"Why I Hate Religion, But I Love Jesus" video + Orthodox rebuttal

[3rdHeaven]

What if I told you you make no sense?

 

[Joshua G.]

Why I Love Religion, And Love Jesus || Spoken Word - YouTube

 

[Gnarwhal]

It looks as though everything he's saying is coming from a perspective that's only ever experienced evangelicalism/fundamentalism and nothing else. I say this because there are elements that I find myself relating with but I know it's not a generalized truth because
I've never experienced other traditions either. So it may have more truth to it if "religion" was swapped out for "evangelicalism" or "fundamentalism".

 

[Joshua G.]

From Jeff Bethke's Facebook page:

Thanks for that. It offered needed perspective.

 

[GTAsoldier]

It looks as though everything he's saying is coming from a perspective that's only ever experienced evangelicalism/fundamentalism and nothing else.

True. The same applies for those who became apostates and now bash Christianity and the entre notion of religion in itself like its a scapegoat.

 

[buzuxi02]

I still think he simply parrots what popular MTV culture wants to hear. His message against hippocrisy to me is simply a veiled look at inner city culture. Its common to justify the social problems plaguing his culture by putting blame on something else.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I still think he simply parrots what popular MTV culture wants to hear. His message against hippocrisy to me is simply a veiled look at inner city culture. Its common to justify the social problems plaguing his culture by putting blame on something else.

You may be right. I don't know who this guy is so I can't say what kind of person he is, plus I can't watch the video (posting from my phone with bad reception). However I do find myself with similar frustrations (with the Protestant churches in my town) that we almost completely neglect the poor because we're more concerned about our latest building project, or trying to do our part to remedy the atrocities in the world takes back seat to tertiary matters. But this isn't an issue I see with every church, not by a long shot. It's just most of the Protestant churches in my area.

 

[Joshua G.]

I still think he simply parrots what popular MTV culture wants to hear. His message against hippocrisy to me is simply a veiled look at inner city culture. Its common to justify the social problems plaguing his culture by putting blame on something else.

But I think he really believes it with a sincere heart toward God. To be sure, the content in his song is wrong on many accounts but I think God looks to the heart before he looks at our theology (in terms of the individual) so we should be happy for him. Rebuttals need to be made for good of others because of what you rightly point out regarding the danger of the modern way of thinking.

 

[buzuxi02]

I have no problem with a church concerned with its building project since i reject the 'social' gospel altogether. The community is the Church and must look after their own members. The social gospel only exists because people realize they can no longer attain personal holiness, so they must make themselves feel superior by being heros to the less fortunate. I dont see the amish needing a social gospel. Its one thing to give alms and another to exist to subsidize the poor to make yourself feel omnipotent.

The arrogance of the social gospel was best seen in Haiti after the earthquake. Haiti was the center of many charitable organizations, after the earthquake it became evident that many haitians became so reliant on the charities that they lost dignity as a people. The charities believing they were holier than thou viewed themselves as the haitian peoples gods and saviors, since then many charitable groups have been expelled.

The poet in my opinion is simply trying to justify the social ills which his culture has created.

 

[Joshua G.]

buzuxi: I'm not disagreeing with you. There are so many things wrong with the content. But I think the author, by his own vagueness and poor choice of words, has his heart in the right place. I don't think he embodies what you and I disagree with.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The whole problem with the video, though, is that it is an argument constructed from a GIANT fallacy of changing definitions. He starts by condemning "religion" (which is a word with a general meaning), by which he comes to mean THOSE FORMS OF RELIGION HE REJECTS. He NEVER defines the term religion, but tries to attach ALL negative connotations of organized religion to it while retaining the positive aspects of organized religion for himself.

Because he switches definitions throughout, first using religion in the broad sense (to bring in the listener rhetorically) but then really meaning very narrow things by the word (e.g. the negative connotations of religion) he commits the fallacy of changing definitions.

It would be more proper for him to say that he doesn't like empty ritualism. That doesn't have the rhetorical ZING, but then again, he's more interested in using sideways attacks and fallacious inuendo against traditional Christianity (which he seems, erroneously, to view as empty ritualism), than in actually making a coherent argument.

When low-church folks start attacking religion, what they mean is all the negative stuff (empty ritualism, formalism, etc.). They then connotatively attach that to whatever group they reject (catholic, orthodox, etc; high church folk) and claim that THOSE groups are "religion" while THEY, of course, are not.

Its the same changing definition issue that a lot of Protestants have with tradition. Tradition, simply defined, is a belief or practice handed on from one generation to another. Protestants have traditions. But when confronted by that, they change definitions so that "tradition" becomes synonymous with "doctrines I reject that other groups hold" and their own traditions become merely "teachings" or "the word of God."

It is deeply frustrating, because he's not being intellectually honest. He sets up a massive strawman (catholics and orthodox also both reject empty ritualism; and also both, despite being highly religious organizations, are massive outlets for charitable works), then has fun burning it. He achieves the strawman through a changing definition.

