The Jesus and Religion Video
Jan 20, 2012
Fr Dwight Longenecker
A video of a young man reciting a poem has ‘gone viral’ on the Internet. In the video, he explains why he “hates religion” but “loves Jesus”. His rant against institutional religion is understandable. He’s against hypocrisy, formalism, legalism, complacency, and phony suburban American Christianity. He wants to love Jesus instead. He’s a zealot, and would have lent a hand when our Lord went into the temple to turn over the moneychangers’ tables. That’s all well and good, and I’m on his side. The gospel should be subversive.
The problem with his position, however, is that it sets up a false dichotomy. It’s “either-or” instead of “both-and”. This is a pure and simple form of argument, but it doesn’t really go the distance, for as Oscar Wilde observed, “the truth is rarely pure and never simple.” You might want to have Jesus without religion, but it’s impossible for three reasons.
First, let’s assume that, despite your misgivings you’re going to at least meet together with other Christians in some sort of fellowship. What will happen? Here’s an example:
I was brought up in a devout Evangelical Protestant home. The church we attended was founded in 1962. The little independent fellowship was started by a group of folks who were disenchanted with the mainline Protestant denominations. They blamed the institutional church leadership for being autocratic and morally bankrupt. They believed the mainline churches, along with Catholicism, to be dead, man-made institutions—full of hypocrites and power-hungry prelates. Like all the primitivists before them, my church’s founding fathers were going to have a pure fellowship of disciples following Jesus in simplicity and truth.
Before long they bought property, hired a pastor, built a church, and began to quarrel. Some shady deals with money took place. The pastor turned out to be an autocrat, while some of the leaders became Puritanical, legalistic, and judgmental. Eventually the pastor decided it was okay to re-marry people after divorce, and finally, his long-running affair with a woman in the parish came to light, precipitating his resignation. I don’t blame them for their failures. The point is that that anybody who sets out to get rid of a religion because it is hypocritical, legalistic, self-righteous, autocratic, and complacent, will end up (if he belongs to a Christian fellowship of any kind) with a group that is hypocritical, legalistic, self-righteous, autocratic, and complacent.
So maybe we want to get rid of the Christian fellowship completely and be freelance followers of Christ? This is impossible because to follow Jesus, you have to know Jesus, and the best way to know Jesus is through the Church. “I have my Bible!” the eager independent will cry. We only have the Bible because of the Church. Furthermore, what is the Bible but the story of the people of God—first in the Old Testament and then in the New? The Bible reports the history of the people of God and recounts their relationship with God. Jesus himself went to the synagogue, and indeed practiced religion. The New Testament was composed with and for the Church—a group that practices a religion. To say that you are going to follow Jesus but reject religion is like saying you love baseball, but don’t need a team to play on, a league, or a team to root for.
Moreover, knowledge of Jesus is not only communicated through the Scriptures—which come to us from the Church, but the sacraments of salvation can only be received from the Church which is the Body of Christ. What’s more, we believe that these same sacraments of the Church represent the physical extension of Jesus’ real presence on earth for believers today.
Nevertheless, let the idealist reject religion and be a freelance follower of Jesus Christ. How will he know that he is following Christ and not just his own reflection? He might favor “spirituality” over “religion,” but spirituality is slippery. The young man in the video was clearly attracted to a Jesus Christ who was a young, table-turning radical. His Jesus was impatient with the religious establishment and on the side of the sinners and revolutionaries. His Jesus was the quintessential outsider—the rebel with a cause—a punk who all those rich hypocrites excluded and persecuted. In other words, he was just like the young man in the video.
We all fall into the trap of making Christ in our own image, so it is understandable, and if understandable, forgivable. This, however, is the main justification not only for religion, but also for a dogmatic religion. A dogmatic religion corrects our tendency to make Jesus in our own image. The Catholic faith gives us an objective magisterium. It gives us dogma and clear moral teachings to use, either as a stumbling block or a stepping-stone. It gives us sacraments that are objective and real. It gives us the lives of the saints who open our hearts and minds and show us radical, pure, and simple Christianity.
Fr Dwight Longenecker is the parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina. He is author of twelve books, including More Christianity(Our Sunday Visitor, 2002). Follow his blog and twitter by connecting to dwightlongenecker.com.
RESOURCES
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.20.2012 | 5:38am
Felapton says:
Everybody who practices any religion for a significant period of time will meet a lot of self-righteous, authoritarian, incompetent hypocrites. That is true. But most people who practice a half-way legitimate religion have also met quite a few good, kind, truthful, authentic practitioners also.
Isn't that really what sets this young fellow apart? That he seems to have never met anybody good, honest, kind, admirable and devout, nobody he wants to be like? And isn't that why so many smug, autocratic, mediocre hypocrites are so eager to criticize his video and ridicule his faith? Because they know they were the ones who never showed him an good example?
Isn't that really what sets this young fellow apart? That he seems to have never met anybody good, honest, kind, admirable and devout, nobody he wants to be like? And isn't that why so many smug, autocratic, mediocre hypocrites are so eager to criticize his video and ridicule his faith? Because they know they were the ones who never showed him an good example?
