Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

[Caitilin]

Thank you for the added details.

 

Hmmm... I guess my viewpoint is that everything... everything God has planned from the beginning to teach us. The Old Testament, many of the events recorded, is so we can learn from them. For example, I think of Israel insisting on having a human king, and the Lord provided one for them, but it was not what He wanted... it was not the ideal. In addition, the first time I partook of communion I gained a deeper understanding of things. So my view of liturgy and the festal cycle, etc. is that we learn from them, and by learning we are changed.

 

I think you and Milovany are saying very similar things here. The difference I see centers in your idea of learning more. If I may make an analogy to a marriage, you do not start to love your husband more by merely learning more facts about him. Rather, you love him, who he is, and while those facts contribute to who he is, they do not sum him up. In loving him, you become closer to him, go deeper in relationship with him.

 

By participating in the sacramental life of the church, a person grows closer Christ because it helps the person to love Christ more and more--partly through learning, but certainly not entirely--just as living out one's marriage vows brings one closer and closer to one's spouse. The life of the church helps us to better understand who Christ is, not just in the factual sense, but in the personal and relational sense, as the life of matrimony helps us to better understand our spouses.

 

And as the husband and wife become one flesh in marriage, so Christ, the heavenly Bridegroom, calls us, the church, His Bride, to become one with Him, and to become "perfect as the Father is perfect."

 

Sorry, I am rambling a bit here, and it is late. Sorry for the derailment! :)

Edited January 15, 2012 by Caitilin

[milovany]

Thank you for the added details.

 

Hmmm... I guess my viewpoint is that everything... everything God has planned from the beginning to teach us. The Old Testament, many of the events recorded, is so we can learn from them. For example, I think of Israel insisting on having a human king, and the Lord provided one for them, but it was not what He wanted... it was not the ideal. In addition, the first time I partook of communion I gained a deeper understanding of things. So my view of liturgy and the festal cycle, etc. is that we learn from them, and by learning we are changed.

 

 

I think the bit of difference we might have in this is that I believe everything God has planned from the beginning is not to teach us, but to be in communion with us. Teaching us is so ... academic and head-based. I don't want to be in school with God; I don't want to just have the right thoughts about God (and then call that "knowing" Him). I want to live with Him (be in communion with Him), you know? Yes, I do learn a lot from Him through the things He uses to reveal Himself, of course. But more, I'm just learning to be WITH Him in the gifts lifted above (the sacraments, the liturgy, the festal cycle, etc.), and am changed by that. Sure my head knowledge is affected, but it's not the only thing that is affected. It's not the foundation of my faith. Communion with Him is.

 

ETA - Caitlin posted while I was typing and she says it better than me. :blush: I like her marriage analogy.

Edited January 15, 2012 by milovaný

[Lovedtodeath]

I think you and Milovany are saying very similar things here.

We usually are, though it doesn't seem like it.

The difference I see centers in your idea of learning more. If I may make an analogy to a marriage, you do not start to love your husband more by merely learning more facts about him. Rather, you love him, who he is, and while those facts contribute to who he is, they do not sum him up. In loving him, you become closer to him, go deeper in relationship with him. By participating in the sacramental life of the church, a person grows closer Christ because it helps the person to love Christ more and more--partly through learning, but certainly not entirely--just as living out one's marriage vows brings one closer and closer to one's spouse.

Yes. I can see the correlation here.

 

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ginōskōsin

 

Matthew 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. eginōsken

[NASDAQ]

Being Republican doesn't make you a Christian? Lucky for me, and the whole rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition! :lol:

 

I found the video very irritating, but I don't think I'm his target audience. I find religion in the worst sense to this man -- a set of rules by which the community functions, particularly in relation to worship -- to be tremendously useful in the formation and governance of a community. It's hard to have a permanent community made up exclusively of individual relationships and feelings and experiences. And if you can't have a permanent community, it's very hard to get much done.

 

Also, I think hypocrisy gets a bad wrap. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, no? He hid his problematic pornography usage because he was ashamed, and knew it was wrong. Knowledge of good and evil is not insignificant.

