# Relationship, Not A Religion?



## Wynteriii (Aug 21, 2013)

Here in California, I've been hearing more and more this notion of people no longer wanting to say that they being a Christian is "not a religion, but a relationship with Jesus Christ". I find it interesting that people are trying to separate religion. I feel like it is somewhat disrespectful to thousands who were killed for their belief in Christ. This movement can't be new but I call it the "Relationship-Movement". Do you guys have an opinion on this matter and stories such as mine?

Also, the last person who told me that he wasn't in that "old-timer religion but has a relationship with Christ", 10 minutes later he was swearing and was being disrespectful to his elders (both old and those who hold the office). Does the this need for separation allow the individual to still do what he wants?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 21, 2013)

The idea of religion vs. relationship is a false dichotomy.

1. All men already have a relationship with Christ. That much is clear from scripture's teaching about His universal Lordship (Psalm 2:8ff.; Revelation 1:5). The problem is that they have a really bad relationship with Him because they are rebels. 
2. All men have a religion (a system of belief and rules by which they do or try to live). This is man's attempt to live out a relationship with God but always failing to live righteously due to his sin (Romans 3:10-20).
3. When we are converted by the Spirit we come into a restored relationship with God through Christ (Colossians 1:19-23). Our religion is now pleasing to God because He is our Father and we are His children (Matthew 7:25-32; James 1:24).


----------



## Philip (Aug 21, 2013)

Why are they mutually exclusive? Christianity is the only religion where you have a relationship with God at all.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Aug 21, 2013)

Wynter, 

In my experience with folks who say this, the idea is usually applied to church attendance and/or membership. In other words, their reasoning goes, "Since I don't believe in religion, I don't need its trappings" (i.e., church membership, a pastor, the fellowship of the saints). This is not true in every case, of course, but it is often a line of reasoning by which people cast off restraint.


----------



## nwink (Aug 21, 2013)

Philip said:


> Why are they mutually exclusive? Christianity is the only religion where you have a relationship with God at all.



Exactly. And if one of those types of people was confronted about how Christianity is "not a religion," what would they even say to that? I think the standard dictionary definition is that "religion" is a set of beliefs.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2013)

While it is a false dichotomy, some people of genuine piety have used it as a way to contrast Christianity with everything else. Whereas Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Mormonism have the structure and forms of religion, that is all they have; there is no transformative relationship at their heart. I think it would be better to contrast, as James implicitly does, pure religion with impure; or with Zwingli, true and false religion. One element, and a very important one at that, would be precisely the point of relationship - union with Christ and adoption by the Father do most certainly put Christianity on a completely different level. But I think that contrast can be made without the absurd and sometimes damaging idea that Christianity is not a religion.

Or more succinctly: Christianity is more than a mere religion; but it is not less.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2013)

Philip said:


> Why are they mutually exclusive? Christianity is the only religion where you have a relationship with God at all.




A good relationship.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 21, 2013)

Well, there's nothing wrong with saying Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. That may not be traditional language or the most theologically precise way to summarize it, but it's true enough.

What about saying Christianity is NOT a religion? That gets trickier, and depends on what you mean by "religion." When pastoring people, dictionary definitions of a word matter little compared to the hearer's gut response to it. Many people are rightly fed up with the sort of religion that's about earning favor/enlightenment/salvation through one's superior devotion and effort. For people who've only ever known that sort of religion, it can be good and necessary to explain that true Christianity is not "religion" as they've known it... even if a more technically accurate way to put it might be to say that Christianity is true religion and everything else is false religion.

All this is to say that it matters who your audience is and what message you most want to communicate:

* If your audience is feel-good "believers" who need to wake up, your concern is to remind them that obeying God is a serious matter involving rigorous discipline and submission to the church, and attention to theological precision gets you excited... then you won't like that phrase. But...

* If your audience is folks who've been burned by works-salvation teaching, your concern is to show them how true Christianity is fundamentally better than every other religion, and seeing once-hostile people look at Christ in a new light gets you excited... then you might use that phrase.

BOTH audiences matter. BOTH messages are important. BOTH passions are good.

