Anti-Religion Nonsense, Religion v. Relationship Replaces Gospel Message.

Your Grasping at straws to prove your belief -----so you can belief as you wish ----but no where in Scripture does it says follow the Christian ---Catholic ---Protestant --Baptise ----Lutheran----Calvin ----Judaism ----Islam ----Hindu ----or any other Religion -----

The Greek word for Religion in the Scripture means external worship only ------that what it says -----you need to understand what the scripture is really saying not what you want it to say ----- your twisting Scripture to suit what you personally want to believe -----

Religion leads to "secular-sacred false dichotomy", "license to sin", "hypocrisy by virtual signaling", "legalistic rule keeping", "man made traditions", etc, everything the pharisees are guilty of.

So do you think James is wrong about pure religion? Or do you think it is bad and hypocritical to visit orphans and widows and to keep yourself unspotted from the world?

James 1
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.


This definition of 'religion' has just been made-up by evangelicals in the past few decades to mean what you are saying here. The problems are it is ill-defined-- changes between on person and another. A lot of good things that are religious get lumped in with hypocrisy, etc. Having a regular time is 'religious' so some people oppose it because it is religious. I have encountered this. I have encountered people not wanting to be 'religious' who did not get off the trampoline and join the Bible study.

Another problem is you end up with this amorphous concept that matches neither our Bible translations, the use of the word in Christian writings, or our Bible translations.

The biggest problem, IMO, is preacher substituting talk about how bad religion is and how good relationship is for preaching that Jesus is the Christ Who died for our sins and rose again, and for repentance and forgiveness of sin. They will say it is all about relationship, not religion, through out a few vague religious sayings, then have people repeat a prayer without preaching the Gospel, and tell people if they believed it they are saved.

Christianity is a personal relationship, our works are our religion.
Because we love the father we follow his commandments. We share the good news and show the good news because we have been blessed with a personal relationship. Our works are not to enter in but because of the faith that was bestowed upon us by the grace of God we are called according to his purpose. The father's work was to believe the son.
Christianity is a new way of life as we are told the old has passed away.

That is yet another definition of what 'religion' is that does not fit with all the others I have heard. The thing is a lot of preachers and pew sitters talk about how religion doesn't say and say stuff about religion without defining it, and their audience probably doesn't get it if they haven't grown up in the evangelical bubble. There are pan-religionists that consider themselves 'spiritual but not religions' and the anti-religion rhetoric might have come into evangelicalism through Jesus people trying to relate to Hippies who thought like that. We are stuck with the rhetoric as preachers use it, even when we are not talking to that subculture.

Religion leads to "secular-sacred false dichotomy", "license to sin", "hypocrisy by virtual signaling", "legalistic rule keeping", "man made traditions", etc, everything the pharisees are guilty of.

And by the way, religion is not limited to the worship of specific deity. In modern times it's often disguised in ideology. Believe it or not, Climate Change, Critical Race Theory, Scientism, Marxism and other liberal ideologies are all false religions from Satan.

Yes! In a relationship there's dating, waiting and mating, in a religion there's rating, baiting and hating. Work comes naturally with faith, because like in a relationship, love along ain't gonna set food on the table and put a roof over your head, but it gives you a strong motivation to work for those.

Most people don't separate a persons relationship with God from their religious affections toward God. It is the same thing in definition. And most educated Christians will resist this evangelical subculture attempt to redefine that word.

If you teach or lead other Christians you risk losing credibility when insisting on redefining the word to mean something negative. You may think that you are teaching people to not be fake but be 'for real', but that is not what they comprehend. What the educated hears you saying is that "I like to change definitions of words and expect you to go along with it." But people normally resist that and will just think you're weird.

They will reconstruct what you told them, as ... "ok.. I think what he is trying to say is that he is not being fake or hypocritical about his belief in Jesus and just play acting a role to make other people think he is religious when he is not really religious in heart."

