Problem with Teaching 'Religion' is Bad.

When I was a child, 'religion' was not a dirty word at church. If someone sked what my religion was, I would say I was a Christian. If you asked someone at church about that, they wouldn't go into a speech about how they aren't religious, they have a relationship.

I didn't hear it much, but I do remember a church song, "Give me that old time religion.... It was good for the apostles... It's good enough fo rme.' "Religion' wasn't a dirty word. Almost every Bible translation of James 1 speaks of vain religion and pure religion. Clearly the pure religion is good ot have.

The definition of religion didn't make religion into a bad thing. It's beliefs and practices that have to do with God or gods, spirits, etc. Our religion has to do with the true God who made heaven and earth. So what's wrong with that? We go to church. That's a religions practice. We pray. That is a religious practice. We sing songs of praise, and partake of communion. We abstain from fornication because, do not steal, love our neighbor, give to others, etc. because of religious beliefs.

I went to this crusade when I was a child, and the evangelist said that religion was man reaching out to God, but Christianity was God reaching out to men. It seemed to go over like a lead balloon. I think I might have asked one of my parents about it who said that that was just something he said, or just his idea.

Several years later, I recall a preacher using 'religiosity' in a negative way. And by the early 1990s, I started to hear preachers say stuff like, "I don't want you to be religious.' Doing a bit of reading, I think 'The Late Great Planet Earth' by Hal Lindsey spread the idea that 'Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ.'

It seems like they just redefined the word--- well not really-- usually they just use the word in a negative way and the audience has to guess what they mean is bad about religion. In the meanwhile, unbelievers in the audience who aren't familiar with the new Evangelical use of the word 'religion' are probably quite confused. If 'religion' is a bad thing, why are all these people in this church meeting, praying, singing, and listening to a preacher speak. Then they have to figure out what is meant.

I suspect this teaching against being 'religious' has had some ill effects. I have had a conversation with a man who did not think it was appropriate to have a set prayer time, but rather one had to be led by the Spirit. I do not see the two ideas as in contradiction with one another. I've encountered a lack of interest in Bible study among some who express a desire not to be religious. I also know someone who was raised in church where he learned not to be 'religious', who now holds to some New Agey ideas. When he explains these ideas, he says things about how he doesn't want to be religious, which he picked up from church.

If we tell people Jesus is their 'Personal Savior', they may not want to talk about their religion because it is too 'personal' or they may not value Christian community and exhorting one another evangelism or discipleship because they bought into the idea that 'all that matters is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.'

I think the 'Christianity is not a religion' thing became popular in California where there was a 'spiritual but not religious' crowd, as Christians tried to relate to them. Then it became a doctrine.... or just an unexplained practice to treat the word 'religion' as a bad thing, which creates confusion with the actual people we are trying to reach.

What really irks me is when preachers go into this confusing 'You don't need religion. You need relationship' speech leave out the parts about Who Jesus is, the Lord Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again from the dead... but instead go from telling people they don't need religion to repeating a prayer and declaring those who believed the Gospel-less prayer after the Gospel-less message saved. The religion v. relationship speech has become a substitute for the Gospel in some cases.

You don't have to worry about this kind of thing. If your goal is to preach, You need to deal with people with different attitudes towards religion. Some people think that religion is ignorance.You need to change your strategy.What you have told is only part of the story.The word of God should not be defined by religion. God's Word should only be defined by God's Word itself.
Romans 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
If you only tell the word of God to others, others may be more acceptable without knowing that this is from religion.
God's word should not be under the cloak of religion, because God's word itself is the relationship with everyone.

well yea not everyone grows up in church, and Jesus reaches out to everyone even if they do not go to one.

Thats why evangelicals tried to distance themselves from religion, because Jesus is a light to gentiles (not just those who are 'the chosen' ones i.e jews) and they could be from any religion or no religion.

If you are religious about your faith, its good but its not actually a requirement to be saved. Otherwise people doing good works in islam, hinduism, wicca etc you could say are saved even if they dont know Jesus. And would that be right? are all wealthy philanthropists saved? Is the head of the church of england or the pope...saved? Is every minister, vicar, priest or clergyman saved?

Have a think or prayer about it.

