# Christianity "not a religion" - what say you?



## MichaelNZ (Jul 20, 2014)

I was watching a video of Ray Comfort (of whom I am a great fan) doing open-air preaching at Huntington Beach, California. After he's presented the Gospel to a guy, at 8:58 he gives the guy a book called _How to Live Forever Without Being Religious_, which is the Gospel of John, combined with powerful principles for Christian growth (taken from Comfort's book_Save Yourself Some Pain_). 

I've heard this before - people saying that Christianity isn't a religion. Josh McDowell, in his article _The Source of a Changed Life_, says the following:



> Tell me, what changed your lives? Why are your lives so different from the others on campus?"
> That young woman must have had a lot of conviction. She looked me straight in the eye and said two words I never thought I'd hear as part of a solution in a university: "Jesus Christ."
> I said, "Oh, for God's sake, don't give me that garbage. I'm fed up with religion. I'm fed up with the church. I'm fed up with the Bible. Don't give me that garbage about religion."
> She shot back, "Hey, I didn't say religion, I said Jesus Christ." She pointed out something I'd never known before: Christianity is not a religion. Religion is when human beings try to work their way to God through good works; Christianity is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ to offer a relationship with himself.



The main assumption seems to be that religion equals trying to do good works to please God. Is this consistent with what the Bible says (especially in James 1:27)? If someone you handed a Gospel tract to asked you "Is this something religious?", would you be able to answer "no" with a clean conscience?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 20, 2014)

Silly wordplay. I get what they are trying to say: Christianity is about heart-impacting reality, not mere ritual (and especially not religious self-effort).

But, it is a too-clever-by-half misuse of language, definitions, nomenclature, and truth.

It would be better to observe that there are four ways to seek "contact" with God: moralism, mysticism, rationalism, and the Gospel. The first three involve human self-righteousness and self-effort; the fourth originates with divine initiative and reaches down to us in good monergistic fashion.

Frankly, most of the folks who speak this way are arguing for an "experience" of God that bypasses the mediated revelation of Word and Sacrament in favor of mystical immediacy. Broad evangelicalism devotes a good bit of energy to arguing for a "born again experience" and other such routes to meet God in the sanctuary of the emotions rather than where he promises to be found in Word and Sacrament.

That does not mean that emotions are excluded from religious experience. It is merely to suggest that the objective reality of the Gospel trumps the subjective. "The Gospel is about a relationship, not religion" mantra typically gets invoked to differentiate true Christianity from the spiritual coldness and stultifying deadness of a ritualized, formal orthodoxy, that affects the vocabulary of the faith while denying the power thereof.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 20, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> The main assumption seems to be that religion equals trying to do good works to please God.



In many people's minds, this is exactly what "religion" means. When talking with such people it can indeed be helpful to point out that Christianity is not "religion" as they understand it. Given the way they understand the word, some (not necessarily all) of the reasons why they dislike "religion" are actually pretty good reasons.

Of course, many fine theologians throughout history (as well as the Bible itself) have used the word "religion" in a much better way. One could always try to convince folks to change their understanding of the word. The problem, of course, is that word meanings do evolve over time and it's very difficult to get people to change their understanding of any word. It's usually more helpful, at least at the start of a conversation about the gospel, to affirm points of agreement and avoid quibbling over differences in how we use language.




MichaelNZ said:


> If someone you handed a Gospel tract to asked you "Is this something religious?", would you be able to answer "no" with a clean conscience?



I don't really use tracts, but I would probably tell them that it's about Jesus, and that if they take time to read it I think they'll find it's different from their pre-conceived ideas about religion. That's honest enough and straightforward.


----------



## thbslawson (Jul 21, 2014)

Jack, I think you nailed it on the head with the phrase "...as they understand it." Christianity is a "religion" of course, but the word "religion" seems to have lost its meaning to most people.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 21, 2014)

The term _religion_ is used in Scripture in positive and negative contexts. There is a tendency among many today, in what I think is a wee bit of false piety, to eschew the word _religion_, making it a _shibboleth _for the self-righteous, as if Scripture only denounced it whenever the word appeared. That is not the case (James 1:27). Christianity is a religion, the one, true, religion, so we need not be embarrassed by claiming this. Indeed, we should embrace it. 