1.20.2012 | 7:41am
Artaban7 says:
Isn't it ironic that the young man in that video decries the self-righteousness and judgment of "the religious", all the while engaging in the very type of self-righteousness and judgment he condemns.
I suppose that's another reason we so desperately need even flawed religious institutions...for the fraternal correction and encouragement spoken of in several New Testament Letters (Gal 6:1-2; 1 Cor 5: 1-13; James 5:19; 2 Thess 3:14, 1 Thess 5:14).
My great fear concerning this video is that it's popularizing non-participation in group worship and fellowship. It seems to have been taken by my impressionable high school students--many of whom go to Mass infrequently to begin with--and used as an excuse to dislike the Church.
I must honestly question if the young man in the video is simply a dupe and pawn of the Enemy.
I suppose that's another reason we so desperately need even flawed religious institutions...for the fraternal correction and encouragement spoken of in several New Testament Letters (Gal 6:1-2; 1 Cor 5: 1-13; James 5:19; 2 Thess 3:14, 1 Thess 5:14).
My great fear concerning this video is that it's popularizing non-participation in group worship and fellowship. It seems to have been taken by my impressionable high school students--many of whom go to Mass infrequently to begin with--and used as an excuse to dislike the Church.
I must honestly question if the young man in the video is simply a dupe and pawn of the Enemy.
1.20.2012 | 7:46am
Stephen M. Barr says:
Dear Rick,
If one is going to "think for oneself", it is all the more important to
investigate issues thoroughly before forming conclusions. I am
a physics professor. Suppose a student said to me, "I don't care what
the physics establishment says about electricity or quarks or gravity,
I am going to think for myself." Well, if he is to have any hope of reaching
correct conclusions about those things by his own lights alone,
he better be able single-handedly to do all the significant
experiments that have been done over the last 400 years and be able
to have all the brilliant theoretical insights of the thousands of geniuses
from Galileo and Newton down to Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman and
those of our own day.
"Thinking for oneself" is never thinking by oneself. It is not the stance of
never deferring to the greater wisdom, intelligence and authority of others.
Now, as an example that in fact you have formed judgments without
sufficiently investigating the issues, take your statement that Pope Benedict
says "that disagreement with any of the teachings of the Magisterium automatically excludes one from communion with the Catholic Church".
He doesn't say that, nor has any pope. To be "excluded from communion
with the Catholic Church" is to be "excommunicated". For doctrinal deviation to "automatically" (or in any other way) result in one's excommunication, it must involve "heresy". Not all heterodox views are excommunicable heresy. This may a technical point, but it illustrates that you are not doing the hard
work required of anyone who aspires to be a critical thinker. The Church has developed over the centuries a careful analysis of which truths are "of faith", which are not necessarily articles of faith but nevertheless to be accepted on the authority of the Church, and which are matters where the believer is free to speculate, and all the gradations in between.
In the final analysis, whether one is a Catholic or an evangelical Protestant, faith entails an acceptance of certain truths on the basis of the fact that they are revealed by God. For the evangelical revelation is found in Scripture alone, while for the Catholic it is found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. One certainly
may use one's reason to the full in exploring the boundaries of what is
revealed, in trying to understand it more fully, and in trying to see how it coheres with the things we know from reason and experience. But to claim for oneself a kind of veto power over the teachings of the Church, even on those things that the Church claims to teach infallibly, is to have opinions, not "faith" as that has always been understood both in Scripture and Tradition. If one is unwilling to submit one's intellect to divine teaching, one does not have faith.
It is not just Benedict, but all the Church back to Christ himself which says that we must be prepared ultimately to submit our intellects to divine teaching, even as mediated through human instruments. St. Paul said that his listeners were to accept the gospel as he taught even if an angel from heaven were to come and teach something different (Gal. 1;8). "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." I suppose if Pope Benedict were to utter those
words, there would be a deafening outcry at how authoritarian he was.
If one is going to "think for oneself", it is all the more important to
investigate issues thoroughly before forming conclusions. I am
a physics professor. Suppose a student said to me, "I don't care what
the physics establishment says about electricity or quarks or gravity,
I am going to think for myself." Well, if he is to have any hope of reaching
correct conclusions about those things by his own lights alone,
he better be able single-handedly to do all the significant
experiments that have been done over the last 400 years and be able
to have all the brilliant theoretical insights of the thousands of geniuses
from Galileo and Newton down to Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman and
those of our own day.
"Thinking for oneself" is never thinking by oneself. It is not the stance of
never deferring to the greater wisdom, intelligence and authority of others.
Now, as an example that in fact you have formed judgments without
sufficiently investigating the issues, take your statement that Pope Benedict
says "that disagreement with any of the teachings of the Magisterium automatically excludes one from communion with the Catholic Church".