This even happens if You preach the Gospel of Christ. Those who hear will either turn it into a religion or a relationship. Nothing anyone can do about it but to continue preaching the Gospel of Christ.

so true. especially when "personal relationship" is nowhere even mentioned in the bible. but religion is.-

Religion and relationship are not exclusive. You can have both.

And 'You do not need religion. You need a personal relationship.' is NOT the Gospel found in the Bible. In some cases, it has become a substitute for the gospel.

The Bible speaks of "pure religion and undefiled". So there is true religion and then there is false religion, or simply outward observances without inner reality. Bible Christianity is the true religion as compared to all the false religions that exist in the world.

they are probably just ex catholics, catholicism being the most religious form of Christianity, though people can and do find Jesus in it.

However sometimes its like serving God and Mammon, having two masters for some....I wouldnt let it bother me though if I was secure in faith from an insecure religious organisation that just saw me as a number (or taxpayer) whic is how lots of them actually treat people.

Christianity isn't a religion, it is a FAITH.........
MY THOUGHTS:

Christianity is not a religion, it is a faith. Huge difference there. I also remember when "religion" itself did not have a negative meaning. Mayhaps, when so many "religions" began to be more publicized, Christians began to become uncomfortable with "religion?"" I do not like to call Christianity a "religion", but I do like the definition given in Scripture....

James 1:27) 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.

I'd rather say I have religion than to say an unbelieving Jew had faith, because the Bible says of such individuals 'they sought it not by faith.' Do I want to call what Hindus or Muslims have 'faith'?

Christianity is a religion by definition and there is no need to deny this reality in order to emphasize that it is a religion that teaches how to have a relationship with God. Even the concept that we can have a personal relationship with God is inherently religious. Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism, so he is the most religious person who has ever lived.

Being our Maker, He would be. Being our Savior, He must be. All blessings in Jesus Yeshua.

It seems that when people say they are not religious but have a personal relationship with Jesus they are elevating their status above the common person claiming Him.

It is like people who say I am non-denominational it seems like they are elevating their status as a Christian.

Are they doing this out of arrogance to say I am not religious, and non-denominational.

Or is it because there are many hypocrites that they believe are not acting right, or there are many denominations that fight with each other and they say that to separate themselves from their attitude and are on the level to not be arrogant believing they do right.

I believe it can be either way depending on the person.

I do believe some people do it out of arrogance to say I am not religious to exalt themselves as better than other people saying I do it right, and I am non-denominational to exalt themselves that there are better for they do not get involved with the fighting that goes on.

But if they say I am not religious they still have to have morality led by the Spirit, and if they say I am non-denominational they still have to have a set of beliefs the same as the denominations.

For to say I am not religious they still have to have a set of rules, and to say they are non-denominational is still a denomination.

But some people will do it out of arrogance to exalt themselves.

Well I am not religious like you common pew sitting people so I am better, and I am non-denominational unlike you people following the denominations that lead you about, and fight with each other so I am better.

Well you know human nature and it seems like among the denominations they love that there is denominations so they can say out of all denominations saying they have the truth, we have the truth, so we the winners, we are the champions.

Like people like that there is a Republican and Democrat party so they can align themselves with one of them and say we have the truth, and you do not, and they can fight over both parties exalting themselves.

Which tickles their fancy for people love to fight always trying to prove they are better than another person.

I am not religious, and I am non-denominational is another way to fight, and exalt themselves above the other people who claim Christ.

It is like the Woke movement that consists of insecure, low self esteem people, that crave attention, and to exalt themselves, created by a society that is selfish, and arrogant, basically caring about themselves, so they do not feel important in society, which go against mainstream society for they want to be somebody special, and to go along with mainstream society they would be another face in the crowd, a dime a dozen, and that would not be enough to boost they ego.

So they go against mainstream society saying you are bad, and we are good, loving the attitude do not tell me how to live for I can live however I want, willing to be transgender to affirm such attitude that they can do whatever they want, and to feel special.

The Woke movement is just another group pushing to exalt themselves in society.

They want attention so much, and to feel special, that they compete with each other over who can be the most unique for it makes them feel special, so the transgender scene became a fashion show.

There will be a man wearing a beard identifying as a woman dressed as a woman, and a woman claiming 3 genders, and a man saying he is getting an operation to have no gender identifying as an alien.