_Religion _is devotion, worship, and service to something, usually something supernatural. 

_Christian religion_ is devotion, worship, and service to the God revealed to us in Holy Scripture, the one, true God. That is why we claim that Christianity is the one, true, religion. 

See also: CHRISTIAN READER: Christianity IS a Religion

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Roman (Jul 21, 2014)

I've seen the argument used before though. I actually heard Todd Freil (who I'm a big fan of actually) talk about how the Bible uses fire. His main point was basically that because the Bible uses the word "fire" in a certain way, we should use it that way to. So when we pray to God and ask for a "fire" we are asking for His wrath.

That didn't make sense to me at all. Words evolve over time and just because we used fire one way in the old testament times doesn't mean we use it the same way today. Also words can have two meanings. If I say I want the LORD to light a fire in my heart, it's clear what I mean by that. 

I think the use of the word religion is the same. Just because it had a meaning before doesn't mean it can't mean something else later. The way I've always heard it defined was that religion was man's attempt to reach God by works. I hear that from a lot of good authors like Tim Keller and others. But I also think the word itself has two meanings. Because some people use it in one way, and other people use it in another way. I think we just have to be discerning with how people are using the word, and how we use the word. It can be tough though.


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2014)

Suppose you redefine religion to mean performing certain "rites," Christianity has a rite called baptism whereby the professors of Christianity are visibly recognised, a rite of communion in the Lord's supper, a rite of prayer whereby they address God, etc. Suppose you redefine it as doing good works, professors of Christianity are obliged to do good works. Suppose you define it as a set of beliefs, Christianity has a set of beliefs which are fundamental to being a Christian. Suppose you define it as an exercise of faith, even the exercise of faith would be an activity whereby a Christian is distinguished from a non Christian. In other words, none of the new definitions nullify the fact that Christianity has an outward form as well as an inward power whereby it is distinguished from other religions.


----------



## kodos (Jul 21, 2014)

I agree with Rev. Winzer. Besides, Buddhists also make the same claim - that theirs is not a religion. 
So do atheists for that matter. Yet we know what they worship.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 21, 2014)

Religion is an inescapable category: there is worship of the One True God or worship of the creature/created.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 21, 2014)

This is an oft repeated claim by many Evangelicals. It sounds clever and pious enough, but doesn't hold up to any serious scrutiny. Christianity is of course a religion. Religion has become a dirty word in our day, hence the effort by many to distance themselves from it. But this is really throwing the baby out with the bath water. "'Religion' has some baggage so we'll just jettison the whole concept." But as Dennis said, it's too clever by half.


----------



## Toasty (Jul 21, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> I was watching a video of Ray Comfort (of whom I am a great fan) doing open-air preaching at Huntington Beach, California. After he's presented the Gospel to a guy, at 8:58 he gives the guy a book called _How to Live Forever Without Being Religious_, which is the Gospel of John, combined with powerful principles for Christian growth (taken from Comfort's book_Save Yourself Some Pain_).
> 
> I've heard this before - people saying that Christianity isn't a religion. Josh McDowell, in his article _The Source of a Changed Life_, says the following:
> 
> ...



I think there is some misunderstanding about what a religion is. A religion is a collection of beliefs and practices having to do with God, the nature of reality, nature of man, how we know we know, ethics, nature of life and death, the afterlife, and so on.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jul 21, 2014)

Depends what you mean by religion. The book of James speaks of a 'true religion' helping the widows and orphans 
Paul diplomatically tells Mars Hill crowd they are very religious and builds on one of the religious dedications on a monument built
related honoring some unknown and unidentified god who stopped a serious plague. Paul informed them ".... that they should seek God,
and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,...."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 21, 2014)

I think saying Christianity is not a religion feeds the autonomous self into believing this: "Well, if it's about a relationship, that's great. I love relationships." They then imagine a relationship on their terms. Terms that inevitably will demand nothing of them.

As stated, the speaker is trying to disabuse the listener that Christianity is some sort of sacerdotal system where the Church mediates grace to the believer as they participate in its system.

