God "Abba") but where I disagree with you is in your implicit assumption that religion and relationship are at odds. You rightly observe that Jesus "vehemently condemns the empty and self-serving religion of the Pharisees." But it wasn't religion he denounced; it was the religion of the Pharisees. When relationship comes front and center in our faith, then we practice good religion. When rules and pride take center stage religion becomes evil.
Drew
Posted by: Drew D | June 25, 2009 1:22 PM
If the Bible itself speaks of pure and undefiled religion (and it does), who are the self-righteous relationsists that condemn it? Yes, Christianity is a relationship, but it is also a pure and undefiled religion at its deepest level. I think those that speak against religion mean to speak against religiosity, which is a whole other animal. Religiosity is the external rules, regulations, observances, "religious" acts, etc. that Jesus Himself condemned. What Jesus condemned about religion was using man's traditions, rather than the Word. Jesus nowhere condemned religion per se. He Himself kept the Sabbath and other observances one associates with religion - - or at least the Jewish religion of His day. He never condemned that. What He spoke against is what is in the heart and intent of the observance of religion.
Let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by: Eugene Bolton | June 26, 2009 9:10 AM