Why do non-Catholics scoff at the word "religion"

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Kliska, as an Evangelical Protestant, you might define grace as something like the forgiveness of sins. But isn’t the forgiveness of sins associated with “rituals” in the NT?

• Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
• And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:23)
• Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15)

I think if we take these passages at face-value, then the only conclusions is that there is forgiveness of sins through–not merely alongside or following–ritual actions. For example, Paul identifies baptism with washing away sins (Acts 22:16), rather than something done to show that someone’s sins are already forgiven or a work done in concurrence with the forgiveness of sins by a separate means.

I am interested in your answer to a particular question. Many Protestants say that salvation is by faith alone rather than any works or rituals. What distinguishes faith from other works that makes it the only thing necessary for salvation? Faith is something we do, and therefore a work, but it is necessary for salvation. Paul says, for example, in Romans that we are saved by hope, but I have not often heard people say we are saved by faith plus hope. I imagine some might conflate them together, but Paul seems to envision them as distinct (cf. 1 Cor. 13). Different people have different answers to this question so I am curious what your individual perspective is.

 

[sallybutler]

I have noticed a lot of disdain for the word “religion” and they even put in quotes as I have done here.
Can someone explain this?

I think that many people who say this are people who like doing what they want to do and don’t want to live by someone else’s rules.

 

[ltwin]

I think that many people who say this are people who like doing what they want to do and don’t want to live by someone else’s rules.

Usually, people who say this are evangelical Christians who have no problem regularly attending and tithing to their local church. They also have no problem adhering to the beliefs of their local church.

So, just because someone says this does not mean they are opposing organized religion at all. I think this is an important point to make.

 

[sallybutler]

Usually, people who say this are evangelical Christians who have no problem regularly attending and tithing to their local church. They also have no problem adhering to the beliefs of their local church.

So, just because someone says this does not mean they are opposing organized religion at all. I think this is an important point to make.

I agree. I was thinking of people who say that they can be ‘spiritual’ without being ‘religious’.

And of course, there are exceptions there. When one makes generalizations, there are always exceptions.

 

[WildCatholic]

In my opinion after hearing this from a number of Evangelical, Non-Denom, Campus Crusade types is that religion means that people do rituals without actually changing their heart. I certainly see their point and do realize that there are Catholics like this who either live lives of sin but practice the rituals or even are great people and practice the rituals and can’t defend them or know why they do them.
However the problem lies with a few things. One most of them have never met Catholics who are on fire about their faith or who even if they are on fire can explain it and live it out. Most of the people I know who left Catholicism did so because they felt they weren’t getting enough. They didn’t feel the rituals meant anything and grew up in families where they didn’t mean anything and thus felt less fulfilled and empty.

I also think a lot of this has to do with the extreme individualism of protestantism. In evangelical protestantism it’s all about the individual. Your salvation is between you and God (it is in Catholicism but you have to do it on God’s terms through the Church) and it is on your terms. This individualism is why when non-denoms speak of the church they simply mean it as all those who believe. I know i’m probably wrong but to me it almost seems as if belief and being saved trumps everything else. There wasn’t a need for sacraments or rituals or even sunday worship attendance. It was just because the person and God and that was it.

One last reason I think the religion thing is dirty word in non denominational circles is because it is simply a marketing tool. They want to evangelize the unchurched. I think they feel that if they don’t call it religion they will get more followers. Now i don’t mean to make it sound like they are being sneaky or malicious but they want to reach the greatest number of people possible. If they say that christianity is a “relationship” instead of religion it sounds more attractive.

Overall I think non-denom groups simply have interpreted religion wrongly. Yes there are those who practice it without heart, but I think if we as Catholics become excited and knowledgeable about our faith and are excited to live it out I think that will help. Religion is not bad or wrong but is codependent on relationship. We can have both in Catholicism!

 

[Darryl_B]

I have noticed a lot of disdain for the word “religion” and they even put in quotes as I have done here.
Can someone explain this?

Because too many people don’t have the foggiest idea what the word “religion” (sorry couldnt help it) means.

Religion should be defined as the set of beliefs and practices that define who you are. Even an atheist is “religious”, because they also have a set of beliefs and practices that define who they are. Even an agnostic is “religious”, because they also have a set of beliefs and practices that define who they are.

