Without realizing it, we read dialogue in the Bible with an imagined tone of voice. Here are three things Jesus said where the meaning changes depending on how I hear him saying it.
1. “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye.” (Luke 6:41-42)
I always thought of Jesus saying this in a stern, almost reprimanding way. But doesn’t this fit the words better? Given his reputation as a winebibber (Luke 7:34, NKJV), he had to have at least known how to entertain a crowd.
2. “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:3)
This is the source of the turn or burn attitude that many have adopted toward unbelievers, especially in the last 50 years. But I don’t think Jesus was ominously threatening hell on those who didn’t accept him. He was telling them the truth, but with love and genuine concern.
3. “God, I thank you that I am not like other men.” (Luke 18:11-12)
This is the opposite of #1: in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, I tend to imagine a caricature of the Pharisee, speaking in a fake British accent with exaggerated hand gestures. Because of this, I immediately identify myself with the tax collector—a grateful sinner saved by grace—and the purpose of the parable is lost on me. But when I imagine the Pharisee praying sincerely to God in plain speech, it hits much closer to home. Jesus didn’t criticize him for the way he prayed, but for the content of his prayer.
Perhaps I am reading as witness the beginning of disillusionment with which I am familiar.
The way I was raised, I “knew” the Bible. Yet, when I read a bit more deeply, I heard more of the irony, and as you state, the tone. I have had these thoughts siince: Knowing the Bible is possibly unrelated to knowing God. The Bible describes God but knowing its content does not equal knowing its creator. We could go so far as to say this: one’s pride in scriptural expertise is inversely related to one’s acceptability by God.
@ Brook
“Knowing the Bible is possibly unrelated to knowing God. The Bible describes God but knowing its content does not equal knowing its creator.” What! It is true I can know the Bible and not know God and there is a sense that I can know something about God without knowing the Bible, through creation and conscience. However, God gave us the Bible for a reason, it is divinely inspired you know. The easiest way for a person to really know God is to know the Bible. I don’t think you are being balanced here Brooks. I get the impression that as you have grown up, you have found out who God is and the rest of us who read and study and try to obey the Bible, why we just don’t know where it is at! You seem to look down on all of us who just haven’t quite reached your level of spirituality. And if your spirituality is based on anything other than the Bible, that would seem a little ‘new ageish” to me. I agree that punctuation and tone do make a big difference in interpretation, but somehow that doesn’t equate to “knowing the Bible is possibly unrelated to knowing God.” We can mislead using the Bible (and I suspect even you may have done that at times) but the Bible will never mislead the honest, saved, spirit led student. It won’t mislead the simple student and it won’t mislead the more intense dedicated student.
The Bible is not Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the message. Jesus is not the words.
I don’t look down on you at all, however. But as pastors we are responsible for the children we teach, and if I was raised a certain way it is not in spite of my teachers but because of them. That is the burden we as pastors have.
My spirituality is based on – and existing solely because of – Jesus Christ’s atonement for our sins, full propitiation, and his exemplary holy life. The Spirit was given to us to help us work together in His Body and train those under our training.
And yes I have misled using the Bible and I have also murdered Jesus and used him to get my own glory. But that proves my need for Him not the opposite.
And Nazareth was very Eastern and at the time they thought him quite mystical.
BTW I am a product of the Plymouth Brethren and specifically Bethany Bible Chapel. I am what I am not because of you but the grace of God through Christ which is afforded to me through his love, which is proven by his forbearance of all sins past and present and future and laid on Jesus’ back. If I tell you I was very legalistic and moralistic and using the Bible to guard the gate of heaven instead of leading people there… then that should be a warning about the teaching I received; and not an offense or attack on you.
Let’s do coffee soon Bruce.
