Have you ever noticed how people completely ignore biblical Truth and principle so that they don't have to face the fact of their personal misunderstanding of the Text? Textual awareness and understanding vs religious and denominational ignorance; this ought to make for a good discussion.
One of—in my opinion—the greatest lies ever perpetuated by our enemy is religion. You see, religion lies to her followers, fooling them into believing that they are following GOD, when in truth they are sold out to a lie. The deeper sadness here is the fact that GOD gave humanity His Truth and far too many don't even recognize Him.
Someone once said that the Text is the story of GOD wanting to reconnect with humanity, personally (the "personally" applied to both GOD and each individual). GOD personally became flesh so that He could personally become sin so that He could personally redeem each and every person, personally. When we deny the humanity of Jesus we deny the true power of salvation. Without the shedding of Jesus' blood there could be no redemption for sin. GOD's flesh had to bleed. Spirit can't bleed. The Spirit had to become flesh; thus the intensifying power of Jesus' human-ness. To all my fellow monotheists, don't be afraid of Sonship. The role of the Son proves beyond all measure the Unity and One-ness of our GOD. However, to truly understand Sonship you have to be willing to truly study the Text and history to discover why the phraseology of referring to Jesus as the Son of GOD was used in the New Testament.
So, if the Text is GOD's story of reconnection, then He must have included His Purpose within the various letters. I believe that He did. While there are many examples of GOD's Purpose throughout both the Old and New Testaments, one of the most powerful examples of GOD's thought-process is found in Paul's letter to the Galatian Community. The study of the Galatian Letter is of critical importance to Christians today. Not only to we learn of a departure from the Gospel in ancient days, we also see that there is a similar error being proclaimed today. Many Christians have accepted this divergence from the Gospel, not knowing the seriousness of their error and misunderstanding. We have to understand the importance of identifying the Galatian Error so that we can recognize similar false teachings that are becoming more and more widely accepted. The time has come to identify false teaching for exactly what it is—a departure from the Gospel, thus a departure from Salvation.
The Community at Galatia was somewhat divided into two regional groups. For this to make sense we have to agree upon the approximate date of Paul's writing the letter. The date of authorship helps to define the region of Galatia. The difficulty in determining what Paul meant by the term Galatia results from the fact that Galatia can be used in two different ways: 1) as a reference to the whole Roman administrative district (especially the southern part of this district); 2) to designate ethnic Galatia (only the northern part of the district). For example, Paul used the Roman provincial names in his letter, while Luke—in his Acts of the Apostles—used the ethnic designations (Acts 14). Because of this we can infer that Paul is speaking of the larger territory which included the southern portion of Galatia. Why is this important? This designation is important because the Jewish population was greater in the south than in the north, thus a problem with Judaizers would be more likely in that region. In his letter, Paul assumes his readers have a fair knowledge of the Torah and Judaism in general, an assumption that would be more likely in the south. Also, because of Luke's reference in Acts 14, we know that there was considerable opposition to Paul's preaching in the cities of South Galatia. This would date this letter slightly before the Jerusalem Council (circa 50 AD). Around this time Paul and Barnabas had embarked on their first missionary journey, traveling to the South Galatian cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. The team then returned to Syrian Antioch and spent a considerable amount of time in the locale (Acts 14:28). Peter had come to Antioch to see how this community was doing and fell into hypocrisy when some other Jews arrived from Jerusalem. Paul then rebuked Peter publicly (Galatians 2:11-21). While in Antioch, Paul must have received word that some of the community were falling prey to the teaching of the Judaizers. The arrival of Judaizers in Antioch would have intensified Paul's concerns. Because of this timeline, we can conclude that Paul's letter to the Galatian Community was written some time before the Jerusalem Council. The fact that there is no mention of the Council's decision in His letter to the Galatians also provides strength to this contention.*
So, by now you're wondering what all this has to do with this article. The connector between this brief history lesson and this article are the Judaizers. The Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians in the 1st Century who preached to the Gentile Diaspora the need to conform to the Torah, even after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. There's not a lot of specific knowledge about this group, but most scholars agree that the group originated in Jerusalem, and that at least some were Pharisees (Acts 15:5). No one knows how organized they were as a movement or any of the names of the individuals within the movement. The most important thing that we do know about them is the fact that they attempted to make Jews out of Gentile Christians. The importance of this group is not so much what they taught but the reaction to their teachings. Paul attacks their teachings head-on in his letters. He wanted to demonstrate to these diasporic communities that Jesus had instituted a new covenant, thus fulfilling the Torah (Law) and making null and void the activities performed under the Mosaic Covenant. To break this down, the Judaizers taught that because the Jews were GOD's Chosen People, when a non-Jew was Spirit-baptized they must become a ceremonial Jew (via circumcision and tradition) in order to access Salvation. In essence, Salvation is based on works rather than on faith.
