Why I hate religion but love Jesus & the missing ingredient

Here's the truth. there is a big difference and a great divide between religion and Christianity. The religious leaders called Jesus a drunkard and a glutton(as stated in the poem). Jesus fired back that the religious were white-washed tombs and sons of Hell. The religious leaders turned Jesus over to the Romans to be executed. So it appears that religion and Jesus are on different sides. polar opposites. Religion sucks the life out of people, it is dead and unfullfilling. Jesus Christ came and brought new life, His life. He will set you free if you surrender your life to Him. Free from religion. Free from the tyranny of self effort. Free from striving to please a God who looks as if He cannot be pleased. He requires that you pay the same price that He paid. He gave everything. He requires us to do the same The cost matches the price. Anything less is religion and will result in a life without love, hope, peace and joy.

Was at a popular conference last week in which moral foundationalist John Haidt asked the high-achiever crowd "how many here would call themselves religious?" I estimate about 2-3% raised their hands. He then asked "how many consider themselves spiritual." It was hard to see through all the hands near me, but I'm going to say at least 2/3 were affirmative. The video reminds me of this generation's "youth minister" -- brash, slam, and iconoclastic, yet doing what youth ministers have done for decades -- defining a tribal boundary that differentiates from their parents' ecclesial branding. I'm wondering if in another couple generations the break will no longer be "religious" v. "spiritual" but a more complete abandonment of "Christian identity" altogether, with spirituality defined more by action than belief, more by a universal embrace and love of humanity than sheltered in-grouping, with "salvation" becoming less about after-death and more about the here and now.

An interesting article with many good points. However, the article is vague in one respect. Concisely put, what is the definition of religion that is being used by those who are against religion? What is the definition of those who want to give more respect to a transhistorical approach? I never stand outside of the conversation; but I have found that most of these types of conversations reflect unclear thinking about what they are talking about. It never hurts and many times helps to ask someone "What do you mean?" Most of the time when someone is against religion and they give a defintion, I find myself in agreement with what they are against. Most of the time when I ask for a definition of spirituality, I get a blank stare because they have no definition. It is quite easy to say that Jesus was against religion or he came to abolish religion, but much harder to say what Jesus WAS for. I am more than willing to have that conversation. I am not as much interested in staking my identiy on what I am against. It is just too negative and too easy.

thought this coming interview might be of interest here: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/03/01/leaving-religion-behind

@Stephen - the substitionary atonement comment is key, in my view (religion says "do" but the cross says "done"). "Religion" for conservative evangelicalism means failing to be psychologically and existentially liberated by Reformation faith and conversionist soteriology - yet another master signifier as David Fitch explains via Zizek. Yes it's about a relationship for "them," and it's personalistic, as Tripp said, but the language of religion is less of a concern for me, and like Bo, I'll yield whatever definition is workable in the mainstream. The way to challenge it, I think, is actually to do something like what Rob Bell did in Love Wins, for example - because it meets the culture on its own terms. Where those like Bell fail though, in my opinion, is by trying to unhinge the exclusivist salvation formula without subverting the even bigger master signifier of a exegetical (i.e., inerrant) rather than hermeneutical understanding of the Bible. Conservatives were able to dismiss him for mere "bad exegesis" on the hell question, for instance. Recasting "religion," then, requires a deconstruction of biblicism/foundationalism, as @Austin Roberts explains here - http://austinroberts13.blogspot.com/

This is the best comments thread I have been associated with. It has stayed on task and each person has contributed something not originally represented in the post. WOW I love the deacons! The last 6 comments (especially the one about Greek ‘politikos’) have been right on. Here are a couple of things that I will cover in the TNT if this subject comes up: I often have the conversation with sincere Bible folks that - the Old Testament God is not all wrath & the New Testament God is not all love (think of Ananias & Sapphira, hell, and judgement). - Nor is the OT absent of grace as the NT is not absent of Law. - That miraculous is not necessarily super-natural ... I could go on and on. But this religion v. relationship thing is the big one. Religion is associated with empty ritual, mindless repetition and meaningless ceremony. I know because I used to say that stuff out loud ... from the pulpit. Now, when that is what you mean by ‘religion’ I think a lot of people could really get behind getting rid of those things! Except, that is not what THEY mean when they say ‘religion’. We need to address it the same way as the "Law v. Grace" of the Testaments conversation. Patiently with really good examples. -Bo