They can be the opposite gender, both genders, no gender, and people with the pronouns clown/clownself, moon/moonself, skittle/skittles, as they come up with ways to outdo the common transgender to exalt themselves.

And there will be people that claim Christianity that will be operating by the flesh trying to exalt themselves.

I am not religious like the common person claiming Christianity.

I am non-denominational unlike you common people claiming Christianity.

I belong to this denomination that has the truth unlike you other people.

All in an attempt to exalt themselves above other people claiming Christianity.

The Bible says some have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, so they will be fighting with other people as they are led by the flesh that likes to exalt themselves.

Some may be on the level when they say those things by saying they want to do things right being sincere, but I believe many people say it to be arrogant, and exalt themselves.

I am not religious you substandard Christian, exalt, exalt.

I am non-denominational you substandard Christian, exalt, exalt.

I belong to this denomination you substandard Christian, exalt, exalt.

It is possible to be "religious, but not right with God." Just look at the Pharisees.

James 1:26 - If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. This man's religion is vain, empty, devoid of power, lacking in content, nonproductive, dead and of no eternal value.

James 1:27 - Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

There is nothing wrong with "pure and undefiled religion" but there is certainly something wrong with impure and defiled religion.

I am not saying what you describe does not exist. Among who use the anti-religious verbiage I have heard, they have redefined religion to mean empty works thought true repentance, or something along those lines. One preacher I know of thinks of religion as his trying to earn his salvation in his youth.

But usually their definition of 'religion' goes undefined. They just confuse the uninitiated with their bizarre redefinition of words, without explanation, until the uninitiated gets used to this. I think it started as pandering to the folks who claimed to be 'spiritual and not religious' crowd in California around the time of the Jesus moving, drawing some phrases and concepts from Barth and Bonhoeffer, but I am not sure of this.

I recall one young preacher in Indonesia, trying to speak about how Christianity wasn't 'agama', trying to translate this irritating English-speaking thing into Indonesian. The audience did not receive it well. I recall a couple active in the church discussing it afterward. There was pushback. The weird rhetoric did not take off. I wish Evangelicals had presented push-back to this back in the late 1980's or early 1990's when this became commonplace (or maybe 60's or 70's on the west coast.)

I agree has been a change of meaning but maybe it has something to do with one of the more religious churches harbouring paedophiles and covering it up, or extreme islamists, and cults.

A lot of people say they still prefer 'the old time religion' which is organs and hymns and also hellfire and brimstone preaching..but that would be very rare in many churches today. They don't even have choirs, and the ministries they do are more youth group hangouts, coffee clubs for oldies, and bowls.

If you looking for maybe something sacred and divine...that's not always obvious.

California hippie churches maybe started with vineyard movement as the long haired youth were not welcome in the traditional churches - there was apparently a 'youthquake' where anyone over 30 was viewed with suspicion so any old churches based on centuries of tradition would not welcome say a rock band drummer and barefeet.

Billy Grahams evangelism was sort of designed to fill up the old churches again with new members but you can't put new wine into old wineskins, it will burst. He kept telling people to 'make a decision for Christ' which often just translated to - go to church. Problem is, if you a new believer, which one? They not all going to welcome you. It's ok if you were already going or had family there but for someone who never went, what do they do?

There's also the whole wearing your Sunday Best fashion parade
Some churches don't do it, I guess depending on what church you go to it was a thing. You can't wear your ripped up old jeans and feel comfortable amongst everyone else's finery or get told to sit at the back so people can't see your rags. Esp if the priest/reverend/vicar/bishop/pastor or whoever is leading is all dressed up in vestments or a 3 piece business suit and the ladies are wearing their finest pearls.

Being asked to sit in the back? Does that happen now? James 2 asks readers if you tell the rich man with fine clothes and a gold ring to sit in a good place but tell the poor man in vile cliches to stand there or sit under your footstool aren't you become respecters of persons and judges with evil thoughts?

I actually was in a church like that. The pastor wanted the church to have a certain image and told us to dress up for all the services. I didn't go to that church much often after that. I dressed acceptably, but what about all the people who couldn't afford to dress up? So I was wondering if the pastor only wanted wealthy people to attend the church.....


🍪

Actually having suitable clothing is quite affordable even today. So that is hardly a valid point. Furthermore many businesses and corporations do have dress codes, so if you want to work there you make sure that you meet their requirements.