"Religion" a bad word

[FromTheAshes777]

Has anyone who is currently or formerly been in contact with contemporary Evangelical Churches come in contact with this phrase? “It’s not about religion, it’s about a relationship”. Or…“Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with Jesus”.

I have grown up Southern Baptist, and for me this is one of those catch phrases that I have heard in sermons and Sunday school lessons my entire life. I still hear it from my Southern Baptist family regularly.

Can anyone explain this to me in light of this verse?
James 1:26-27 NASB
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Now…call me crazy…but it looks like the Bible here is actually commanding us to have some religion! gasp

Also, asside from the Biblical reference, the dictionary defines religion as:

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 religiousbeliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I’m pretty darn sure ANYONE who believes in God and prays or attends a service of some kind regularly in response to that belief would be considered to have some form of religion according to this definition.

So, the Bible doesn’t agree with this phrase, and neither does the dictionary. So what gives?

Given this simple logic, why is it so terrible to refer to a person as being religious or having a religion? I’ve had to warn my Catholic girlfriend before not to talk about having “religion” or a person’s “religion” when around my family because it is such a dirty word here (the southeast), especially among Southern Baptists. Why is this? Is there just a lack of critical thinking occuring here? What’s going on?

 

[Wackotrad]

I’ve had to warn my Catholic girlfriend before not to talk about having “religion” or a person’s “religion” when around my family because it is such a dirty word here (the southeast), especially among Southern Baptists. Why is this? Is there just a lack of critical thinking occuring here? What’s going on?

Ah yes, the old “Jesus, not religion” gambit. It’s been around for a while and is now a readily accepted tenet of modern evangelicalism.

My analysis is that “religion” evokes that even worse word, tradition, as well as things like history, dogma, and the presence of a formal set of sacred practices and beliefs that unite different nations, language and cultures…all of which are conspicuously absent from evangelical churches.

Evangelicals know this, and in most cases are quite proud of it, but I think deep down they know better. So they’ve convinced themselves (and others) that “religion” detracts from faith, rather than enhancing and even defining it. They believe that their churches are superior because they’ve stripped all that unnecessary “stuff” that they imagine comes from religion, and returned to simple Christianity.

Of course, this is absolute rubbish, and one can read the Bible and know that even in the early days there was no such thing as simple Christianity. But why let history and common sense get in the way of a good gimmick?

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I guess though you would think at some point someone and stop and say,

“hmmmmm, the Bible disagrees with me on my concept and definition of the word religion, the dictionary also disagrees with me…maybe there is something amiss here.”

I thought the Bible was THE authority in these communities…right?
The Book of James clearly strikes down this old catch phrase…so why don’t they realize this and stop using it? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

1 Timothy 5:4 (NIV) is another one!

“But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their RELIGION into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.”

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Ah yes, the old “Jesus, not religion” gambit. It’s been around for a while and is now a readily accepted tenet of modern evangelicalism.

My analysis is that “religion” evokes that even worse word, tradition, as well as things like history, dogma, and the presence of a formal set of sacred practices and beliefs that unite different nations, language and cultures…all of which are conspicuously absent from evangelical churches.

I think you’re definitely on to something here…I wonder if most average people in the pews though are thinking this when they spout this phrase, or if there is a different thought process occuring.

I think most people honestly probably haven’t read the verses in James and Timothy I’ve quoted or maybe haven’t read them in a while.

I would think, or maybe hope, those verses would obliterate the use of this phrase for most honest people.

 

[CrazyRachel]

Religion seems to be a dirty word these days and I have known of many Christian people who I would describe as “religious”, seeing as how they follow a religion (that religion being Christianity, the largest religion in the world), who absolutely refuse to describe them selves as religious and instead say they are spiritual But I kind of cant blame them. Religion is so hated today that I think there some faithful who prefer not to use the word as it attracts negative attention to them and people will judge them falsely. The word religious has so many negative connotations today; religious fanatic, religious nut, killing in the name of religion etc… However too many people fail to remember that on the whole religious people are not violent fanatical maniacs, so many good religious people are reluctant to describe themselves in this way. I wish they would though. We should reclaim the word and shout out loud and proud, I AM RELIGIOUS! GET USED TO IT! And claim a whole month as Religious Pride month.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I find it interesting though that among Catholics and Orthodox that I know and am friends with it’s not a dirty word at all, it’s actually printed in older Catholic missals that I’ve looked at. I wonder when the term started to become dirty amongst the evangelical crowd and why it never did so amongst any other denominations.