That is more likely what they will understand you as saying. They will not redefine the word as they learned it in the dictionary just because you are doing so. They will resist that. No amount of preaching will make them agree with you that you have the authority to change the use of the word religious to be a solely negative connotation. And if you insist on it they will dismiss you as not qualified to teach the bible. They will suggest bible school or a possible a communications class, or community college English class where you will listen to the teacher explain why you are wrong about making the word mean something negative in a Christian context.

I hope those that read this discussion choose to quit talking this way when giving their testimonies. If they want to communicate with their audience that they are experiencing a real relationship with Jesus and not just play acting, then say that.

It will be understood much easier than saying you are not religious which confuses most people even after you try to explain yourself.

When they translate the Bible, a word in English may be able to be used in ways that do not exactly match the meanings of the Greek word. That happens with translation a lot.

You are mistaken about the definition of religion or religious. It does not mean you are being fake. An on fire for Jesus, 100% in love with God and having an intense relationship with Jesus, is indeed a religious person.

Give up this stupid bumper sticker slogan christianeze that does not communicate the Gospel effectively but simply makes Christians look ignorant of the English language.

Another bumper sticker that makes Christians look ignorant of what the Jesus taught is the one that says "I am not perfect, just forgiven" It sounds like they are making excuse for the sins that they are displaying publicly and need to explain why they are still a christian even though they don't act like one. There is no need to defend your sinning. Stop doing it. No one accepts the teaching that you have the free pass to sin publicly and drive aggressively and give someone the middle finger in traffic and still be forgiven because your not prefect. What does that bumper sticker communicate? It rubs people the wrong way as if you are saying "I know I look like a hypocrite to you because I don't act like a real religious (see what I did there ) person out to act like but I am still forgiven"

But it’s undeniable that there are many high profile celebrity pastors who are guilty of these “bumper sticker charges”, who are corrupt and compromised, preaching like a self help guru instead of a teacher of the Word of God. As a result people lose faith in them, lose faith in their churches, and in “organized religion.”

James was talking about PURE religion, not fake, performative, unprofitable ones that Jesus specifically called out in the Sermon on the Mount.

I read the rest of the message and kind of think along the same wavelength.

if there is a form of religion that is pure, then preachers or rappers saying that 'religion is bad' are wrong, because only some of it is bad. Pure religion is good. Vain religion is bad. It just makes more sense if we do not make up 3 or 4 definitions of a word that do not match up with the Bible or what 99% or hear us talk think the word means. Then Christians say 'religion' and think all these different ideas of what it means and may get the wrong idea from the speaker.

My first exposure to the critic of the word religion was from a football player evangelist. I think he was Bill Blass. He said religion is man reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching out to man. I do not think the part about 'religion' was particularly helpful, but I was a child and probably do not remember how that fit into his message. It might have made sense if I did not catch how he fleshed it out.

It was probably more along the lines of Karl Barth's commentary than these confusing evangelical cliches and pulpit-parrotted sayings I hear today. Preachers can be in an echo chamber and repeat each other. If it is good stuff, that's fine. But sometimes something not helpful, silly, confusing, or downright unhelpful gets into that echo chamber and bounces around for years. I think I have seen that with unexplained over emphasized focus on the word 'personal' in evangelistic presentations and especially with the word 'religion.'

Some criticisms of 'religion' are confusing but might be helpful if they are explained. Some are downright harmful and teach ideas that aren't Biblical.

Even the evangelist I mentioned who said Christianity was man reaching out to God-- what is wrong with that? Doesn't God's grace work in individuals to reach out to God? And what about Jeremiah's prophecy from God to Israel that if they seek Him they will find Him if they seek Him with all their heart? What is wrong with reaching out to God? And what about Paul's words to a bunch of pagan Gentile heathens who worshipped idols, "He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " (Acts 17:27 CSB.)

If man reaching out to God is religion, it does not make sense to be against religion. We want God to be in our religion. Outward expressions of faith CAN be holy. Paul writes about the offering up of the Gentiles being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Our religion must be sanctified. God works in us according to his pleasure. So outward expressions like going to church, praying, etc. can be sanctified.