While I'm still thinking about this: It really bugs me when people say something like, "That's not what religion means!" And they think that the solution is to go back and retrieve the old defintions like nothing ever happened. As I said, I'm all for understanding and analyzing the tradition. Foucault (following Nietzsche) called this "geneaology." It's important to understand the historical development of thought. However, once you have that understanding, you need to move forward not backwards. We would be a lot better off if we realized that we can't retrieve old definitions. Create something new.

This disconnect over the meaning of the word "religion" reminds me of a conversation I had with my boss recently. My boss is a native of Greece, and while we were discussing some issues we are having surrounding a project which has a lot of infighting and backbiting going on, I referred to the "politics" of the situation. And this sent my boss off on a brief discussion of how Americans use the word "politics." In American English, the word "politics" has come to mean something like "all the negative, unproductive bullsh*t associated with trying to run a government." My boss said that in Greek, the word "politikos," which is the origin of the English word "politics," simply refers to the process of citizens trying to make collective decisions. So you could, for example, easily see how someone running for office might say, "I'm not about politics. I'm about doing the business of the people," and having political scientists respond, "Um...in a democracy, that's what politics IS," and having a lot of disagreement and talking at cross-purposes, when in fact the two groups are just using the word differently.

I'm totally down with the critique of the crappy religion prevails in most American circles. With Tad and Tripp, I agree that institutions/signs/symbols that are radical in one generation inherently become static and need to be critiqued by the next. But in this case, I wish this guy went further. He's kind of on a roll and then he displays his evangelical roots by spouting penal substitutionary atonement at the end. I think where a lot of critique goes wrong is that it doesn't fully understand the movement that it is critiquing. Picasso would meticulously copy famous paintings, studying the styles and techniques and wouldn't quit until he had perfected the old methods. Then he would ignore them. Someone who doesn't take the time to understand contemporary evangelical culture isn't going to be able to go beyond a surface critique and will likely fall prey to the same bad theology that they are trying to rebel against. So, I applaud this guy, but I want more.

I cringed when I saw the video, because I personally hate the way "religion" has become the code word for "the kinds of communal faith which i disagree with". In the aftermath, I decided that I liked the video, and the passion that created it, more than any of the responses. He got thousands of people to think about what is true, and what is worth being foolish for. You have to admire that.

Great post--both for critique and for opening an important conversation. "Are you willing to engage this dualistic and uniformed populist definition of religion that is in place OR would your rather hold to your enlightened and informed historical perspective and allow a conversation to happen without you because you are above it?" This question is so key for educated progressive types, for so many different topics, not just the definition of 'religion'. @Tad--I do think that some push back on how we understand 'religion' is necessary, and I think your account of how that happened is partly right (I'm just not sure that's the whole story--I think there was also some legitimate frustration with a way of participating in ritual and communal practices that seemed lacking in encouraging spiritual formation or theological reflection). I think the issue is one of attitude and tone in how we engage in that push back. If we start out with the usual "let the smart kids enlighten those conservative troglodytes" kind of stance it doesn't lead to much helpful discussion. But finding ways to ask "you know, aren't there actually a lot of 'religious' things going on at your own churches that supposedly hate religion?" is an important thing to be engaging in.

i think @Tad is right. Evangelicals came up with the crappy definition of 'religion' so they could hate on it and rock their 'relationship.' Then it backfired and was turned on them by their kids & culture who realized what was being pulled on them.