We have now come full circle back to the introduction of this article. The Judaizers preached a religion of works-based sanctification: the better you are, the more of GOD you have. Sound familiar? Walking with GOD was saddled with a list of actions that were acceptable and necessary and any variance from these confines constituted rebellion and back-sliding. The Judaizers essentially said, live by our rules because we are GOD's mouthpieces. This didn't sit well with Paul. We see him attacking this religious bigotry in his letters to Galatia, Corinth, Colassae and Rome. When a Judaizer would yell Torah, Paul would declare Grace. The Judaziers denied the fact that Jesus had fulfilled the Torah at Calvary, that His Passion ripped the veil to allow Grace to cleanse humanity. The Judaizers denied the power of faith and preferred works.
If you study Paul's Galatian Letter you'll find him painstakingly demonstrating Jesus' fulfillment of the Torah and the advent of Grace. He points out that anyone who tries to live by his own effort—independant of GOD—is doomed to failure. He then provides Text to prove his contention: Utterly cursed is every person who fails to carry out every detail written in the Book of the Law, [Galations 3:9-10, quoting Deuteronomy 27:26]. Paul then drops the bomb in verses 11-12: The obvious impossibility of carrying out such a moral program should make it plain that no one can sustain a relationship with GOD that way. The person who lives in right relationship with GOD does it by embracing what GOD arranges for him. Doing things for GOD is the opposite of entering into what GOD does for you. Habakkuk had it right: The person who believes GOD, is set right by GOD—and that's the real life. Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: The one who does these things (rule-keeping) continues to live by them. [Galatians 3:11-12, The Message. Paul first quotes Habbakkuk 2:4, then Leviticus 18:5].
In verses 13-14, Paul shows us that Jesus-Messiah [literally the Salvation of YHWH] redeemed us from the cursed life of rule-keeping by absorbing that life into Himself. Jesus became a curse, and at the same time dissolved the curse of the Law. But, the only way to receive GOD's life (l'chaim: true life over existence) is by believing, by faith.
The purpose of the Law was to keep a sinful people in the way of Salvation until Jesus-Messiah came. The Law was not a first-hand encounter with GOD, but was administered through a middle-man, Moses. But, relating to GOD via an intermediary runs contrary to GOD's promise to Abraham. This original promise is the direct blessing of GOD, and was then, and must now be received by faith. Paul points out that the Law fulfilled the role of a tutor who escorts children to school and protected them from danger or distraction, making sure that the children actually arrive at the place for which they set out [Galatians 3:23-24]. But he doesn't stop there, he continues, But now you have arrived at your destination: by faith in Jesus-Messiah you are in direct relationship with GOD. Your baptism in Jesus-Messiah was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe—Salvation's life, the fulfillment of GOD's original promise, [Galatians 3:25-27, The Message].
There are those who would negate faith and the power of true relationship by saddling every member of the Community with addendums to the New Covenant, but any addition to this Covenant negates it. The New Covenant established by Jesus-Messiah says that He would fill us with His Holy Spirit to keep us and lead us by the hand into all Truth. This Covenant says that there is no way that you or I will ever be able to be good enough, but because of Grace our sins were forgiven once and for all. This New Covenant says that when we sin (and we will because we are flawed flesh and not yet perfected) that all we have to do to return to right relationship with Jesus is repent (confession and turning away from our sin and turning to His Abundant Life); our repentance allows Grace to kiss Mercy, thus enabling our faith to usher us back into GOD's holy Presence.
Stop trying to be good, you'll never make it. Start living life within the confines of Jesus-Messiah's New Covenant; a Covenant of Grace and Mercy through faith in an Eternal GOD. The Law is fulfilled, don't step back under it. If you do you're damning yourself to an eternity of failure, because you'll never be able to make it. Jesus never intended us to die trying to prove ourselves worthy of His Grace and Mercy; He already knew we could never be worthy. But… He is worthy, He is perfect, He is complete, He is pure…
All we have to do is believe.
* Here are a few authors that you can read to find out more about this subject:
1. Cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, Rev. Ed., 1976), pp. xi-xiii.
2. F. F. Bruce,Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982)
3. R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965)
4. Herman N. Ridderbos,The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953)
A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices. Christianity is a religion. I don't get the God hates religion sentiments, unless of course, they are a stylistic way of communicating rigid dogmatism that has suffocated the primal nature of true, genuine and raw Christianity.
ReplyDeleteBut make no mistake about it, the system of belief in a higher power, particularly that Jesus is the Son of God and any other collection of beliefs is a "religion."
Perhaps your comment is gets more to the focus of James 1:27, breaking down "pure religion?"
Sarah, thanks for the comment. You're defining religion from a modern perspective. Do an extensive study of the origin of religion. Religion is man's attempt to place Deity into a structure that can be comprehended by humanity; this has never been GOD's intention.