@ brooks
I would love to do coffee sometime. I would like to know how the people who taught you the Gospel that brought you to a saving knowledge of Him could have been guarding the door to heaven rather than leading people to it as you seem to imply. Interesting. I am sorry about my ‘tone” in the first post. But tone was what the post was about right? Even though I get frustrated with people who do not want to be moralistic and legalistic being highly judgmental, my tone of voice was not proper. I’m sorry!
Perhaps Bethany was previously as Brooks described, and has since changed. My experience with the Bethany of today is not one of a church that is trying to keep people out of Heaven.
I daresay there are a lot of young evangelicals (and some older ones) who would call the apostle Paul a legalist if he walked among us today. Maybe Jesus too.
And…I don’t drink coffee. But may I suggest a name for your meeting? How about: “Grab a Joe and Have a Go?”. ;-)
Religious people do not intentionally try to keep people out of heaven. In fact it is unconscious, until some crazy guys point it out. We need to heed The Prophet and his prophetically gifted ones. He was rude and some really good church people people killed him.
First of all, according to what is revealed to us in Scripture, the people to whom you refer weren’t good. In fact, Jesus tells us that no one is good except the Father in Heaven. I get your point, but are you saying that the leadership of Bethany is on the same order as those religious leaders to whom you refer?
Second, there is nothing in the Bible that says religion is bad or that religious people are bad. It is how they practice their religion that determines whether or not they are wrong.
I think it is up to Bethany’s leaders – like Kaio’s leaders – like PLC’s leaders – like Orchard’s leaders – like Trinity’s leaders – like Cedar Heights’ leaders – to continuously assume that pride is a precipitous parasite in all of us. People in every church are in various levels of sanctification and many levels of idolatry.
What do proud people do that is so foul to God? We tell others that we are not very foul to God. When that happens, Jesus becomes a ticket we accept in order to receive better things (better family, better jobs, better finances).
But Jesus himself is the better thing, and most often everything else becomes perceivably worse. It’s not so much that you give them up for Jesus, but more like they get squeezed out to other people when Jesus bear-hugs you so tightly.
We can try to give up things for Jesus but after a few times of doing it, it becomes difficult to find encouragement. So we go to church to find others doing the same thing. And we keep pushing on, while the cross becomes smaller in our eyes and our own striving to be Christ-like becomes our idol of choice.
Church leaders – elders and pastors and deacons – should train their people constantly on how we can be deceived as good people, with steady hands and calm hearts, thinking we are doing good in giving up earthly treasures while in return God gives us judgment.
We can’t do it! So, it’s a good thing Jesus did; and that is the attitude we must propagate to His sheep.
We should own up to our sin and continuously thank God that Jesus paid for it all.
List: Pride’s actions (an evocation of the parent “List”)
1. Avoiding rebuke for the sake of peace. Rather, rebuke is a part of discipline given by shepherding leaders. Those who attend a church are there to judge its members.
2. Showing and preaching good behavior (”Come on, do the right thing!”) without showing Christ Jesus as the energy for that behavior (discussing depravity without applying God’s mercy in Christ, Romans 3:24-26)
3. Assuming and Teaching the Old Testament as moralistic examples to us. Rather, show the OT stories as an historic reminder of how mankind cannot atone for its sin. The thrower with a broken arm is less likely to be tempted to get in the way of the MVP quarterback.
4. Valuing family unity over truth and grace. This leads to an exclusive club feeling and eventually racism.
5. Defending self, lifestyles, friends, and churches, instead of proclaiming the salvation for all available in Christ. It’s one or the other.
The idolatry which most offends God is pride. Religious people are targets for prophets historically because they alone are most proud of their achievements and status. It is a stench to God.
//…when I imagine the Pharisee praying[, "God, I thank you that I am not like other men,"] sincerely… in plain speech, it hits much closer to home.//
You keep using the term “religious people” as if it carries a negative connotation. It does not; at least not in Scripture. Perhaps you have a definition that varies from Scripture?
The word religion is not in scripture.