[tex-mex]

I don't think he is contradicting himself at all. The church does not equal religion. The "church" refers to Christians, the bride of Christ, not a building or a denomination or a set of rules.

I think this is the crux of the video.

 

I only viewed it half way and a friend told me I HAD to view it. Meh.

 

It was not in my opinion, revelatory, and I only speak this with kindness as this is not new and has been a big topic before.

 

Back in the 1970's Jesus Movement (yoikes... I am showing my age?!?) there was a Christian recording artist,

, who summed up the same hot topic in his music and speakings. He was influenced by the writings of Charles Finney, a revivalist during the second great awakening in the 1800's.

 

I loved Keith's 1977 quote, "Going to church on Sundays doesn't make you a Christian much like going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger." ;) Which pretty much sums up what the kid said on that YouTube video.

 

Whether it was during the early gathering of Christians in homes after the death of Christ, Martin Luther's time, Great Awakening, Jesus Movement in the 70's, or current times... I think God is desiring a personal relationship with each and every one of us. And how many of us use the idea of a "box" (i.e. church or other issues) to prevent God from coming closer.

 

There are those who have a incredible rich and satisfying relationship with God via organized religion.

 

But for the majority of us, it isn't the case.

 

We flee or avoid organized religion to be honest. That (I think) is what the author of that video is trying to address. Much like the Keith Green video of what he is crying out to God in a "letter" -- see "

". Lots to think about. No easy answers either. Great discussion. Edited January 15, 2012 by tex-mex

[LG Gone Wild]

Being Republican doesn't make you a Christian? Lucky for me, and the whole rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition! :lol:

 

I found the video very irritating, but I don't think I'm his target audience. I find religion in the worst sense to this man -- a set of rules by which the community functions, particularly in relation to worship -- to be tremendously useful in the formation and governance of a community. It's hard to have a permanent community made up exclusively of individual relationships and feelings and experiences. And if you can't have a permanent community, it's very hard to get much done.

 

Also, I think hypocrisy gets a bad wrap. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, no? He hid his problematic pornography usage because he was ashamed, and knew it was wrong. Knowledge of good and evil is not insignificant.

 

LOL! I agree. Hypocrisy is better than moral relativism. I would argue that if he had been more religious such as praying and working, there would have been little time left to spend on pornography.

 

What confuses me is this abhorrence to rules, they are natural and inevitable. It isn't possible to be a lover of Jesus and not be part of a religion. By acknowledging Jesus, you are already following a rule, that is believing in Jesus.

[Aelwydd]

LOL! I agree. Hypocrisy is better than moral relativism. I would argue that if he had been more religious such as praying and working, there would have been little time left to spend on pornography.

 

I would argue no such thing, especially as some of the worst crimes ever committed have been done by people who prayed and worked religiously.

 

I have a relative who is immensely religious--and who raped his oldest daughter, and molested a younger daughter. This man prayed every day, and preached endlessly. He is truly evil, and I have nothing to do with him.

 

A moral relativist might say that what he did, while appalling or offensive to some, is acceptable to others, and cannot be judged a monster. A hypocrite of that ilk would look at what he did, and staunchly defend his behavior, justify it, and absolutely declare it right and/or good.

 

I find both positions reprehensible, and I don't see much benefit in excusing hypocrisy, whether you value organized religion or not. Frankly, hypocrisy is extent throughout secular and religious societies, so it's not as though to defend religion, you need to embrace hypocrisy.

 

 

What confuses me is this abhorrence to rules, they are natural and inevitable. It isn't possible to be a lover of Jesus and not be part of a religion. By acknowledging Jesus, you are already following a rule, that is believing in Jesus.

 

Rules are not abhorrent to me, and in fact, I attend a liturgical, structured church (Episcopal). That's not even what this young man's poem was about.

 

And frankly, I'm kind of surprised that on a board that is dedicated to literary study and education, everyone on this thread is insisting on adhering to a literal interpretation of a word in a poem.

 

I feel I must point out that the word in this poem is being used to describe some very emotional, intuitive, and subjective concepts. In short, he's using his literary license to assign the word a skewered meaning that is quite different from the biblical definition.