 

[Wackotrad]

CrazyRachel is likely onto something as well. Whatever else you might say about them, evangelical churches are masters of marketing. These churches know that religion gets a bad rap these days, but also that few people have a real beef with Jesus, even if they don’t see Him as God. So evangelical churches often develop a “just Jesus ‘n’ me” branding to appeal to a wider audience and to distance themselves from both the real and perceived versions of religion in society.

 

[Cat]

I grew up in the evangelical Protestant churches (Conference Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free Church in America, etc.), and so did my husband (Assemblies of God).

We were both raised on that slogan–I’m not religious, I’m just a Christian, and other variations of the idea that “religion is bad, Christianity is good.”

The reason why it has become so entrenched in evangelical culture is that evangelical Protestants are absolutely opposed to anything that hints of “salvation through works” rather than “salvation through faith in Jesus.”

“Religion”, to evangelicals, is a “system” of man-made works, and that is not Christianity. Christians are not saved through amassing a list of “good works.”

Catholics would agree with this. The Catholic Church teaches that our salvation is through the grace of God, and that our faith in Jesus saves us.

So that’s the main reason why evangelical Protestants consider the word “religion” opposed to true Christianity.

Here’s where things get interesting. Evangelical Protestants tend to separate the spiritual from the physical, and actually elevate the spiritual over the physical, even to the point of excluding the physical.

There’s a popular evangelical worship chorus that goes, “Let’s forget about ourselves, and magnify the Lord and worship Him.”

Now many Catholics would have no objection to these words, and in fact, would delight in blocking out all distractions and concentrating entirely on the Lord Jesus in the Mass.

Evangelicals strive to block out ALL distractions, including their own bodies, the sights and smells of their physical location, other people, etc. They strive to be “spiritual” only, and forget about the world, the flesh, etc.

But we all know that we exist in real human bodies that get hungry, thirsty, tired, etc. We see, hear, smell, touch, and taste.

Catholics incorporate the physical into the Mass–a Catholic Mass is sensory experience. Evangelical Protestants try to exclude the physical.

I hope I am explaining this adequately. I was raised in it, and many other evangelical Protestants will know just what I’m talking about. There was never any sort of flagellation or abuse of the body; on the contrary, that would have made us MORE aware of the body. But there was a definite disdain for anything physical during worship (other than music). Stained glass windows, beads, incense, candles, flowers, vestments, kneeling, tasting bread and/or wine–we didn’t need any of that. It was just “physical,” and since the physical will all pass, there is no need for us to use it to help us worship the True God.

There is absolutely no concept in evangelical Protestant churches that Jesus Christ is Truly Present here and now on this earth. We knew that He was present in other Christians, living in their hearts. But the idea that Jesus is corporally present, in the Bread and the Wine, was not something that we believed in, because we couldn’t see how Jesus would be present in anything physical, other than in His own Body when He lived on this earth.

In fact, it was only after I became Catholic that I realized that Jesus is STILL present in His human body in heaven (a glorified human body). He does not and did not ever disdain human flesh, as the Protestants do, but instead, took on human flesh forever–He is and will always be fully Man as well as fully God. That concept knocked my socks off!

I believe that a proper understanding of exactly how precious our human bodies are to God could make a different in how we care for ourselves on this earth. If we believe that our human bodies are merely a “sack” to hold our souls while we are on this earth, then we are more likely to abuse our bodies by overindulgence and neglect. But if we have a proper understanding of our bodies, I believe that we will begin to treat them with respect. Just a theory? Well, consider this–I have been overweight by almost a hundred pounds ever since I had my second baby 25 year ago. But since I have become Catholic, I have lost, without any strict diet, 85 pounds, and I am healthier than ever.