The problem for the secular perspective ultimately stems from the politically correct philosophy. It is a philosophy that claims all things are welcome, but it is usually mistakenly enacted as no things are welcome. Instead of having a set of beliefs and practices, the ultimate politically correct goal is everyone having no beliefs and practices.

The problem for the Christians who disdain “religion” is that they mistake it for “repetition”, not rules. What they really don’t want is repetition, they want spontaneous, if it is the same as we did last week that is “religion”, if we change it around this week that is the “Spirit”.

Sorry pet peeve.

 

[PRmerger]

They also have no problem adhering to the beliefs of their local church.

This is an interesting comment, coming from a non-Catholic.

This seems to imply that when the church professes something, the Evangelical Christian conforms her belief to what this church professes.

Is this a correct summary of the above statement of yours, ltwin?

I would find that an interesting statement in that it would seem to make the church the authority of the Evangelical Christian’s belief.

And what I have found is that typically when an EC does not agree with the beliefs of her local church, she leaves to find another one which better suits her theology.

Does this not seem to be consonant with your experience as well?

 

[stewstew03]

This is an interesting comment, coming from a non-Catholic.

This seems to imply that when the church professes something, the Evangelical Christian conforms her belief to what this church professes.

Is this a correct summary of the above statement of yours, ltwin?

I would find that an interesting statement in that it would seem to make the church the authority of the Evangelical Christian’s belief.

And what I have found is that typically when an EC does not agree with the beliefs of her local church, she leaves to find another one which better suits her theology.

Does this not seem to be consonant with your experience as well?

Obviously you addressed Itwin, but I thought I’d add my two cents…

What I’ve noticed is that the Evangelical Christian, ultimately, (and this should come as no surprise) points to the bible as the authority. So, for example, Pastor of Evangelical Church says members should tithe. Evangelical Member asks why she should tithe… Pastor responds that “it’s in the bible.” Another example… Evangelical Member asks why she has to get baptized if baptism has no soteriological impact. Pastor responds that Jesus commands it in Matthew 28… etc.

And as you know, lost in this exchange is the authority of the Pastor him- or herself. Anyone can point to a bible verse – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. – the question is, Who has the authority to interpret the text and instruct the flock…?

 

[PRmerger]

Obviously you addressed Itwin, but I thought I’d add my two cents…

Of course. That’s the nature/culture of a forum–the more who chime in intelligently, the better!

What I’ve noticed is that the Evangelical Christian, ultimately, (and this should come as no surprise) points to the bible as the authority. So, for example, Pastor of Evangelical Church says members should tithe. Evangelical Member asks why she should tithe… Pastor responds that “it’s in the bible.” Another example… Evangelical Member asks why she has to get baptized if baptism has no soteriological impact. Pastor responds that Jesus commands it in Matthew 28… etc.

Yes.

And if the Believer doesn’t agree with this Pastor’s interpretation…what next? Does the Believer, as ltwin seems to be suggesting, conform to the Pastor’s interpretation, knowing that this Pastor is fallible and going to err at some point?

Or does she leave to find a church whose Pastor preaches that which she believes?

Of course, we are talking generalizations here. But I am wondering what the paradigm is that seems to be espoused by the Evangelical Churches. Are the Believers to conform to the Pastor? Or are they encouraged to leave if their theologies are not consonant?

And as you know, lost in this exchange is the authority of the Pastor him- or herself. Anyone can point to a bible verse – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. – the question is, Who has the authority to interpret the text and instruct the flock…?

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Gicutzu]

Obviously you addressed Itwin, but I thought I’d add my two cents…

What I’ve noticed is that the Evangelical Christian, ultimately, (and this should come as no surprise) points to the bible as the authority. So, for example, Pastor of Evangelical Church says members should tithe. Evangelical Member asks why she should tithe… Pastor responds that “it’s in the bible.” Another example… Evangelical Member asks why she has to get baptized if baptism has no soteriological impact. Pastor responds that Jesus commands it in Matthew 28… etc.

And as you know, lost in this exchange is the authority of the Pastor him- or herself. Anyone can point to a bible verse – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. – the question is, Who has the authority to interpret the text and instruct the flock…?

For SDAs the authority comes from the interpretations of “prophetess” Ellen G. White, who received visions from God. She also said that what the SDA General Conference says is binding, because the Holy Spirit guides it.

