by Voddie Baucham
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008
There
is a common mantra that has been around for a while, but which seems to be
picking up steam. It goes like this: “Christianity is not a
religion; it’s a relationship.” We’ve all heard it before. However,
how many of us have bothered to evaluate this ubiquitous saying? I believe we
must do just that. We must evaluate this mantra, and the syllogism by
which it is frequently accompanied:
Religion is man’s attempt to reach God
Christianity is God’s attempt to reach
man
Therefore, Christianity is not a
religion.
I
believe this syllogism is not only invalid, but patently false. If for no
other reason, this syllogism must be rejected on the grounds that it contains
at least one false premise. Religion is much more than man’s attempt to
reach God. And Christianity is indeed a religion. Moreover, I believe it
is dangerous –even foolish— to argue otherwise. The argument that
Christianity is not a religion has many inherent problems. Most
importantly, this line of reasoning is at odds with the English language, the
history of the church, and good old common sense.
At Odds With the
English Language
The first problem with the argument
that Christianity is not a religion is the fact that it is a
linguistic/grammatical fallacy. This in turn exposes an unavoidable
logical fallacy in what is ultimately a question-begging argument. In
order for the statement –Christianity is not a religion— to be true, one has to
assume a certain definition of the word religion that does not exist (i.e., “religion
is man’s attempt to reach God”). The Encarta World English Dictionary
defines religion as:
1.
People’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of
a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2.
A particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices
relating to the divine
3.
A set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4.
An object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to
or obsessed by
How do we get from here to “Man’s
attempt to reach God” as a definition of religion? Even
Encarta knows better. In fact, the distance between the true definition
and this contemporary mantra is even more evident when one examines earlier
sources. For instance, the definition of religion in Webster’s 1828
Dictionary of the English Language is far more disparate with the contemporary
assertion. Webster offers a definition we would be hard-pressed to
improve upon.
1.
Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and
perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation
to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's
accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the
practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of
doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral
duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will
or commands, is not religion.
2.
Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice,
consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in
obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.
3.
Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of
the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will.
Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one
system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.
Note that Webster’s second definition
has a reference attached. That reference (James chapter 1) says as much
about the nature of early America as it does about early American
English. Far from being presented as something at odds with biblical
Christianity, the James 1 reference alludes to the fact that religion is the
means by which true followers of Christ accomplish things like bridling the
tongue, ministering to orphans, and escaping defilement by the world.
James writes:
“If
anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his
heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled
before God, and the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their
affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:26-27 ESV)
In case you were wondering whether or
not the word ‘religion’ is an appropriate rendering of the Greek text, the ESV
is not alone in translating qrhskei√a as ‘religion’ in
James 1 (see also Acts 26:5; Col 2:18).
NASB, KJV, HCSV, NJB, ASV, NLT, NET, NIV, Darby, Young, the Geneva Bible, etc.,
all translate the word the same. Thus, while the Bible does make a
distinction between true and false religion, it does not teach that religion is
something antithetical to biblical Christianity. Nor does the word mean,
‘Man’s attempt to reach God.’
At Odds With the
History of the Church
Not only is the contemporary attitude
toward religion at odds with the English language, it also stands at odds with
the history of Christianity. Throughout the history of the church,
Christianity has not only been viewed as a religion; it has been considered
the only true religion. One cannot
read Christian literature from any period prior to our own without encountering
the routine use of the word religion in reference to the Christian faith.
Whether it is Jonathan Edward’s Religious Affections, or Calvin’s Institutes
of the Christian Religion, or Whitefield’s sermon, The
Great Duty of Family Religion, the consensus in historic Christian
literature is evident.
The Augsburg Confession (1530) lists as
one of its main purposes, “that… one pure andtrue
religion may be embraced and maintained by us.”
