For those who've heard the word's: "Jesus hates religion," or "You don't have to be religious to be spiritual," or "I love Jesus but not the church," or maybe you've just seen this video:
In response, Rev. Fisk does a spectacular job putting the word "religion" in its proper definition and context. The cross. While we should all fight against moralism, pharisaicalism, legalism, and the like, these all fall under false religion.
True Religion = Jesus.
Fist pump!
After watching what Rev. Fisk had to say I found a problem with it. But, I think seeing it depends on where you come from and who you're talking to. Let me explain...
ReplyDeleteIf you go to the youtube page for the first video you see a description that starts out saying, "A poem I wrote to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion."
The description goes on to say things like, "At it's core Jesus' gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered."
If you head over to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion you'll see a definition for religion that says, "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices". This is not the definition I hear in most churches but when I go into the secular circles I work this is a definition I hear often. When I first heard their use of the term religion I was confused until I understood this other definition.
When I take this definition into account and the stories I've run into the original video comes across differently. From a Christian church perspective I've seen things like a teenage girl who got pregnant out of wedlock taken in front of her congregation and judged. No one ever served her, no one showed kindness, there was no tone of forgiveness. I know of a lot of stories like this. And, these are just for the Christian church. Stories from other religions come into play as well when we talk about religion.
The definition of religion and the experiences around those make a huge difference. The rebuttal was directed a common definition used in churches. But, it doesn't work for a lot of target audiences (like the secular ones I'm around in my work life). The style of the rebuttal looks a bit like arguing and judging when they both really want to share Christ.
Overall the word that came into my mind was vernacular. One side was speaking a secular vernacular I hear often and the other side was speaking the Lutheran theologian vernacular.
Does this make sense?
Matt, thanks for your comments brother! I think I understand what you’re saying but I have to disagree here.
DeleteAlthough words have a complexity of various meanings in different contexts, we cannot pretend that words are so subjectively mailable that no true definition exists. When we’re talking about the true religion of Christianity it cannot be equated with hypocrisy, as Bethke does in his video.
However, the problem here is much greater than an argument over the proper definition of a word. While Bethke does not intend to define the word “religion” as “church” and the entire external entailment of what that means in our culture, many people do. Bethke intends to confess that “the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification,” that’s great. But this is not what he actually confesses. Religion is not man-centered. Hypocritical religion is man-centered and there is a huge difference.
When Bethke disregards “religion,” he unintentionally sets up a false dichotomy that disregards the very bride of Christ in the minds of many protestant Americans who have long held a distaste for the church. Regardless of how well-intentioned Bethke may be, he fails to distinguish between those who hold to the false religion of moralism, legalism, pharisaicalism, etc, and those who are simply irreligious, wanting nothing to do with the Church. Even if it’s a poem, we must distinguish between the true gospel, irreligion, and those who only pretend to be religious. So your example of the teenage girl only applies if your comparison is between Jesus and hypocrites pretending to be religious. But I guess that doesn’t rhyme as much.
I do see the issue surrounding the word religion. I see the confusion. For the first minute of the video I was a little confused as well. When you deal with videos on the Internet (a world wide audience) the context of a word, especially one with multiple meanings that some hold to quite strongly, can be an issue. I imagine that when the original author came up with this that issues like this weren't even on his mind. He saw Christ, he wanted to share Christ, he knew how to speak to the context around him, and so forth.
DeleteThe second issue I had with Rev. Fisk is how he handled the response. Instead of taking it as a teaching moment, dealing with the context of words, and moving forward the tone is one of an argument. On the Internet where we have this global context a response to a viral video like that will be seen by many. 1 Corinthians 13 came right to the forefront of my mind. The response felt like it lacked love. I felt it. I talked to others who saw the response who thought along the same lines.
Many of the churches in the western world (US, Canada, etc) are in all kinds of trouble. Christianity is shrinking while agnostics and atheists are growing at a rate of hundreds of a percent. I was listening to someone who grew up in the church but is now a fairly firm agnostic recently. He was questioning how there can be a God if his church is called to love others but fails so miserably.