The problem that I see, particularly in the American context, is that it really lowers the bar of expectation. Certainly, conversion to Christianity involves being set free from the slavery of sin and death as one repents and turns to Christ but it is from one state of being a bondservant to another.

What many rail against - in terms of what they claim is bad - is actually true religion. Being under authority, dying to self, living for the saints, battling sin, and the many things that we are enlisted into - these are all part of being "related" to God as His children, to Christ as His Bride, and to each other as a body of believers.

Allowing a person to think that what he thinks you mean by "relationship" is an equivocation on the type of relationship he would enter into by believing in Christ.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 21, 2014)

The above sentiment that Christianity is not a religion, may sometimes be somewhat related in people's minds to the expression that Christianity is not rules but a relationship. 

However, we are in a covenant relationship with God in Christ, which necessarily involves rules, although the moral law will finally be completely internalised in glory.


----------



## Quatchu (Jul 21, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> Silly wordplay.
> It would be better to observe that there are four ways to seek "contact" with God: moralism, mysticism, rationalism, and the Gospel. The first three involve human self-righteousness and self-effort; the fourth originates with divine initiative and reaches down to us in good monergistic fashion.



Mr. McFadden could you flesh that out a bit more, I find the statement very fascinating. Specifically how do you think we try to make contact with God through rationalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 21, 2014)

Quatchu said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Silly wordplay.
> ...



I think he intends to note that there have been forms of idealism that have attempted to reduce the study of God to what can be ascertained within the limits of logical deduction by the human mind. The starting point is logic and the belief that all of reality can be apprehended by a right use of deduction. Reality can be reduced to a set of logical propositions including the nature of God.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 21, 2014)

What Rich said. You might recast my term "rationalism" as "unaided human reason."

I would add that the problem with "rationalism" in the sense that I was using it (not merely "rationalism" as opposed to "empiricism", but the human enterprise of trusting in our unaided efforts apart from revelation to reason our way to God) is that it attempts to control God, apprehending him only according to the dictates of the human mind and its rules.

The Enlightenment brought with it a privileging of the human mind over (and rational autonomy against) the supposed intrusions of divine revelation. A friend of mine was actually part of the Jesus Seminar wherein they cast votes with colored beads to decide what Jesus probably said, what Jesus possibly said, what is undetermined as to whether he said it or not, what Jesus probably did not say, and what Jesus certainly did not say. What height of arrogance! How dare the creature set himself up as judge and jury over the Almighty!

Moralism attempts to win God's approbation by the doing of good deeds or a preponderance of good instead of bad (cf. grading on the curve).

Mysticism seeks immediate contact without the mediation of Word and Sacrament. During the Reformation both Luther and Calvin fought against the radical reformers and their notion that the Holy Spirit does not "need" the Bible, but he speaks directly to the human conscience apart from the Word and Sacraments. To this day their are some significant elements of the Mennonite/Amish movement that emphasize God communicating to the believer's heart directly apart from the Word. It is no accident that the Amish only do education up through 8th grade. It is not merely a rejection of technology and modern "learnin'," but an outgrowth of their religious epistemology.

Rationalism sets the autonomous human mind over against divine revelation. We need reason, not revelation, to penetrate the mysteries of the universe and understand the mind of God, they say.

The Gospel comes by divine revelation from outside of us. It breaks into our world in its own self-authenticating way by divine revelation of the Word of Almighty God. Rather than dealing with something I can do (little engine that could morality, mystical immediacy, or reason without revelation), it announces something God has done for me and invites me to repent and believe. The Gospel type salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of the work of Christ alone.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 22, 2014)

Maybe it goes back further than that, but I tend to associate the "Christianity is not a religion" mantra with converts from the 1970's "Jesus people" movement or those who were influenced to it by one degree or another due to coming of age at roughly the same time, if nothing else. At least broadly speaking I would identify both Comfort and McDowell with that era.

