Jesus AND Religion

I was intending to post on the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and I will. But I felt compelled to reflect publicly on the viral video of Jefferson Bethke.  I won't bother posting it.  If you have Facebook you have seen it - or you can easily.  There have been quite a few responses posted already, but I have been in on enough discussions that I wanted to say something.
On my Facebook profile I posted one of the responses, namely that of Rev. Fisk, a young lutheran pastor and host of Worldview Everlasting.

My main observation about the attention Bethke's video is getting and the very positive and very negative responses, is that it frustrates me when people talk past each other because no real communication is going on.  The controversy, such as it is, has mostly to do with the definition of religion.  Bethke is equating religion with Pharisaical hypocricy masquerading as religion.  Fisk, on the other hand, uses the Webster's definition of "religion" to show that Christianity is a religion and attacking religion is not only attacking Christianity but attacking Jesus.  And so it goes.

C. S. Lewis taught that Christianity is more a relationship than it is a religion.  But he also referred to it as relgion, and it is certainly generally considered a world-monotheistic (unless maybe you ask a Muslim) religion.  So there is a tension inherent in our definitions that has been magnified by all the crossfire.

My first reaction to Bethke's video was concern, not because of what I understood it to say, so much as what it could be misunderstood to say.  I think that perhaps some over-reaction on the part of professional ministers of Word and Sacrament (pastors) might be attributed to the fact that we have heard one too many times (or maybe 20 too many times) "I am spiritual, not religious."  One of the impacts of postmodernism has been a distrust and even rejection not just of sources of authority, but the concept of authority itself, including the institution of The Church (big T, big C).  That is why in my first Facebook post in response to Bethke's video I wanted to highlight the positive and point out to anyone listening that he does say, "I love the Church."  This is crucial to anyone paying attention because if he means it, then he is NOT attacking the institution of the Church.

"Upon this rock (this confession of faith) I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of Hades will not prevail against IT."  (Not me and Jesus - IT.)  Matthew 16: 18  (additions)

Fisk interprets Bethke's work as an attack against the Church, and reacts in defense.  Fisk makes some really important points.  Jesus instituted Christian baptism.  (Yes, I know there was baptism before Matthew 28.)  Jesus instituted The Lord's Supper.  Jesus established The Church.  And it's tough to argue that the Church of Jesus Christ (not Later Day Saints) is not a religion.  Yes, it is a relationship with God through Christ, but Fisk is correct that "going it alone" is spiritually dangerous and generally spiritually impotent.  We need to be together, and God is worthy of our corporate worship.

So I am prepared to take Bethke at his word, that he does not mean the institutional Church.  I am willing to let it pass that he has over-reached a bit by not limiting his assault to Pharisaical Legalism and hypocrisy - as his Lord did.

I am reminded that it is much easier to criticize how someone else is doing something rather than do it yourself.  (Theodore Roosevelt has a very powerful quote about this. If you're interested, let me know and I will pass it along.)  Bethke is sharing the Gospel in a way that is meaningful to him and obviously quite a few million other believers.  If we stay calm and keep lines of communication open, realizing that the issues can be a bit more complicated than a 4 minute clip, we can stay the body of Christ together and move forward together.  I think that's a big part of the big plan.

Thanks for "listening."  Let's keep communicating.