ReplyDeletePaul attacks religion extensively in his letters to the 1st Century Community. The reason he does is because the Judaizers had made the ceremonies, traditions and edicts of Judaism (especially those that came about during the 400 years of GOD's silence) tantamount to GOD's voice. Their religion was more important than their GOD, therefore they were leading people astray.
GOD never told man to establish a system to relate with Him, He just wanted relationship with us. Our religious systems are not unlike our righteousness that Isaiah describes: polluted garments. When the Spirit manifested Himself in flesh, Jesus openly attacked the religious system of the Jews, because it had taken them far from the essence of the Law and had very little connection to the principles passed down to Moses.
As to James' reference to "pure religion", the koine word that James used is θρησκεία [threskeia - thrace-ki'-ah] which refers to external religious worship which consists of ceremonies. To deal with this reference in context, go to the previous verse; James is referencing religion in a very negative connotation, almost flippantly. He says that if anyone "appears to be religious" but doesn't control himself then his "religion" is in vain. This is not an affirmation of religion, this is a admonishment to deal with matters of the heart before the external show.
You be religious if you like, I'd rather be relational.
Religion is not a very modern word, it's quite orthodox. And by the way, I'm only using modern language, since that's what we speak.
ReplyDeleteHas God never intended for us to have a community of faith, to share a common story, to believe similar ideas of objective truth about a Divine reality? Seems that he would favor that. This is what "religion" is.
More people hate religion today but love spirituality. It's an epidemic. What they mean is, "I want to be spiritual, but have a disdain for teaching that contains absolute truth." When you make such claims, you become "religious." They'd rather sit around tranced in a spiritism, than alive to teaching. This is not you or anyone you know I'm referring, but our world around us. Consequently, the church picks up on this and says "yeah.. I hate religion to. It's all about loving God." But we can't escape that there is objective truth which we believe and teach, and that qualifies us technically as religion.
God didn't tell man to establish a system. He GAVE man that system and told him to share it.
Can you tell me where Paul attacks "religion." I don't think you are reading Paul correctly. He is attacking false ideas about Him, self-righteousness and people trying to become Holy on their own. But "fighting religion?" An example?
Because Jews placed the wrong purpose on ceremony and traditions is not a carte blanche rebuke of traditions and ceremony per se. It's a rebuke of a heart level understanding.
Jesus attacked the "religious system of the Jews." I will point to "of the Jews" as your important caveat. But Jesus wasn't on a post-modern kick like we are. He was trying to tell them to wake up, he promised to be faithful to them, promised them a Messiah and here he is! They were trying to be their own Messiahs.
My emphasis on James 2 was perhaps not understood for the concession that it was. I certainly wasn't using it as a proof-text for "religion."
I'm not "trying" to be religious, but I am religious by the sheer nature of the word. Words mean things. The belief in Jesus as God and He as a Savior for people who have a problem with a thing called sin, and that believing in Him is a way to fix it... that's called religion! :) A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices. Christianity is a religion.
You either use the word stylistically or with the wrong idea of what the word "religion" means. You claim it has evil beginnings. "It" is really a WORD used to describe a unified system of beliefs. It's quite amoral.
My whole desire to be "relational" is fed by a teaching about how I properly relate to God, which is known by a commonly shared belief, which is called "religion." :)
ReplyDeleteDon't be scared of it. BOO!
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteagain, thanks for the comments.
GOD didn't give humanity a religion or a system of beliefs. the Torah was not a religion, neither is the New Covenant established by Jesus' Passion. do a bit of research, the first recorded religion in human history is the belief system established by Semiramis (the mother of Nimrod, the daughter/wife of Cush). This was definitely not from GOD, therefore it shouldn't establish a pattern by which we continue to live.
when you—or anyone else for that matter—takes a modern definition of a word and attempts to apply it to ancient practice, there will always be problems. no, i'm not trying to be hip nor postmodern in my thinking, i'm attempting to remain Textually sound. i also am not attacking traditions per se, only the adherence to the same merely out of ritual or rote.
Read the entire books of Romans and Galatians. Paul openly and soundly attacks religion in both these letters. Romans 10 is a perfect example of this attack and warning to cease religiosity. religion cannot nor ever has been able to save, and adherence to religious edicts simply because they are there will not bring anyone to Salvation. as to Jesus' attack on the religious system, do some study of the 400 years, you'll see that their religion had spiral out of control and had very little to do with either the Torah or YHWH for that matter; it was all about the system. this is the same system with which the Judaizers were attempting to saddle the Gentile believers. Jesus slapped this religion in the face almost on a daily basis (see His conversations with the Sadducees and Pharisees, two sects of Judaic Religion. also, do some research as to when these two sects were established, then see if you can find their establishment at the command or direction of GOD).
believing in GOD and His power to redeem is not religion. there may be religions that believe this or something similar, but that doesn't make this belief a religious practice. also, an abhorrence of religion is not postmodern; it is a desire to find something real and true. religion lies, and always has, because it is not GOD-breathed. Modern Christianity, i will concede, is religion, but it was not religion in Antioch, nor any other locale in the 1st Century. in fact, it didn't become a religion until roughly the 4th Century when cath holos was put into full swing. but none of this changes the fact that following Jesus and trying to imitate His life is not religion, it is relational. when this journey becomes religious, it becomes ceremonial and devoid of true connection with GOD.
i'm not scared of religion; i know what it is.
