"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"? Part Two.

In Part One, I talked about the confusion between people who grew up in church and those who did not when hearing "Christian-ese," those catchy phrases churches like to use. Specifically, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship."

Before we can use this phrase with any efficacy, I think it's important to define the term "religion."

Like I said, when churches put this on their signs or their twitter bios or their what-have-you's, it probably doesn't convey the message they want it to (at least not to people that aren't Christians, which I generally assume to be their intended audience). Christians typically use this phrase as a paraphrase of "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." Like, "I love God, I don't just do a bunch of traditions in a designated building once a week." Which is good; please don't. 

But the truth is-- although Christ is the basis and the greater meaning behind all the former laws and prophecies-- Christianity is a set of teachings and it does have rituals and actions specific to it. Christianity isn't simply knowing Christ, it is the way in which we are told to follow Him in response to getting to know Him better. And that is the definition of "religion."

And that's why I think it's incorrect to say that Christianity is only relationship and no religion.

Well, maybe not incorrect, but incomplete.

It isn't legalistic to love the Law of the Lord. It isn't wrong for us to think about how to put the Word into action in our lives, even if it's a disciplined reaction and you aren't that excited about it at the time. That is where I get a little afraid of this phrase's implications.

As a response to the accusations of legalism from the world, who say we don't love them because, we tell them they will have to change after we tell them they can come as they are. We can't love God and keep on doing what He hates with reckless abandon.

We shouldn't try to sound like we are these free-loving, only-grace-no-judgement people who "just love Jesus," because that's misleading to people who currently define love as "someone who benefits me and thinks I'm awesome and doesn't try to change me." Do you see the difference? Do you see the problem? 

God made up the laws and rituals of obedience and repentance through sacrifice (religion). He doesn't hate them. I mean, heck, He was a sacrifice. These laws were given as a map to living a life that is pleasing to Him. But we're really timid to say that, to say that there are rules to follow. When Jesus says, "Go and sin no more," we see that there is more to following Christ than just thinking He is really great and believing He has the power to make us feel better.

I've been reading through the Gospels these past few weeks and what keeps catching my mind is the difference between being amazed by Jesus and being changed by Him. Since my earliest readings of the Bible, I've been confused about why Jesus told people not to tell everyone about the miracle He'd just done. My interpretations have ranged from an appearance of humility to "but ugh why??" scribbled in the margins.

My most recent thought is that He was trying to prevent people from coming to see Him for a show rather than for teaching. I say this because when we see those that have been healed still tell people (understandably), literally the entire town and a few surrounding ones are soon crowded around Jesus waiting to be healed or to see someone else healed.

They wanted a spectacle. They weren't looking to understand of Who He was/is. They'd follow Him around as long as He was looking powerful and beneficial, but miracles are not all He came to do. And I think that is why He told people not to tell anyone-- so that His teaching might be the central focus with miracles a whispered side note in confirmation of His authority.

And I think that is the danger of saying that Christianity is relationship only. We're like "Hey, just let me love Jesus, I don't need all that other stuff." But it super doesn't work that way.

Because, Christianity isn't only a religion or only a relationship. It is both. Christianity is a religion because it is the means by which we follow a personal God, and it's a relationship because He is an autonomous Being with His Own thoughts and feelings resulting in the specified way He desires to be followed (as He details throughout the Bible).

He is the Relationship (Jesus the connection) and the relationship is the religion, because it is done according to His commands. That's how we relate to Him, how we worship Him. Relationship and religion can't be separated when it comes to Christianity. The Person and the ways in which the Person wants to be related to are One.

We don't decide the terms of His covenant, He does. We don't get to decide what we do or don't want to believe about Jesus's teachings. It's all or nothing. 

Christianity is a religion, it just isn't an impersonal one.

"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"? Part One.

"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship."

A lot of people fault the church for having their own vernacular that doesn't cater to those who are outside it. A lot of church members hear that complaint but don't know how to remedy it. In fact, we often try to redefine the world's conception of our terms without really asking what their original conception is.

I personally think this is one of those cases.

We want people to know that God is a personal God and that there is more to following Him than rules, so we try to pick on the word "religion" right along with them. But I feel like we end up looking like those people that try to jump in on other people's inside jokes, making everyone feel really uncomfortable.

Of course, not everyone has the same connotations. It depends a lot on who they've come in contact with and the people they admire or dislike.

But most people don't define religion the same way the church does. When people who haven't grown up in church say they hate religion, it typically isn't them saying they hate ritualistic actions that aren't backed up by a true spirit of reverence and love for God.

That's the "Christian-ese" definition.

And we should hate heartless rituals because God hates them, too (Isaiah 1:12-15, etc). We should strive to have true motivation in everything that we do, and that comes through personal growth and pursuit of understanding through the Word and prayer. And that is a relationship. 

But I think there's something we all need to accept:

Christianity is also a religion.

You can't have Jesus without His decrees. We can't separate the teachings of the Person from the Person teaching. And that's what we're doing. Or at least what it sounds like we're doing.

Hey, maybe that gives us an opportunity to get into a discussion with the unbeliever who is really confused about the Christian that says they hate religion. That's good, I hope that happens. But it's hard to see the benefit of the saying being plastered on billboards or twitter feeds with no further discussion.

Connotation is important. And their connotation is probably different than ours and maybe it's counterproductive sometimes.

(It's so funny, though, the satisfaction churchgoers seem to get out of confusing the outside world with semantics. Like the "Wait, what?" of an unbeliever echoes internally as a giddy little victory for us. "Look at us, stunning the world with what really goes on inside these doors. Silly misconceptions. I bet you wanna be a Christian now, right?")

It is good for the Church to define our terms when interacting with the world. What do we really mean when we say   insert churchy jargon here  ? I think it's equally important for us to understand what they really mean when they give their opinions on   insert anything here  . We can get so offended sometimes that we don't even realize the disagreement is mainly between what we hear them saying and what they actually mean to say, and vice versa. 

Not that our worldviews don't fundamentally disagree; I'm really just saying we can debate all day about how, for example, faith is either stupid or life-giving, and get nowhere because their definition of faith is "believing without evidence" and ours is "trust based on fulfilled prophecy, recorded eyewitness testimony, historical evidence of dependability, persistence of followers, and personal experience." So, from the outset, we're doomed to disagree.

Define your terms.

So, let's define this particular term: religion... in Part Two.