I recently came across a powerful and persuasive video that undermines religion, particularly organized religion. Apparently over ten million people have viewed the video. It features word-artist (does that mean poet?) Jefferson Bethke. Watch the piece: Why I hate religion, but love Jesus.
Shortly after the video exploded on YouTube he posted on Facebook: “If you are using my video to bash “the church” be careful. I was in no way intending to do that. My heart came from trying to highlight and expose legalism and hypocrisy.” Take that comment for what it is worth, but it does seem quite contradictory to what he said and the tone presented in the video. He said: “Jesus hates religion…” “Religion puts you into bondage…” “Jesus came to abolish religion…” “Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums.”
Opposite spectrums would be the Savior and Satan, good and evil, light and darkness, sweet and bitter (see Isaiah 5:20).
I have watched the video three times, trying to see, more so discern, the intention of Mr. Bethke’s interpretation of Jesus over religion. It seems a bit awkward, a bit irreverent and ostentatious, and a bit self-centered. He points out the hypocrisy in organized religion, church going people, while drawing attention to his individualistic approach to finding the Savior.
The etymology of the word religion tells us a lot (notwithstanding the disputes of its meaning). It most likely stems from the Latin word “religare”—which means “to bind back.” True religion will aid us in reestablishing that bond between ourselves and Heavenly Father. The Father sent His Son making that bond possible. True religion also sets forth the ordinances and covenants to make that binding possible.
The Savior organized His Church while on earth. He set forth the ordinances and covenants to bind men and women back to God. The New Testament clearly establishes this. The Savior went to a legal administer to be baptized (John the Baptist). He established a system, organization, structure, whatever we want to call it, upon the “foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone” (see Ephesians 2:20). An individualistic approach to worship will fall drastically short in the end. And in many cases it is an excuse to not give of our full selves. An individualistic approach to worship in many ways is a camouflage to selfishness. We need organized religion for the “perfecting of the saints…for the edifying of the body of Christ” (see Ephesians 4:11-15).
I believe the statement: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” There is plenty to do, plenty to sacrifice, and plenty of service to render in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We should appreciate the cultural and belief systems established and labeled religion. Religion leads people to discipline, to love of neighbor and to an intimate relationship with the Savior. What’s wrong with that?
We should appreciate what Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom “were intimately united” and that religion was “indispensable to the maintenance of the republican institutions.” More importantly George Washington counseled that religion was one of two pillars of human happiness (the other pillar was morality). “The mere politician” he said, “equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them.”
If Mr. Bethke really is a pious (virtuous, sincere, devout, reverent) man, who claims to know and follow the Savior, he ought to reconsider his message. “Woe unto those who call good evil.”
The Vacuous “Truth” of “Its not a Religion, its a Relationship”
No doubt you’ve heard or heard of the “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” video by spoken word artist, Jefferson Bethke. Currently it has had over 10 million Youtube views and its popping up all over the interweb.
My problem with this line of thinking is that it creates a false dichotomy and it’s a gross over-generalization that may, in the long, do more harm than good.
The problem is that those who decry “religion” in favor of a “relationship” run the risk of becoming lawless Pharisees themselves. If you stand up for any sort of restrictions on behavior, (abortion, divorce, homosexuality, etc…), well, you’re just clinging to outdated and outmoded ways of viewing God. You’re just being judgmental! Ultimately, turning our religion into a “relationship” is less about Him and more about us and that denigrates and devalues everything that Christ died for.
Read the rest here:
http://bit.ly/zlWPlW
Joe, your reply is no improvement over Ryan’s original blog entry (cf. my response to him).
You start with an insulting personal opinion too: “vacuous.”
Your second paragraph is also pure personal opinion with no supportive argument whatsoever.
“The problem is that those who decry ‘religion’ in favor of a ‘relationship’ run the risk of becoming lawless Pharisees themselves.”
This quote is actually hilarious. You seem to have no clue who the Pharisees were. Lawless? They were freaking law worshippers! Jesus was constantly decrying their religion, preaching instead a relationship with himself and the Father. You got this exactly 180 degrees backwards.
“If you stand up for any sort of restrictions on behavior, (abortion, divorce, homosexuality, etc…), well, you’re just clinging to outdated and outmoded ways of viewing God. You’re just being judgmental!”
Utterly irrelevant. The video made no such claim. Obviously you have an agenda and a big chip on your shoulder to have included an argument against something that never appeared in the video in the first place.
“Ultimately, turning our religion into a ‘relationship’ is less about Him and more about us and that denigrates and devalues everything that Christ died for.”