This is some great stuff! quick responses: @Mike: you nailed it. You are right on what I was up to! @Travis: turns out that we are talking about bad religion :) yup! @ Deacon Bill: I plan to. Thanks for the affirmation. @ Nate: that is the perfect distinction that we need to make! I certainly was NOT saying that engaging and disagreeing is not engaging. I am addressing quick dismissals and lack of engagement. Thank you so much for the helpful language and clarification.

Bo, great thoughts. I was one of the people that reacted negatively to Bethke, but you bring up a good point on the shifting definition of "religion." My question to you would be this: provided words mean/do things, at what point do we push back against semantics when those semantic shifts are motivated by some desire to distance oneself from something (rather than a desire for a term to more accurately reflect something)? An Evangelical church is an excellent place to look if you are looking for people who "are not religious" in the same way that segregated societies are great places to look for people who "are not racist" (or all white male pastors conventions- they are never ever sexist). My experience was that Evangelicals changed the definition as a form of fetish disavowal (i.e. Why bother with a legitimate critique when you can avoid critique by changing the definition of the terms?). So *if* that is why that shift in meaning has happened (which I know is a big, presumptive "if"- but I think I'm right), why not push back on it?

First of all, I'm proceeding under the assumption that my own response to the video is not one of the horror stories to which you allude. If it is, let me know, and I'll write a brief defense of my approach. I think that the place where we're dividing categories differently is not in terms of the two responses you outline (though I see what you're doing there) but in terms of what counts as engagement. In my mind, "engagement" is a broad enough category to admit of a plurality of strategies and tactics. When, for instance, I teach my own students at Emmanuel College to think of "religion" in very different terms from what our campus minister discusses them, I think of his approach and of mine as "engagement" with the popular stereotype. The difference is not that one of us is engaging and one is not but that he engages-and-agrees and that I engage-and-disagree. The way you seem to be dividing things up, once one takes a critical stance, one has stopped "engaging" and thus has stopped participating in the conversation. If that's the case, then I'm going to insist that we coin a term for the tertium quid that acknowledges starting points but then goes on to teach more capacious ways to imagine things. It's what I do as a teacher and as someone who preaches and works with youth at church, and I maintain that it's not identical with non-engagement. As always, Bo, you have the authoritative say as to whether I'm reading you right or getting you entirely wrong. :)

Yep. Spread the word.

Which is why I initially did not understand the backlash against the video, because, in my mind, religion had become synonymous with religious hypocrisy, legalism, church politics, heterosexism, etc. Turns out all that stuff doesn't define religion itself, but bad religion.

Great job, both to you Bo for posting this, and to you Simon for your comments. When "educated" mainliners invoke the the condescending language of "silly, stupid, shallow" , it doesn't stimulate very much healthy discussion or build bridges. I think you have a great opportunity to bridge this chasm, Bo, because you have lived or are living in both worlds (evangelical/progressive). Some of us emerging post evangelical charismatics really do want to learn and grow, and posts like this one facilitate that better than the previous ones Ive read about Bethke's video, some even calling it a piece of shi#. Thanks again.

I think you're right. Its not much use to stand outside of the room yelling "that's not what the word actually means" when the conversation is happening inside the room talking about real things using the wrong labels. The sensible thing, reluctantly, is to learn the langauge and join the conversation. Its still difficult though - I flinch when I hear someone say "decimate" and mean "destroy virtually totally" or "go the second mile" to mean "extend yourself a little", but correcting people isn't a great way to make freinds and influence people. I've been reading the 39 articles of the Church of England recently (yes really) and it surprised me quite how much the concrete meaning of words still in common use has changed over 400 years, as I suppose we also see with the KJV. So I suppose I end up saying to one bunch of friends "yeah lets get down and do some religion together" and we all dig it, but to another group I have to say "Religion? Hell no way, not me, lets do some spiritual stuff." Perhaps one day the secret that both groups are doing pretty similar stuff will be out...