I think at least one impetus behind this "Christianity is not a religion" saying (along with being aimed at Roman Catholicism) was trying to break through the 1950's type of mentality (the 50's in the USA if nowhere else) where people would insist they are Christians because they are good religious (and moral) people who attend church and who don't commit adultery or cheat on their taxes. Often these were liberal religious centers where the true gospel had not been preached in decades, having been supplanted by moral uplift and self-help. Having come from that background myself, I can assure you that (not unlike the RC's minus the sacraments) a great many people there do indeed see salvation (assuming they see a need for it at all) as being by works to some degree. Often this takes the form of having the good outweigh the bad. Thus the saying "God doesn't grade on a curve" which often accompanies "Christianity isn't a religion." Many have no knowledge or understanding of the concept of "Jesus paid it all" or justification by faith alone.

Also, the only kind of "Christians" many people who are unchurched are acquainted with are legalistic groups like certain Pentecostal sects or extreme "fundamentalists" (and some who might not be regarded as extreme) whose preaching is generally devoid of any emphasis on grace. (One could include purveyors of the prosperity "gospel" as well.) Some of this is how Christianity (or "religious people") is portrayed in the media and some of it is through personal experience. Who wants to be seen as religious in this sense, which is also generally associated with hypocrisy? 

I don't think the statement is as accurate is it might be. And I don't recall ever having used it. I don't think I would use it in the way that Comfort or McDowell do in light of James 1:27. But right or wrong (given the connotations that Jack K. notes above) I can see how it might be somewhat effective in a brief conversation with someone that you may never have a chance to speak with again.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jul 22, 2014)

Q: Specifically how do you think we try to make contact with God through rationalism? 
A: Everything that goes to the heart goes through the mind first - the Puritan primacy of the mind


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jul 22, 2014)

...Wilberforce made a memorable entry in his diary: "God Almighty has placed before me two great objects: the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners (morals).... William Wilberforce - 1801-1900 Church History Timeline

The gospel is not mere moralism or mere rationalism or mystisim... but ... doesn't mean it doesn't touch on those


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 22, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> To this day their are some significant elements of the Mennonite/Amish movement that emphasize God communicating to the believer's heart directly apart from the Word.



There are strains of hyper-Calvinism that believe this as well although perhaps not in exactly the same way.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 22, 2014)

Pilgrim said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > To this day their are some significant elements of the Mennonite/Amish movement that emphasize God communicating to the believer's heart directly apart from the Word.
> ...



I am not arguing against mystical union, subjective promptings from the Spirit, etc. It is simply that when I ask for something in prayer, my "answer" may say more about my strong desire than it does about God's leading. Can the Lord use subjective avenues to lead us? Sure! But, we must recognize the power of our subjective desires to cloud discernment. But, when we meet God where he promises to be found (in Word and Sacrament), we can be certain because God cannot lie or deny himself. He always keeps his promises. Whether you explain communion like a Calvinist or like a Lutheran, you believe that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper because he said he would be.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Jul 23, 2014)

Thanks for all the replies.

I'm guessing that the idea that religion equals working your way toward God comes from the fact that all non-Christian religions (including counterfeit forms of Christianity like Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy) require you to do certain things, but Christianity just requires you to repent and believe. Do you agree?

Do you feel there is any place in Reformed Christianity for a "born-again experience" or directly experiencing God in a supernatural way? I know that God can reveal Himself to people like this, but should it be considered normative? I didn't have a born-again experience - in fact I'm not actually sure exactly when I became a Christian.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jul 24, 2014)

Christianity is certainly a religion--the only true religion. As many have noted, this is a catch-phrase in the mouth of many an evangelical (at least here in the States). 
To me, the catchphrase seems loaded with maudlin sentiment. And maudlin sentiment neither jells nor coheres with the Reformed/Confessional understanding of the faith.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 24, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Do you feel there is any place in Reformed Christianity for a "born-again experience" or directly experiencing God in a supernatural way? I know that God can reveal Himself to people like this, but should it be considered normative? I didn't have a born-again experience - in fact I'm not actually sure exactly when I became a Christian.



Being born again is not only normative, but absolutely necessary (John 3). The _experience_ of that, however, can vary greatly. Some who were raised in the faith have never known a time when they didn't feel they were Christians. Others can tell you exactly when they first repented and put their faith in Christ. For some, this is accomapanied by an especially strong awareness of God's internal call. Others don't have such a strong awareness.