So, at least for SDAs, the church holds a lot of authority: you can’t pick and choose what you believe.

They also profess to hold true to sola fide and sola gratia, but to be honest I don’t think a lot of SDAs believe that people who work on the Sabbath or eat pork will be saved through faith or grace, so works are involved as well.

Not your typical Evangelicals, although similar in many other respects. I think that’s the reason you don’t hear SDAs complaining about the word “religion”.

 

[stewstew03]

…
And if the Believer doesn’t agree with this Pastor’s interpretation…what next? Does the Believer, as ltwin seems to be suggesting, conform to the Pastor’s interpretation, knowing that this Pastor is fallible and going to err at some point?
…

Well, if the Member agrees with the Pastor, then the response is “What a wonderful Pastor – he’s truly preaches the Word of God!”

Or does she leave to find a church whose Pastor preaches that which she believes?

I think the disagreement, and whether or not she goes “church shopping”, would have to depend on the particular doctrine at issue.

Of course, we are talking generalizations here. But I am wondering what the paradigm is that seems to be espoused by the Evangelical Churches. Are the Believers to conform to the Pastor? Or are they encouraged to leave if their theologies are not consonant?

From my experience, Members are encouraged to conform to the core beliefs of the church, which are very basic. For example, here are the core beliefs of a baptist church nearby:

The Bible: We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, divinely inspired; that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God for us; that it is authoritative for this church and each of us for every age.

God: We believe that God exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three are one God. We believe God created the universe by His Power and Word. We believe that God is all knowing, all powerful and ever present.

Jesus Christ: We believe Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father into the world to save sinners. We believe that Jesus Christ was virgin born, sinless in life and mighty in words and deeds. We believe Jesus was both God and man, that He was crucified for our sins, and was bodily raised from the dead. He then ascended to His Father’s side where He is head of the church and intercedes for believers. We believe Jesus Christ is coming again personally, visibly and bodily to reign as Lord.

Holy Spirit: We believe the Holy Spirit is a person, is God, and has all the divine characteristics. He indwells all believers, baptizes and seals them at the moment of salvation. He fills them in response to confession of sin and surrender to Him.

Salvation: We believe that Jesus, through His death on the cross, provided salvation for all. However, to receive salvation one must repent of sin and trust Jesus Christ alone. The **true believer is eternally secure and cannot lose his salvation. He may, however, lose his joy by sin and bring the loving discipline of the Father upon himself.

All who have received Christ will at death depart to be with Christ in their spirits and at Christ’s return receive a new body which will be like His glorious body.

The Church: We believe a New Testament church is a local body of baptized believers who have agreed together to worship Jesus Christ, edify the believers, evangelize the lost and minister to others.

The church has two ordinances: Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life we have in Him. The Lord’s Supper is a reminder of Christ’s death and anticipates His Second Coming.
[Emphasis is mine].

Very basic stuff. There’s not much here that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching, except for their view of the “Lord’s Supper” (obviously a major doctrinal divide). Even with regard to baptism, they claim it has no effect on the soul, but, on the other hand, if one does not want to get baptized, they’ll question whether or not that person is a “true believer.” Similarly, with the OSAS doctrine – one is only “saved” if he/she continues to follow Christ. So it’s “Conditional OSAS” – the condition being that the believer continues to confess sin, pray, and follow God. If that person fails to continue his/her walk with God, then he/she was never a “true believer” anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if the Member agrees with the Pastor, then the response is “What a wonderful Pastor – he’s truly preaches the Word of God!”

I think the disagreement, and whether or not she goes “church shopping”, would have to depend on the particular doctrine at issue.

From my experience, Members are encouraged to conform to the core beliefs of the church, which are very basic. For example, here are the core beliefs of a baptist church nearby:

The Bible: We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, divinely inspired; that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God for us; that it is authoritative for this church and each of us for every age.

God: We believe that God exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three are one God. We believe God created the universe by His Power and Word. We believe that God is all knowing, all powerful and ever present.

Jesus Christ: We believe Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father into the world to save sinners. We believe that Jesus Christ was virgin born, sinless in life and mighty in words and deeds. We believe Jesus was both God and man, that He was crucified for our sins, and was bodily raised from the dead. He then ascended to His Father’s side where He is head of the church and intercedes for believers. We believe Jesus Christ is coming again personally, visibly and bodily to reign as Lord.