Sure, you can argue we are all sinners. I'm a sinner. I don't love others enough and never will. But, there is this failure to try. In the last couple months I've seen Christians argue in anger trying to tell others about their faith and what to believe. I've heard church goers tell me they don't need to serve the poor because there aren't really poor people in metro Detroit. When I asked about the rate of hungry and starving children I was told their parents probably spend too much money on stupid stuff like ipods or booze so they don't have enough for food. I've argued (I'm a great arguer and it just doesn't work) against country club churches while I watched someone try to justify why they wanted to build one. I saw not just a failure to love but a failure to even try.
I was expecting a response to the original viral video. One that out of love thinks it's great that he wanted to share Christ. One that applauded him stepping out and talking to people. And one that used what he shared as a teaching moment on faith, living it out, the bible, how people see religions, and more. Instead what I saw was something that felt like it lacked in love while being argumentative.
Although I might have my own concerns with Bethke’s true motives for doing the video, his intentions are not what I’m arguing. I don't really care too much of his intentions but what he actually said. He may have had great intentions but that doesn’t make him immune to correction. He still incorrectly lumps together true religion and false religion. Yet because he’s saying “I hate this” about something everyone already wants to hate, he’s praised by the world. This alone should cause us to pause.
DeleteThe fake religion which, I presume, he intends to attack is something I hate too. People being hypocrites and legalists and pharisees. This problem, however, of people in the church neglecting those in need is as old as sin. And simply because there are those who neglect their responsibility to love one another, does not make true religion void.
Yes, you do well to address this problem with our sinful nature. Yes we’re sinners, yet that’s not an excuse. However, if a church is operating like a country club, or if a Christian refuses to help those in need, refuses to “try” as you put it, they need to be told to repent, they need to hear the fullest extent of the Law that condemns them in their sin and tells them that if they do not repent they are eternally lost to suffer the fires of eternal damnation. What they don’t need is a clever poem that’s vague enough in it’s condemnation of false religion that it empowers a world of unbelievers to continue to stay away from the church.
As far as the nature of Rev. Fisk’s response, you can check out a bit of his follow up here http://youtu.be/fTtzai7tfOY. Just like with Bethke, I'm not going to argue about Fisk's intentions either. Rather, I’m convinced that no matter how Fisk could have handled it many would call him unloving and cruel. But that’s me.
Sorry it took me a few days to respond to this.
DeleteI could have come up with a lot of ways to respond more appropriately than Fisk did. Some may have called him out for disagreeing. I can imagine that will happen. But, you can disagree and do so in a loving manner. He didn't do that. To me he sounded like a "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal". I say this having listened to a lot of disagreement over theology from many sides (there are many more than just 2).
One thing did occur to me that several pastors have pointed out to me over the last half decade. Something that didn't occur to me for most of my life. Most pastors are out of touch with regular people. They don't quite understand their lives or perspective. There are exceptions to this rule. I've met one or two of them in my life (though one of them has told me he is not an exception). Exceptions are very rare. I see some of this lack of connection going on.
I think it comes down to two things for me. First, the great commission says to go and make disciples. That is from people who are unchurched (in the broad sense of the work church), dechurched, or otherwise don't know God. It's not just about keeping the regular church attenders happy. To the people I know who are the target of the mission the original video was artistic (which they appreciate), it uses the definition of religion native to them, and it might open an opportunity to talk about it. The response looks like infighting, pokes fun at the art, doesn't show love, and could very likely close the door on a healthy conversation about Christ. This makes me sad.
Maybe this all comes back to me in the end. I've got a number of friends who are no longer Christians. Some people that you and I both know. I know a lot of people who don't know Christ. And, I've heard them talk about why they walked away. And, what they think of the church. The barriers they have to listening to the message. We have this great commission that we are called into. And yet, we are failing to do our part as the church. I could talk for a long time about this just from sharing what others have taught me. These videos touch on this issue and have parts to them that the church keeps doing that hurts the mission of the church. Just like Jesus got upset with the Pharisees for their actions I find myself getting upset with the church and Christians when they do things that hurt the mission.
Matt, please recognize that the argument you make is one of subjunctives and not absolutes (e.g. it might open an opportunity to talk about it). You can use subjunctives with any topic but it’s not really an argument (e.g. The Detroit Pistons might win every championship from now until the eschaton).
DeleteThe problem isn’t that Fisk isn’t loving enough. No matter what he said people will always accuse him for not being loving enough, simply because he speaks the truth. People will always get upset when pure Gospel is handed out, rejecting orthodoxy for a lie in the name of love. I don’t mean to suggest that speaking truth gives one the right to be a jerk, but here’s my question: what in Fisk’s video do you find offensive? Where is he being unloving? Remember that being “loving” does not always mean that you’ll feel warm and fuzzy afterwards. Sometimes the most loving words make us feel pissed off because love includes the Law. There’s just no way around it.