We need to avoid boxing the Spirit's work into one preset model that fits most people. Salvation is always direct from the Spirit and always supernatural. But we should not think that either a dramatic awareness of this work, or the lack thereof, is normative. It's _all_ wild and otherworldly, a personal and loving gift uniquely fashioned for each individual believer.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 24, 2014)

"When were you saved?" is a red herring.

I don't know for sure, but think it might have been April 3, 33 A.D. (it could have been April 7, 30 A.D.)???


----------



## Jack K (Jul 24, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> "When were you saved?" is a red herring.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but think it might have been April 3, 33 A.D. (it could have been April 7, 30 A.D.)???



Reminds me of a story I've told a few times. Years ago I was sitting in on a pre-baptism interview for a teenager who was in my Sunday school class. The elder in charge of interviewing the kid asked him how he was saved. The boy answered that Jesus died for his sin. I thought it was a perfect answer (I guess I'd taught him well), but the elder asked again, "Yes, but how were _you_ personally saved?" The boy didn't know what else to say and gave the same answer again. The elder was flummoxed, too, not being able to get the sort of response he was looking for. Sigh. By the time it was all over, I was wondering if the kid had a better grasp of things than the elder did.


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Jul 24, 2014)

Here in the Philippines dominant evangelicals..(where I formerly belong to)... will have a strong stand that "Jesus is not my religion, he is my relationship or Christianity is not about religion, it's about Relationship" .....I thank God that he opened my eyes to see and know the truth from the Scriptures after 10 years.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 26, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> I'm guessing that the idea that religion equals working your way toward God comes from the fact that all non-Christian religions (including counterfeit forms of Christianity like Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy) require you to do certain things, but Christianity just requires you to repent and believe. Do you agree?


It depends on what you mean. Christianity requires everything of us. As I attempted to articulate earlier, one of the reasons people say it's not a religion is that they are trying to get at some minimal set of conveniences where they can say they have a relationship with Jesus. They get to define the nature of the relationship with Christ according to what "relationship" and "love" mean to them.

I was listening to a radio debate the other day where a woman had started a "Christian" surrogacy service where she has the fertilized eggs of Christian couples implanted and carries them to term for them. She stated that "the Lord put this on her heart." She also noted that the Scriptures tell us to use whatever gifts we have for the good of others and she had a gift of bearing children and it was her Christian duty to bear children for those who could not.

"The Lord put that on my heart" or "I'm at peace with this" are what most today are looking at in terms of "relationship" with Christ. Any talk of regulations - even that the Lord regulates Word and Sacrament and Church government - those don't fit the paradigm of Christianity as relationship for many. Saying that the Scriptures command the ordination of men alone is a "rule". Submitting to your elders is a "rule". So so many details in the Scriptures that can be safely discarded because a "relationship with Jesus" is what these people think they have.

At the point of initial conversion the sinner brings only their sin and unworthiness to God. They turn from their sins and turn to Christ. These are gifts from God. Yet is does not end there. They are now, soul and body, the possession of Christ and He has instituted the Church for their discipline and care. He calls them to press forward and grow up. All by His power, He calls them to resist sin to the point of shedding blood. There is so much more beyond initial faith and repentance _not because these are the badges of entry_ but because working out our faith with fear and trembling are what God is at work in us toward. He is making us holy and it is a long, hard race with other believers.



MichaelNZ said:


> Do you feel there is any place in Reformed Christianity for a "born-again experience" or directly experiencing God in a supernatural way? I know that God can reveal Himself to people like this, but should it be considered normative? I didn't have a born-again experience - in fact I'm not actually sure exactly when I became a Christian.


There is no Reformed faith without the operation of the Holy Spirit. It's not always razzle dazzle and it's not ultimately about the burning in the bosom or the focus on the person but there is no conversion or progress or fruit in anything without being vitally united to Christ by the power of the Spirit.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 26, 2014)

This was recently posted on Timothy Keller's Facebook page: *"If you can't show the difference between religion and the gospel, people will confuse morality with a changed heart."*


----------