 

I'm not a literary genius, at all, but I'm pretty sure there's probably even a term for making a particular word take on a meaning that is actually opposed to its actual definition. He's juxtaposing the intended and original meaning of "religion" with its insidious counterpart, contrived belief.

 

That's not the only thing he's twisting up.

 

What's fascinating to me is, I think he's addressing those who consider themselves "non-denominational, free-spirit" type Christians as much as he is the mainliners. I don't know if his audience realizes it--but he's basically taking the oft-hurled accusation that is popular among many evangelicals, that folks in hierarchal, traditional churches merely "call themselves Christian," and are somehow less Christian, less spiritually authentic, and less blessed than they.

 

Why do I think he has a specific evangelical-type audience in mind for a good part of it? For a few reasons, but largely his whole "Repub" comment for one. Yes, many Catholics and Orthodox and Episcopalians and Lutherans, etc., are Republican, but these churches are much less uniform than the evangelical churches in that respect. That is because many Christians in these groups happen to identify with the "social gospel" that gets more traction in the Democrat Party. Furthermore, these groups tend to be more tolerant of gays, and other conservative-social-outcasts, at least in my experience. But, evangelical groups tend to line up much more cleanly with the Republican Party, and in fact, I have seen and heard many evangelical leaders outright endorse voting for the GOP (and now Tea Partiers).

 

Another reason I think he's taking aim at the the "anti-religious" types, are his comments about the church being a hospital, and references to how Jesus was so often seen in the company of social misfits, that his own reputation was besmirched by it. I can't tell you how often I heard the phrase about guarding against "the very appearance of sin." That reference is a direct challenge to these Christians: either get over yourselves, and start seeking the company of these awful sinners, or someday you'll find out you're actually just another "religious Christian" yourself.

 

Then, he talks about grace, and he emphasizes how little it had to do with him, and how much it totally depended on God's grace. Now, on the face of it, a lot of evangelical/ non-denoms hear this and automatically assume he must be talking about Catholics/Orthodox, etc., are all trying to "work" themselves to salvation by observing this or that rite.

 

But, I was actually struck by it because many evangelicals are actually very tied to the idea that salvation involves the action or initiation of an individual. They will condemn Catholics for upholding the Sacraments in one breath. They, they will turn around and tell someone else that unless that person has taken the action of choosing to believe in Christ, taken the action of confessing their sins, taken the action of upholding that salvation by adopting new rules of behavior (no drinking, no dancing, censoring music, staying away from this, or that, stop being gay, start being this or that, here's the rules of acceptable behavior between sexes, yada, yada)--and so forth, then they are either in danger of "losing their salvation" (making it dependent again, upon one's behavior and actions--or works), or they are declared having not really been saved in the first place, because again, their works were not sufficient.

 

But, he's saying to both evangelicals (and their works) and more traditional groups (and their observances), that no matter what you do or don't do, it's really never been about you. He was slain from the foundation of the world, and so the price was paid before you had ever been born. Before you had ever learned of the Fall of Adam, the Second Adam had already bridged that gap, and used it to cross to you.

 

That is his message. (Whether one agrees with this viewpoint or not, that's how I interpret it.)

 

So, you see, in my really convoluted head space, he's not talking to uptight Lutherans anymore than he's talking to that happy-clappy Calvary Chapel church down the road.

 

When he uses the word religion, he's using that word to encompass a whole realm of self-delusion and self-aggrandizement. He's talking about the habit of many Christians to imagine that their good actions or works are anything but an extension of God's many gifts to us. But those terms don't rhyme as well with "sin," and they're frankly not all that poetic-sounding, so he's taken a word that's totally loaded in the evangelical psyche and turned it back on them in his challenge.

 

I don't know if any of this is helpful (depressing really, since it is so dang long), but I hope maybe others can understand the value I see in his speech. Others will take a totally different interpretation, and that's cool, because, like I said, it's poetry, not an expository research paper. The terms used are more fluid and much more loaded in meaning and nuance.

 

Anyway, I have to end this behemoth somewhere, so I might as stop here.

[justamouse]

Anyway, I have to end this behemoth somewhere, so I might as stop here.