He doesn't say that, nor has any pope. To be "excluded from communion
with the Catholic Church" is to be "excommunicated". For doctrinal deviation to "automatically" (or in any other way) result in one's excommunication, it must involve "heresy". Not all heterodox views are excommunicable heresy. This may a technical point, but it illustrates that you are not doing the hard
work required of anyone who aspires to be a critical thinker. The Church has developed over the centuries a careful analysis of which truths are "of faith", which are not necessarily articles of faith but nevertheless to be accepted on the authority of the Church, and which are matters where the believer is free to speculate, and all the gradations in between.
In the final analysis, whether one is a Catholic or an evangelical Protestant, faith entails an acceptance of certain truths on the basis of the fact that they are revealed by God. For the evangelical revelation is found in Scripture alone, while for the Catholic it is found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. One certainly
may use one's reason to the full in exploring the boundaries of what is
revealed, in trying to understand it more fully, and in trying to see how it coheres with the things we know from reason and experience. But to claim for oneself a kind of veto power over the teachings of the Church, even on those things that the Church claims to teach infallibly, is to have opinions, not "faith" as that has always been understood both in Scripture and Tradition. If one is unwilling to submit one's intellect to divine teaching, one does not have faith.
It is not just Benedict, but all the Church back to Christ himself which says that we must be prepared ultimately to submit our intellects to divine teaching, even as mediated through human instruments. St. Paul said that his listeners were to accept the gospel as he taught even if an angel from heaven were to come and teach something different (Gal. 1;8). "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." I suppose if Pope Benedict were to utter those
words, there would be a deafening outcry at how authoritarian he was.
1.20.2012 | 7:55am
Kathleen Madrid says:
It isn't Pope Benedict XVI who insists we are in communion or out. It is the nature of objective truth. It isn't "our" truth, it is the truth.
1.20.2012 | 8:13am
David Nickol says:
If we imagine the young man (Jefferson Bethke) making "air quotes" when he says "religion," I think his message will be clearer to those who (in my opinion) are misunderstanding him. He says in the video, "I love the church." He makes it clear on his Facebook page that those who would use the video to criticize the church are mistaken about his intentions. He attends church himself. Here's a quote from a news article:
**********
Bethke, a member of Mars Hill Church (Federal Way) in St. Auburn, Wash., told CP that Mark Driscoll, pastor of the main Mars Hill campus in Seattle, and Tim Keller of Redeemer Church, have also described “religion” as: “a short-hand that is synonymous with legalism, hypocrisy, and self-justification, which has nothing to with the institution.”
“It has nothing to do with the actual church,” Bethke stated. “It’s a synonym used for Pharisee-type legalistic, self-righteous people that are opposed to the church and opposed to Christianity. So that’s my definition of [false religion].”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-poet-jefferson-bethke-talks-jesus-religion-67470/
**********
Saying "I hate religion" is similar to saying "I hate politics."
**********
Bethke, a member of Mars Hill Church (Federal Way) in St. Auburn, Wash., told CP that Mark Driscoll, pastor of the main Mars Hill campus in Seattle, and Tim Keller of Redeemer Church, have also described “religion” as: “a short-hand that is synonymous with legalism, hypocrisy, and self-justification, which has nothing to with the institution.”
“It has nothing to do with the actual church,” Bethke stated. “It’s a synonym used for Pharisee-type legalistic, self-righteous people that are opposed to the church and opposed to Christianity. So that’s my definition of [false religion].”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-poet-jefferson-bethke-talks-jesus-religion-67470/
**********
Saying "I hate religion" is similar to saying "I hate politics."
1.20.2012 | 9:09am
jason taylor says:
"Pope Benedict's insistence that disagreement with any of the teachings of the Magesterium automatically excludes one from communion with the Catholic Church is a non-starter for me."
It is a matter of honesty. It is entirely reasonable to demand that someone claiming membership in a religion should adhere to it's official doctrines. There are a lot of traditional evangelical teachings I disagree with, but none of the official tenants of faith.
It is a matter of honesty. It is entirely reasonable to demand that someone claiming membership in a religion should adhere to it's official doctrines. There are a lot of traditional evangelical teachings I disagree with, but none of the official tenants of faith.
1.20.2012 | 10:01am
Rick L says:
Great entries on this posting, well thought out and seems to be Christ focused. As a follow up to this video, you should take the time to read the blog posting by Kevin DeYoung who has spoken to the fellow in the video and some excerpts from the emails between the two, it brings greater clarity to the discussion. The vlogger actually agrees with most of what is here and when he did the vid thought only about 1K views, he is over 13 million views.
WRT the Magesterium of the Church and it's authority, most of us dissenters have an issue with the post apostolic era additions to Catholic tradition. Especially from the great schism to Trent but also the concept of imperial rule in the HRE and ultimately the Marianology that has come about largely since 1854 when the HRE was changed to it's current status. I have little issue with the teaching authority, I see the need for it and even for the need of institutional church but not at the cost of the truths Jesus taught or organic church.