Holy Spirit: We believe the Holy Spirit is a person, is God, and has all the divine characteristics. He indwells all believers, baptizes and seals them at the moment of salvation. He fills them in response to confession of sin and surrender to Him.

Salvation: We believe that Jesus, through His death on the cross, provided salvation for all. However, to receive salvation one must repent of sin and trust Jesus Christ alone. The ***true believer ***is eternally secure and cannot lose his salvation. He may, however, lose his joy by sin and bring the loving discipline of the Father upon himself.

All who have received Christ will at death depart to be with Christ in their spirits and at Christ’s return receive a new body which will be like His glorious body.

The Church: We believe a New Testament church is a local body of baptized believers who have agreed together to worship Jesus Christ, edify the believers, evangelize the lost and minister to others.

The church has two ordinances: Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life we have in Him. The Lord’s Supper is a reminder of Christ’s death and anticipates His Second Coming.
[Emphasis is mine].

Very basic stuff. There’s not much here that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching, except for their view of the “Lord’s Supper” (obviously a major doctrinal divide). Even with regard to baptism, they claim it has no effect on the soul, but, on the other hand, if one does not want to get baptized, they’ll question whether or not that person is a “true believer.” Similarly, with the OSAS doctrine – one is only “saved” if he/she continues to follow Christ. So it’s “Conditional OSAS” – the condition being that the believer continues to confess sin, pray, and follow God. If that person fails to continue his/her walk with God, then he/she was never a “true believer” anyway.

Oh, yes. So very basic indeed.

I must respectfully say that all of the above is about a 5th grader’s theological understanding.

Would that these Believers would drink from the Font of Theological Truth as given to them in the Catholic Church!

 

[laircy]

Because people want the perceived benefits of being spiritual without the perceived costs of religion (being bound by something—which is what religion is, based on Latin “religare”- to bind).

The overwhelming message of the culture and most of 20th century (and some even before that) literature is this: Rules are bad and meant to take the fun out of life, just do what you want and what makes you happy.
Everywhere you look you see the glorification of rebellion and individuality.
Therefore, the very idea of letting go of this “freedom” sets people frenetic. You see people who claim to be Christians deny religion, which is odd, considering that Christ himself was rather religious, what with instituting the Church and sacraments and saying “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Presumably they want to follow Christ only as far as the world will let them—that is, they want to “be nice” and “love” everyone (of course wondrously vague), but not actually do something that will be seen as too rule-ish or extreme: “Take up your cross and follow me.”

 

[stewstew03]

Oh, yes. So very basic indeed.

I must respectfully say that all of the above is about a 5th grader’s theological understanding.

Would that these Believers would drink from the Font of Theological Truth as given to them in the Catholic Church!

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

 

[PRmerger]

That actually made me COL.

,

*Chuckle Out Loud
My own made up internet acronym. :curtsey:

 

[benhur]

I was raised Baptist, and we scoffed at the word “religion.” When I was growing up, we often said, “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship.”

The reason was because we saw “religion” as “works of man,” an attempt to earn our way to heaven through a system of good works.

To us, Christianity was The “anti-religion,” because we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ, not through any of our own good works. Any good works that we do are done because Jesus Christ transforms us and gives us the power to do works that bring honor and glory to Him and help to spread the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God.

As a Catholic, I still believe all this. The Catechism teaches that we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. This faith produces obedience to Christ, and that means submitting to His Church, which asks us to do certain good works. So faith and works go hand in hand in Christianity.

I no longer have the animosity towards the word “religion.” I think that one of the reasons for the continued splintering of Protestant Christianity is the demonizing of this word and the resulting loss of the word “religion” from Evangelical Protestant culture.

The emphasis in Evangelical Protestant Christianity is upon a personal relationship with Jesus.

The importance of regular fellowship with and commitment to a Body of Believers is not recognized. This has resulted in many Christians who have little or no commitment to any local church or fellowship group but instead, “hop” from church to church and fellowship to fellowship looking for a place where they can “be fed.” (There’s a great Ray Boltz song called “Church Hop.”)

I think that a restoration of the word “religion” to Evangelical Protestant culture would help these Christians to see the many places in the New Testament where it is blatantly obvious that there is an actual “organized church” with an actual hierarchy of authority, and that Christians should affiliate themselves with that Church rather than living as “lone sheep” in this world.