We don't have to pick one and bash the other, nor is it necessarily disrespectful to martyrs if we speak about "religion" as a bad thing to people who've only ever known the bad version. It doesn't honor martyrs to retain the wordage they used even when those words are understood differently by many people today and might cause confusion. If you want to honor martyrs, honor Christ by knowing your audience and picking the right words that encourage them to draw nearer to him in the way they most need to.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 21, 2013)

> Or more succinctly: Christianity is more than a mere religion; but it is not less.





> BOTH audiences matter. BOTH messages are important. BOTH passions are good.



I've grown up with this my whole life and what it is is a change in terms as the purtians defined "religion" as that pure and vital regenerate living faith. But "religion" is becoming synonomous with dead formalism, works righteousness, legalism, and basically "They worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from me" tare filled churches with no life or vitality.

As i said I have grown up with this, but it is starting to bother me, not only because the phrase "Christianity isn't a religion" is unbiblical, but because it is starting to get muchier and gooier, Jesus is turning into a boyfriend figure and that is not what I signed on for, nor what God intended. Yes Jesus is our brother and friend, but He is also the Christ, fully God, the Lord of teh armies of the universe, the prophet, ghigh priest and King, and we can never forget that. Jesus is God and God is love, light, and Good, but He is also an all consuming fire. God is not love, love, love; or nice, nice, nice. He is Holy, Holy, Holy.

You are spot on Reuben!

I think you are right in remember what audience to speak to Jack.

I was wondering though there are times when i've been in a position where I needed to express to someone the difference of cold "faith" and vital religion in a single word and I used "relationship" but that sounds so cheesy as it is very cliche where I live, is there a better phrase you think?


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2013)

"Christianity is a relationship, not a religion" is a religious statement. It requires something to be believed and something to be done.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 21, 2013)

It becomes just like that moralistic, therapeutic Deism that Horton talks about.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 21, 2013)

Wynteriii said:


> Here in California, I've been hearing more and more this notion of people no longer wanting to say that they being a Christian is "not a religion, but a relationship with Jesus Christ".



I hear this most frequently from my street evangelism friends; it usually makes me cringe. Almost all of these folks are Arminian or Amyraldian, too. 




Jack K said:


> What about saying Christianity is NOT a religion? That gets trickier, and depends on what you mean by "religion." When pastoring people, dictionary definitions of a word matter little compared to the hearer's gut response to it. Many people are rightly fed up with the sort of religion that's about earning favor/enlightenment/salvation through one's superior devotion and effort. For people who've only ever known that sort of religion, it can be good and necessary to explain that true Christianity is not "religion" as they've known it... even if a more technically accurate way to put it might be to say that Christianity is true religion and everything else is false religion.



It does seem important that both the speaker and the audience are on the same page re: the definition of religion if they are discussing this.



Jack K said:


> All this is to say that it matters who your audience is and what message you most want to communicate:
> 
> * If your audience is feel-good "believers" who need to wake up, your concern is to remind them that obeying God is a serious matter involving rigorous discipline and submission to the church, and attention to theological precision gets you excited... then you won't like that phrase. But...
> 
> ...



Amen. 

The people who I hear use this phrase are usually trying to reach Catholic people they interact with during street evangelism. Many of these same Catholic people will self-identify as Christians when we talk with them. The evangelists use the "relationship not religion" line to try to help the Catholics see that salvation is not by dead works of man's religion, but a vibrant relationship with the living God. I have yet to witness this phrase accomplish its intent (while we are there on the street.) Of course, it is possible the Holy Spirit may use it after our conversation to draw these people unto Himself and to open the eyes of their understanding.

Also, these street evangelists who use the phrase all use "Way of the Master" to share the gospel. I have listened to some of Ray Comfort's material and taken a preliminary class, but I am not familiar enough with the rest of his stuff to know if he is suggesting they use it or not.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2013)

Jack K said:


> If your audience is folks who've been burned by works-salvation teaching, your concern is to show them how true Christianity is fundamentally better than every other religion, and seeing once-hostile people look at Christ in a new light gets you excited... then you might use that phrase.