WRT the Magesterium of the Church and it's authority, most of us dissenters have an issue with the post apostolic era additions to Catholic tradition. Especially from the great schism to Trent but also the concept of imperial rule in the HRE and ultimately the Marianology that has come about largely since 1854 when the HRE was changed to it's current status. I have little issue with the teaching authority, I see the need for it and even for the need of institutional church but not at the cost of the truths Jesus taught or organic church.
1.20.2012 | 10:24am
KG says:
Humorous rebuttal from a Notre Dame Theology student...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyXIcLixtG4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyXIcLixtG4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
1.20.2012 | 11:19am
andrew says:
thank you david for the references. terms are either clear or unclear, arguments valid or invalid, and propositions true or false. in this case, the term "religion" is unclear.
i listen to a lot of tim keller and am familiar with his and bethke's definition of "religion." it's useful for some purposes, but can be drastically misunderstood, often with unintended consequences.
i listen to a lot of tim keller and am familiar with his and bethke's definition of "religion." it's useful for some purposes, but can be drastically misunderstood, often with unintended consequences.
1.20.2012 | 11:27am
The Moz says:
Same thing Anne Rice wanted when she abandoned her heritage and the Church that welcomed her back with open arms: Jesus without the cross.
1.20.2012 | 12:04pm
Burton says:
Rick,
You say,"I have little issue with the teaching authority, I see the need for it and even for the need of institutional church but not at the cost of the truths Jesus taught"
So to whose teaching authority should I submit with regard to the truths Jesus taught - yours? If you only submit to that with which you already agree, that ain't submission.
You say,"I have little issue with the teaching authority, I see the need for it and even for the need of institutional church but not at the cost of the truths Jesus taught"
So to whose teaching authority should I submit with regard to the truths Jesus taught - yours? If you only submit to that with which you already agree, that ain't submission.
1.20.2012 | 1:45pm
Steve says:
Chapter 2, The Screwtape Letters. Yup, the people in the Church and leading the Church are ugly sinners. Quit looking at them. Seems Lucifer thought St. Mike, et. al. weren't worthy either. "I will not serve. I will do MY own thing."
1.20.2012 | 3:52pm
Rick says:
@Stephen M. Barr:
Thanks for your long, thoughtful response. I was "winging it" a bit when I said that Benedict had written that "disagreement with any of the teachings of the Magesterium automatically excludes one from communion with the Catholic Church..." However, I did my homework and have come up with a quote from him as Cardinal Ratzinger that supports my statement. It is in his "Docrinal Commentary", which accompanied John Paul's "Ad Tuendum Fidem." This concerned what John Paul called “each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” This, I think you would have to admit, is a rather broad category of the Magesterium's teachings. Concerning this category, Ratzinger wrote in his Commentary:
"Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."
Well, there it is. Of course, I never said that the offending believer (or non-believer) would be subject to formal excommunication. But Benedict (and I assume he hasn't revised his position on these matters since he became pope) says that it is not possible to be in "full communion" without definitive assent to all teachings on faith and morals.
One of the pillars that Benedict uses to support this argument is that one of the teachings of the Magesterium concerns its own infallibility. This type of circular reasoning may be fine for religion (maybe), but you really can't compare it to the methods of science. Max Planck could hardly have argued that the tenets of his theory of black body radiation should be accepted because he, Planck, was infallible in his ex-cathedra pronouncements on physics. His quantum theory had to be subjected to rigourous empirical testing in order to demonstrate its validity. So, how really can we know that the teachings of the Magesterium represent absolute truth? It boils down to a matter of faith. Either you accept the supreme authority of the Church on these matters, or you don't. But it cannot be rationally proven.
Marxism ended up being presented as, in effect, a religion to be accepted on faith as well--particularly in its Stalinist and Maoist incarnations. The best analysis I've ever seen of its true nature comes from "The Captive Mind" by the Polish poet Milosz. In it, he refers to Stalinism as "The New Faith," and he makes it clear that it was presented as a replacement religion for Christianity. Its adherents were convinced that they, alone among all humanity, had a hotline to Absolute Truth through Marxist theory.
For my part, I've become convinced through faith, and a faith built on personal experience, that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", but it has yet to be revealed to me by faith that the Magesterium is infallible.
Thanks for your long, thoughtful response. I was "winging it" a bit when I said that Benedict had written that "disagreement with any of the teachings of the Magesterium automatically excludes one from communion with the Catholic Church..." However, I did my homework and have come up with a quote from him as Cardinal Ratzinger that supports my statement. It is in his "Docrinal Commentary", which accompanied John Paul's "Ad Tuendum Fidem." This concerned what John Paul called “each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” This, I think you would have to admit, is a rather broad category of the Magesterium's teachings. Concerning this category, Ratzinger wrote in his Commentary:
"Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."
Well, there it is. Of course, I never said that the offending believer (or non-believer) would be subject to formal excommunication. But Benedict (and I assume he hasn't revised his position on these matters since he became pope) says that it is not possible to be in "full communion" without definitive assent to all teachings on faith and morals.
