YouTube videos go viral all the time, but sermons rarely do. Enter Jefferson Bethke, a young “spoken-word” poet who recently posted the video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” It has been viewed more than 10 million times in the past 10 days.
The video opens with an eerie soundtrack and the phrase “Jesus>Religion” in a stark, white typeface. His poem begins, “What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?”
In a polished, hip style, he continues with such controversial questions for four minutes: “If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?” Mr. Bethke describes religion as no more than “behavior modification” and “a long list of chores.” This leads him to conclude, “Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums.” And his grand finale: “So know I hate religion, in fact I literally resent it.”
I saw the video, and I would say that a simple definition is in order: as best as I can tell, Bethke is using the term “religion” to indicate any religious attempt to earn one’s salvation and pass judgment on other people, in much the same way as Mark Driscoll claims that two enemies of Jesus are sin and religion ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myk7hiEmHwQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myk7hiEmHwQ[/url]). The headline “Can You Come to Jesus Without Church” is misleading and goes far beyond the scope of Bethke’s poem.
Can one get baptized without the Church? Can one receive Communion without the Church?
The Church is Christ’s Body. So, no Church, no Jesus.
Oh, I should point out that the Body of Christ has lots of warts and scars (often self-inflicted).
#2 AP
“Can one get baptized without the Church?”
Yes – it is not ideal, but in extreme circumstances one can be baptised by anyone, including a non-Christian, provided that it is with water and the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Such an event might take place in extremis, or on the battlefield with a water bottle.
“Can one receive Communion without the Church?” Perhaps – again Christ’s words to His apostles are to do this in remembrance of Him as often as you eat it. A priest marooned on a desert island could certainly give himself communion, and so perhaps could a Christian or group of Christians. Now the later wouldn’t be a ‘church’ communion, but would it be as efficacious and would Christ be really there? There is nothing in the Scriptures to say it is not and He would not. Now of course, that is not the way Anglicans practice the faith as we have received it, but that is not to say that it is impossible.
#3 Ian+
“The Church is Christ’s Body. So, no Church, no Jesus.”
– well where two or three are gathered together, there He is in the centre! Depends whether you think the church is an institutional structure, or the body of believers. So yes, perhaps one can just be a Christian on one’s own, as Gordon was in Khartoum, reading his Bible, waiting for the end; or perhaps as John Sentamu was, alone in a Kampala prison cell, expecting perhaps to be killed on Idi Amin’s orders; or perhaps as individuals are today in countries where they have a Bible to read, but in a hostile environment without contact with any Christians – perhaps in North Korea, or a secret woman convert in a Muslim household in the Middle East with a Bible.
It is not ideal, but yes I would think that it is undeniable that in certain circumstances one can be a Christian on one’s own, without connection to a physical or institutional church, although one would still indeed be a member of the church militant, here on earth, in any event. However, for most of the rest of us, the companionship and structure of the institutional church, its fellowship and teaching, makes it easier to remain a Christian. I don’t hold much with the ‘I don’t need to go to church to believe in Christ or to be a Christian’ argument one hears so much – it seems to make life particularly hard for the claimed believer.
Re#5
PM
Those are positions that a very large number of Christians would not agree with, though I do concede that some might. In particular the idea that baptism is some sort of magic ritual… right form + right matter = sacrament is one that is not accepted by many.
#6 AO – You might like to check the position of the churches on baptism in extreme danger – I believe I am correct.
Re #7
PM
Some do. The Romans and those that adhere to their rather odd belief that anyone can perform sacraments including those outside the Church. Many others do not. The churches of the East do not accept that baptism or any other sacrament (including Holy Orders) is magic. Once outside the Church the grace needed for “valid” sacraments is gone. I also believe that some of the more conservative Lutheran sects take the same view.
#9 AO – I don’t know of any Christians who believe in ‘magic’ in relation to sacraments. Indeed in the Bible we are specifically prohibited from the practice of magic. That seems a bit of a red herring.
Now the Catholic and Anglican churches believe that ANYONE in emergency [and it has to be extreme and imminent] with the requisite intention [in the case of the RC church] can baptise. Should the person baptised recover or survive the danger then in some cases the baptism will be affirmed in a church service [but without water] – that is not because of ‘magic’ but because the baptism is by the action of the Holy Spirit. Now I understand some, perhaps all Orthodox say it can only be performed by a Christian, perhaps even a member of the particular sect of Orthodoxy, but that arises out of the belief that it is the individual passing on what they have in baptism, which seems rather an odd proposition that baptism should depend on the state of the baptiser, rather than the grace of God through His Holy Spirit.