But IMO, the idea to start using 'religion' to mean hypocrisy and a vain show is a foolish decision. On one hand, its like someone grew up speaking a different language where one word means something different. It's like the American preacher who went to England and said in a sermon that we all put our pants on one leg at a time and the audience laughed because they say 'trousers' in that saying and pants are their underpants. The British have one definition of the word. The Americans have another. But I saw the word 'religion' change, and I think going along with the change was foolish, and the Christians speaking this little dialect where 'religion' is bad need some language education and to think about damaging their words can be. I also suspect we might have got this religion is bad idea from some carnal 'spiritual but not religious' people the Jesus people tried to reach and accepted their words... and worse their ideas.

They might have just got it trying to relate to Hippies who said, "We don't want religion. Religion is for squares man' and came up with sayings. Maybe they were influenced by Karl Barth's old writings a little bit, drawing on just a little of his concept. I share some 'anti-institutional' concerns when it comes to church, but 'religion' can be highly institutional or personal devotional habits. They can be good or bad.

Christianity is definitely a relationship, since Israel is frequently compared as a naughty wifey in the OT, and the Church is defined as the bride of the Lamb in the NT. You know why God identified himself as JEALOUSY, which is kind of a very negative, pejorative word in modern English? This word SPECIFICALLY describes that feeling of insecurity in a RELATIONSHIP. You don't get jealous when you see other people having nice things, that's ENVY. You get jealous when your partner is turning to other people who have nice things. God uses this kind of romantic language for a purpose. He wants you to adore Him and follow Him voluntarily out of LOVE, not out of fear.

The 'bad' religion stuff that the 'religion-is-bad' people are against depends on the speaker. Usually they do not explain it well, but you can listen to dozens of them and get the gist.

Some of the bad religion stuff.
1. Going through a ritual or devotional 'stuff' (e.g. going to church, giving money) without any real life or faith in God behind it.
2. Thinking these rituals are good works that earn a position with God we only get through grace.
3. Doing rituals or devotional stuff that God did not command that come from man-made tradition that can distract from truth (like we see with the Pharisees.)
4. A superior attitude toward others who aren't caught up in our traditions.

The problem with this is much of the 'anti-religion' evangelical crowd does number 3 in the list above. The Bible doesn't condemn religion. It warns of vain religion and describes pure religion. The practice of giving the "It's a religion, not a relationship speech" and then leading people to repeat a prayer without telling them about the Gospel-- leaving out Christ's suffering and the resurrection according to the scriptures, repentance and forgiveness of sins through his name--and having people repeat a prayer that might mention the name of Jesus, accepting Jesus, or asking Him into their heart or life without telling them what that means or Who Jesus is-- that is 'religion' in the way many evangelicals use the term. It's the bad religion stuff.

The preachers, street witnessers, tract writers, and evangelicals talking to their neighbors, etc. will tell you they believe Jesus dies on the cross and rose from the dead. Many preachers are monkey-see-monkey-doing what they see other preachers do. They learned the altar call or the challenge with the prayer in the seat from sitting in church and hearing anti-religion messages instead of the Gospel or 'ask Jesus into your heart' instead of 'the cross, the resurrection, repent, believe be baptized, obey Jesus's commands.'

They heard sinner's prayers light on substance. The ritual is not in the Bible. The intent in the 1950's when Billy Graham's ministry invented or popularized it, it was a means of confessing oneself as a sinner, Christ's death on the cross, and his resurrection, and that he is Lord. The Gospel was removed. The man-made ritual remains. That's the kind of religion many of them oppose as they propogate that kind of religion by talking against it. Many of these preachers do not realize they just promised someone salvation if they believed a message without the Gospel in it after praying a prayer that was so truncated it might have had bits of the Gospel in it. Why? Because they are being religious-- in the wrong way--doing the ritual without thinking.