One of the pillars that Benedict uses to support this argument is that one of the teachings of the Magesterium concerns its own infallibility. This type of circular reasoning may be fine for religion (maybe), but you really can't compare it to the methods of science. Max Planck could hardly have argued that the tenets of his theory of black body radiation should be accepted because he, Planck, was infallible in his ex-cathedra pronouncements on physics. His quantum theory had to be subjected to rigourous empirical testing in order to demonstrate its validity. So, how really can we know that the teachings of the Magesterium represent absolute truth? It boils down to a matter of faith. Either you accept the supreme authority of the Church on these matters, or you don't. But it cannot be rationally proven.
Marxism ended up being presented as, in effect, a religion to be accepted on faith as well--particularly in its Stalinist and Maoist incarnations. The best analysis I've ever seen of its true nature comes from "The Captive Mind" by the Polish poet Milosz. In it, he refers to Stalinism as "The New Faith," and he makes it clear that it was presented as a replacement religion for Christianity. Its adherents were convinced that they, alone among all humanity, had a hotline to Absolute Truth through Marxist theory.
For my part, I've become convinced through faith, and a faith built on personal experience, that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", but it has yet to be revealed to me by faith that the Magesterium is infallible.
1.20.2012 | 5:51pm
Steve C. says:
"and if understandable, forgivable"
Is it possible, or proper, to forgive that which we do not understand?
Is it possible, or proper, to forgive that which we do not understand?
1.20.2012 | 6:04pm
Tim Seitz-Brown says:
G.K. Chesterton was once asked by a London newspaper to join other authors and thinkers to address the weighty and important question of "what's wrong with the world." His response:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton
*What's the problem with religion? I'm with Chesterton on this one.
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton
*What's the problem with religion? I'm with Chesterton on this one.
1.20.2012 | 7:03pm
Lars says:
The Way was never a religion. What is called Christianity today is a man made contrivance created for the control of other human beings. Ashewing religion is NOT ashewing the Fellowship. The gathering of the body in love and friendship is NOT religion. If that were true every club would be a religion. Teams would be religions. Jesus did not want a religion. He wanted relationship. Man mucks it up by demanding control.
Jesus called his message the "Good News" or Gospel. What was the Good News? Was it "I have come to reform Judaism ?" Was it "I have come to give you a new religion?" No. The Good News was freedom from The Law of Moses. Jesus spent just about every moment of every encounter with the religious establishment pointing out what they were doing wrong. He pointed out the hypocrisy and futility of the unbearable weight of the Law as they applied it. He pointed out how they stood in the way of the common person getting to Heaven (IE: standing as unwanted gatekeepers to his Table). He came to sweep those stumbling blocks of religion out of the way. Following Jesus is a way of life not a religion.
If you make the decision to eat better and exercise more that is a lifestyle change, right? If you make that change permanently haven't you made a change in your way of life?
What if you commit a crime? You admit your guilt and do your time. You come home and your family and friends forgive you. You are moved greatly by their love and support so you vow to do everything in your power to change the bad habits and associations that paved the way to your crime. You do this because you love them and don't want to disappoint them further. This is a lifestyle change isn't it? You have made this your new way of life. So how come we think that accepting Jesus' offer of redemption and sincerely living our lives out of love for Him is religion?
This misunderstanding of what constitutes a relationship with our Creator is why the Ecclesia is hamstrung in it's mission to bring the Kingdom to earth. As a follower of Jesus our only goal is to bring Heaven to earth. This is what the Great Commission is about.
It isn't about confronting non-believers and threatening them with hell and giving them ultimatums ( Accept Jesus or else! ) NO! It is about being shining examples that spark curiosity and desire to have that same relationship with their Creator. Man piles on a bunch garbage that has nothing to do with our Creator. Man's desire for control over everything is what stands in the way. Religion is kudzu. It overgrows everything and chokes the life out of it eventually.
Jesus called his message the "Good News" or Gospel. What was the Good News? Was it "I have come to reform Judaism ?" Was it "I have come to give you a new religion?" No. The Good News was freedom from The Law of Moses. Jesus spent just about every moment of every encounter with the religious establishment pointing out what they were doing wrong. He pointed out the hypocrisy and futility of the unbearable weight of the Law as they applied it. He pointed out how they stood in the way of the common person getting to Heaven (IE: standing as unwanted gatekeepers to his Table). He came to sweep those stumbling blocks of religion out of the way. Following Jesus is a way of life not a religion.
If you make the decision to eat better and exercise more that is a lifestyle change, right? If you make that change permanently haven't you made a change in your way of life?
What if you commit a crime? You admit your guilt and do your time. You come home and your family and friends forgive you. You are moved greatly by their love and support so you vow to do everything in your power to change the bad habits and associations that paved the way to your crime. You do this because you love them and don't want to disappoint them further. This is a lifestyle change isn't it? You have made this your new way of life. So how come we think that accepting Jesus' offer of redemption and sincerely living our lives out of love for Him is religion?