It seems like saying "not _just_ a religion" instead of simply "not a religion" would go some way to accomplishing the same goal without creating potential problems down the road. I remember talking to a sweet lady who was surprised to hear that Christianity could be called a religion at all - she'd heard so much that it was a relationship not a religion that James 1 came as an astonishing corrective to her.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 21, 2013)

I would think Ray Comfort uses that phrase, he probably doesn't advocate it as a method to reach certain people (maybe he does I haven't listened to him for a while, nor have I heard all his stuff) because it is second nature to most average evangelical American's especially the non~denom crowd.

That street situation is actually one I had in mind something very similar where I was on the street evangelizing and a person bluntly asked me if I believe in religion, I knew the definition he was attaching to religion wasn't the biblical definition it was the cold dead fundamentalist orthodoxy (love fundamentalism in its histrical sense and orthodoxy as well don't miss my meaning) (or catholic like in the great example you just gave) so I was forced to respond with "I believe God invites us into a relationship" (or something to that effect) to which I stuttered before saying that to them because I knew how gimmicky and cliche and cheesy it was going to sound. Still haven't found a good alternative that isn't long winded and bears explanation and context itself, something the average Joe will catch the meaning of and yet it is fully biblical, non~cliche and uncompromising. Again some suggestions would be great!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 21, 2013)

Sometimes we have to appreciate changes in the language; some cultures – or even subcultures – use the word "religion" in a pejorative sense. There are many who have seen all religions they have come into contact with to be dead constructs of mere humans who have been motivated to control and/or lull them into an opiate-like stupor. To such _all_ religion is evil. It is all they know. This is especially true in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures, but it is also increasingly true in post-Christian cultures such as exist in the U.K. and the U.S. I myself was 26 – although an avid reader of world lit and spiritual paths – before I heard a genuine presentation of the Gospel of Christ.

And at that initial moment of exposure, regeneration, and conversion _all I knew_ was a *relationship* with Jesus Christ, for I was part of no church or Christian community; a woman had witnessed to me and I was saved, although it was not known to her. It was not until two weeks later, when I drove up to her locale and told her what had happened that she directed me to get a Bible and to go to a particular church in my locale.

"Religion" to some means an organization of man having nothing to do with a living God. The Greek _threskeia_ (James 1:26, 27) means basically ceremonial observance or worshipping, and while in reality it is a good word, that which it is a signifier of has been so corrupted in our age that to some it is a word for dead, delusional ceremonies and meaningless rites.

Some words we can let go of, they are so decrepit as to meaning, and even though we may resuscitate a word by showing the reality originally intended, there are so many instances of the corrupt all around which reinforce the aversion of many, that culturally the negative meaning prevails. As a poet, preacher, and teacher desiring to communicate effectively I am careful of the words I use. For example, I _extremely_ rarely use the "Christianese" language; likewise with the word "religion" – I know how most hearers hear it. Of course, it may still be a sound word to use when talking to the choir.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 21, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > If your audience is folks who've been burned by works-salvation teaching, your concern is to show them how true Christianity is fundamentally better than every other religion, and seeing once-hostile people look at Christ in a new light gets you excited... then you might use that phrase.
> ...



I've done something similar. I've used the line "not *typical* religion" to deal with this issue. If you say it's "not *just* religion," many people will still think that means it's about working hard to earn your salvation through empty ceremonial observances (which is their definition of religion) plus something else. Christianity is actually _opposed_ to their definition of "religion," not an add-on to it.

It might be nice if we could get everyone we meet to adopt a 350-year-old, Puritan-friendly definition of the word "religion," but that isn't likely to happen soon. We need to be able to speak with people using language that resonates with them. Still, I've taken care to add that word "typical" when I write about religion in a negative sense, because more clarity is generally good.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 22, 2013)

Jack K said:


> I've done something similar. I've used the line "not typical religion" to deal with this issue. If you say it's "not just religion," many people will still think that means it's about working hard to earn your salvation through empty ceremonial observances (which is their definition of religion) plus something else. Christianity is actually opposed to their definition of "religion," not an add-on to it.



