The 'Religion-Relationship' Farce

"I don't have a religion, I have a relationship." 

How many times have you either heard this (in one form or another) or perhaps said it yourself?  Well, I fear that the whole concept is seriously flawed.  And those who tout this common mantra are (perhaps unknowingly) little more than pseudo-spiritual charlatans.

The truth is, we live in a world filled with religion -- which is part of the real problem -- for we live in a world filled with far too many religions.  And this shouldn't surprise us for ours is a world overrun by radical individualism -- and so you have 'your' religion and the next person has 'theirs' and we blindly pat each other on the back as an authority qualified to make such boastful claims. Besides, "Jesus is our friend, our bud, our home boy", right?  And while we repeatedly sing of our 'personal' relationship with Jesus, we increasingly lose sight of the corporate, communal expressions and implications of our faith.

Further, the notion that 'religion' is nothing more than an older, institutionalized, destructive, 'man-made' system of belief -- a system that needs to be rejected -- is pompous nonsense. Religion, in it's most basic vernacular meaning, conveys much more than what many 'spiritual' charlatans (most of whom are frustrated fundamentalists and evangelicals) demeaningly suggest.

Neither Jesus nor the New Testament for that matter reject 'religion', but rather 'religious hypocrisy'.  Christianity does not abolish religion; it refocuses it.

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27, NRSV)

Now, granted, much harm has indeed been done to people in the name of the Christian 'religion.'  And I certainly appreciate the desire of some, who wish to convey a categorically different message to the world concerning the good news of Jesus Christ than that which the organized church has often portrayed in the past.  But simply dumping the term 'religion' isn't going to make the real problem go away.

There are oodles and oodles of spiritual charlatans today who claim they have a 'personal relationship' with Christ rather than a 'religion,' but who are blind to the fact that their so-called personal relationship IS their religion.  And when their 'personal,' and 'relational' religion is measured against the standards of scripture (e.g. James 1:27), I often wonder how in the world it can even stand?  And for the record, there are just as many hypocritical "relationship-Christians" as there are hyprocritical "religious-Christians" (distinctions which, by the way, are absurd).

Religion is not evil.  Religious Christianity is not evil. Religious institutions are not evil.  Human arrogance and self-sufficiency and spiritual presumption -- now, there's some evil for you.

And while I'm ranting on this religion-relationship thing...

After nearly 30 years of ministry experience, I've come to the tragic conclusion that most people who "claim" to have a relationship with Christ, don't. What most people have is not relationship, but acquaintance.  And this is not a modern phenomenon, but rather a very ancient one.

To deny that what we believe and are part of is not 'relgious' is disingenuous and misleading. And so, rather than touting that we have a 'relationship' rather than a 'religion,' perhaps as followers of Christ we should unashamedly model for the world that ours is a "religion that's relational."

Your thoughts?

Comments

[clark]

Clarence Jordan, who worked at unifying blacks and whites during the civil rights era on a farm in Georgia, was in a conversation with his brother. The just of the conversation was that his brother "admired" Jesus. He followed him up to the cross but it stopped there.

Do you think this "personal relationship" is way to individualized? Shouldn't a healthy view of eccleisa combat this "personal relationship" to a "communal relationship?"

[Chris]

"Do you think this 'personal relationship' is way to individualized? Shouldn't a healthy view of eccleisa combat this 'personal relationship' to a 'communal relationship?'"

clark - I would probably say 'yes' on both accounts. The over-individualization of our faith under the reign of modernity and its apparent continuation (and further growth?) under postmodernity has been and continues to be far more subversive than we likely realize.

[Kevin Powell]

Great post!

Too often the term "personal relationship with Jesus" (a term, I confess, I have no idea what it means) is used as a way of by-passing any accountability within a faith community. It is also used to beat people with.

kgp

[Dave]

Very true, but...
Both religion and relationship can become idolatrous. I think most of the time, when people talk about rejecting religion and embracing Jesus, they are using rhetorical shorthand - not really speaking about the depth and breadth of religion at all, but the dogmatic rules and totalizing claims of bad faith. I think you are right that it is important not to abandon the word "religion," though - especially in light of a soft, individualistic evangelicalism that comes creeping in around the edges, trying to woo "post-Christians" with what amounts to repackaged "personal Lord and Savior" language.