 

That was really insightful, thank you.

[justamouse]

I think you and Milovany are saying very similar things here. The difference I see centers in your idea of learning more. If I may make an analogy to a marriage, you do not start to love your husband more by merely learning more facts about him. Rather, you love him, who he is, and while those facts contribute to who he is, they do not sum him up. In loving him, you become closer to him, go deeper in relationship with him.

 

By participating in the sacramental life of the church, a person grows closer Christ because it helps the person to love Christ more and more--partly through learning, but certainly not entirely--just as living out one's marriage vows brings one closer and closer to one's spouse. The life of the church helps us to better understand who Christ is, not just in the factual sense, but in the personal and relational sense, as the life of matrimony helps us to better understand our spouses.

 

And as the husband and wife become one flesh in marriage, so Christ, the heavenly Bridegroom, calls us, the church, His Bride, to become one with Him, and to become "perfect as the Father is perfect."

 

Sorry, I am rambling a bit here, and it is late. Sorry for the derailment! :)

:D Love it.

[Lovedtodeath]

I find both positions reprehensible, and I don't see much benefit in excusing hypocrisy, whether you value organized religion or not. Frankly, hypocrisy is extent throughout secular and religious societies, so it's not as though to defend religion, you need to embrace hypocrisy.

 

Rules are not abhorrent to me, and in fact, I attend a liturgical, structured church (Episcopal). That's not even what this young man's poem was about.

 

And frankly, I'm kind of surprised that on a board that is dedicated to literary study and education, everyone on this thread is insisting on adhering to a literal interpretation of a word in a poem.

 

I feel I must point out that the word in this poem is being used to describe some very emotional, intuitive, and subjective concepts. In short, he's using his literary license to assign the word a skewered meaning that is quite different from the biblical definition.

 

Others will take a totally different interpretation, and that's cool, because, like I said, it's poetry, not an expository research paper. The terms used are more fluid and much more loaded in meaning and nuance.

 

Anyway, I have to end this behemoth somewhere, so I might as stop here.

WOOT! Very good sister!:hurray: Thanks for sharing.

[tex-mex]

But, he's saying to both evangelicals (and their works) and more traditional groups (and their observances), that no matter what you do or don't do, it's really never been about you. He was slain from the foundation of the world, and so the price was paid before you had ever been born. Before you had ever learned of the Fall of Adam, the Second Adam had already bridged that gap, and used it to cross to you.

 

That is his message. (Whether one agrees with this viewpoint or not, that's how I interpret it.)

 

So, you see, in my really convoluted head space, he's not talking to uptight Lutherans anymore than he's talking to that happy-clappy Calvary Chapel church down the road.

 

When he uses the word religion, he's using that word to encompass a whole realm of self-delusion and self-aggrandizement. He's talking about the habit of many Christians to imagine that their good actions or works are anything but an extension of God's many gifts to us. But those terms don't rhyme as well with "sin," and they're frankly not all that poetic-sounding, so he's taken a word that's totally loaded in the evangelical psyche and turned it back on them in his challenge.

 

Spot on!!

 

Very nicely stated and great analysis. :iagree:

[Caribbean Queen]

In short, he's using his literary license to assign the word a skewered meaning that is quite different from the biblical definition....He's juxtaposing the intended and original meaning of "religion" with its insidious counterpart, contrived belief.

 

Some people say "I don't need Church. All I need is Jesus and my Bible." or "I am spiritual, not religious." They are not thinking, "I don't need contrived religion," they are thinking, "I don't need organized religion."

 

Those people will be encouraged by the video, and that is not a good thing.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think a lot of this discussion with Milovany and myself is based on a different definition for the word learning and teaching. Learning does not necessarily equal head knowledge.

 

"They learned their lesson."

[Lovedtodeath]

Some people say "I don't need Church. All I need is Jesus and my Bible." or "I am spiritual, not religious." They are not thinking, "I don't need contrived religion," they are thinking, "I don't need organized religion."

 

Those people will be encouraged by the video, and that is not a good thing.

 

I think it just depends on where they are. The first thing to learn is Christ alone... and after that, if they have learned Christ alone good enough, there is no need to worry. He will lead them to a body of believers or church.