Furthermore, it’s not that Bethke’s video could have worded things better. Rather, he gives the world a Gospel which is peppered with Law (we need the law but the two must be distinguished), and he provides a false dichotomy that attempts to lead people to Jesus by leading them away from only place where Jesus is found, i.e. Religion. He’s saying air is bad but breathing is good, one of the two statements must be wrong.
Yes he preaches some Gospel, but at what price? What good does it do to validate a “definition of religion native” to the unchurched when that definition is flat out wrong? What does it matter that the unchurched appreciate Bethke’s words? Telling people what they want to hear, even the unchurched, even those broken by the people of the church, is not evangelism, it’s not the great commission.
It sounds like you’re putting Fisk in the shoes of a Pharisee (and, by the way, yourself in the shoes of Christ with that last line there) suggesting that Bethke is doing the great commission and Fisk is not. But which of Fisk’s words do you disagree with? Really? I heard nothing false. Or, how is it that Bethke is doing the great commission, baptizing and teaching. He’s pointing people away from where Christ is given the Sacraments (though unintentionally) and he’s teaching what is false.
In reality, Fisk, and Pastors all over the Church, are reaching out to the lost, doing the very thing they are supposed to do, making disciples “by baptizing... and by teaching,” in Word and Sacrament ministry.
The argument that Pastors are out of touch with regular people is nothing new to the history of the Church. It may be true that every single pastor is out of touch. Thankfully, the ministry of the Church, of true religion, is not dependent upon the pastor but the word of God which He is given to speak. But people, unchurched and churched alike, will always look at how the people of the church have sinned as validation of the Gospel. This is not so.
Also, you say that “the church keeps doing that hurts the mission of the church.” Yes, the people of the church try to hurt God’s mission, but first of all, God’s mission will not fail because of us sinful humans, and second, do you really think that you have tried to hurt God’s mission less than anyone else? At this, we will all continue to fail.
DeleteGenerally, those who are upset with the church in some way or another, arguing against the presence of sinners there and not seeing the church for what it is, i.e. a place where the Gospel is preached and sacraments are administered, such individuals will find in media like Bethke’s video exactly what their itching ears want to hear. Yet, when someone points to God’s Word and offers correction, he is called a hater.
Yes self-righteousness is bad, but it’s not true religion. Just because the word “religion” has a bad rap in our culture doesn’t mean that Christians should jump on that bandwagon for the sake of love. Just because Fisk says things that people don’t like to hear doesn’t mean he’s being unloving.
Notice this: Do you really think that Fisk spoke more harshly against Bethke than Bethke did against relgion, i.e. the Church? But no one is calling Bethke unloving. Even though, after making the video and learning the real definition of the word “religion” (which he says he had never heard before), he still doesn’t regret using the word.
I encourage you to watch both videos again, as I have, and see at which points you take umbrage. In the end, the reason why true orthodoxy, and religion, and the church, is seen as so offensive, is because Jesus is offensive. It’s not His sin that’s the problem, it’s ours.
Good discussion Matt, thanks again! See more of my analysis of the issue here (http://goo.gl/lfdJr).
Wonderful Response to this discussion http://allbeggars.blogspot.com/2012/01/jesus-loves-religion.html
ReplyDelete"Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice."
ReplyDeleteI get that he is attacking hypocrisy and rightfully so.
Still... If his definition of the word "religion" is confusing, then it is possible that his definition of the word "grace" is equally confusing. Is he using it in the sense of the hymn "Amazing Grace" ('Twas grace that taught my heart to fear) or in its proper sense of the grace "that led you to Christ" (Rev. Fisk)? How does one "practice" grace (i.e. Gospel) unless it were Law?
@Anonymous, well said. I agree that Bethke's use of words is inaccurate and inconsistent. Sometimes he uses the word "grace" rightly but other times he turns it into a law. He illegitimately imports idiosyncratic definitions to the word "religion" because people already hate religion and without intending to do so, he has validated them in their hatred.
ReplyDeleteYes, Bethke should rightly argue against the false religion of hypocrisy, which he indented to do, but unfortunately, that's not what he did.
Thanks for your comments you're spot on!