-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
"Why I Hate Religion, But I Love Jesus" video + Orthodox rebuttal
- Thread starter GTAsoldier
- Start date
Upvote
0
Gnarwhal
☩ Broman Catholic ☩
- Oct 31, 2008
- 20,910
- 12,646
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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".
I've never experienced other traditions either. So it may have more truth to it if "religion" was swapped out for "evangelicalism" or "fundamentalism".
Upvote
0
- Jul 21, 2011
- 263
- 20
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
Upvote
0
buzuxi02
Veteran
- May 14, 2006
- 8,608
- 2,514
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Upvote
0
Gnarwhal
☩ Broman Catholic ☩
- Oct 31, 2008
- 20,910
- 12,646
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
buzuxi02 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
buzuxi02
Veteran
- May 14, 2006
- 8,608
- 2,514
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,769
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
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
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...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,769
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
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..
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,769
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Similar threads