Never mind thst Christ himself talked about the relationship over the religious legalese of the Pharisees. Guess that makes Jesus a denigrator and devaluer of everything he died for.
Michael;
First of all, I use the term “lawless pharisees” as an ironic descriptor of people like Bethke. I’m not implying that the Pharisees were oblivious to the Law. I would think that was fairly obvious and my piece explains what the term means for anyone who seriously reads it.
As to the piece being my opinion, well, it is an opinion piece, one that is backed by a better understanding of the relationship between the personal connection one needs with Christ and the principles and precepts needed to help grow that relationship. Also obvious for anyone who really reads my piece.
As for the rest of your contentions, you should really read and undertand my thesis before you comment it on it. I understand Bethke’s and have explained how he is misguided; your rant against my piece is lacking of the same courtesy and scholarship.
Thanks,
Joe
I think you’ve hugely mistaken his meaning. He’s using religion synonymously with false, non-Christian religions and the legalism of pharisees and fundamentalists; not organized religion as in the church.
Spoken like a true party man, Ryan.
Yeah, the video was kind of awkward, trying harder for cute rhymes than straightforward communication of ideas. Yeah, his claim that he wasn’t trying to bash religion rings false. But beyond that, his points were valid.
Your “opposite spectrums” was irrelevant and basically demagoguery. He picked one dichotomy, you went after a different one that served your needs. Any number of opposite pairs could have been used, depending on what point the speaker was trying to emphasize.
Etymology arguments are also usually irrelevant. Yeah, it’s interesting to see where a word came from, but rarely does the original source of the word equate to its current meaning. The definition evolves over time, and often roams far afield of its original root-word meaning. There’s no way the modern word “religion” now means “to bind back.”
You follow the etymology with claims that are opinion based on personal belief as an apologist for your religion, not established fact, which is why I called you a “party man”:
“True religion will aid us in reestablishing that bond between ourselves and Heavenly Father.”
This cries out for supporting evidence. Just saying it doesn’t make it true. And which religion is the “true” one? (I know which one you believe is, but only a tiny percentage of the world’s population agrees.)
“The Father sent His Son making that bond possible.”
This is a fair statement, but says nothing about organized religion. The maker of the video could just as easily say this.
“True religion also sets forth the ordinances and covenants to make that binding possible.”
Another unsupported claim based on your personal religious beliefs.
Youquoted Ephesians 2:20 out of context…
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…
Nowhere does it say Jesus built that foundation. In fact, who built it is unspecified.
Then you launch into more assertions that are only your opinion, not established fact:
“An individualistic approach to worship will fall drastically short in the end.”
This assertion begs for supportive argument, but you offer none.
“And in many cases it is an excuse to not give of our full selves.”
This is not only an unsupported opinion, but an insult as well toward those who believe differently from you.
“An individualistic approach to worship in many ways is a camouflage to selfishness.”
In what ways? Not only is this unsupported, but you don’t even clarify what you mean. More insult of those who simply believe differently from you.
You quote another Ephesians passage out of context, Ephesians 4:11-15, referencing four entire verses, but including only one of those verses in that quote:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ…
It’s true that a list of titles might indicate a formal organization, but these verses do not “clearly establish” that. It has to be inferred. Those titles could just as easily be labels for people who operate in a certain capacity without a formal organization (notice how no specific offices are mentioned, like priests or deacons). These titles are more descriptive of functions than names for offices: apostle meaning one who is sent, prophet meaning one who prophesies, evangelist meaning one who spreads the good news, pastor meaning someone who ministers to others, teacher meaning one who teaches.
These could be titles of offices within a formal organization, or they could be descriptions of what various people do in service of God without reference to a formal organization.
The fact is, the Gospels themselves show little (if any) attempt by Jesus to establish a formal organization. The information there seems to show a pretty loose, informal organization, if any at all. Choose twelve disciples here, send out seventy preachers there, and wander from town to town preaching.
At least in your next paragraph, you acknowledge your statements are personal belief. That’s great that your church keeps you busy doing productive things, but that does nothing to support the premise of your article.
Your quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville and George Washington are interesting, but also do little to support your premise. They are only the opinions of two men.
Then you end with another insult: “Woe unto those who call good evil.” I have my own quote I use to cynically describe attitudes like yours: “If you don’t think like me, you’re evil.” That’s the only message I get from your effort to defend religion.
Meanwhile, all the points the video made in criticism of religion stand, which any objective observer can easily see are valid. You’ve done nothing to refute them.