[eloquacious]

I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but I don't have the time to read through all the pages of discussion just now. The man who made that video has had somewhat of a change of heart, or at least a clarification of his views. See this exchange:

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/14/following-up-on-the-jesusreligion-video/

[Aelwydd]

Some people say "I don't need Church. All I need is Jesus and my Bible." or "I am spiritual, not religious." They are not thinking, "I don't need contrived religion," they are thinking, "I don't need organized religion."

 

Those people will be encouraged by the video, and that is not a good thing.

 

No, it's not, but the misuse of it by others doesn't undermine the message.

 

I mean, look at how historically people have misused the Bible. I read parts of it and think, ok, I think I get what is going on here. And other people read those parts and say, "Ha! We were right! Now we need to offend and alienate as many people as possible who don't believe/practice the way we do! (And maybe we can demonize/ostracize/exile/kill them...?)"

 

That's pretty much the story of Christianity, unfortunately.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but I don't have the time to read through all the pages of discussion just now. The man who made that video has had somewhat of a change of heart, or at least a clarification of his views. See this exchange:

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/14/following-up-on-the-jesusreligion-video/

 

This is really nice to see. Thank you!

[Lovedtodeath]

No, it's not, but the misuse of it by others doesn't undermine the message.

 

I mean, look at how historically people have misused the Bible. I read parts of it and think, ok, I think I get what is going on here. And other people read those parts and say, "Ha! We were right! Now we need to offend and alienate as many people as possible who don't believe/practice the way we do! (And maybe we can demonize/ostracize/exile/kill them...?)"

 

That's pretty much the story of Christianity, unfortunately.

LIKE!

[Aelwydd]

LIKE!

 

 

Thank you, Tex-Mex and Loved!

[8circles]

Spot on!!

 

Very nicely stated and great analysis. :iagree:

 

YES!!!!!!!!! I've been bothered by this whole discussion, frankly, win rebuttal after rebuttal and criticism of the video based on definitions of words that are obviously not shared by the guy in the video.

 

I wanted to post my thoughts many times but the whole household was recovering from the a stomach bug and I was too steeped in nasty laundry to take the time.

 

Aelwydd, spot. On. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your posts. Brilliant.

 

Interestingly, this video was played in church today and my pastor made some of the same comments. I was thrilled that there wasn't any rebuttal or praising agreement but a n intelligent commentary of the actual content, highlighting where the criticisms made might apply to us as a body of believers.

[PeacefulChaos]

YES!!!!!!!!! I've been bothered by this whole discussion, frankly, win rebuttal after rebuttal and criticism of the video based on definitions of words that are obviously not shared by the guy in the video.

 

I wanted to post my thoughts many times but the whole household was recovering from the a stomach bug and I was too steeped in nasty laundry to take the time.

 

Aelwydd, spot. On. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your posts. Brilliant.

 

Interestingly, this video was played in church today and my pastor made some of the same comments. I was thrilled that there wasn't any rebuttal or praising agreement but a n intelligent commentary of the actual content, highlighting where the criticisms made might apply to us as a body of believers.

 

OMGoodness, if they played that in my church I would be livid. :)

Not because what he's saying is bad, but because if I hear that stupid 'not a religion, but a relationship' line one.more.time. I'm going to scream. and start kicking things. :D

[twoxcell]

happy-clappy Calvary Chapel church down the road.

 

 

Hey, I'm totally offended now. I have never been Happy-Clappy in my life.:glare:

 

:lol: Just kidding!

[Lovedtodeath]

Hey, I'm totally offended now. I have never been Happy-Clappy in my life.:glare:

 

:lol: Just kidding!

bwa ha ha ha. Well, I am happy-clappy all of the time, and your glare has offended me.

[twoxcell]

bwa ha ha ha. Well, I am happy-clappy all of the time, and your glare has offended me.

 

Well I guess we can never please everyone, and maybe I have been happy-clappy once or twice.;) Nah, I'm too much of an introvert.

[LG Gone Wild]

I would argue no such thing, especially as some of the worst crimes ever committed have been done by people who prayed and worked religiously.