This misunderstanding of what constitutes a relationship with our Creator is why the Ecclesia is hamstrung in it's mission to bring the Kingdom to earth. As a follower of Jesus our only goal is to bring Heaven to earth. This is what the Great Commission is about.
It isn't about confronting non-believers and threatening them with hell and giving them ultimatums ( Accept Jesus or else! ) NO! It is about being shining examples that spark curiosity and desire to have that same relationship with their Creator. Man piles on a bunch garbage that has nothing to do with our Creator. Man's desire for control over everything is what stands in the way. Religion is kudzu. It overgrows everything and chokes the life out of it eventually.
1.20.2012 | 7:26pm
Felapton says:
I think Professor Barr's analogy is excellent, though perhaps not in the way he intended it.
There is a regrettable tendency in physics education to teach introductory quantum mechanics by beginning from the so-called Postulates of Quantum Mechanics, as if they appeared out of nowhere. When the student asks where they come from, too often the professor does not have a sufficiently solid background in classical (Hamiltonian) mechanics and statistics to explain.
Similarly, there is a tendency in teaching relativity to teach tensor mathematics as if it had no relevance to anything but relativity. When the student asks for the reasons for all the definitions and theorems he has to learn up front, often the professor does not have a sufficient knowledge of classical fluid dynamics to explain.
In both cases, the professor resorts to some variation of "Just learn it and it will become clear how useful it is later," trusting that once the student sees how much experimental evidence the theory explains, he will stop caring where the theory came from in the first place. And the student thinks, "Bah, this is some made-up nonsense to waste my time," and goes off and studies finance instead.
And that is why people like Rick and the hate-religion video guy find Church doctrine unconvincing. When they ask why they should believe something, they get some version of "Because it's in the catechism." When they ask where the catechism came from, all too often the priest, pastor or teacher has no clue. All he knows is what's in the catechism, he has no idea how or when or why the doctrine developed historically.
The problem is not (only) youthful arrogance. The problem is (also) adult mediocrity, pomposity and authoritarianism.
There is a regrettable tendency in physics education to teach introductory quantum mechanics by beginning from the so-called Postulates of Quantum Mechanics, as if they appeared out of nowhere. When the student asks where they come from, too often the professor does not have a sufficiently solid background in classical (Hamiltonian) mechanics and statistics to explain.
Similarly, there is a tendency in teaching relativity to teach tensor mathematics as if it had no relevance to anything but relativity. When the student asks for the reasons for all the definitions and theorems he has to learn up front, often the professor does not have a sufficient knowledge of classical fluid dynamics to explain.
In both cases, the professor resorts to some variation of "Just learn it and it will become clear how useful it is later," trusting that once the student sees how much experimental evidence the theory explains, he will stop caring where the theory came from in the first place. And the student thinks, "Bah, this is some made-up nonsense to waste my time," and goes off and studies finance instead.
And that is why people like Rick and the hate-religion video guy find Church doctrine unconvincing. When they ask why they should believe something, they get some version of "Because it's in the catechism." When they ask where the catechism came from, all too often the priest, pastor or teacher has no clue. All he knows is what's in the catechism, he has no idea how or when or why the doctrine developed historically.
The problem is not (only) youthful arrogance. The problem is (also) adult mediocrity, pomposity and authoritarianism.
1.20.2012 | 8:40pm
Daniel says:
One cannot be simultaneously a misanthrope AND a Christian. We are called to love the hypocrites too. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 John 4:20. We should all read this and weep for we all have a long way to go in our pilgrimage.
1.20.2012 | 11:33pm
Rick says:
@Felapton:
Very interesting analogy between science and catechetical doctrines! Reading it, I began to feel that maybe I'm not really all that well informed in the historical background of the teachings of the Magesterium. But then I thought of an incident in our church several years ago, when the priest was leading a special PSR class for the kids, including my sons, that involved a step-by-step walk through of the mass, each step carefully explained. Near the end, he broached the subject of missing mass. "Missing mass isn't just a little sin," he told the kids. "It's a big, big, BIG sin! You could go to hell!!!" I winced, but realized that he was saying that simply because it is a teaching of the Magesterium that missing mass without a good excuse is a mortal sin, and he was not about to question it. I sat there and pondered the horrors loose in our world: the mass rape of women in warfare; children being sold as sex slaves; cupidity, corruption, and hypocrisy in high places; and I tried to imagine God casting a Catholic boy into eternal hell because he died in a car accident right after missing mass. I couldn't. Why didn't Jesus spend more time excoriating Jewish kids who missed services at the synogogue? Why was he so much more concerned with the corruption of the temple priests and the lawyers? I realize I have singled out one teaching that I have a problem with, and I don't have this sort of problem with most Church doctrines, but if you can explain the sound historical, theological, and christological foundations of this particular teaching, I would be glad to consider it.