I hope these thoughts help the OP in their quest to understand the question of why “religion” is a naughty word among evangelical Protestants. I agree with the OP that it is wise for Catholics to be careful not to use the “R” word around their evangelical Protestant friends, because evangelical Protestants have a very different understanding of the word than Catholics do.

Yes, of course you can attempt to use apologetics and linguistics to debate the issue with evangelical Protestants, and that might be a good thing with certain evangelical Protestants who are well-versed in doctrines.

But I personally think it will cause many evangelical Protestants to be upset, and cause them to drop you as a friend, and this would lead to less opportunities to maintain dialogue, which could close the door for the Protestant to someday convert to Catholicism.

The Catechism makes it clear that we are to do whatever we can to maintain dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, and IMO, it is not “compromising” our Catholic faith in any way to refrain from using a word that they find offensive because they have a different understanding of the word than we do.

 

[dingodile]

I suspect that for many people, the word “religion” connotes mainly the institutional aspect of things. Many people are convinced that most or all religious institutions are corrupt or overly legalistic, so they don’t want to align themselves with that, hence the preference for terms like “spiritual” and the like. In short, I think the popular meaning of the word “religious” is rather similar to what was once conveyed, in Christianity, by the term “pharisaic”.

Just a guess.

 

[Bearontherun]

I agree with those observations by posters so far…religion is very often seen as a dirty word among certain protestant groups such as non-denominational, evangelical, etc. In a similar way, I find that they have distain for the word ritual. Even when describing a “believers baptism” they often emphasize that it is “not a ritual but simple obedience.”

 

[FromTheAshes777]

but what would these individuals say or how would they handle it if they were quoted these verses James 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 5:4, that I posted the full text for above, that clearly use the word religion in a positive context.

do they simply ignore these verses if they have read them?

the Bible never uses the world religion in a negative way at all that I’ve ever found.

Isn’t the Bible supposed to be the authority for Evangelicals when it comes to faith and practice?

 

[TimothyH]

Has anyone who is currently or formerly been in contact with contemporary Evangelical Churches come in contact with this phrase? “It’s not about religion, it’s about a relationship”. Or…“Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with Jesus”.

The idea that “Institutions of Men” only get in the way of the individual believer’s relationship with Jesus is widespread here in the deep south. To me, it’s like coffee without the cup.

There are whole Churches built on this very theme, that the Church as an institution, at best, is useful to the individual believer only insofar as it assists him in his personal relationship with Jesus. As soon as the church ceases to augment that personal relationship, it is disposable and often, organized religion is viewed as damaging to one’s personal relationship with Christ.

Oddly enough, all these Churches boast about how they are “Growing”. One has just put up a billboard near my house which reads, “One Church, two locations!” A Catholic has to laugh at this - if two locations are good, why not 17,592 locations?

This is a picture of the front of a Church built on the theme that you can have Jesus without religion right near where I live. I assume they serve coffee without cups too.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

-Tim-

 

[Publisher]

I suspect that for many people, the word “religion” connotes mainly the institutional aspect of things. Many people are convinced that most or all religious institutions are corrupt or overly legalistic, so they don’t want to align themselves with that, hence the preference for terms like “spiritual” and the like. In short, I think the popular meaning of the word “religious” is rather similar to what was once conveyed, in Christianity, by the term “pharisaic”.

Just a guess.

Friend, I think you are correct. Sometimes a “phrase” is latched onto as a “tenet” of Evangelcical Christianity…totally missing what was the reason for the phrase…not a “word study” .

 

[CopticChristian]

I suspect that for many people, the word “religion” connotes mainly the institutional aspect of things. Many people are convinced that most or all religious institutions are corrupt or overly legalistic, so they don’t want to align themselves with that, hence the preference for terms like “spiritual” and the like. In short, I think the popular meaning of the word “religious” is rather similar to what was once conveyed, in Christianity, by the term “pharisaic”.

Just a guess.