 

I have a relative who is immensely religious--and who raped his oldest daughter, and molested a younger daughter. This man prayed every day, and preached endlessly. He is truly evil, and I have nothing to do with him.

 

And the best instances of kindness and humanity have been committed by those who prayed and worked religiously.

 

You give the example of your relative, I offer the lives of the saints.

 

A moral relativist might say that what he did, while appalling or offensive to some, is acceptable to others, and cannot be judged a monster. A hypocrite of that ilk would look at what he did, and staunchly defend his behavior, justify it, and absolutely declare it right and/or good.

 

Would a moral relativist even acknowledge the presence of evil?

 

A hypocrite might defend his behavior while in the same breath, chastise another for the same thing.

 

I find both positions reprehensible, and I don't see much benefit in excusing hypocrisy, whether you value organized religion or not. Frankly, hypocrisy is extent throughout secular and religious societies, so it's not as though to defend religion, you need to embrace hypocrisy.

 

I didn't. I just said it is worse to not have the acknowledgement of good and evil than it is to have hypocrisy.

 

 

Rules are not abhorrent to me, and in fact, I attend a liturgical, structured church (Episcopal). That's not even what this young man's poem was about.

 

 

And frankly, I'm kind of surprised that on a board that is dedicated to literary study and education, everyone on this thread is insisting on adhering to a literal interpretation of a word in a poem.

 

I feel I must point out that the word in this poem is being used to describe some very emotional, intuitive, and subjective concepts. In short, he's using his literary license to assign the word a skewered meaning that is quite different from the biblical definition.

 

I'm not a literary genius, at all, but I'm pretty sure there's probably even a term for making a particular word take on a meaning that is actually opposed to its actual definition. He's juxtaposing the intended and original meaning of "religion" with its insidious counterpart, contrived belief.

 

That's not the only thing he's twisting up.

 

What's fascinating to me is, I think he's addressing those who consider themselves "non-denominational, free-spirit" type Christians as much as he is the mainliners. I don't know if his audience realizes it--but he's basically taking the oft-hurled accusation that is popular among many evangelicals, that folks in hierarchal, traditional churches merely "call themselves Christian," and are somehow less Christian, less spiritually authentic, and less blessed than they.

 

Why do I think he has a specific evangelical-type audience in mind for a good part of it? For a few reasons, but largely his whole "Repub" comment for one. Yes, many Catholics and Orthodox and Episcopalians and Lutherans, etc., are Republican, but these churches are much less uniform than the evangelical churches in that respect. That is because many Christians in these groups happen to identify with the "social gospel" that gets more traction in the Democrat Party. Furthermore, these groups tend to be more tolerant of gays, and other conservative-social-outcasts, at least in my experience. But, evangelical groups tend to line up much more cleanly with the Republican Party, and in fact, I have seen and heard many evangelical leaders outright endorse voting for the GOP (and now Tea Partiers).

 

Another reason I think he's taking aim at the the "anti-religious" types, are his comments about the church being a hospital, and references to how Jesus was so often seen in the company of social misfits, that his own reputation was besmirched by it. I can't tell you how often I heard the phrase about guarding against "the very appearance of sin." That reference is a direct challenge to these Christians: either get over yourselves, and start seeking the company of these awful sinners, or someday you'll find out you're actually just another "religious Christian" yourself.

 

Guarding agains the appearance of sin is not a call to stay away from sinners, it is a call for transparency.

 

Then, he talks about grace, and he emphasizes how little it had to do with him, and how much it totally depended on God's grace. Now, on the face of it, a lot of evangelical/ non-denoms hear this and automatically assume he must be talking about Catholics/Orthodox, etc., are all trying to "work" themselves to salvation by observing this or that rite.

 

Not exactly, the rites give sanctifying grace (that can be lost) but Catholics (I believe Orthodox as well) work for salvation by faith AND works - not rites.

