I’ve been thinking about the word “religion” lately and how it is used among Christians today (particularly evangelicals but also among some Lutherans).
When did this become such a negative term?
You hear people saying all the time, “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with God.” While it is true that we Christians are in a positive relationship with God through Jesus Christ, I wonder if this sort of language doesn’t just confuse the issue.
I pretty much grew up with the idea that the definition of religion was people trying to get to heaven by their own efforts, whatever those might be. In my mind, the use of the word “religion” in any positive sense was a sure sign that the person so using it was lost. If such a person called him/herself a Christian, they obviously didn’t know that Christianity was all about a relationship with God and not about their works.
In my mind, however, the problem with focusing on the word “relationship” over against “religion” has to do with how our culture understands the word “relationship”. The word “relationship” largely has a connotation of equality, if not friendship or even intimacy. Thus “relationship with God” is often taken to mean “God wants to be your buddy” or “God wants to be intimate with you.”
I wonder if this use of the word “relationship” has not contributed to the casualness with which people tend to approach God these days. God is my best friend, so I can approach him as casually (and dare I say flippantly) as I want. God wants an intimate relationship with me, so I’ll do anything to “feel” His presence during worship.
But the relationship I have with God is not a relationship of equals. I come to God as a beggar, a poor miserable sinner who does not even deserve to stand in His presence. But He, in His mercy and grace, gives me the gift of life and salvation through His Word and sacraments. I daresay this is not what most people in America (or the West in general) think of when they think of a “relationship”. God is the one initiating everything in this relationship. If there is any friendship or intimacy (and there certainly is), He is the one making it happen. I am not free to approach God however I choose.
So what about the word “religion”? Why does it leave such a bad taste in the mouths of many Christians? Why is it that if I were to tell an evangelical that I am religious, that they would likely assume that I am unsaved? (And I am not even talking about the whole “religion” vs. “spirituality” issue – that would require a post in and of itself).
After thinking about this for quite a while, I wonder if pietism has anything to do with it. Pietism has completely saturated American evangelicalism, and sees Christianity as being chiefly about one’s inner experience and sincere life of piety as opposed to the objective, external work of God outside of us. I have to wonder if perhaps somewhere along the line “religion” was equated with so-called “dead orthodoxy”. The word “relationship” is certainly more in line with those who would emphasize one’s inner experience.
Will I start using the term “religion” in a positive way? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the term was ruined by those who sought to redefine it. Oh, all right – Christianity is my religion. There, I said it!
Maybe one of these days I will get past my knee-jerk negative internal reaction when I hear the word. The pietist in me dies hard. But that’s a topic for another post.
Hello.
I have enjoyed interacting with you over at Extra Nos.
A couple of things.
While our relationship with God is not a relationship of equals, we do not approach God in the way you describe if we are made righteous by Christ through our faith. We are in right standing before God if we trust what Christ has done for us.
God was mad at Christ; so He’s not mad at us. God demanded a debt we can’t pay; so Christ paid it for us. God abandoned Christ, so He’ll never abandon us.
Christ stood in our stead. The same God whose righteousness required of us has provided for us in the Person of Jesus Christ.
We don’t crawl before God anymore. We respect Him. We thank Him. We praise Him. But we do not feel ashamed or shamed.
The mention of Pietism takes me back to much of what was said over at Extra Nos. Modern evangelicalism, with many of its glaring faults, did not arise from Calvinism. It arose primarily from Pietism.
Take Finney. He denied substitutionary atonement, downplayed the role of God’s Spirit in regeneration, and basically reduced Christianity to a system of moral obligations.
That’s akin to Pietism.
I understand the Lutheran Church “took it on the chin” with that movement (to use Rod Rosenbladt’s turn of phrase).
I hope we all can turn this trend around.
Hi JK,
I have enjoyed interacting with you as well. A couple of things in response to your comment:
1) I think you misunderstand what I was saying regarding how we approach God. I agree absolutely that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us through faith. However, coming to God realizing our unworthiness and realizing that we have absolutely nothing to offer Him on our own terms is not the same thing as “crawling”, cowering or slavish fear. I am not at all suggesting that we have to grovel before God before He will forgive us. Very often I feel deeply ashamed before God because of my sins – when the Law is doing its work. But He continues to pour out His forgiveness and mercy through His wonderful Gospel (Word and Sacrament).
2) Regarding pietism, it seems like there are many ways that one can arrive there. I have never asserted that Calvin was a pietist – he seemed to be quite close to Luther in many ways (though quite different in other ways, as was discussed at length at Extra Nos). My question is whether pietism is the ultimate, logical outcome of Calvin’s view of the Sacraments. In my view, Puritanism (as well as neo-Puritanism) is a prime example of this.
Dawn & JK,
In regard to the negative view of religion, we cannot discount the influence of Karl Barth’s polemic against “religion” in the 20th century (the Lutheran Bonhoeffer picks up some of this polemic too). As with most reactionary movements, there was an element of truth to his critique, but he over stated it.
Of course, Barth was Reformed, and read a lot of Calvin, but it would be interesting to follow up the influence of Pietism on him.
Good to see you continuing this discussion here.
Hi,
I randomly came across your blog and think you make a very good point here. Why should I come before God in a humble way if we’re just buds. I’m just meeting God and our other friends for coffee on Sunday morning. Just as casual as meeting any other friend for coffee.
I’m reading a good book now called “Christless Christianity” and he makes the statement that “everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified coheir with Christ and adopted child of the Father.” It was stated in a way that I had never really thought of before. We must always be reminded (lest we become too proud) that we only have the latter relationship with God because of what he has done for us through Christ’s death on the cross. If it was up to us we would still be in the first relationship.
I think that religion also gets a bad rap because it implies some certain sense of absolute truth and it takes away the personal relationship with God that we want to have on our terms and sets it up to be more outside of our control. This all leads back to your original discussion of the view of relationships.
Anyway, good work!
Hi Tom,
Michael Horton has made that statement on the White Horse Inn program as well. When I first heard him say this I had never quite heard anyone put it that way before. He is spot on target. It’s funny how a lot of the language that evangelicals use is either not really Biblical, or is used in a less than Biblical way – “personal relationship with God” being a good example.
Thanks for the comments, and thanks for reading!