[Chris]

Dave -- that's an interesting thought... that both religion and relationship are capable of becoming idolatrous. I'd enjoy hearing a little more about how you see that working.

I've often seen the "personal" Lord and Savior message as somewhat paradoxical -- i.e. being both constructive and destructive in terms of biblical faith.

[Justin Baeder]

Heck yes. Extremely well-said. I've wondered how long (in microseconds) it takes people to see through the "Christianity isn't a religion" nonsense. Excellent thoughts.

[Justin Baeder]

By the way, I blogged about the phrase "personal relationship" in Jan and had similar feelings.

[Chris]

Justin - thanks for the encouragement... and the link to your blog post. lesleymac's comment seemed to be hitting the same point I was making:

"I’ve always had this niggling feeling that all of this “personal relationship with God” talk is 99% perpetuated by people who don’t dare admit that they don’t have an inside line with God."

Thanks again for pointing us there.

[Dave]

Chris - I think religion becomes idolatrous when it stops pointing beyond itself - you know, the old "God in the box" cliche. As important as I think doctrine is - and it is important - whenever we begin thinking that our theology can somehow delineate God's boundaries, we carve idols not out of wood or stone but out of air and words. Plenty of Christians would say that you are not Christian unless you use the phrase "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." That seems to be religion pointing to itself (its rituals, texts, social discourses) instead of to a mysterious, ineffable God. If these particular phrases or practices confer salvation, then I'd call that an idolatry of religion.

Of course, I think just about anything, taken too far, can become idolatrous - and anyone can dispute what "too far" means.

I'm with you on people not understanding what religion actually is. I think any time we watch televised sports we are being religious in the great tradition of the Geeks and Aztecs.

[Daniel]

I think it was Karl Barth who famously commented that Christianity is not a religion, at least in the sense that every other system of belief in the world is. He said religions by their nature lead people away from God, while Christianity by its nature does exactly the opposite.

I intend no offense here, my dear brothers and sisters, but much of what I read here strikes me as reaction to modern evangelicalism.

(It's been a while since I've commented, Chris, so please tell everyone I'm not a rabid fundamentalist!)

[Chris]

Hey everyone -- Daniel's not a rabid fundamentalist.

Daniel, when you said: "much of what I read here strikes me as reaction to modern evangelicalism" -- it reminded me of what I had asserted: " Religion, in it's most basic vernacular meaning, conveys much more than what many 'spiritual' charlatans (most of whom are frustrated fundamentalists and evangelicals) demeaningly suggest."

My hunch is that you and I probably see pretty much eye-to-eye on this whole thing. I appreciated the Barth quote - thanks! Apart from his rejection of the term "religion" in reference to Christianity, he was asserting the profound difference between Christianity and the other "religions" of the world.

Language is tricky, isn't it? And I suppose that by entering the "religion-relationship" fray, I must also live within the paradoxes of linguistic meaning. Ahhh, but such is the stuff of life! (And the inspiration for this blog)

[Chris]

QUOTED:
"Plenty of Christians would say that you are not Christian unless you use the phrase "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." That seems to be religion pointing to itself (its rituals, texts, social discourses) instead of to a mysterious, ineffable God. If these particular phrases or practices confer salvation, then I'd call that an idolatry of religion."

Dave, I think I hear where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. "Accepting Christ..." clearly points to Jesus (in addition to following a man-made formulation). Because of that, I don't believe we can label it ipso facto "idolatry."

"You must complete our confirmation course and be baptized (in our church)" -- something like this seems much more troubling to me in what I think is your line of reasoning.

We're probably closer to agreement than I'm seeing. Can you tell me a little more about why you think this phrase/requirement is idolatrous?