That's a good point, Jack. "Typical" does seem like a good way not to throw the concept itself under the bus, while not confusing people who have no proper definition of it.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 22, 2013)

py3ak said:


> I remember talking to a sweet lady who was surprised to hear that Christianity could be called a religion at all - she'd heard so much that it was a relationship not a religion that James 1 came as an astonishing corrective to her.



This is a great point.

In my humble opinion, this discussion serves to underscore the importance of opening a dialog with and *listening *to the people we are talking about this with. How this unfolds in a 5-10 minute conversation with a stranger on the street may be dramatically different from how it looks when we talk with a co-worker or another little league parent, whom we see on a recurring basis. 



GloriousBoaz said:


> I was forced to respond with "I believe God invites us into a relationship" (or something to that effect) to which I stuttered before saying that to them because I knew how gimmicky and cliche and cheesy it was going to sound. Still haven't found a good alternative that isn't long winded and bears explanation and context itself, something the average Joe will catch the meaning of and yet it is fully biblical, non~cliche and uncompromising. Again some suggestions would be great!



It pleases God to use broken vessels such as us to share the gospel and to live our lives as examples here on earth. He is able to overcome our shortcomings when faced with awkward questions and to use even our feeble words to draw people unto Himself. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sometimes we have to appreciate changes in the language; some cultures – or even subcultures – use the word "religion" in a pejorative sense. There are many who have seen all religions they have come into contact with to be dead constructs of mere humans who have been motivated to control and/or lull them into an opiate-like stupor. To such all religion is evil. It is all they know. This is especially true in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures, but it is also increasingly true in post-Christian cultures such as exist in the U.K. and the U.S. I myself was 26 – although an avid reader of world lit and spiritual paths – before I heard a genuine presentation of the Gospel of Christ.



This is particularly true of atheists who eschew anything they perceive to be related to religion. I see this every day on the campus where I attend school. They hate what they see as "religion." They hate the "god" they think religions worship. They cite reasons that range from the crusades, to the problem of evil in the world to jihad. But when confronted with a real believer who lives out their faith in daily life, they recognize the believer has something they so desperately yearn for that often, the door for meaningful conversation opens. How many of us have the courage to walk through that door? Though I've walked through it myself quite a few times, there are still times I fail, or I tremble at the thought of the cost (in this present world).



py3ak said:


> That's a good point, Jack. "Typical" does seem like a good way not to throw the concept itself under the bus, while not confusing people who have no proper definition of it.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 22, 2013)

The two aspects of the Covenant of Grace, inner/outer, invisible/visible, living/legal, cover this.

Christianity is a relationship with Christ; a covenantal relationship with Christ. This necessarily involves the "trappings" of the true Christian religion. For a start, baptism.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 22, 2013)

Just evangelistic-speak. It is not offensive to me as a clever line, a figure of speech like hyperbole, as long as someone does not think that it is technically or historically true. 

Several have made fine comments on this already. I suspect that dead formalism is part of it for some (a real relationship vs. a ritualized set of works-righteousness behaviors). However, my guess is that the larger issue relates to the differentiation between definitions of religion = my attempt to win God's approbation by my moral strivings, piety, and efforts VS. Christianity = God coming to me in Christ, paying the price for my sins, and creating faith within.

However, many of those camping on the "distinction" seem to be Arminian/free will oriented types who follow up their claim that Christianity is not a religion by asking you to decide to begin a "relationship" with Jesus Christ by "asking him into your heart."

Viewed by any dispassionate observer, of COURSE Christianity is a "religion." What else would it be, a football game? A dinner at a restaurant? A counseling session? Using the line in a sermon attempts to contrast the reality + graciousness of Christianity as opposed to the sad strivings of superstitious people to placate the wrath of idols by their works righteous self efforts.

A person arguing beyond the figure of speech to claim that it is factually true (as if checking "False" on a T-F test question asking if Christianity was a religion were the "correct" answer) reminds me of the person who claimed that Jesus actually instructed people to hate their fathers and mothers in the process of discipleship.


