Here is the problem with saying this: its just more guilt and apologies given to the world. "Oh, so sorry World that some people have ignorantly done horrible things in the name of religion. What? You won't like us because of that one word: 'religion'? Okay, well dump it. It was a stupid word anyway. We're not about a religion. We're about a relationship. You like relationships don't you World? Those are happy things. So there, will you be our friends now?"
It is getting tiring seeing people make apologies for things that we don't need to be apologizing for and it is getting even more tiring seeing Christians being influenced by John Lennon's world view. No John Lennon, I don't think the world would be better if there were no religions, I think you were wrong.
The problem isn't just that we let our thinking be influenced by hallucinogenic induced hippys (although that is kind of annoying) it is that when we are influenced by them we become tragically correct in our semantics.
When we say we're not religious we are saying we are not attached to a system that for indicernable reasons brings about evil. I suppose because it divides people when we really should be united as one (ironically this is ideology taken from a... religion. But an eastern one so that seems cooler). Or maybe because rich people have used it as an excuse to do evil things (meanwhile other rich men used its absence as an excuse to do evil things, but thats besides the point isn't it Mr. Lennon?). But in that case it wasn't really religion that causes that evil, but man's corruption of that religion. So we should be more saying that we are a religion, but we are not in the habit of being those types of religious people who uses their religion to achieve personal (or evil) ends. But I'm getting off the point...
If we take our definition for being religious from the Bible and not from John Lennon or anyone else then our statement is still absolutely true. And thats the real tragedy in all of this. James 1: 27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
WE! ARE! NOT! DOING! THIS!
I know I'm not. This verse has bothered me for years because I know I'm doing next to nothing to help orphans and widows. I'm getting more and more of a feeling that this will have to change sometime soon, I don't know how it is going to look but things have to be different (see my post on abortion/adoption for one possible means of change). But what I am also bothered by is this idea of being unstained from the world. I don't do that. I don't hate the world so much that I try to keep it from affecting me. More often I try to indulge in as much of it as I can without crossing that imagined line into sin. I like the world, and as I grow older and familiarity grows too I learn to like it more and more. As I do so the imagined line into sin gets blury, then faint, and then it disappears.
I am aware this turned out to be a bit more intense than the rest of this series, but this sincerely bothers me. I don't believe its evil, I just think its misguided. My hope is that (this is a sincere hope, if all my ramblings come to nothing but this it will not have been a waste of time) the word "religion" and the desire to say the aformentioned phrase will send a flare in your brain to make you think of James 1:27 and be challenged to consider what true religion is defined as. And if you're not truly living a religious life that you will make the necessary steps to change that.
3 comments:
http://www.compassion.com/
I think you miss a key element of motivation behind the "It's not a religion" trend. I have found that a lot of the Christians who quip this cliche are far from the "apologetic" type who would try to cater to John Lennon--if anything, they err on the opposite end. The Jesus-fish-eating-the-Darwin-fish type of crowd. The famous "Eff You, I'm a Christian" mentality.
Rather, I see a sectarian drive behind this cliche: the Evangelicals who use it are trying to distinguish themselves from every other religion on earth by saying that any other brand of faith is "religion", while THEIR brand of religion is totally different.
In doing so, they end up trying to redefine the word "religion" itself. This is disturbing, because fitting words with new, contrived definitions that are totally different from the universally accepted definition is one of the marks of a cult-like group.
I think Josh McDowell was one of the fathers of the "it's not a religion" movement. He defined religion as a manmade system of trying to work your way into heaven, full of meaningless rituals. It goes without saying, this was a less-than-subtle jab at Catholic Christians.
Beyond the fact that he ignores grace-based strains which exist within non-Christian religions (i.e. Sufiist Islam and Amitabha Buddhism), the bigger issue is that he is totally redefining the word "religion" for the purposes of trying to establish the arbitrary exclusivity of his own take on religion.
I so agree with you here, David. Good topic, Ty.
Post a Comment