Very interesting analogy between science and catechetical doctrines! Reading it, I began to feel that maybe I'm not really all that well informed in the historical background of the teachings of the Magesterium. But then I thought of an incident in our church several years ago, when the priest was leading a special PSR class for the kids, including my sons, that involved a step-by-step walk through of the mass, each step carefully explained. Near the end, he broached the subject of missing mass. "Missing mass isn't just a little sin," he told the kids. "It's a big, big, BIG sin! You could go to hell!!!" I winced, but realized that he was saying that simply because it is a teaching of the Magesterium that missing mass without a good excuse is a mortal sin, and he was not about to question it. I sat there and pondered the horrors loose in our world: the mass rape of women in warfare; children being sold as sex slaves; cupidity, corruption, and hypocrisy in high places; and I tried to imagine God casting a Catholic boy into eternal hell because he died in a car accident right after missing mass. I couldn't. Why didn't Jesus spend more time excoriating Jewish kids who missed services at the synogogue? Why was he so much more concerned with the corruption of the temple priests and the lawyers? I realize I have singled out one teaching that I have a problem with, and I don't have this sort of problem with most Church doctrines, but if you can explain the sound historical, theological, and christological foundations of this particular teaching, I would be glad to consider it.
1.21.2012 | 8:14am
Bill McKenzie says:
This self-righteous, authoritarian, incompetent hypocrite wishes that all the perfect people would come back into the church to correct all the problems.
Actually...if you are not in the Catholic Church your church has no protection against the many Judas's who love to confound and scandalize Christians. It is not us that make the Church holy. It is Jesus Christ and his guarantee to be with us until the end of the age. Who did He make that promise to?
Actually...if you are not in the Catholic Church your church has no protection against the many Judas's who love to confound and scandalize Christians. It is not us that make the Church holy. It is Jesus Christ and his guarantee to be with us until the end of the age. Who did He make that promise to?
1.21.2012 | 12:22pm
Rick says:
@Bill
Well put! That's why there are no scandals in the Catholic Church.
Seriously, though, I found Jesus through the Holy Spirit when I walked forward many years ago in answer to an alter call in a little Assemblies of God church. We sang together, and we were "raptured", so to speak, in the Living Spirit. To my dying day, I will always be able to go back to that sublime experience of pure light and love in my imagination and know, because I know, because I KNOW, that God is more real than anything in the created universe and that he is with me always. No, Bill, the Catholic Church has no exclusive franchise on the companionship and protection of Jesus.
Well put! That's why there are no scandals in the Catholic Church.
Seriously, though, I found Jesus through the Holy Spirit when I walked forward many years ago in answer to an alter call in a little Assemblies of God church. We sang together, and we were "raptured", so to speak, in the Living Spirit. To my dying day, I will always be able to go back to that sublime experience of pure light and love in my imagination and know, because I know, because I KNOW, that God is more real than anything in the created universe and that he is with me always. No, Bill, the Catholic Church has no exclusive franchise on the companionship and protection of Jesus.
1.21.2012 | 2:25pm
Bill McKenzie says:
Rick:
Catholics have sublime spiritual experiences too, but we choose to base our salvation on Christ, his promises, his Church, not subjective experience.
Yes, there are scandals in the Catholic Church of course, just like the first scandal with Christ-chosen Judas.
Don't you think Christ must have had a reason to found the Church? Something other than to give the perfect people something to scorn and abandon?
Catholics have sublime spiritual experiences too, but we choose to base our salvation on Christ, his promises, his Church, not subjective experience.
Yes, there are scandals in the Catholic Church of course, just like the first scandal with Christ-chosen Judas.
Don't you think Christ must have had a reason to found the Church? Something other than to give the perfect people something to scorn and abandon?
1.21.2012 | 3:18pm
Adriel says:
Rick, not to butt in (well, kind yeah, to butt in) but I think "keep holy the Sabbath" is at least one of the main historical and theological foundations of that particular teaching.
And your example is extreme, and God looks at the heart, and his justice is more righteous than we can imagine, but if that kid skipped mass for no good reason (like he had all his faculties about him, he understood the Mass and its importance, it was all up to him, and he still said "no"), why isn't he worthy of hell? Can kids not sin? Can they not decide for or against God? St. Augustine would argue they can, as far back as infancy.
This is not meant to be a condemnation of the kid in question, nor a particularly impressive defense of "Mass-missing as a mortal sin," but rather a simple question regarding your opinion on the matter.
And your example is extreme, and God looks at the heart, and his justice is more righteous than we can imagine, but if that kid skipped mass for no good reason (like he had all his faculties about him, he understood the Mass and its importance, it was all up to him, and he still said "no"), why isn't he worthy of hell? Can kids not sin? Can they not decide for or against God? St. Augustine would argue they can, as far back as infancy.
This is not meant to be a condemnation of the kid in question, nor a particularly impressive defense of "Mass-missing as a mortal sin," but rather a simple question regarding your opinion on the matter.
1.22.2012 | 11:27pm
Rick says:
@Bill McKenzie: "Catholics have sublime spiritual experiences too, but we choose to base our salvation on Christ, his promises, his Church, not subjective experience."