----------



## R Harris (Aug 22, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> Just evangelistic-speak. It is not offensive to me as a clever line, a figure of speech like hyperbole, as long as someone does not think that it is technically or historically true.



Exactly, just like many other expressions of evangelicalism. It is interesting that the person opening the thread has now heard of it, and think that it might be more of a California thing; I was hearing this 30 years ago here in Oklahoma, the so-called "buckle of the Bible belt."

Other quaint phrases that evangelicals use that have an appearance of piety but completely miss the point:

"Stop majoring in minors"

"Worship is all of life"

"doctrine divides, so don't get into doctrinal discussions or debates" (that one is a real beaut)

"don't get involved in politics, because it doesn't save anybody"

"I don't believe in denominationalism, so I am a member of a non-denominational church and am freed from that problem"

"I don't tithe, it is legalistic"


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 22, 2013)

> in reality it is a good word, that which it is a signifier of has been so corrupted in our age that to some it is a word for dead, delusional ceremonies and meaningless rites.


I was contemplating this today as a song I was listening to said "It's so sad how religious this generation is" but in context it means those who have religion without relationship and dangerous place to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn35WhL0Ams



> That's a good point, Jack. "Typical" does seem like a good way not to throw the concept itself under the bus, while not confusing people who have no proper definition of it.



I'm still looking for something that works better with current culture but that is the idea.



> In my humble opinion, this discussion serves to underscore the importance of opening a dialog with and listening to the people we are talking about this with. How this unfolds in a 5-10 minute conversation with a stranger on the street may be dramatically different from how it looks when we talk with a co-worker or another little league parent, whom we see on a recurring basis.



it is so true how different conversations can have different constraints on them due to time.



> It pleases God to use broken vessels such as us to share the gospel and to live our lives as examples here on earth. He is able to overcome our shortcomings when faced with awkward questions and to use even our feeble words to draw people unto Himself.



Thanks for that encouragment, indeed God uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines.


> However, many of those camping on the "distinction" seem to be Arminian/free will oriented types who follow up their claim that Christianity is not a religion by asking you to decide to begin a "relationship" with Jesus Christ by "asking him into your heart."



Amen that is what I was addressing in why it is too cliche for me to use the word relationship on average. 



> Exactly, just like many other expressions of evangelicalism. It is interesting that the person opening the thread has now heard of it, and think that it might be more of a California thing; I was hearing this 30 years ago here in Oklahoma, the so-called "buckle of the Bible belt."



yeah i've heard it all my christian life about 7 years.



> "Stop majoring in minors"
> 
> "Worship is all of life"
> 
> ...



These are the main catch phrases of the church I just stopped attending along with:
"We are gospel~center, and gospel~focused"
"WE need to love on people in the name of Jesus"
"Love the sinner and hate the sin"
"It's all about Jesus" (which it is but their Jesus tends to be doctrinally rather undefined)
"It's all about the gospel" (again ambiguous)
"It's all about grace" (see where i'm going with this?)
"You can't be the Holy Spirit for anyone else, God has a person right where He wants them, We are all works in progress" (even if their is recognizable sin in someone's life)


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2013)

Besides all that has been said to show that Christianity is in fact a "religion," it is worth pointing out that the idea it is essentially a "relationship" can be made just as legalistic and works-oriented. And, what is more, it is false. If we want to speak truly, Christianity is essentially a GIFT. Something has been objectively accomplished as a matter of fact. Furthermore, Christianity makes very clear and forcible statements concerning those who do not receive this GIFT, such that their relationship is one of enmity and just damnation. So Christianity teaches there are two different relationships which men have with God. It not A relationship.

The fact that the word "religion" is misunderstood is not sufficient reason to deny it. The words "God," "Jesus," "sin," and "salvation" are misunderstood. It is the work of the preacher to explain terms, not to mince them up and serve them as mush.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 22, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> So Christianity teaches there are two different relationships which men have with God.



