- May 5, 2012
- 4,338
- 5,024
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
(I'm posting here because I think it's the most likely forum in which to find people well-versed in church history.)
I was reflecting this morning on the oft-expressed idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Does anyone here know when this idea first started showing up in Christian discourse?
Having a loving relationship with Jesus is an ancient idea, of course. The church has had mystics since very early days, and the Bible contains metaphors of intimacy with God -- father, husband, and so on. But the language of "not a religion" is an interesting redefinition of "religion", and is (I think) not nearly so ancient.
I can imagine many possible origins for the "not a religion" language -- the 19th/20th-century revivals, Wesley's movement, one of the Great Awakenings, etc. -- but I don't actually know. Does anyone else here know?
Interestingly, the book Christianity is not a Religion, by James A. Fowler (http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Christiantynotrel.pdf), begins by quoting snippets of Barth and some of his contemporaries. Is this Barth's fault?
I was reflecting this morning on the oft-expressed idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Does anyone here know when this idea first started showing up in Christian discourse?
Having a loving relationship with Jesus is an ancient idea, of course. The church has had mystics since very early days, and the Bible contains metaphors of intimacy with God -- father, husband, and so on. But the language of "not a religion" is an interesting redefinition of "religion", and is (I think) not nearly so ancient.
I can imagine many possible origins for the "not a religion" language -- the 19th/20th-century revivals, Wesley's movement, one of the Great Awakenings, etc. -- but I don't actually know. Does anyone else here know?
Interestingly, the book Christianity is not a Religion, by James A. Fowler (http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Christiantynotrel.pdf), begins by quoting snippets of Barth and some of his contemporaries. Is this Barth's fault?