thimbleful of amontillado

Admonition against sloppiness.

Let me be clear. I completely agree with the ultimate message Bethke’s video seeks to convey. It’s a vitally important message that mainstream Christianity needs to internalize.

However, we must not confuse intentions with results. This is my overarching point, here: We can do better.

The video, in its delivery, is unforgivably sloppy. It ignores universally accepted meanings of words (eg religion) in lieu of undefined “Christianese” definitions. Without clarification, the oversimplifications and overgeneralizations become dangerous. In the end, the ultimate effect of the video is counterproductive to the goal. Perhaps it reorients and refreshes some, but only at the expense of encouraging pernicious misconceptions of ideas vital to a robust, effective faith.

Merriam-Webster defines “religion” as:

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Please do not miss this point: Christianity is a Religion.

Our faith in God and Jesus.. Can be described as a religion.

YES! Yes, it is a relationship! Yes, we have a personal connection with the creator of the universe! Yes, true Christianity is different from every other religion on Earth! BUT A RELIGION IT REMAINS. (1. I will address the importance of this acknowledgement at the bottom!)

Really, it’s this misunderstanding of “religion” that causes the problem all throughout the video.

* Jesus came to abolish religion? No. Jesus IS our religion.

* Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums? No, in fact, they’re not even on the same continuum.

* Because the problem with religion is that it never gets to the core? No. Maybe DEAD religion, mired in legalism, is never able to address the core problems of our condition.. But correctly focused religion—religion focused on Jesus—IS able to penetrate the core.

Etc. Etc. Etc. The same kind of problem persists all throughout the video. The problem is not with religion, the problem is with the NATURE of our religion.

So, as I said, I like the ultimate message, which addresses the problems of hypocrisy and the failures of legalism. But instead of the whole nonsensical “Jesus>religion” paradigm, I’d like to suggest a better way to frame the message. We do not have a “religion” problem; we have a “heart” problem. It’s all about why we do the things we do. (Or don’t do, as the case may be.) We can throw up a facade of “Godly” behavior, and heck, maybe it’ll be mostly convincing. But it will only ever be legitimate, and therefore rightfully “convincing”, when our intentions and hearts are aligned with God’s. Our behavior must truthfully reflect our hearts.

Religion is not the infection, sin is the infection.

And Jesus is the cure. That’s where Bethke and I agree, and to be fair, that’s what’s truly important.

1. This didn’t quite fit in, but this is still very important and worth addressing. Yes, this video is targeting Christians.. It’s not meant for unbelievers. And that’s an important point. But we CANNOT use that to justify using our own definitions for words. (eg. religion!) No matter who you’re addressing, you cannot prevent unbelievers from looking in on it, too. This is where we have major, major problems. Unbelievers have no basis of understanding for the “Christianese” definitions people often use, and so, when they don’t understand, they assume we’re simply ignorant and unintelligent. Take this video, for example. Any marginally intellectual atheist or agnostic would watch this video and go, “Wow, this guy’s a moron. Christianity is a religion, no matter which way you cut it.” To an unbeliever, this is a total turn off to Christianity. It acts as a barrier to entry. Not something we should be into propagating.

(Source: blakebaggott)

blakebaggott:

This video has been getting a lot of attention from Christians and even non-Christians. I thought I’d give my two cents on it.

I’ll explain firstly that I actually like the message of the video.

However, I do not like the terminology he uses. By using the word “religion”, it causes more confusion than anything. When said like that, it makes Christianity seem like it’s not a religion… when it is. What he is truly describing is dead religion… but that is not the same as simply religion. 

I’ve covered this a little bit in a post that I reblogged from Johnny. In summary, the Christian faith is a religion. But it’s not religion that will save you… it’s the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But when you say that Christianity isn’t a religion, you tend to get comment like I saw on Facebook saying, “This is why I don’t go to church,” or “This is why I don’t read the Bible,” or “Finally, someone who loves Jesus without getting all theological.” And I didn’t even want to comment on them. These really kind of break my heart. It doesn’t make me mad as much as it saddens me.

I don’t think that it was even Jefferson Bethke’s intention. I like him and his videos. But I think he could have chosen his terminology much better.

^ My thoughts precisely. I’m relieved to see I wasn’t the only one troubled by this video. As I said elsewhere, instead of Jesus>religion, I propose Jesus>legalism.

(Source: secretinternets)