This is conjecture. As you say unchurched in your title, look at this Protestant site for explanations and see what you come away with…

bible.cc/james/1-26.htm

Seem to be religious - The words θρησκος and θρησκεια, which we translate religious and religion, (see the next verse), are of very uncertain etymology. Suidas, under the word θρησκευει, which he translates θεοσεβει, ὑπηρετει τοις θεοις, he worships or serves the gods, accounts for the derivation thus: “It is said that Orpheus, a Thracian, instituted the mysteries (or religious rites) of the Greeks, and called the worshipping of God θρησκευειν threskeuein, as being a Thracian invention.” Whatever its derivation may be, the word is used both to signify true religion, and superstition or heterodoxy.

 

[dingodile]

This is conjecture.

Indeed it is. That’s why I said “I suspect”. And I made it clear that I was talking about the “popular meaning” of the word “religion”, not its historical and etymological significance. Popular meaning doesn’t always align with lexical meaning.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Has anyone who is currently or formerly been in contact with contemporary Evangelical Churches come in contact with this phrase? “It’s not about religion, it’s about a relationship”. Or…“Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with Jesus”.

I have grown up Southern Baptist, and for me this is one of those catch phrases that I have heard in sermons and Sunday school lessons my entire life. I still hear it from my Southern Baptist family regularly.

Can anyone explain this to me in light of this verse?
James 1:26-27 NASB
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Now…call me crazy…but it looks like the Bible here is actually commanding us to have some religion! gasp

Also, asside from the Biblical reference, the dictionary defines religion as:

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 religiousbeliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I’m pretty darn sure ANYONE who believes in God and prays or attends a service of some kind regularly in response to that belief would be considered to have some form of religion according to this definition.

So, the Bible doesn’t agree with this phrase, and neither does the dictionary. So what gives?

Given this simple logic, why is it so terrible to refer to a person as being religious or having a religion? I’ve had to warn my Catholic girlfriend before not to talk about having “religion” or a person’s “religion” when around my family because it is such a dirty word here (the southeast), especially among Southern Baptists. Why is this? Is there just a lack of critical thinking occuring here? What’s going on?

This has always driven me crazy. Basically they take the word ‘religion’ and redefine it to their own liking. I think they say this in order to appeal more to the secular crowd, which doesn’t really work from my experience; it just makes them look nuts. Basically their definition of religion is anything other than what they believe. I think from the fact that they use a Bible and believe in a specific set of doctrines about God, that kind of proves that it’s a religion. They don’t see it that way. A lot of these types of Christians tend to have a very low view of Church and think church attendance isn’t really necessary (though many would highly recommend it) since it’s ultimately about the relationship between you and Jesus.

 

[krahnicles]

I’ve been around this a bit, and it’s something my pastor says every once in awhile. We’ve talked about it a little, but not enough to where I was able to change his mind. He is open to (name removed by moderator)ut, though, and there have been times when we went over something and he came away from it doing something differently. There’s a bit more of a process to it than just talking to me, of course. He also goes over it with a group of local pastors that he meets with on a regular basis to discuss things with. But sometimes I bring something up when I’m talking to him and he makes a significant change because of it.

This is my (name removed by moderator)ut for you: If you look at the verses you cited that describe what true religion is, you’ll notice that James 1 talks about bridling your tongue and not deceiving your heart. Pure and undefiled religion is described as visiting widows and orphans in their distress and keeping yourself unstained from the world. 1 Timothy 5 describes “religion in practice” as caring for your family, repaying your parents and grandparents.

You’ll notice that in any description of “true religion,” or any Biblical use of “religion” (or similar words) in a positive context, it doesn’t describe a course of action in which you regularly show up at a certain building and sit in a pew listening to a guy talk. That’s not religion. Ideally, the guy who’s talking will do a good job of explaining what it means to practice religion in ways that are pleasing to God (remaining unstained from the world, visiting widows and orphans in their distress, caring for your family, etc.). So I can see why a pastor (such as my own) might want to reframe the Christian walk in such a way that it’s much more meaningful and useful than showing up at church and sitting in a pew on Sunday morning. But it would be nice if he could describe a God-honoring Christian walk as real religion put into practice. He does a good job with most of that- he just drops the word “religion” and makes a habit of limiting its use to the negative sense.