I have extremely close Catholic friends and I am raising my two sons as Catholics. Some of them have had sublime spiritual experiences. I never intended to imply the contrary. And of course, Catholics base salvation on "Christ, his promises, his Church..." And so do Protestants. There is no significant difference concerning these issues.
I was taking exception to your statement that no church but the Catholic Church enjoys Jesus' protection. I mentioned my extraordinary experience simply to suggest that if Jesus through the Holy Spirit can be so intimately and powerfully present with his people in non-Catholic churches, does it make sense that, at the same time, he abandons them to their own devices and provides them with no supernatural protection? It certainly makes no sense to my mind! Of course the Assemblies of God and other Protestant churches never even imply that salvation is simply a matter of "subjective" experience, but personal experience plays a vital role in a believer's faith life and personal pilgrimage. Paul on the road to Damascus had a personal experience of Jesus, but I've never heard a Christian theologian dismiss it as insignificant because it was "subjective".
I have extremely close Catholic friends and I am raising my two sons as Catholics. Some of them have had sublime spiritual experiences. I never intended to imply the contrary. And of course, Catholics base salvation on "Christ, his promises, his Church..." And so do Protestants. There is no significant difference concerning these issues.
I was taking exception to your statement that no church but the Catholic Church enjoys Jesus' protection. I mentioned my extraordinary experience simply to suggest that if Jesus through the Holy Spirit can be so intimately and powerfully present with his people in non-Catholic churches, does it make sense that, at the same time, he abandons them to their own devices and provides them with no supernatural protection? It certainly makes no sense to my mind! Of course the Assemblies of God and other Protestant churches never even imply that salvation is simply a matter of "subjective" experience, but personal experience plays a vital role in a believer's faith life and personal pilgrimage. Paul on the road to Damascus had a personal experience of Jesus, but I've never heard a Christian theologian dismiss it as insignificant because it was "subjective".
1.23.2012 | 3:13pm
Rick says:
Adriell:
I'm glad someone finally took up my challenge about the "missing mass" teaching. Maybe I'll have to research Augustine in more depth, but I'm astonished to think that he taught that infants can make moral decisions. Infants? One or two years old? Maybe Augustine never had kids. I have teenagers who are still very flawed in that department.
Is the 12-year-old who willfully misses mass without a good excuse worthy of eternal damnation and torment? I would think the answer is too obvious to have to state, but of course not. No second chance? No small error permitted for a kid with very limited judgement and capacity for selflessness? I guess we live in different mental universes. I can certainly agree that God's judgement is more righteous (and more merciful) than we can imagine. But your conclusion hardly seems to follow from that premise. Again, why didn't Jesus seem at all concerned with this sort of thing? Why did he spend so much time railing against the religious authorities who bound heavy burdens for their flocks to bear? Shouldn't we try to follow his example? I get the impression that this teaching (unlike many other teachings, of course) is more the creation of a priesthood obsessed with control of the flock than the result of divine inspiration.
I'm glad someone finally took up my challenge about the "missing mass" teaching. Maybe I'll have to research Augustine in more depth, but I'm astonished to think that he taught that infants can make moral decisions. Infants? One or two years old? Maybe Augustine never had kids. I have teenagers who are still very flawed in that department.
Is the 12-year-old who willfully misses mass without a good excuse worthy of eternal damnation and torment? I would think the answer is too obvious to have to state, but of course not. No second chance? No small error permitted for a kid with very limited judgement and capacity for selflessness? I guess we live in different mental universes. I can certainly agree that God's judgement is more righteous (and more merciful) than we can imagine. But your conclusion hardly seems to follow from that premise. Again, why didn't Jesus seem at all concerned with this sort of thing? Why did he spend so much time railing against the religious authorities who bound heavy burdens for their flocks to bear? Shouldn't we try to follow his example? I get the impression that this teaching (unlike many other teachings, of course) is more the creation of a priesthood obsessed with control of the flock than the result of divine inspiration.
1.23.2012 | 5:03pm
Bill McKenzie says:
Rick:
There a very significant difference concerning the Catholic and Protestant approach to "Christ, his promises, his Church..." Catholics embrace these things on Christ's terms while Protestants embrace these things on their terms, otherwise there would be no protesting Churches and all disagreements would take place within the Church Christ founded.
There a very significant difference concerning the Catholic and Protestant approach to "Christ, his promises, his Church..." Catholics embrace these things on Christ's terms while Protestants embrace these things on their terms, otherwise there would be no protesting Churches and all disagreements would take place within the Church Christ founded.
By the way, have you heard Garrison Keillor talk about his experience growing up with the Sanctified Brethren? (My grandfather, an austere prairie farmer, belonged to the Church of the Brethren. They literally washed each other's feet.) Keillor explained that there was a dispute once between two factions of his church. One faction believed that if a member held to false doctrine, he must be shunned by the rest of the community--socially excluded from communion. The other faction demurred, however. "Jesus taught a religion of love and endless forgiveness," they insisted, "and we will not speak to you until you give up your false ideas!"