Christianity stands alone in the claim that "it's a relationship, not a religion." Christianity alone claims that God the Father sent God the Son to die for sinners in order to adopt said sinners and make them His own. Other religions have gods and such, but none has God the Spirit residing in the believer's heart. This is one of the things that is unique to Christianity. However, it's not quite true that it's not a religion. So, in order to be clear, let's look at that.
As is the case with a lot of English words, "religion" has multiple uses and meanings. It can mean "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." Christianity is neither. Oh, we've built that version -- the Roman Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Charismatics ... on and on. But Christianity is not defined by these things. They're all assigned, "personal," "institutions." Biblically a Christian is defined as one who has placed his or her faith in Christ for their salvation, has subsequently been born again, and now is part of the "Church" which is actually none of those institutions, but rather the whole of those who are Christians. In that sense, then, of religion as an institution, it is true that Christianity is not a religion. We've built it into one, but that's just us. Instead, Scripture says, "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:26-27). There is, then, false or "worthless" religion and there is "pure and undefiled" religion. God's opinion, not mine. Biblical religion is the observance of worship. And, interestingly enough, the dictionary also defines religion as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." And that is an apt description of Christianity, insofar as the service and worship of God correlates to the truth.
It's easy to understand why so many have soured on "religion." So many false religions building false institutions and false belief systems. Harmful systems. But James didn't mind contrasting "worthless" religion versus "pure and undefiled" religion. If Scripture does it, so should we. Yes, absolutely, Christianity is a relationship with God that no other religion on the planet includes. But Scripture assures us that there is a pure and undefiled religion and that's a good thing. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
4 comments:
I imagine, like so many other things, the origin of the phrase "relationship not religion" was meant to convey that as Christians we don't merely have just a religion, but a relationship. But like so many things (like separation of church and state or WWJD) we hear the motto so often that it shifts our understanding when we forget the origin of the motto.
Stan, I appreciate your posting this well-balanced and helpful essay clarifying the Christian cliché, “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” (which, like most clichés, can be helpful to consider but is not 100% comprehensive).
I fully comprehend the meaning of James 1:26-27 and its context within James’ teaching that “faith without works is dead.” It is clear that “pure and undefiled religion” here refers to one’s good works that follow conversion, i.e. living out a real, living faith (as opposed to a dead faith that shows no fruit). Perhaps surprisingly, one could even say that James is teaching here that “relationship will produce religion,” i.e. a true faith in God (“relationship”) will show itself in good works (“religion”). (This perfectly echoes “the outward display of an inward reality” definition I mentioned in a comment for your Aug. 15 posting, “Salvation by Works.”)
I would assert that the use and meaning of “religion” here in James (and in Col. 2:23) differs a bit from what we were initially discussing after your Aug. 15 article, where you mentioned “every…religion on the planet” and I mentioned the various “-isms.” That is probably the more common usage of the word “religion,” which we both agree moves away from true Christianity and into all manner of nontheistic and otherwise false belief systems. I agree with your statement above that “Biblical religion is an observance of worship,” and inasmuch as that definition actually applies to both uses of “religion,” I can heartily concur with your overall conclusions here—with the caveat that “religion” (either definition) is useless where no “relationship” exists. (“Faith without works is dead” and likewise “works without faith is dead.”) Perhaps the cliché “relationship, not religion” should be replaced with “relationship, then religion”?
Might I say in conclusion that this post is a perfect instance of “iron sharpens iron” for me. As I mentioned in a comment to your Aug. 15 post, I have a strong interest in “apologetics & polemics.” My home library is full of books on the topics of “getting the gospel right,” “biblical faith vs. unbiblical religions,” “doctrines that divide,” “what the Bible teaches on this & that,” etc. (That focus stems from my past involvement in the RCC.) I have learned a lot over the past 47 years, but I know that God is not done growing my understanding of His truth. I welcome that growth! To that end, in addition to getting back to reading those unread books on my bookshelves, I will take a bit of time in coming weeks/months to peruse your “Essentials of Christianity,” “What Makes Christianity,” and “The Gospel” article series at your blog. Any more labels of yours I should check out?
I have been remiss in my labeling since the beginning. I wasn't at all sure how to use it in a helpful way. Too many of them would have too many labels, or there would be too many labels to be useful. So, no, I don't have any others I would recommend you examine. Sorry.
(And, by the way, James does indeed argue that faith produces works.)
OK, thanks anyway. And yes, I certainly agreed (in several places) that James argues that faith produces works. Sorry if that was not clear. I was making a different point beyond that.
Post a Comment