Isn't there a gospel tract that uses this illustration? I've not actually seen it, but have heard others speak of it. "Two ways to live," may be the name of it.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist (Aug 22, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> > Or more succinctly: Christianity is more than a mere religion; but it is not less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess you could always ask the Paul Washer question: 
*"DO YOU DESIRE GOD? It's not 'do you want to go to heaven' or 'do you want your best life now. ----BUT, since I have been preaching, since you have heard the good news of salvation, has God so done a work in your heart that the sin which you once loved, you now hate? The Lord Jesus whom you despised before, you now want to cling to with your dear life?"*


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 22, 2013)

> Paul Washer


----------



## kappazei (Aug 23, 2013)

Jack K said:


> dictionary definitions of a word matter little compared to the hearer's gut response to it.



That's right.
People in general, when talking about spiritual matters go by connotation, not the real or original meaning. Some have even been hijacked to mean something else.
It's unfortunate that religion has come to mean something oppressive and harsh and phony and boring. But there it is. 

I'm quite sure he wasn't a pure Calvinist but I understand that Chuck Colson belived that Christianity isn't a relationship but a worldview, I assume he meant based on the right relationship with God through Christ. But that's taking the thread off topic.


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2013)

kappazei said:


> I'm quite sure he wasn't a pure Calvinist but I understand that Chuck Colson belived that Christianity isn't a relationship but a worldview, I assume he meant based on the right relationship with God through Christ. But that's taking the thread off topic.



I don't think it is off topic. It is much the same idea at work. If one studies Hinduism they will see that its ability to syncretise comes from its basic idea that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. The idea that Christianity is a relationship provides the same mechanism for syncretism and fits in comfortably with the post-modern mindset that the system must change for the individual, not the individual for the system. The idea that Christianity is a relationship fails to confront and challenge the individual with their need for repentance and conformity to biblical standards.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 23, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The idea that Christianity is a relationship fails to confront and challenge the individual with their need for repentance and conformity to biblical standards.



Very much agree it is not the best way to evangelize, its not the whole of the gospel, but we must also say that all who wish to come to Christ who are heavy burdened He will give them rest, and not only will He be a God to them (which He is no matter they accept it or not) but also a Friend "No greater love than He who lays down His life for His friends" so in that sense relationship is more appropriate than lets say buddhism's relationship to the universe which is not like normal human relationships at all but merely mystical gnosticism. 




armourbearer said:


> the post-modern mindset that the system must change for the individual, not the individual for the system.



My former pastor once said that when most people are looking for a new church (when they move to a new area) they ask themselves "What can this church do for me?" instead of "What can I do for this church" it is consumerism at it's finest.


----------



## THE W (Aug 23, 2013)

It's both


----------



## kappazei (Aug 24, 2013)

Pastor Winzer; Would it be fair to describe Christianity as a thought system based on the correct relationship with God? And could you give me an example where approaching Christianity as a relationship with God through Jesus Christ lead to syncretism?

Thank you


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 25, 2013)

Christianity is not *A* religion, it is _*THE*_ religion. - Voddie Baucham


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2013)

kappazei said:


> Pastor Winzer; Would it be fair to describe Christianity as a thought system based on the correct relationship with God? And could you give me an example where approaching Christianity as a relationship with God through Jesus Christ lead to syncretism?



Any relationship with God must be based on the faith which is taught in Scripture, not vice versa. It is dangerous to talk of basing any belief on one's relationship with God. The faith must define one's relationship with God.

Some examples where the religious nature of Christianity has been undermined in order to syncretise it with other belief systems include Liberalism, Modernism, Barthianism, Neo-evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, etc.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> kappazei said:
> 
> 
> > Pastor Winzer; Would it be fair to describe Christianity as a thought system based on the correct relationship with God? And could you give me an example where approaching Christianity as a relationship with God through Jesus Christ lead to syncretism?
> ...



I was just commenting to a friend about the tendency for preaching today that seeks to see how "my story" fits into "His Story". The problem today is that "my story" takes such preeminence that "His Story" is drowned out as everything for so many individuals begins and ends with the ME. So much talk about Christianity being a relationship focuses on taking the ME as a grid through which all Biblical truth must be interpreted.


----------



## augustacarguy (Aug 25, 2013)

Christianity is actually a proclamation!


----------

