Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why certain sectors of the church must be polemical over expressions of genuine faith as expressed in the video Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus. Really? I mean, really? This young man is articulating a love for the One who came that he might live. I, too, as a pastor have been asked about what I thought about the video. I saw it as an opportunity to affirm the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ over against the myriads of false gospels in our day.
I primarily think that this young man is speaking to an intramural issue in the church in its trans-denominational expression, the church catholic. Catholic meaning universal church, not the Roman Catholic Church. There is a vernacular that is tribal among Evangelical Christians that has become shorthand to communicate theological issues and Biblical observations. My understanding of how this young man is approaching the word “religion” is more from this sense. He has observed in the Christian Church, and rightly so, a moralistic approach to faith that is anti-Gospel and as such anti-Jesus. You can call this what you’d like, but I think “religion” is an appropriate choice of words. Why? This moralistic gospel is no gospel at all and thus can rightly be called a “religion.” This religion is replete with Biblical language and Jesus is even its Patron Saint as the most moral person who ever lived. Jesus is seen as an Example, not as a Savior.
I like the video and will continue to do so. I have a far greater concern for how the church can take something that I believe honors Christ and then dissects it in the lab of “careful theological scrutiny” to the end that people who were deeply encouraged in Christ by it are now confused by the dissenting banter. I hate religion, too. I hate it because of what it does to the souls of people who desperately need Jesus. I love Jesus. Hopefully we can at least all agree on this.
Brother Baucham in his critique of this video, whom I deeply admire and appreciate, in my opinion wastes a lot of ink in his defense and attempt to redeem the word "religion." He perhaps could have wove into his argument the discipline of etymology. Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. The key: "how their form and meaning have changed over time." All this young man in this video is attempting to do is highlight a common misunderstanding between Biblical Christianity with its emphasis on the finished work of Christ over against a more"popular," "nuanced" and "cultural" understanding of the word religion. And, by "cultural" I'm speaking of the broadly accepted Evangelical tribal use of the term religion.
It is widely understood in our day, and also true in a technical historical etymological sense, that the majority of religions are in fact man's failed attempts to get to God. There is one true religion. Even the fact that the New Testament Book of James has to qualify the word “religion” with “true” should be an indicator to us that the word “religion” has trouble standing alone. Why? The fact is that there are many religions in the world and properly called so by the general populace. And, if one were to do the helpful exercise to try and determine what all these “religions” have in common apart from Christianity it would not be unhelpful to say that they are expressions of “man’s failed attempt to reach God on his own merits.”
My conclusion: enjoy the video!
