There are those in the realm of Christendom that actually take offense if you refer to Christianity as "a religion." They'll respond, even with a sense of righteous indignation, "It's a relationship, not a religion!" I'm sorry, folks, but look up "religion" in the dictionary and you'll find that Christianity falls within the standard definition: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." I am not suggesting that Christianity is just like every other religion, nor am I suggesting that Christianity is not a relationship. I do think, however, that it brings up the necessary question, "What is Christianity?" I see two basic definitions used by the majority of folks, Christians included, and I think they are both off the mark.
First, the most common belief is that Christianity, like all religions, is a moral system. A "Christian" in the common mode of understanding is a person who does good. If you don't do good, you are either a bad Christian or, worse, not a Christian at all. Because "Christian," everyone understands, is a moral code. And we've all heard it in some application or another. "Is he a Christian? He doesn't act like one." The truth is that this concept isn't too far off the mark. There is absolutely no doubt from Scripture (the source book that defines "Christian") that good works are a part of being a follower of Christ. James says that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). John says that it's not possible to make a practice of sinning if you're born of God (1 John 3:9). Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Okay? It cannot be argued that good works are not a part if being a Christian. The problem, of course, is that most Christians know the counter-point: We are saved by grace through faith, not of works (Eph. 2:8-9). In Christianity, works play a part, but they are a result -- indeed an inevitable result -- but not a cause. Jesus refers to it as "fruit" (John 15:5). You see, most people think that God is trying to make good people out of bad people. We aren't doing what He wants us to, and Christianity is His way of changing us. That's not the aim of Christianity. He's in the business of making live people out of dead people. Those once-dead-now-alive people change how they act, but changing how we act is not the goal. Frankly, the phrase "act like a Christian" is nonsense. If you're "acting", you have reason to question if you are one.
The second most common belief is that Christianity is comprised of a belief system. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that readers following this will be scratching their heads. "Are you saying it isn't? I mean, after all, didn't Paul say, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved'?" I've spent no small amount of time and effort in my blogging to address right belief. I've even written blogs that suggest that a person who denies a foundational doctrine like the Trinity may not be a Christian at all. So ... am I saying that Christianity is not comprised of a belief system? Yes ... and no. Again, what you believe plays an important part in being a Christian. We may all debate it, but we all understand that there is a core set of beliefs, a basic set of doctrines to which everyone who calls himself a Christian must subscribe. This core set of beliefs varies, but we all agree on some absolute necessities. You must believe in God. You must believe you are a sinner, justly deserving God's judgment. You must believe that Christ died for your sin and rose again. You must believe His death and resurrection are payment for your sin. Fine. Good. Basic beliefs. Some people will add to it. Few will take away. But, still, aren't we saying that it's a system of beliefs? No, I'm not. I'm saying that, just as works are a part of Christianity but not a definition, so are beliefs. Right beliefs are necessary, but they don't define what it is to be a Christian. They simply reflect it.
Christianity is more organic than most of us realize. I don't mean "organic" in today's popular sense: "free of chemicals". I mean in the sense of a living organism. Christianity is a religion, but it is more so a relationship. And that relationship is its definition. Jesus suggested this when He prayed for His disciples. "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). Jesus said it in His Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7. At the end He tells of "many" who will come to Him and say, "Lord, Lord, look what we've done for You." He responds to them by calling them "workers of lawlessness." What was their failing? Where do they fall short? Why does He send them away? Did they fail to do good works? Apparently not. Did they fail to have the right beliefs? There is no such indication (as evidenced by the address, "Lord"). What was the shortcoming? Jesus doesn't say it was because they weren't good or they didn't believe correctly. He says, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21-22). In Gal. 4:9, Paul asks the Galatians, "Now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?"
Christianity is not about right actions. Right actions follow, but that's not the definition. Christianity is not about right beliefs. Right beliefs are necessary, but that's not the definition. Christianity is about knowing God and having God know you. It's not a twelve-step program, a systematic theology, or a self-help project. It's an organic relationship with God. Apologetics are nice, but they fail to reach this level. Proper living is good and even commanded, but it still fails to reach this level. Christianity is an actual, two-way relationship with the Sovereign Creator of the Universe. Anything less -- morality or theology -- is ... less than Christianity. Moral living and well-formed arguments are all well and good, but in the end, it isn't how you live or what you know, it's Who you know and Who knows you. Getting that across to a world hostile to God is a task we're not up to. Make your best arguments. Certainly use your best reasoning skills. Give a reason for the hope that lies within you. But the single, most accurate proof is the one that will always be dismissed out of hand. "I know that Christ lives in Me." Live it and believe it, but know that getting it across to others will not be a simple matter.
5 comments:
I think I agree with you. Saying it's not a religion but a relationship sounds good, but to say it's not a religion is simply redefining phrases and playing word games.
I can see the "Not religion, but a relationship" mantra being taken too far. What the proclaimer is doing is placing the priority on the relationship over the religious practice. That's OK if you also recognize that it is a religion also. I don't like the phrase myself because it's misleading on its own.
To follow up on my first sentence, I have already seen people take this "one step beyond" by banning all signs of religiosity.
I think we have a self-awareness in modern Christianity that compels us to want to change our message because we don't want people to think we are weird. If people start chanting "religion is bad" then we say "it's not religion, but a relationship". If people start shouting, "Evangelicals are annoying" we send out the Evangelical Manifesto to show we are not...all that annoying.
It's marketing, public relations posturing, whatever you want to call it. It's our times influencing how we approach others and think about ourselves. But the truth is that the gospel is not an easy sell and we should stop trying to sell it but go ahead and tell it.
Marketing has been going on for a long, long time. They used to ask, "Are you a Christian?" until "Christian" began to coincide with "American" or other things too innocuous. Then they began to ask, "Are you saved?" until that became passé and everyone laughed. It moved from there to "Are you born again?" because that spoke of something "secret" among Christians, like "born again" was the secret Christian handshake. That lost its savor as well. We've been "fundamentalists", "evangelicals", and, recently, eschewing the biblical term "Christian", we've become "Christ followers."
Somehow none of it has made it easier to be a Christian and none of it has made us more favorable and none of it has made the gospel easier to swallow. Odd, isn't it?
There is no doubt that it is a religion, it is a relationship. Two necessary, harmonious elements of the Christian experience. But I'm curious to know, do you think for the new believer that these two come at seperate times, meaning does knowledge and action precede or follow the relationship, or do they occur simulataneously?
I'm not much of a believer in formulas. I don't know that there is a set of rules for the Christian experience. I think some new believers are acutely aware of the relational aspect of Christianity at the outset and others aren't as much. Some people are more relational oriented and others are more fact oriented. (Not much help, am I?)
Post a Comment