"GOD didn't give humanity a religion or a system of beliefs. the Torah was not a religion, neither is the New Covenant established by Jesus' Passion."
ReplyDeleteThis is unequivocally not true.
Again, your examples of Paul "attacking religion" fall short of being persuasive or even considerable. The Jews losing sight of what saves them and keeps them is far from an "attack on religion." Frankly, to think otherwise, is the best case of eisegesis I can think of.
Jesus didn't slap "religion" in the face, he slapped false idols and idolatry in the face. Even what one does as a good thing becomes a bad thing when in itself it becomes an ultimate thing.
Believing in God as some way to "save the world from this made-up word called sin" is certainly "religion" no matter how we get around it.
Ceremony isn't wrong. Tradition isn't wrong. Singing corporately and developing habits isn't wrong. What's wrong is when these become more important than a genuine, personal relationship with God. Frankly, we've also tossed "corporate relationship" at the expense of "personal relationship" when the NT was not either/or, but both/and... and many would argue it's primarily corporate, though entry into the theological body is surely personal.
Regarding Nimrod, Babel, etc... I'm not sure where you got that information from, as far as it being the place/time when "religion" started.
This really isn't as complex as we make it. You are using the word stylistically and I'm using the word technically. That's why I'm not sure what you mean by taking a "modern" definition, as if the word was something entirely different beforehand. A source for that claim? Augustine spent quite a deal of time handling the word "religion" and explaining it in theological terms. He certainly didn't see it as bad or threatening. It's a description of something, not a something in itself!
Otherwise, you are preaching to the choir because I'm agreeing with you: faith should always be faith. There will be practices and wonderful traditions, but everything points to Jesus and ultimately all our confidence in our salvation, providence, security and future is in the Messiah.
I always enjoy your blog. I get the attitude of many "anti-religion" sounding boards these days, and I understand they are more using the language of the "modern culture" than they are being accurate with the word itself. With that said, I surely don't see fault there. Just wanted to point out the irony of statements like "I love Jesus and He will save me and I hate religion."
Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteReligion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance
It's funny that you say that we agree, but that my statement is unequivocally not true. your technical definition is defined by modern terms, not biblical terms.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah was not a religion, it was GOD's Law. GOD didn't establish Judaism, man did. Jesus didn't establish Christianity, man did. GOD never called us to be Christians, it was a name that was first an insult, then became a moniker of identification. You may not agree with these facts, but it doesn't make them untrue.
if you read Paul's letters and don't see him openly attacking their religious system, you're reading with blinders on. in addition, Jesus' very existence flew in the face of Judaism, especially what it had morphed into during the 400 years of GOD's silence.
i never said that ceremony and tradition are wrong. i wholeheartedly agree with this entire paragraph. but neither of us can deny the fact that there are many individuals who engage in these practices who only engage out of a religious experience rather than a relational one. my rage against religion is to stop this practice, because it has become the status quo. this practice is a primary byproduct of religion itself. religion convinces that the partaking of the same is tantamount to serving GOD, but that's simply not the case. This—by the way—is the same contention that Paul used throughout his letters.
as to Nimrod/Babel, i never said that Babel was the place/time of the first religion. what i said was that the first documented religion was established by Semiramis, Nimrod's mother/wife. as to where i "got" this information... this is documented historical fact. do some research, you'll see what i'm referring to. this religion is also referred to in the Text as the religion of Tammuz in Ezekiel 8 (not a direct quote, but do the study and you'll see what "weeping for Tammuz" was all about. i'll give a hint, study the practice of the worship of Pan. it's also interesting to see how the religion established by Semiramis after Nimrod's death is still thriving today in the form of Tritheism, primarily in Roman Catholicism).
one other aside, to be truly accurate with the word in question, you can't use the modern definition, you have to go back to it's root. quoting Augustine doesn't really strengthen your case, only provides example of yet another modern usage of the word. make no mistake, religion is not simply a definition, it is a thriving reality; a thriving reality that is runny starkly contrary to the Missio Dei, which is that all individuals would know GOD personally. religion is never favorably referenced within the Text. the reason is, religion separates people from GOD rather than bringing them closer to Him.
thanks for reading the blog, also in engaging in discussion. i always enjoy your comments.
Sarah, Wikipedia… seriously?
ReplyDeleteWikipedia. Hey, at least one of us has attempted to cite a source :) Besides, my point was how elementary, and easily accessible such general definitions for words, we as a society use.
ReplyDeleteTo a few of your quotes:
"The Torah was not a religion, it was GOD's Law. GOD didn't establish Judaism, man did. Jesus didn't establish Christianity, man did."