 

But, I was actually struck by it because many evangelicals are actually very tied to the idea that salvation involves the action or initiation of an individual. They will condemn Catholics for upholding the Sacraments in one breath. They, they will turn around and tell someone else that unless that person has taken the action of choosing to believe in Christ, taken the action of confessing their sins, taken the action of upholding that salvation by adopting new rules of behavior (no drinking, no dancing, censoring music, staying away from this, or that, stop being gay, start being this or that, here's the rules of acceptable behavior between sexes, yada, yada)--and so forth, then they are either in danger of "losing their salvation" (making it dependent again, upon one's behavior and actions--or works), or they are declared having not really been saved in the first place, because again, their works were not sufficient.

 

But, he's saying to both evangelicals (and their works) and more traditional groups (and their observances), that no matter what you do or don't do, it's really never been about you. He was slain from the foundation of the world, and so the price was paid before you had ever been born. Before you had ever learned of the Fall of Adam, the Second Adam had already bridged that gap, and used it to cross to you.

 

That is his message. (Whether one agrees with this viewpoint or not, that's how I interpret it.)

 

So, you see, in my really convoluted head space, he's not talking to uptight Lutherans anymore than he's talking to that happy-clappy Calvary Chapel church down the road.

 

When he uses the word religion, he's using that word to encompass a whole realm of self-delusion and self-aggrandizement. He's talking about the habit of many Christians to imagine that their good actions or works are anything but an extension of God's many gifts to us. But those terms don't rhyme as well with "sin," and they're frankly not all that poetic-sounding, so he's taken a word that's totally loaded in the evangelical psyche and turned it back on them in his challenge.

 

I don't know if any of this is helpful (depressing really, since it is so dang long), but I hope maybe others can understand the value I see in his speech. Others will take a totally different interpretation, and that's cool, because, like I said, it's poetry, not an expository research paper. The terms used are more fluid and much more loaded in meaning and nuance.

 

Anyway, I have to end this behemoth somewhere, so I might as stop here.

 

 

My comments in red. (Well, I tried to respond in red)

 

I understand that he was attempting to challenge legalism in Christianity but that he really did mean "religion" and tripped himself up. His further comments and clarifications seem to indicate that. Off to jog.

[TravelingChris]

We never talk about religion in the churches I go to. I am sure some would think my church is too _____ (and for some that blank could be liberal, conservative, ritualistic, free-form, and I am sure many adjectives I can't think of right now). But I get something from church and one of those things is opportunities for doing God's work. Could I maybe have done that myself-- I guess but it is much easier and more likely when a church is giving you lots of opportunities to do good works. I am new here and in less than two months from moving here, I was already plugged into a struggling school to help a first grader in reading and math. I wouldn't have even figured out that quickly which school might need my help. My church, however, already knew the surrounding areas and knew who could use tutoring, food assistance in other cases, housing help in a third case, etc, etc. There is nothing at the churches I join that smacks of legalism- I wouldn't be there. ALl the churches I join keep stressing that we are all sinners and need Christ. None ever suggest that such and such people are better. I love the rituals it has and the innovations. I love listening to the music, looking at the stained glass windows and tapestries, learning more about the BIble when the Minister, who has devoted his academic career to GOd while mine was in other subjects, explain things better than I would get on my own since I haven't studied Greek or Hebrew nor theological texts. So while I have heard of churches with all kinds of rules, I just don't go to those. I go to churches that aren't legalistic and this video doesn;t really speak to me.

[Nakia]

I want to sincerely thank everyone for this discussion. I don't think I've ever seen a religion thread go so well on the WTM boards, lol. :D

[twoxcell]

I want to sincerely thank everyone for this discussion. I don't think I've ever seen a religion thread go so well on the WTM boards, lol. :D

 

:iagree:

[Whereneverever]

I want to sincerely thank everyone for this discussion. I don't think I've ever seen a religion thread go so well on the WTM boards, lol. :D

 

:iagree:

[milovany]

I want to sincerely thank everyone for this discussion. I don't think I've ever seen a religion thread go so well on the WTM boards, lol. :D

 

There have been a few I can think of! Here and here, for example, and two really long ones here and here. We can mind our manners sometimes! ;)

 

I have to say, I do recall these staying nice, but also know that it's been awhile, and some are quite long, so maybe there were times it got tense. Forgive me if I'm wrong on any of these!