When I was a child, 'religion' was not a dirty word at church. If someone sked what my religion was, I would say I was a Christian. If you asked someone at church about that, they wouldn't go into a speech about how they aren't religious, they have a relationship.
I didn't hear it much, but I do remember a church song, "Give me that old time religion.... It was good for the apostles... It's good enough fo rme.' "Religion' wasn't a dirty word. Almost every Bible translation of James 1 speaks of vain religion and pure religion. Clearly the pure religion is good ot have.
The definition of religion didn't make religion into a bad thing. It's beliefs and practices that have to do with God or gods, spirits, etc. Our religion has to do with the true God who made heaven and earth. So what's wrong with that? We go to church. That's a religions practice. We pray. That is a religious practice. We sing songs of praise, and partake of communion. We abstain from fornication because, do not steal, love our neighbor, give to others, etc. because of religious beliefs.
I went to this crusade when I was a child, and the evangelist said that religion was man reaching out to God, but Christianity was God reaching out to men. It seemed to go over like a lead balloon. I think I might have asked one of my parents about it who said that that was just something he said, or just his idea.
Several years later, I recall a preacher using 'religiosity' in a negative way. And by the early 1990s, I started to hear preachers say stuff like, "I don't want you to be religious.' Doing a bit of reading, I think 'The Late Great Planet Earth' by Hal Lindsey spread the idea that 'Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ.'
It seems like they just redefined the word--- well not really-- usually they just use the word in a negative way and the audience has to guess what they mean is bad about religion. In the meanwhile, unbelievers in the audience who aren't familiar with the new Evangelical use of the word 'religion' are probably quite confused. If 'religion' is a bad thing, why are all these people in this church meeting, praying, singing, and listening to a preacher speak. Then they have to figure out what is meant.
I suspect this teaching against being 'religious' has had some ill effects. I have had a conversation with a man who did not think it was appropriate to have a set prayer time, but rather one had to be led by the Spirit. I do not see the two ideas as in contradiction with one another. I've encountered a lack of interest in Bible study among some who express a desire not to be religious. I also know someone who was raised in church where he learned not to be 'religious', who now holds to some New Agey ideas. When he explains these ideas, he says things about how he doesn't want to be religious, which he picked up from church.
If we tell people Jesus is their 'Personal Savior', they may not want to talk about their religion because it is too 'personal' or they may not value Christian community and exhorting one another evangelism or discipleship because they bought into the idea that 'all that matters is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.'
I think the 'Christianity is not a religion' thing became popular in California where there was a 'spiritual but not religious' crowd, as Christians tried to relate to them. Then it became a doctrine.... or just an unexplained practice to treat the word 'religion' as a bad thing, which creates confusion with the actual people we are trying to reach.
What really irks me is when preachers go into this confusing 'You don't need religion. You need relationship' speech leave out the parts about Who Jesus is, the Lord Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again from the dead... but instead go from telling people they don't need religion to repeating a prayer and declaring those who believed the Gospel-less prayer after the Gospel-less message saved. The religion v. relationship speech has become a substitute for the Gospel in some cases.
I didn't hear it much, but I do remember a church song, "Give me that old time religion.... It was good for the apostles... It's good enough fo rme.' "Religion' wasn't a dirty word. Almost every Bible translation of James 1 speaks of vain religion and pure religion. Clearly the pure religion is good ot have.
The definition of religion didn't make religion into a bad thing. It's beliefs and practices that have to do with God or gods, spirits, etc. Our religion has to do with the true God who made heaven and earth. So what's wrong with that? We go to church. That's a religions practice. We pray. That is a religious practice. We sing songs of praise, and partake of communion. We abstain from fornication because, do not steal, love our neighbor, give to others, etc. because of religious beliefs.
I went to this crusade when I was a child, and the evangelist said that religion was man reaching out to God, but Christianity was God reaching out to men. It seemed to go over like a lead balloon. I think I might have asked one of my parents about it who said that that was just something he said, or just his idea.
Several years later, I recall a preacher using 'religiosity' in a negative way. And by the early 1990s, I started to hear preachers say stuff like, "I don't want you to be religious.' Doing a bit of reading, I think 'The Late Great Planet Earth' by Hal Lindsey spread the idea that 'Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ.'
It seems like they just redefined the word--- well not really-- usually they just use the word in a negative way and the audience has to guess what they mean is bad about religion. In the meanwhile, unbelievers in the audience who aren't familiar with the new Evangelical use of the word 'religion' are probably quite confused. If 'religion' is a bad thing, why are all these people in this church meeting, praying, singing, and listening to a preacher speak. Then they have to figure out what is meant.
I suspect this teaching against being 'religious' has had some ill effects. I have had a conversation with a man who did not think it was appropriate to have a set prayer time, but rather one had to be led by the Spirit. I do not see the two ideas as in contradiction with one another. I've encountered a lack of interest in Bible study among some who express a desire not to be religious. I also know someone who was raised in church where he learned not to be 'religious', who now holds to some New Agey ideas. When he explains these ideas, he says things about how he doesn't want to be religious, which he picked up from church.
If we tell people Jesus is their 'Personal Savior', they may not want to talk about their religion because it is too 'personal' or they may not value Christian community and exhorting one another evangelism or discipleship because they bought into the idea that 'all that matters is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.'
I think the 'Christianity is not a religion' thing became popular in California where there was a 'spiritual but not religious' crowd, as Christians tried to relate to them. Then it became a doctrine.... or just an unexplained practice to treat the word 'religion' as a bad thing, which creates confusion with the actual people we are trying to reach.
What really irks me is when preachers go into this confusing 'You don't need religion. You need relationship' speech leave out the parts about Who Jesus is, the Lord Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again from the dead... but instead go from telling people they don't need religion to repeating a prayer and declaring those who believed the Gospel-less prayer after the Gospel-less message saved. The religion v. relationship speech has become a substitute for the Gospel in some cases.
-
4
-
2
-
1
- Show all