There was a bit more of an emphasis on “Don’t do religion, do Christianity” about a year ago. That isn’t the emphasis right now, though. Right now, the main focus is “Don’t go to church. Be the church.” Along with that, there’s a long-range plan for assessing the spiritual gifts of anyone in the church that’s remotely interested in doing something service-oriented (otherwise described as true religion put into practice in a positive sense…but in this case, with different words).

In general, I think most Protestant churches do have a tendency to emphasize the practice of Christianity in a way that contrasts with the idea that religion only entails church attendance. They generally do a good job of making that happen, but instead of describing the thing they’re doing as religion (positive sense), they call it something different.

For me, the thing that matters most is what’s being done. If I had to choose between a church that can correctly identify positive religion while being extremely ineffective in terms of actually getting it done, I would leave that church in a heartbeat if it meant I could join a church that does a great job with it but uses some other word to describe it. Ideally, of course, a church will call it the right thing and also display habits and qualities that are the opposite of tepid. But how often do you see that, right?

I wish my pastor would interact with the word “religion” quite a bit differently than he does, but at least he’s putting the Biblical imperative into practice and is effective in helping people practice true religion (whether he calls it that or not). I do wish he would call it what it is and start having less of a problem with the word, though. On the bright side, he is flexible and receptive to (name removed by moderator)ut. So I’m fairly certain that if I do my homework and use enough tact, I can talk him into looking at that in a different way.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve been around this a bit, and it’s something my pastor says every once in awhile. We’ve talked about it a little, but not enough to where I was able to change his mind. He is open to (name removed by moderator)ut, though, and there have been times when we went over something and he came away from it doing something differently. There’s a bit more of a process to it than just talking to me, of course. He also goes over it with a group of local pastors that he meets with on a regular basis to discuss things with. But sometimes I bring something up when I’m talking to him and he makes a significant change because of it.

This is my (name removed by moderator)ut for you: If you look at the verses you cited that describe what true religion is, you’ll notice that James 1 talks about bridling your tongue and not deceiving your heart. Pure and undefiled religion is described as visiting widows and orphans in their distress and keeping yourself unstained from the world. 1 Timothy 5 describes “religion in practice” as caring for your family, repaying your parents and grandparents.

You’ll notice that in any description of “true religion,” or any Biblical use of “religion” (or similar words) in a positive context, it doesn’t describe a course of action in which you regularly show up at a certain building and sit in a pew listening to a guy talk. That’s not religion. Ideally, the guy who’s talking will do a good job of explaining what it means to practice religion in ways that are pleasing to God (remaining unstained from the world, visiting widows and orphans in their distress, caring for your family, etc.). So I can see why a pastor (such as my own) might want to reframe the Christian walk in such a way that it’s much more meaningful and useful than showing up at church and sitting in a pew on Sunday morning. But it would be nice if he could describe a God-honoring Christian walk as real religion put into practice. He does a good job with most of that- he just drops the word “religion” and makes a habit of limiting its use to the negative sense.

There was a bit more of an emphasis on “Don’t do religion, do Christianity” about a year ago. That isn’t the emphasis right now, though. Right now, the main focus is “Don’t go to church. Be the church.” Along with that, there’s a long-range plan for assessing the spiritual gifts of anyone in the church that’s remotely interested in doing something service-oriented (otherwise described as true religion put into practice in a positive sense…but in this case, with different words).

In general, I think most Protestant churches do have a tendency to emphasize the practice of Christianity in a way that contrasts with the idea that religion only entails church attendance. They generally do a good job of making that happen, but instead of describing the thing they’re doing as religion (positive sense), they call it something different.

For me, the thing that matters most is what’s being done. If I had to choose between a church that can correctly identify positive religion while being extremely ineffective in terms of actually getting it done, I would leave that church in a heartbeat if it meant I could join a church that does a great job with it but uses some other word to describe it. Ideally, of course, a church will call it the right thing and also display habits and qualities that are the opposite of tepid. But how often do you see that, right?