Yes, Jesus did found a church so it’s clear that this was an important concept to Him but He didn’t found a many-layered bureaucracy, as much as Rome likes to believe that He did. It’s quite clear how He felt about pharisaical (sp.) bureaucracy masquerading as true religion and Christianity needs to remember that.
But I really think that we need to cut young people some slack when they seem to attempt, in this regard, to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I’m gratified that they’re interested in Jesus at all considering all of the scandal and turmoil in the churches that they’ve undoubtedly noticed. My generation (the X-ers) was probably the last that had a consistently close-knit, nurturing, and pretty much scandal-free church experience growing up. It’s gone to hell in a hand basket since then in many places.
Consider in the past 15-20 years, we’ve had all of the mega-churches popping up and then imploding as their pastors “fell from grace;” obviously, there’s been the RCC sex scandal that hit internationally; there have been countless schisms, break-away sects, and odd groups claiming to be churches (Westboro Baptist, FLDS, to name two); and then there are the sad church and school closings, parish consolidations, and urban flight. That affects people more deeply than church leaders care to admit. It’s hard to get a good church experience when the clergy and other people don’t even know your name because the priests are stretched thin and the churches are too big.
This is what our young people saw and this is probably why they’re disenchanted with organized religion/churches. I don’t blame them. And perhaps the future of Christianity is, indeed, going to look far different than it has in our recent past. It could very well gravitate back to the homes and neighborhoods rather than centering on a church. And the lines/duties between clergy and laity may become more fluid. Quality control will be a problem as people seem to be less catechized. We’ll just have to trust the Spirit we profess to believe in.
How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Romans 10.14
I was brought to Christ by my Christian parents, many saints in the Baptist churches of my childhood, and godly souls in many communities since, including the Episcopal and Catholic Churches (sorry, haven’t been around many Orthodox) . In any case, without the church, I would never have known of Jesus, much less known Him.
I thought it was here, but someone brighter than me made this point: anyone who has been around any church for any length of time has known lots of weak people (sinners) and a few really bad people. But they have also known many good, kind, giving souls. Why does this fellow only see the former?
Do read the whole WSJ article. It’s excellent.
Keven Deyoung had done a great job in analysis of the video at
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/
There is a followup post you realy need to read at
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/14/following-up-on-the-jesusreligion-video/
Jeff realize he could done a better job.
Re #10
PM
The tradition of the Western Church is traceable to the theology of Blessed Augustine of Hippo who had rather strange ideas on grace which lead him to posit a dual-nature for the Church. Prior to his time it was generally agreed in both the East and West that there were no Mysteries outside the Church. Indeed the Roman Church still in theory teaches this. In order for Augustine to get around this he held that the Church had two natures, one visible and the other invisible. In this manner he believed it was possible for schismatics and even heretics to still be connected to the Church and therefor their sacraments might retain grace.
Thus was Rome able to say it had not abandoned an important doctrine while in effect rendering it moot. Doctrinal development is a wondrous thing.
Needless to say this doctrinal novelty has never found favor in the Christian East, being rejected not only by the Orthodox but also the non-Chalcedonian churches as well. It is worth noting however that it became an important theological underpinning of the early Reformation, and many groups which claim “catholicity” to this day are relying on Augustine’s doctrine.
The Orthodox position is that all sacraments are done only with and through the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. The sacraments belong to the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. The idea that anyone can make God do something just by reciting the right words over the right matter is silly from an Orthodox perspective. One might argue that such is a good definition of “magic.” This is not to say that a non-Orthodox baptism is without benefit. The Church has never said what goes on outside of it, save to note that they are not the same thing as an Orthodox baptism. In some instances for converts the form and intent are close enough that such baptisms are accepted with the view that whatever they lacked can be made up in the sacrament of Chrismation. This is however always at the discretion of the local bishop or ruling synod since it is a matter of sacramental economia. But under no circumstances would a baptism by a non-Trinitarian be accepted. The idea that a non-Christian could intend to do what the Church does is illogical on its face.
Ooops My previous is actually in Re # 9 not 10.