Did God call man to be a participant in his "law" or "word?" If so, it would seem that man sought ways to live in the Story.
"if you read Paul's letters and don't see him openly attacking their religious system, you're reading with blinders on."
To be factual, you didn't say "attacking their religious systems," you said "Paul attacked religion." That's a pretty major distinction. Just so it doesn't seem as if I was beating against the wind here.
You seem to have some grasp on the ultra-organic, Semitic language use of the word "religion." I'd say 99.999% of the population doesn't use the word "religion" with this esoteric knowledge you hold. So why would you insist on clashing swords with a word that you only define in a way that only .00001% understand? (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt of your language assertions by the way) Oh, and I'd still like a source for this "documented history" of Nimrod/Babel. Anyone who knows what WordAFlame is hold to the same familiarity of Nimrod/Babel. They were the characters on those old "Search for Truth" charts weren't they? :)
You say God's emphasis is that we would know him personally. I challenge you to proceed in your interest and studies in First and Second Temple Judaism to find out how important corporate participation and community was to God.
Religion separates people from GOD? It's easy to agree with that, but I have no idea what that even means. Sounds good. I want to nod. But false religion, selfishness, pride separate people from GOD. But take comfort with Rom 8:38-39. You see, "religion" is both abstract and quite concrete at the same time.
And I conclude with a question: What does "religion" mean? When you say "God hates religion," in that context, what does the word "religion" mean to you? Maybe this subjective angle will get us further.
Using the word "religion" as we do today (because I have yet to consider an alternative definition), the Sumerians have record of the oldest pre-historical cultures. Heck, even cave men paintings depict worship of supernatural or metaphysical objects. This is why I was curious about the Nimrod/Babel information.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of when the word was first used, using the concept/idea of what religion is, we can go back and classify anything that fits the definition. The beauty of being part of the future.
All this to say, I understand fully what your post expressed. I understand the discontent. I think the word "religion" is a euphemism of sorts though, and that the statement "GOD hates religion" requires some clarity and definition, because it's an irrational statement to be sure.
Sarah, this is why i'm glad that you both read and engage in response to my blog; conversations with you are always fun.
ReplyDeleteas a teacher, my job is to point the student in the direction of Truth, then assist them on their journey to the same. because of this, i tend to not provide all sources for provided information, but choose rather to provide enough crumbs for the reader to find them from themselves. Truth becomes much more precious when discovered personally.
one of your statements proves my contention as well as anything that i've said: "Did God call man to be a participant in his "law" or "word?" If so, it would seem that man sought ways to live in the Story."
GOD didn't establish Torah as a religion, man did as—to use your words—sought ways to live in the Story. because religion was not established by GOD, but by man, it is by its very nature humanic, therefore flawed, and it digresses.
i'll concede your point that in one post i used the word "religion" and in the next post added the word "system", but this doesn't change the essence of my statement, as religion is a system. i do not claim to have some uber-advanced grasp of the original definition and usage of the word. i will grant you the point that the vast majority of the world doesn't truly know the true meaning of a relatively common world, but that doesn't change the fact that religion was not established by GOD, but rather by man. i would like to point out that there are many biblical scholars who share the same view, but even that—in and of itself—doesn't make our contention correct. i'm just wanting to point out that i am not alone in my views.
as the Nimrod/Babel connection with religion; as i pointed out before, the religion of Tammuz has little to do with Babel, and is connected to Nimrod through his mother Semiramis. since you're obviously familiar with Wikipedia, you can find enough "launching" material on the religion of Tammuz to guide you through the rest. bear in mind that Wikipedia is in no way the ultimate source of any definition, merely a very convenient one. i did, however, cite a much more credible Source, the Text. i even provided you with a Scripture reference from which you could begin your study. there are also hundreds of books that deal with Semiramis and her establishing the religion of Tammuz.
in retrospect, i probably should have clarified my statement that the religion of Tammuz was the first documented religion. but first, are we to assume from your caveman reference that you espouse the progressive evolutionary creation theory? this is not a slap, just wanting to understand your thought process. i am fully aware of the fact that the Sumerians practiced religion. what i should have said is that there exists far more documentation of the edicts, ceremonies, traditions, ect. of the religion of Tammuz than that of any other early religious system. in fact, the religion of Tammuz clearly one of the oldest religions, as it pre-dates Judaism, and is still very prevalent in our time; although it has morphed into several variations, the most predominate mutations are Tritheism and Catholicism.
i have never negated the importance of corporate participation or community. in fact, if you've read any of my other blogposts, you'll see that community is of my passions. this being said, before there was a community, there was an individual. GOD still desires to relate with humanity individually as well as corporately. to borrow an example from Paul, our relationship with GOD is compared to that of a married couple. while no one can deny the fact that there are times to interact with others, you'd have to agree that true intimacy is best kept in private.