All the while, he himself is a religious person, but wouldn't admit that because he's changed the meaning of the word "religious" to suit his personal vendetta against traditional Christianity.

Although I see where you're coming from, still, I don't think it's prudent trying to attach more to his comments than what he says...and interpreting it off of what we may think. Unless he has openly said he's against high-church in his teachings/writings, I don't see where it's necessary to assume he was speaking toward such simply because he discussed religion....and he already clarified on his FB Page what his intentions were/how he was not attacking the Church and giving liscense to do so. What he was discussing was "religion" in the sense the scriptures sometimes use it (like Jeremiah 7 or Amos) where people doing activities detached from true justice/concern for others.....and as said before, how the word "religion" is used in youth culture means a certain concept rather than how it has technically been defined throughout the ages. Most of those in young-adult culture understand concepts differently than others----and as a Youth Worker myself, it is something I've seen often. ..and I appreciate others seeking to give clarity to that and the intentions of the author were (even if his usage of terms may not have been clear for all ).

As another said best:

I’m a songwriter who cares very much about creativity and sound doctrine. I love to see them blended and fused into something beautiful and doctrinally sound.

One of the first rules when it comes to interpreting a song, or any creative work for that matter, is that it must be judged on it’s own terms. In other words, the content must be interpreted based on the author’s intent. The first line of the piece is “Jesus came to abolish religion.” To that I say, “Oh really? Tell me exactly what you mean by the word ‘religion’.” Because the meaning of the entire piece depends on what Jefferson means by the word “religion”. If I’m going to critique it, I need to critique his meaning of religion, not my meaning of religion.

The critique of the video generally runs along the lines of this: Jesus was not against religion. That’s a false dichotomy that Jefferson is creating.

But I think that the wrong question is being asked. The question everyone seems to be asking is: was Jesus against religion? The answer to that question is: yes. And no. And maybe. It all depends on what you mean by the word “religion”.

But the question that everyone should be asking is: was Jesus opposed to religion as defined by Jefferson Bethke? The answer to that question is a definite yes. Jesus was opposed to self-righteous, man-made religion. Jesus was opposed to those who exalt man-made rules over the true, life-giving religion of God. The entire piece must be interpreted through that lens. You can’t separate out pieces of the song and say that they are doctrinally incorrect unless you first view the song through the lens that Jefferson intended. Every use of the word “religion” in the piece must be connected back to the original definition of the word “religion”.

In this piece, Jefferson is not talking about the Mosaic law. He’s not talking about the church as biblically defined. He’s talking about sterile, God-less, Christ-less religion.

So do I hate religion? Yes, if it’s a religion that leaves Jesus out. And that’s exactly what Jefferson is talking about. He’s not attacking the church. He says that both explicitly and implicitly. He’s not creating a false dichotomy between Jesus and religion. He is highlighting the real dichotomy between Jesus and man-made religion.
​

Also, as another said best:

You can tell this was sincerely from his heart . I know what he's trying to say so in Essence I can eat the meat and throw away the bone. My concern is, making sure the Gospel is included. I know of certain people and certain circles that will take some of this and run the wrong way. I get concerned about how the unsaved could perceive the salvation message and the true mission of Yeshua.
​

As the author of the video on religion is a Youth Minister himself, it is not surprising to see him use some of the language he did since that is how many youths speak. And for other videos of his work:

Sexual Healing
The Essence of Grace (My Testimony)
Where is Your Identity || For The King
David and Goliath || Not How You Heard it in Sunday School ​

I'm more than for advocating for understanding the ways terms are meant/used within scripture----as it concerns sharing with others how terms like "religion" are not automatically negative, nor is it the case that are no other terms to use in its place when discussing empty ritualism (as you noted)---but I'm also not for slander/assuming what people mean apart from how they defined what they meant....for I can definately see the heart of the man in what he pointed out since many in the church, be it in his circles or liturgical ones (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, etc) have often noted the same. The vernacular of the people one is talking too makes a world of difference...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Why I Love Religion, And Love Jesus || Spoken Word - YouTube

That was beyond HOT--and I SOOOO loved way the man kept the focus on religion being a blessing rather than appearing as if he was attacking Brother Jeff. For it was simply a differing perspective..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

From Jeff Bethke's Facebook page:

If you are using my video to bash "the church" be careful. I was in no way intending to do that. My heart came from trying to highlight and expose legalism and hypocrisy. The Church is Jesus' bride so be careful how you speak of His wife. If a normal dude has right to get p*ssed when you bash His wife, it makes me tremble to think how great the weight is when we do it to Jesus' wife. The church is His vehicle to reach a lost word. A hospital for sinners. Saying you love Jesus but hate the Church, is like a fiancé saying he loves his future bride, but hates her kids. We are all under grace. Look to Him.
​

__________________

Many thanks for sharing this/helping to bring clarity on the issue...