Al here is a link to some study helps.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Religion&DictList=9
The word religion is used in the Bible five times, all in the New Testament. (NIV and NKJV used it in the same five places, so I’m assuming it’s the same Greek word without doing any further research.) Twice it’s used to refer to Judaism (Acts 25:19 and 26:5), twice it’s given a negative connotation in the way Brooks mentioned (Col. 2:23 and James 1:26), and once it’s used in a positive way (James 1:27).
For the two references to Judaism: The word “religion” is not used specifically in the Old Testament at all, but the whole of the Old Testament is a story about how religion didn’t work for Israel—they didn’t understand that God was looking for more than just following rules. Isaiah 1:13-17:
The one positive reference to religion is placed immediately after a negative reference: showing how it can be pure, if it leads you to care for people and love them (very similarly to the last verse of the Isaiah passage). This is also the point of the entire Law and the Prophets: love God, love people.
Religion is not necessarily a bad thing—everything God rebuked Israel for in the verses above, he had originally commanded them to do. But he hated what they did because they were empty on the inside. The outward display of worship was normally pleasing to God, but when it became the end itself instead of a means to an end, it became repulsive.
I think it’s clear, both from the main theme in the narrative of the Old Testament and from the usage of the word in the New Testament, that the Bible at the very least casts a suspicious eye toward religion. The Bible does not categorically condemn all who are religious, but it delivers a pretty clear warning that we should always be in a state of self-examination so that we don’t fall into the type of religion that God hates (which is the default mode for humanity: trying to earn our own salvation on some level).
Note: A search for the word religious brings up six references: two in Amos (5:21 and 8:10) referring to things God hates; three in the New Testament referring to pagan religion (Acts 17:22) or Judaism (Col. 2:16, Heb. 10:11); and one overlapping a verse above, referring to it negatively (James 1:26). (This doesn’t add any new usages but I include this in order to be thorough.)
Good stuff!
Kevin, I think that post on religion is well done. Maybe you should use it as your Thursday post that is as of now marked Later,
I think maybe we are saying the same thing, just a different way. What I am saying is that religion, per se, is not condemned in the Bible–just bad religion. Like many things, religion can be good or bad. The fact that many in the modern Church have chosen to give it a bad connotation does not mean that Scripture has changed.
Kevin, I might disagree a bit on your analysis of some of the uses of “religion” and “religious”. I haven’t done as careful of a study as you and Brooks have; I mainly just tried to read and understand the plain meaning of the text. I had written most of the below on an earlier occasion (it will look familiar to Bruce, and perhaps Brooks, too). Let me know what you think.
My point is that “religion” in and of itself is not condemned in the Bible, only how it is practiced.
Let’s start with the KJV
:
Acts 13:43 says, “Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.”
The word “religious” seems to have a positive meaning in that verse.
James 1:26-27 says, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
To me, these verses indicate that religion is a good thing, but that you are deceiving yourself by thinking you are religious if you don’t do the things listed here. Do you read it differently?
Colossians 2:23 (ESV) says, “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
While it seems negative in regard to “religion”, it is really only critical of “self-made” religion.
1 Timothy 5:4 (Holman) says, “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, they should learn to practice their religion toward their own family first and to repay their parents, for this pleases God.”
This verse actually says religion *should* be practiced.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 (Holman) says, “1 But know this: difficult times will come in the last days. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, 4 traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to the form of religion but denying its power. Avoid these people!”
Having religion wasn’t the sin; denying its power was.
Also, when Paul told the men of Athens he could see that they were very religious, was he insulting them?
It seems that where “religion” or “religious” is mentioned in the Bible, it is either positive or neutral. The only time it has a negative connotation is in reference to “bad” religion. I haven’t seen any place where religion itself is condemned.
Whether or not some people want to admit it, Christianity IS a religion, but it is a religion based on a relationship–a relationship with Jesus Christ–rather than a religion based on keeping a bunch of rules.