(continued…)
(continued…)
ReplyDeletethe reason that i say that GOD hates religion and that religion separates man from GOD is pretty simple, it's the truth. GOD hates anything that comes between Him and humanity and perverts Him in their eyes (source: the Text). because religion was established by man, it digresses. i'll give you some example.
GOD gave the Torah to establish morality and to keep His people until the advent of Messiah (via Paul, Galatians 3). Torah was extensive and detailed. now move ahead to the 400 years of GOD's silence. have you done much study of this period? if not, you should. it's a fascinating journey. one of the primary things you'll discover is the fact that during this time, even though GOD wasn't speaking, the Jews continued with their religious rituals. the point that i want to bring to light is the fact that during this time they began to expand GOD's Law through addendum and addition. it's very important to understand that these addendum and additions were also considered by the Jews to be Torah. some scholars contend that more than 2,500 additions were made to the Torah during this time. other scholars say less, but the exact number of additions isn't cogent to our conversation, merely the fact that there was expansion.
this is the time in which GOD had determined He would manifest Himself in flesh. Jesus openly defied the religion of the Jews in almost ever aspect of His life and ministry, whether it was by healing a man on the Sabbath, eating with publicans and whores, touching lepers, spending time in the Decapolis, or by enjoying community with Hellenized Jews. His defiance of their religion precipitated the religious hierarchy's hatred of Him.
now, fast-forward a few decades to Paul's addressing this same religion. Paul had to deal with the Judaizers, who—while they believed in the death, burial and resurection—also believed that a integral step in the Salvation process was becoming spiritual Jews. this is the mess with which they were saddling the Gentile believers. they also believed that once Spirit-baptized that believers should engage in Temple sacrifice, ceremonies, rituals, etc. of the Jewish religion. Paul openly attacks this bile in many of his letters, but primarily in his letters to the Community in Rome and Galatia. the Judaizers wanted to return to the Law, Paul warned against returning to the Law, as then we would be subject to all aspects of the Law.
while there may have been good motives in the establishment of religion, the end does in no way justify the method. religion places GOD into a box and says, if you want to relate to GOD you have to do this, don't do this, be this way, follow our instruction and you'll find GOD. this is frankly not true. GOD has already provided the Way to Him, Jesus. no amount of ceremony, ritual or otherwise can improve on this.
(continued…)
(continued...)
ReplyDeletein our day, there are many standards and/or traditions that are taught, preached and otherwise that have come to define Pentecostalism, despite the fact that in some cases these standards and/or traditions aren't Textually based, but rather from the minds of men on conference floors. this being said, any variance from these edicts of Pentecostalism is viewed as a reduction in spirituality. this is because, to many, these edicts have become more important than GOD Himself. this is a result of religion doing what religion does best, getting between GOD and humanity. far too many individuals believe and live as though all that is required is adherence to these standards and/or traditions, but this belief and subsequent practice denies the fact that GOD requires each of us to relate with Him personally. this is not to say that any or all of these standards and/or traditions are wrong, only that adhering to these does not constitute spirituality or relationship with GOD.
to provide further example, you and i would both agree that daily Bible reading is a good practice, although there is no commandment for this in the Text. when true study and understanding of GOD's expressed Character is reduced down to a mere daily ritual, then it ceases to have an impact; the Bible becomes just another book. read the Bible cover to cover, ever three months, but if GOD's Character isn't permeating your soul you're just going through the motions.
there are many other examples of this expansion, but the point is, doing good things out of ritual and rote is not what GOD desires. religion is ritual, ceremony, tradition, etc. so much so, that after a while, GOD doesn't even have to be present. any religion that can exist for 400 years without any interaction with GOD isn't something after which to pattern our lives. Grace provides individual and personal interaction with GOD. this—by the way—has been GOD's Mission from the Beginning.
while i wholeheartedly embrace the present and the future that GOD has prepared for me and the community in which i serve, i am not ignorant to the fact that ignoring the past destines me to repetition.
GOD hates anything that perverts His intention for His Community (source: the Text). religion convinces individuals—and entire societies—that GOD is in a box that can be grasped and comprehended, thus halting them from moving deeper into Him. if you choose to attempt to relate to GOD via religion, feel free; i—on the other hand—have had my fill of humanic perversions of GOD, and am desiring to relate to and with Him on His terms, not via the box of religion.
i would like to add that i didn't launch this clash of swords over religion, you did. i have absolutely nothing to prove with my belief concerning fallacy and danger of religion. i'm not asking anyone to agree, or even care for that matter. i'm only doing what i wholeheartedly believe GOD has Called me to do: tear down the facade that we've built around GOD and let the lost and dying world see Him in all of His glory. i know that this flies in the face of tradition, but i'm ok with that… my Savior did a good job of this Himself.
thanks again for being willing to engage. what you and i are doing is a lost art within the Community. more of us would learn more about our GOD and ourselves if we were willing to converse.
sorry for the multiple comments, but i tried three times to respond in only one comment and my response disappeared into the ether all three times.