I wish my pastor would interact with the word “religion” quite a bit differently than he does, but at least he’s putting the Biblical imperative into practice and is effective in helping people practice true religion (whether he calls it that or not). I do wish he would call it what it is and start having less of a problem with the word, though. On the bright side, he is flexible and receptive to (name removed by moderator)ut. So I’m fairly certain that if I do my homework and use enough tact, I can talk him into looking at that in a different way.

I have discovered your problem…You believe you can change someones mind. You believe your (name removed by moderator)ut is the only (name removed by moderator)ut and that what you put forth is universally accepted and believed by all. This is the sign of an adolescent/teen mind. I am not saying your age only how your mind works.

How many teens/adolescents do you need to screw in a light bulb? Just one. They hold on and the world turns around them and the light bulb gets screwed in. This is what I see in your posting.

Stop wishing, stop talking, start listening, start praying. Start asking questions. Stop giving advice. The advice you give is poor to bad and should be tempered by contemplation. I am not the center of the Universe. I am the center of my Universe as is every other person. God is the Center of the Universe.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Has anyone who is currently or formerly been in contact with contemporary Evangelical Churches come in contact with this phrase? “It’s not about religion, it’s about a relationship”. Or…“Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with Jesus”.

I have grown up Southern Baptist, and for me this is one of those catch phrases that I have heard in sermons and Sunday school lessons my entire life. I still hear it from my Southern Baptist family regularly.

Can anyone explain this to me in light of this verse?
James 1:26-27 NASB
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Now…call me crazy…but it looks like the Bible here is actually commanding us to have some religion! gasp

Also, asside from the Biblical reference, the dictionary defines religion as:

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 religiousbeliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I’m pretty darn sure ANYONE who believes in God and prays or attends a service of some kind regularly in response to that belief would be considered to have some form of religion according to this definition.

So, the Bible doesn’t agree with this phrase, and neither does the dictionary. So what gives?

Given this simple logic, why is it so terrible to refer to a person as being religious or having a religion? I’ve had to warn my Catholic girlfriend before not to talk about having “religion” or a person’s “religion” when around my family because it is such a dirty word here (the southeast), especially among Southern Baptists. Why is this? Is there just a lack of critical thinking occuring here? What’s going on?

I think that the fundamentalist evangelical community uses the term “religion” (incorrectly) to describe a system of practices that form a “works-based” method for attaining salvation. It’s the usual bromide aimed at Catholics and even high-church Protestants, that we are using (presumably unbiblical) “religion” to “work” our way to heaven when all we really need to do is “accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.” The argument that results when one is confronted on this issue is IMO best described as two people talking past each other, because even though the words being used sound the same, different meanings are attached, depending upon your faith tradition.

It has been said that the Americans and the English are two peoples separated by a common language. I think is this case to some degree it is also fair to say that Evangelicals and Catholics are two Christian groups separated by common terms that we have come to use differently.

In the end, I think that we all agree works alone cannot save, that a real and personal relationship with Jesus our Savior is essential to salvation, and that the practice of one’s religion does not - in and of itself obligate God to save us. But banners that say “Jesus - not religion” are either a false dichotomy, or they are subtly rejecting part of the Gospel delivered by Jesus - that we may all be one. It is our Christ-centered religion that creates the unity Jesus demanded of his Apostles.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The idea that “Institutions of Men” only get in the way of the individual believer’s relationship with Jesus is widespread here in the deep south. To me, it’s like coffee without the cup.

There are whole Churches built on this very theme, that the Church as an institution, at best, is useful to the individual believer only insofar as it assists him in his personal relationship with Jesus. As soon as the church ceases to augment that personal relationship, it is disposable and often, organized religion is viewed as damaging to one’s personal relationship with Christ.

Oddly enough, all these Churches boast about how they are “Growing”. One has just put up a billboard near my house which reads, “One Church, two locations!” A Catholic has to laugh at this - if two locations are good, why not 17,592 locations?

This is a picture of the front of a Church built on the theme that you can have Jesus without religion right near where I live. I assume they serve coffee without cups too.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-86IPJytEF...AAOo/N-CKiMXG8U0/s1600/jesus.not.religion.jpg

-Tim-

How would this Church define “religion.” If it’s Jesus, but not “religion” should the IRS be contacted to investigate the tax-exempt status of the owner?