JMO, of course.

Pretty good Cat. Not sure that it’s lack (religion) is what cause splits. I am surprised you say there is a lack of fellowship and or commitment. I thought baptists meet twice on Sunday and have a midweek service and are quite tight knit. They have home bible studies and sometimes form schools for their kids and socialize a bit also. Their church is quite “visible”. Most mainline denominations have hierarchy. Good discussion but not sure what you are mentioning at the end has to do with view of “religion”. I do see folks thinking of religion as doing things in regards to worship or dealing with interaction with God, individually or corporately. Jesus said religion should deal more with helping others.

 

[ltwin]

This is an interesting comment, coming from a non-Catholic.

This seems to imply that when the church professes something, the Evangelical Christian conforms her belief to what this church professes.

Is this a correct summary of the above statement of yours, ltwin?

Yes, but only in so much as the church in question is rightfully dividing the word God. The Bible does say that even if an angel of light should teach another gospel, let them be accursed.

Evangelical Christians submit to the authority of God’s word, which the church is simply the steward and teacher of. Once it moves beyond this stewardship and teaching role, then it is susceptible to abuses of authority.

I would find that an interesting statement in that it would seem to make the church the authority of the Evangelical Christian’s belief.

The church is an authority, but an authority under the word. It can hold me accountable to the word of God, but leaders of the church are also held accountable to the word of God.

And what I have found is that typically when an EC does not agree with the beliefs of her local church, she leaves to find another one which better suits her theology.

Does this not seem to be consonant with your experience as well?

For some people, yes. But not all. Most of the time, in my experience, when people leave a church its rarely over disputes over doctrine. In my case, my family left one Pentecostal church for another Pentecostal church over personality issues and leadership disputes. Once those issues subsided, we returned to our original church in under 2 years.

 

[ltwin]

Oh, yes. So very basic indeed.

I must respectfully say that all of the above is about a 5th grader’s theological understanding.

Would that these Believers would drink from the Font of Theological Truth as given to them in the Catholic Church!

Well, the formal statements are typically summaries of essential truths. The informal lists of beliefs and theological truths are absorbed through preaching, teaching, Bible studies, Sunday schools, adult Christian education, prayer meetings, etc., etc.

Those belief statements are not seen as binding contracts, where you must believe whats in the statement and you are free to believe anything not contained within the statement. It’s like the Bill of Rights. Those rights listed are rights that the government shall not infringe, but the absence of other rights does not deny the existence of other rights.

Similarly, the absence of other doctrinal content does not imply the non-existence of other doctrines. My church has membership candidates fill out an application that asks:

previous church affiliation,
whether they’ve accepted Christ as lord and savior (John 3:5-8),
whether they’ve been baptized in water (Matthew 28:19),
and whether they are willing to support the church through the “scriptural method of tithes and offerings” (Malachi 3:10, 1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 7:7).

They are then asked to sign a “Covenant” that reads:

I agree by the grace of God to abide by the standards of the word of God and by the government of Victory World Outreach Center, to attend the church services faithfully, and to work in harmony with others of like precious faith for the promotion of the kingdom of God, for the edifying of the body of Christ and for the betterment of the church.

I shall endeavor to the best of my ability to walk in the light of God’s word; however, shall I change my doctrinal beliefs or cease to live a Godly life, I shall consider it right to be removed from the membership of this church.

I understand that before my membership is approved that I will be asked to attend a membership class.

It’s important to point out that most evangelicals are not baptized as infants. They choose to be members of their churches. Why would you choose to be a member of a church that taught things you disagreed with? Unless your beliefs change radically later in life, this really is not much of an issue.

 

[fhansen]

I have noticed a lot of disdain for the word “religion” and they even put in quotes as I have done here.
Can someone explain this?

I like how James puts it in the first chapter of his letter:
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
**
And what church, more than any others, has consistently promoted these kinds of “works”, this type of religion based on love, down through the centuries?

 

[stewstew03]

…
Grace flows via faith, and accompanies “ritual” it isn’t made available to us through ritual, there’s a distinct difference. I don’t see sacramentalism taught anywhere in the NT, but we will disagree on that as I do with the teachings of the RCC.
…

What about marriage? I thought most (mainline) protestants believed that sex outside of the marital covenant was sinful…??

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