ReplyDeletea book that i think you'd enjoy reading is Israel, A Light to the Nation. it deals with the Missio Dei. it also sheds light on a lot of the fallacy that grew within Judaism over the centuries.
Too much to respond to, so I'll just choose a few things, and you'll have to pardon my lack of response on the rest:
ReplyDelete"GOD hates anything that comes between Him and humanity and perverts Him in their eyes (source: the Text)" Again we are using an undefined matrix to view the word "religion." Most people would assume looking at "religion" as a stumbling block to God to be quite ironic. Religion (def. "conduct indicating belief in a higher power") is neither a paraclete nor a stumbling block in and of itself. Your example of the Torah is a great one. You don't seem to call it religion until the intertestamental period (where you say God was "silent" -- surprisingly, He was anything but silent). You equate religion with the eventual evolving of who the Pharisees/Saducees became. The extra laws, forgetting the spirit of the matter, the whole point of the matter. Paul spoke to this, as did Jesus. But this wasn't an "anti-religion" tirade, it was an anti-Christ tirade. An anti-God tirade. Jesus didn't "defy the religion of the Jews." Are you serious? He didn't come to "form a new religion" or "faith movement" or whatever term suits your fancy. He needed to get their eyes on things above, instead of their faithless meddling on things below. His healing on the Sabbath was not because he didn't believe in observing the Sabbath (Heck, he gave the Law!). He was exploding into their little world about how they made a good thing an ultimate thing, and thus an idol. They turned the Law, which was a means, into an end.
I suppose mine (and others) definition of religion is not about "placing God in a box" -- though some systems surely do. I mean, witches and new age spiritists surely don't have such a box, but are quite religious, and members of a religion.
"GOD hates anything that perverts His intention for His Community" AGREE! :)
Again, what matrix and what definition are you using for the word "religion?" Religion doesn't "do" things to people.
Your Wikipedia criticism. I responded to that already. And using narrative from Genesis as a proof-text for the historical beginnings of the word "religion" or "religion" itself, is less studious than citing Wikipedia for sure.
Your view of the evil of man is confounding. Albeit not alone. That we are flawed is true. That we have the tendency to screw things up royally is true. But you seem to ignore the enormous capability of man as well-- that is men submitted to Jesus as LORD. Those men "turned their world upside down." Not the negative picture. We are priests and kings. Our participation in God's Story is not dark and grim. We are "active" participants as well. That means, though we will inevitably screw up, the Gospel is in our hearts to keep us on track.
The early Christian community was an organic, infant-stage explosion. Within the first 100 years, huge steps in maturation had come. Dealing and struggling through issues. Debates over Law, Grace. An informal canonizing of regular reading. This evolved, and was a good thing not a bad thing (although bad things happened the closer we got to the 4th Century).
Most other things you've said I absolutely agree with. In fact, the entire premise of your post I mostly agree with. I indeed "clashed" over terms. I'm not wagering a blame game on that. Religion is a descriptive word. It's not a living being. It has mmany forms. I believe you use the word "religion" as a euphemism in the context of how you see the word (through your own church history, through the Pharisees/Saducees, etc).
ReplyDeleteJust to poke a little. Ceremony may not "improve" on Jesus, but it certainly helps improve our Jesus experience. The Lord's Supper, Believer's Baptism, corporate and private prayer -- these all are not in competition with Jesus. They are his instruction, design and plan.
I must retire as we've fully spoken in circles. It was fun. In the end, this is a great interpersonal communications model and example for two people speaking different messages at each other, and never identifying each other's speaking perspective (by the way, do you perceive me as a defender of "Religion" or one making a point about word usage?) Thank you for the book suggestion.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI am not using an undefined matrix for definition of the word "religion". my point all along is not necessarily with any definition of the word, only that GOD never required humanity to relate or interact with Him through a system. this should demonstrate to you that i am referring to religion as a system, and not simply a definition of action; a system that, regardless of original intentions or practices, over time will digress into mere ritualism, thus my call to avoid the practice all together. i am not ignorant enough to believe that by the pure, modern definition of the word any and all interaction with GOD or faith-belief of any kind is deemed religion. this—however—is not the religion to which i have referred numerous times throughout multiple blog posting. i, again, refer to the system of beliefs that reduce our relationship with GOD—and GOD Himself—to a list of rituals and traditions, all of which digress and separate humanity from GOD.
religion, by modern definition, is not a stumbling block, but the attempt to relate to GOD through a religious system is. i am using the term "religion" to indicate the system of belief.