I think the 'Not a religion, but a relationship' speech is that kind of religious ritual, too. It is not the message of Jesus. Religious ritual is good if it is God-ordained, or within the overall scope of what the Bible teaches, and God works through it e.g water baptism, the Lord's Supper, reading scripture, repeating the Lord's prayer in a group, singing songs of praise, family devotions, praying before meals. We need to wake up and realize that is religion. Redefining the word in our heads without telling people, or redefining in a way other anti-religion Christians only partly agree with and where the world has n clue what we are saying does not help anyone.

I read the rest of the message and kind of think along the same wavelength.

if there is a form of religion that is pure, then preachers or rappers saying that 'religion is bad' are wrong, because only some of it is bad. Pure religion is good. Vain religion is bad. It just makes more sense if we do not make up 3 or 4 definitions of a word that do not match up with the Bible or what 99% or hear us talk think the word means. Then Christians say 'religion' and think all these different ideas of what it means and may get the wrong idea from the speaker.

My first exposure to the critic of the word religion was from a football player evangelist. I think he was Bill Blass. He said religion is man reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching out to man. I do not think the part about 'religion' was particularly helpful, but I was a child and probably do not remember how that fit into his message. It might have made sense if I did not catch how he fleshed it out.

It was probably more along the lines of Karl Barth's commentary than these confusing evangelical cliches and pulpit-parrotted sayings I hear today. Preachers can be in an echo chamber and repeat each other. If it is good stuff, that's fine. But sometimes something not helpful, silly, confusing, or downright unhelpful gets into that echo chamber and bounces around for years. I think I have seen that with unexplained over emphasized focus on the word 'personal' in evangelistic presentations and especially with the word 'religion.'

Some criticisms of 'religion' are confusing but might be helpful if they are explained. Some are downright harmful and teach ideas that aren't Biblical.

Even the evangelist I mentioned who said Christianity was man reaching out to God-- what is wrong with that? Doesn't God's grace work in individuals to reach out to God? And what about Jeremiah's prophecy from God to Israel that if they seek Him they will find Him if they seek Him with all their heart? What is wrong with reaching out to God? And what about Paul's words to a bunch of pagan Gentile heathens who worshipped idols, "He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " (Acts 17:27 CSB.)

If man reaching out to God is religion, it does not make sense to be against religion. We want God to be in our religion. Outward expressions of faith CAN be holy. Paul writes about the offering up of the Gentiles being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Our religion must be sanctified. God works in us according to his pleasure. So outward expressions like going to church, praying, etc. can be sanctified.

But IMO, the idea to start using 'religion' to mean hypocrisy and a vain show is a foolish decision. On one hand, its like someone grew up speaking a different language where one word means something different. It's like the American preacher who went to England and said in a sermon that we all put our pants on one leg at a time and the audience laughed because they say 'trousers' in that saying and pants are their underpants. The British have one definition of the word. The Americans have another. But I saw the word 'religion' change, and I think going along with the change was foolish, and the Christians speaking this little dialect where 'religion' is bad need some language education and to think about damaging their words can be. I also suspect we might have got this religion is bad idea from some carnal 'spiritual but not religious' people the Jesus people tried to reach and accepted their words... and worse their ideas.

They might have just got it trying to relate to Hippies who said, "We don't want religion. Religion is for squares man' and came up with sayings. Maybe they were influenced by Karl Barth's old writings a little bit, drawing on just a little of his concept. I share some 'anti-institutional' concerns when it comes to church, but 'religion' can be highly institutional or personal devotional habits. They can be good or bad.

Monkey see, Monkey do. Like when preachers are teaching Eph 6 about the whole armor of God and they say that there was no armor for the back because you are not supposed to run from the battle. That is just weird. You can look at examples of Roman armor that were part of the breastplate and they covered the back too. Some in one piece and some in two but they had armor on the back. Who ever thought that was true when they heard it preached? I suspected it as wrong the first time I heard it. And it still gets repeated to this day.

"Organized Religion" is often used in a negative context such as when someone says "I don't believe in organized religion" which usually means they think that all churches are wrong enough to be dismissed as not worth his time.

I know it sounds pompous of me but I can't help but consider those who say "I don't believe in religion, I believe in relationship" as probably not familiar with classic Christian authors and literature.