I would consider Brooks to be a religious leader. Now, he may see that as a derogatory term, but I do not. Some people tend to lump all of the Jewish religious leaders from Jesus’ time together, but not all were bad, and not all rejected Jesus.
It all depends on whether you are going to define “religion” and “religious” as God seems to define it in Scripture–and as the Church did for centuries–or as some in the Church do today.
Like Job’s friends, I’ve been silently reading for a few days and it’s been an interesting discussion so far. Also, like Job’s friends, maybe I should keep quiet, but I just gotta add my two cents’ worth to a related topic!
There is a teaching that I see running through Christian circles today that greatly troubles me. It’s the one that says “Let’s blame Christians for everything.” If unbelievers don’t want to believe and be accountable to a God who requires holiness in their lives, then let them blame the Christians for it. They’d become a Christian, you know, except that Christians are a bunch of narrow-minded hypocrites, etc, etc. And while we’re at it, let’s have the Christians blame Christians, too!
I agree that there are some Christians who hinder the unsaved from coming to Christ as a result of their ungodly behavior, but mostly I think that both unsaved and saved are buying into Satan’s deception when they think that way. The unsaved are looking for an excuse not to believe, and if they look at redeemed-but-imperfect people very closely, they are going to find areas of sin in their life to be critical of. Saying, “I would have believed in You, God, but these Christians royally messed me up!” is not an excuse that will hold up when they stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. We often try to deflect our own guilt by pointing the finger at others, but in That Day of Judgment, there will be no one to point to but self.
The Evil One is a master of deception. And if he can get even Christians on his bandwagon by having them spread the word that Christians are responsible for unbelievers being unbelievers, then he has won. I think we need to be very careful about saying that, lest we as Christians breed as much intolerance of other Christians as non-believers do.
I also think we need to be careful when we look at the Pharisees and other religious leaders in biblical times and compare them to Christians today. We seem to think that those religious leaders were believers in Jesus, and they were not. The crucifixion and the resurrection converted some, but that was not till later. I don’t see that we are comparing apples with apples. Jesus was critical of those who professed to be believers in God, but who did not live the life. I think He called them whitewashed graves. They looked all clean and good on the outside, but their insides were full of death. This disparity between what we say and how we live has been a problem throughout the ages.
In some of the comments I have read, I think I see the very thing that we are decrying when we tear down our “religious roots” and point an accusing finger at those who are not as “enlightened” as we now are, or who are not as “spiritually mature” as we are. It is a most deceptive form of pride, no matter who is doing it. Rather than pointing out the weakness of the other brother, or blaming others for how I am, I need to be looking within my own heart, acknowledging my own weakness, and asking God to show me the areas where I need to change.
Holman? Don’t forget The Message while we’re discussing exposition. :(
Al, of course only “bad” religion is bad. Only “bad” milk is bad. You are forgetting that Jews were religious people, which is “bad” religion, just like it is today, when they deny Jesus’ divinity. Jesus was not killed by non-religious but by religious people. So it is a warning to all of us who are religious, that’s all. Our Savior was killed by people who bowed to their religion instead of Him. Religion is a well-groomed type of idolatry, simply put.
I think K-Van nailed it with the original post (ironically was the reason I replied to it, and which furthered the irony when people just replied to me instead of to K). He is saying that when you stop and think about the context and think that a passage might actually be aimed at “me,” a new tone is expressed when His Spirit changes our spirit.
The more God aims his arrows at us, the more Christ’s cross is magnified to us. As a religious, proud fool, I glory in the cross.
Sorry, I had a “duh me” moment… Unbelievers stand before the Great White Throne of Judgment, not the Judgment Seat of Christ
Brooks:
“which furthered the irony when people just replied to me instead of to K”
If you look back at my last post, you will see it is directed at Kevin, not you. I did mention you a couple of times in the text, but the post was intended for Kevin.