Torah was not religion, it was GOD's Law. the following of the Torah was not religion, it was interaction with GOD. it didn't become religion until the following of the Torah was considered more important than the GOD of the Torah.
i have a question for you: how is Jesus' pointing out the fallacy of the various religious sects an anti-Christ or anti-GOD tirade? to again bring to bear my actual contention, Jesus never attacked true worship or belief in GOD, He attacked what they had allowed their worship and belief to become; a system that had little or nothing to do with GOD Himself. the system of belief had replaced the essence of the belief itself.
to quote you: "He didn't come to "form a new religion" or "faith movement" or whatever term suits your fancy. He needed to get their eyes on things above, instead of their faithless meddling on things below. His healing on the Sabbath was not because he didn't believe in observing the Sabbath (Heck, he gave the Law!). He was exploding into their little world about how they made a good thing an ultimate thing, and thus an idol. They turned the Law, which was a means, into an end."
isn't this what i've said all along?
what narrative from Genesis have i used? i don't believe i have given any Scriptural reference from Genesis throughout this discussion. if memory serves correct, the reference i gave was from Ezekiel 8. i also didn't criticize Wikipedia, only pointed out that it is not considered to be the most credible source of information on any given source. this is due to the fact that their criteria for submission is fairly lax.
i'm confused at the connection of this paragraph with our discussion:
"Your view of the evil of man is confounding. Albeit not alone. That we are flawed is true. That we have the tendency to screw things up royally is true. But you seem to ignore the enormous capability of man as well-- that is men submitted to Jesus as LORD. Those men 'turned their world upside down.' Not the negative picture. We are priests and kings. Our participation in God's Story is not dark and grim. We are 'active' participants as well. That means, though we will inevitably screw up, the Gospel is in our hearts to keep us on track."
my references to the Judaizers, and the fact that Paul had to deal with their perverting of the Gospel is not an attack on humanity, simply the stating of an historical and biblical fact. what was your point in this paragraph?
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteceremony in and of itself is not wrong, nor have i ever stated that it was; however, ceremony does become wrong when it replaces or becomes more important than the GOD of the ceremony, or if the ceremony becomes mere ritual and habit, thus having very little connection with GOD. again, this has been my point all along, and this is why i have taken the stance against religion that i have. because it is not a GOD-breathed system, it will digress.
i don't view you as defender of religion, rather as an individual who has a point to make and is willing to make the point. i do, however, find it amusing that you and i have been discussing only one paragraph from my original blogpost.
i always enjoy the discourse. please keep reading and commenting.
"GOD never required humanity to relate or interact with Him through a system."
ReplyDeleteMonte, I get the spirit of what you're saying here. However, I think there is definitely a "system" at work here. Whether you call it community, sacraments, worship, prayer, loving and blessing others, repentance, baptism, on and on -- these are things which make up a "system." Where you are spot on, is that though we meet God (and definitely relate/interact as well)in some of these actions referenced previously, those aren't the exclusive grid to have relationship with Jesus. I think you and I agree on that.
"i have a question for you: how is Jesus' pointing out the fallacy of the various religious sects an anti-Christ or anti-GOD tirade?"
Perhaps I worded it wrong so that it was misunderstood. The actions of the Pharisees and similar post-Christ groups demonstrated behavior that was contrary to God, and surely "anti-Christ," meaning they contradicted the purpose of Christ's redemption.
Genesis.. Nimrod, the mighty hunter.
"ceremony does become wrong when it replaces or becomes more important than the GOD of the ceremony, or if the ceremony becomes mere ritual and habit, thus having very little connection with GOD."
Amen.
Sarah,
ReplyDeletei'm not sure if you're married or not, but either way i believe you can answer this question. is the relationship between a husband and wife a system?
i don't disagree with you in your assessment of the actions of the Pharisees as being contrary to GOD. i would also add that their position of being contrary to GOD was birthed in their religiosity. they were sold out to their beliefs and incorrectly assumed that they understood YHWH and His purpose.
my only reference to Nimrod was to assist in identifying his mother, Semiramis, who was the mother of Tammuz, which i directly referenced from Ezekiel. it was you assumption that i continually referenced Babel.
again, always fun. we'll rip apart a paragraph or two of my next posting over the next few week.
be well.
The relationship is not a system. The relationship is the relationship. The traditions, covenant and expectations that come with marriage is surely a "system." However, I have no interest in defining "system." But if we are:
ReplyDelete"An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles."
Sorry, I didn't think I was tearing apart a few paragraphs. It was sort of your thesis. And I agreed with the idea behind the thesis, but just wanted to interact on the word use. I hear it thrown around so much the last several years.
the relationship between husband and wife cannot be a system. if i systematically attempt to relate with my spouse then our relationship becomes cold and stagnate. the relationship must be organic, vibrant, spontaneous, avoiding passionless repetition, etc.
ReplyDeletethroughout the Text our relationship with GOD is compared to that of a marital relationship. if this comparison is true, then by example we cannot attempt to relate to GOD via stale, stagnate, passionless repetition of ritual and rote. our relationship with Jesus must be alive, organic and daily exploring new areas of intimacy. anything else is humanic and devoid of GOD's Spirit.