Article 30 of the Belgic Confession (1561) stresses the importance of deacons
and elders in order “that by these means true
religion may
be preserved.” The Westminster Confession (1646) in its statement on the New
Testament states that, “in all controversies of religion, the Church is
finally to appeal unto [the Scriptures].” The framers of the London
Baptist Confession (1689) echoed this sentiment when they identified one of
their goals in writing their confession of faith as, “to manifest our consent…
in all the fundamental articles of the Christian
Religion.”
Surely those who argue that Christianity is not a religion are not willing to
follow their line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion and condemn
the aforementioned brothers.
Not only has the church always
understood Christianity to be a religion, the culture at large has
agreed. Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame; religion
without science is blind.” The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution assures us the freedom of religion. Article XXXVIII of the
Constitution of South Carolina (1778) boldly and clearly stated, “The Christian
Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to
be, the established religion of this State.” History is definitely not on
the side of those wishing to shed ‘religion’ in favor of relationship.
At Odds With Common
Sense
In addition to being at odds with the
English language, and the history of the Church, those who argue against
referring to Christianity as a religion are at odds with common sense.
For instance, what would these Christians say if modern academia took their
mantra to heart and removed Christianity from World Religion texts? What
if departments of religion around the country suddenly got rid of all their
Christian professors in an acknowledgement of the fact that Christianity was no
longer a religion? What if the United States Armed Forces removed all
Christian chaplains, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
was no longer applied to Christianity? Would those who refer to
Christianity as a relationship and not a religion be pleased with any or all of
these developments? I should think not.
Christianity is definitely a
religion. Furthermore, it is the one true
religion.
It is the religion of religions. I have absolutely no apprehension about
the term. I do however, have tremendous apprehension about the tendency
to adopt unbiblical language in an effort to ‘relate’ to the culture. I
challenge anyone to find the idea of a “personal relationship with Christ” in
the New Testament. Certainly we are related to Christ by way of our new
birth and adoption (Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). However, this
is a far cry from the often egocentric, narcissistic use of the phrase,
‘personal relationship’ with Christ.
Of course, there is also the danger of
becoming irreligious. I have always found it ironic that people recoil
from the idea of religion, but continue to tell new believers to be baptized,
go to church, take the Lord’s Supper, read their Bibles regularly, witness, and
do a whole host of other “religious” activities. However, lately there
has been a movement away from such religious activities. If Christianity
is all about my ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus, then why do I need to go to
church? Why do I need to read my Bible? I can just wait ‘till my
buddy, Jesus “tells me” what to do next. Who needs all that ‘religious’
stuff?
I understand what people are trying to
say when they eschew the term religion. The goal is to assure skeptics
that we are not offering dead ritual and empty tradition. The goal is to
paint a picture of a vibrant life with our Lord, Jesus Christ. I get
that. However, I do not believe that it is wise, or necessary to commit
logical fallacies, and make trite, nonsensical arguments in order to do
so. Arguing that Christianity is not a religion is like arguing that
America is not a country. I believe honest, thinking people laugh when
they hear some Christian trying to be hip and relevant by saying something as
asinine and illogical as, “I’m not talking about religion... I’m talking about
a relationship.” Enough already with the play on words. It’s not our job
to make Christianity cool. We just need to make it clear.
Unfortunately, since this “Christianity is not a religion” business is out of
step with the English language, the history of the Church, and common sense, it
compromises the clarity and the integrity of our message. I praise
God for the fact that we have a religion and a relationship.
VB
Here are the two-types of religion:
Jas 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
2 comments:
I love this. Thank you for sharing. All over facebook, my friends are sharing a video about how I'm A Christian, Not Religious. I agreed with many things the young man said, yet just felt like he just isn't quite getting it. I always feel sick to my stomach when I hear people say how horrible religion is, yet proclaim to be Christians. Christianity is a Religion and it's not a dirty word. It's an honored word when we're in it correctly, loving and serving our Lord. I'm sharing this!!!! Thank you so very much!
My pleasure! May the Lord be truly glorified!
Post a Comment