If you are bothered by the Holman translation, feel free to disregard those passages. I think the remaining passages are sufficient to make my case. But I think comparing the HCSB to The Message is way off base.
I’m a bit confused. First you said, “only ‘bad’ religion is bad”, but then you said, “Religion is a well-groomed type of idolatry, simply put”, which sounds like you are referring to all religion.
“You are forgetting that Jews were religious people, which is “bad” religion, just like it is today, when they deny Jesus’ divinity.”
I’m not forgetting that. I believe the passages I quoted referred to followers of Christ, not the Jewish leaders or Jewish religion. And, again, I am not denying that bad religion exists; I’m only saying that not all religion is bad, which seems to be your assertion.
“He was rude and some really good church people people killed him.”
Don’t you mean “really good synagogue people”?
“Jesus was not killed by non-religious but by religious people…Our Savior was killed by people who bowed to their religion instead of Him.”
Didn’t Jesus die for the sins of the world? So didn’t we all have our part in nailing Him to the cross? And weren’t the Jewish leaders just instruments in God’s hand to accomplish His plan? Yes, “religious” people had their part in putting Christ on the cross, but they were practicing “bad” religion (as you pointed out), not the true religion of Christianity. Many people had a part in Christ’s death, and not all of them were “religious” (e.g., Pilate, Roman soldiers).
“I believe in Christianity; that it is the religion taught to men by God Himself in Person on earth. I also believe the Bible to be a Divine revelation. Christianity is not comparable with any other religion. It is the religion which came from God’s own lips, and therefore the only true religion. The incarnation is a fact, and Christianity is based on revealed truth.”
-Charles Dana
Federer, W. J. (2001). Great Quotations : A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations Influencing Early and Modern World History Referenced according to their Sources in Literature, Memoirs, Letters, Governmental Documents, Speeches, Charters, Court Decisions and Constitutions. St. Louis, MO: AmeriSearch.
As Al said earlier, I believe all of us are in agreement in terms of the idea being expressed… The only point of contention is the terms used to express it.
I have to ask everyone who’s posted on the subject so far, to ensure that we use our time profitably: Whether you’re for or against the use of the word “religion” as a negative term, is your position worth defending against the other? (This is not rhetorical. If there is value to the discussion then let’s find it.)
Kevin, I agree with you about being careful in using our time profitably. Whenever I enter into a discussion of this type, it sends me back to further study Scripture, which is always profitable. :-)
There is a reason I take such umbrage at the casting of “religion” and “religious” as negative terms. Words have meaning, and when we redefine the meaning of words–especially if we define them differently than Scripture–it causes consequences.
I don’t want to do a lengthy posting of the consequences right now, but one is, obviously, that it causes Christians to argue, because some of us still consider being “religious” to mean what it has meant from the 1st Century until just recently–being devout, faithful, obedient, etc., while others define it to mean following a set of man-made rules in a futile attempt to win God’s favor. Big difference!
It is also confusing to non-Christians, most of whom probably define “religious” in the traditional sense, and may not understand when someone claims to be a committed follower of Christ, but says they are not “religious”.
Also, though less likely, it can cloud the debate about religious freedom. As more Christians distance themselves from any reference to, and identification with, “religion” and “religious”, it could open the door for us to lose more of our freedoms, as fewer people are willing to take a stance in defense of them–merely because they have an aversion to the use of those words in reference to their practice of their belief system.
As you have probably surmised, this is not the first time I have entered into a dialogue with others about the meaning of these words. ;-) A lot of people seem to base their disdain for “religion” on the actions of the “religious” leaders of Jesus’ time, but the fact that some religious leaders were/are bad doesn’t mean religion as a whole is bad, any more than bad elected officials mean that government as an institution is bad. I’m just saying that “religion” in and of itself is not condemned in the Bible, only how it is practiced. And I think that is an important distinction to make.
Brooks:
Sorry, I misread your last post. I thought you meant I responded to you instead of to Kevin’s response, but I see you meant instead of his original post. I apologize.
Kevin:
Eager for your next blog entry, to get us off to a new topic of discussion! But isn’t this so much better than posts with no comments? ;-)
And I really haven’t even addressed your original post yet, which, when I thought of that, is what caused me to reread Brooks post and realize that he was referring to your original post.
I’m signing off permanently from this blog, which is ironic because I agree entirely with the post and Kevin’s last comment.
I say I am done (and not just leave) because I want this place to be filled with joy and learning, not anger. For some reason my thoughts in this circle (and the atheist circle) – which are intended to stir up deep thought and heart exploration – have only stirred up trouble. That is not good.
Before I go, I will say that religion as used today by my neighbors and coworkers, is not the way the Bible uses it. My quick reaction to Al with “the word religion is not in the Bible” (I think that’s what I wrote) was used to cause him to think about the fact that we are living in 2010, not 110, and when we use words today in different countries alone (e.g., “fag,” in US vs. UK) we have confusion. Now, throw in the fact that we are dealing with a dead language and a dead culture, and we have on our hands a lot of work to do to make clear the gospel to our own culture.
I wish I had cleared the way for the gospel here, but it does seem once again that my name and thoughts of my name only cloud the path to Christ. Next time your friend says “religion” do not assume he means “grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone,” but instead, “doing all the right things to get God’s approval.” Assume he does not mean “caring for widows and orphans and knowing Christ died for me so I can serve them with complete freedom knowing I am accepted by God because of Christ.” When I read the gospel of John I see the reason (Karen this is for you) that he can say “I write these things so you will believe” in chapter 20, is to then see every Jew mentioned and ever scourging of Jesus mentioned not to show history per se but to show how history happened in the same way it happens today: both the well-intentioned and ill-willed will miss Christ and be in need of His glorious atonement for our sins on the cross.
Make the gospel clear, and do not create new laws for people who don’t even believe in Jesus. Jesus did the same thing and he asked us to love others the way He loved us – by speaking in a confined language very specific to his culture. He spoke so we could understand Him. Let’s speak so others can understand us when we speak of Him.
And let’s repent of being arguable over words. I think there’s a verse for that, too. ;)
Just for clarification, I’m not angry or upset. Also, I don’t believe anyone here has suggested creating new laws for people who don’t believe in Jesus. I’m trying to figure out what anyone said that would give you that impression.
Brooks, point taken on the changes in language. However, the modern translations we use still use the words “religion” and “religious”–and they are not used in a negative sense. If we are going to redefine those words, it will be in conflict with those modern day, English translations that we read and study today, and not just to “a dead language and a dead culture”. I think we need to interpret the words as intended, not as some define them today. Otherwise, we get into a lot of trouble, as people with liberal agendas on other issues then try to redefine Scripture to support their views. As with the U.S. Constitution, understanding original intent of Scripture is important. If a word or phrase used in the Constitution has a different meaning today than it did when the Constitution was written, we’d better figure out what the original meaning was, and not go with the current definition.
I’m not sure if your neighbors and coworkers are believers or unbelievers–or a combination–but without exception the unbelievers I know would use the word “religious” to mean devout in the faith. I think most of the redefinition was been started by the religious leaders of today (and recent years) from the pulpit and picked up by many of those sitting under their teaching in the pews. Now it is one of those cliches that people throw out without actually bothering to see what Scripture has to say. There always seems to be a need by some to distance themselves from the past. I think sometimes this can be healthy, but other times it is just change for the sake of change, which is often not advisable. This is similar to the shift in the Church to the approach of sharing only love, without truth. These are dangerous and unbiblical shifts, and must be resisted if we are to maintain the faith as outlined for us in Scripture.
I’m sorry to see you leave the discussion, because there has been much food for thought posted here. I think we are all closer in theology than what it would appear from this blog, but we just have different ways of expressing our beliefs.