“Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship,” is a mantra I occasionally hear. The more I hear it, the more I am taken aback, wondering what exactly people mean. Whatever they specifically intend, the implication is that “religion” is something negative which we would not want to be in any way associated with. However, when I look up the word “religion” in the dictionary, this is what I get:

1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

2) details of belief as taught or discussed

3) a particular system of faith and worship

I am honestly at a loss to discern which of these three definitions cannot be applied to Christianity? Is it not belief in and worship of a personal God, with beliefs and a system of faith? What is wrong with these things? Is Christianity just a “relationship” without reference to “details of belief” or a “system of faith?” Interestingly enough, the church in Corinth were enriched in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 1:5), had exuberant and passionate worship services (1 Cor. 14) and were extremely “spiritual” (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:12). However, Paul understood that if they did not believe in the resurrection (i.e., “details of belief”) their faith was useless. Furthermore, he asserted that there needed to be “order” in their worship services. In Paul’s mind, it was not enough for the Corinthians to “have a relationship with Jesus,” they also needed what the dictionary defines as “religion.”

When Christians use the term “religion” pejoratively is such a manner, they generally do not mean any of the definitions used in the dictionary. This means they are using a standard word in a non-standard or technical manner. Religion has become for them a jargon word meaning everything (or something) they dislike about how the last generation (or last sixty generations, or some other group) has practiced Christianity. It often has different meanings for different people. For some it means traditional styles of music or traditional religious language (“thee,” “thou,” etc.). For others it refers to structured patterns of liturgy and worship in which the people say and do certain things at certain specified times. For others, it means fixed and rigid rules for behavior. Still others speak of it as referring to a system of “earning your salvation,” and by this meaning doing enough good works to get into heaven. In none of these cases does it actually mean fundamentally what “religion” means. It only refers to someone else’s religion that the speaker doesn’t like. Everyone has a religion whether they think so or not. One’s religion may be atheism, but that is still their belief about God. Everyone has systems of belief or practice whether they use a historic liturgy to shape worship or think everything in worship is spontaneous (even though the “spontaneity” routinely uses the same limited set of elements).

My heart and motivation here is three fold.

First, rather simply, using the term “religion” as a “bad word” is offensive to a lot of people in the Body of Christ who value and treasure their religion (i.e. their faith in God, their beliefs and practices). For many people, using the term “religion” negatively is entirely outside their frame of reference. Its use is thus not helpful in fostering love and unity between various streams within the Church. My hope is that a growing love for the whole Church and a hunger for its visible unity will lead to tempered speech and ultimately an affectionate engagement with one another.

Second, it is not the most helpful way of communicating, and can lead to confusion amongst growing believers. Since the meaning generally depends upon the speaker, and the word is being used in a non-standard manner, it could have a whole range of meanings which are generally unclear to the hearer.

Third, I am concerned about a growing trend in Western Christianity, in which neo-romantic, existentialist and post-modern ideas are being confused as Christianity. Some of these ideas are not necessarily anti-Christian (some are), but they should not be confused as being one and the same. Namely, I am referring to an ideal of self-determination and self-expression without any external restrictions, structure or authority. I am free to be who I am with no restraints. This can sound and look Christian, but should ultimately been seen for what it is  – the spirit of the age (idolatry), a conglomeration of various nineteenth and twentieth century philosophies (for more on this click here).

Remarkably, the Bible itself speaks very positively about “religion” (as defined in the dictionary). Here are just a few examples:

1) God is the kind of person who establishes systems, forms, patterns, procedures, places and regulations for worship and gives extensive guidelines for behavior (Heb. 9:1-4). Check Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy for this one. Even if we pull a “we’re in the New Testament now, not in the Old,” besides the fact that I don’t have clue what that possibly means, God is the same god yesterday, today and forever. He didn’t try “religion” for a while and then give up on it and become a free-spirited neo-romantic existentialist, giving everyone freedom in the New Testament.

2) Daniel had set times for prayer each day (Daniel 6:10), as did the Psalmist (Psalm 119:164)

3) Jesus, in order to teach his disciples how to pray, gave them a standardized written form of prayer. While often understood as merely “a list of topics,” Jesus was simply doing what many other Rabbis during that period of time had done – taught his disciples a specific prayer they could memorize and pray.

4) Jesus participated in the liturgical synagogue worship (Luke 4:18ff). Rabbinic literature from about a century or two later explains that the person who read the “haftorah” portion of Scripture (i.e., the prophets), would also to some extent preside over the liturgy and prayers. If this tradition was in effect at the time of Jesus, he may have fulfilled this capacity. Additionally, the fact that he was known and trusted by the leaders in the synagogue to read the Scripture and give the subsequent address very likely means he participated in the services and possibly in this role quite regularly.

5) The early apostles participated in the liturgical worship life of temple/synagogue (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:42 (the prayers); 3:1; 16:6. Notably, this continues after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Of note is that in Acts 2:42, in the description of the life of the early apostolic community, it says they committed themselves to “the prayers.” Not every translation includes the definite article, but it is surely there in the Greek text. This means the apostolic community did not simply value something called “prayer,” but they joined themselves to “the prayers,” namely, the liturgical prayer services of the temple and synagogue.

6) The early church established rituals (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) – cf. 1 Cor. 11 – the Lord’s Supper was not just a meal they shared, it was a distinct ritual by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. This is seen in that Paul makes a distinction between the “meal” and the “Lord’s Supper.” There was something specific about the Lord’s Supper that was above and beyond simply sharing a meal together. If the evidence we have from the early and mid second century is anything reflective of the practices of the early church (I’m going to put my money on that they were closer to the apostles than we are 19 centuries later), this was specific and structured ritual which was central to Christian worship.

7) Paul thought the Law (i.e., the contents of the regulations for behavior and worship) was holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12) as well as spiritual (7:14)

8 ) Paul and James use the term “religion” in a clearly positive sense:

1Tim. 3:16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great:  He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels,  proclaimed among Gentiles,   believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

James 1:26 If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless.  27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

9) Paul has creedal-like statements that systematize belief. These beliefs were requisite on all (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-8; 1 Tim. 3:16)

All in all, I am proposing the following:

-We cannot continue using the term “religion” in the jargonistic negative fashion described above. We are using it to describe what the word itself does not mean in normal usage, so one needs to understand each person’s usage in order to understand them. It is a useless word if it doesn’t communicate. Let’s just say what we mean in each instance.

-We must stop categorically judging other religious traditions and streams within Christianity, especially with a catch-all label of “religious.” To some people it is a given that “the traditional church” is completely dead and all of their “forms of religion” need to go out the window. This is an example of pride to the hilt. I appreciate that you may have ways you wish to personally express your faith and work it out in community. Please, however, do not imagine you possess the right, duty or ability to single handedly judge 1800 years of church history and tradition, as well as the majority of Christians worldwide (and incidentally the majority of charismatic/Pentecostal believers worldwide) who are Roman Catholic. Until you can worship alongside them, love them and pray for them, please refrain from critiquing them. For others, any type of spirituality that doesn’t give them complete and total freedom of expression to do whatever whenever is “religion.” Actually, you are manifesting a massive problem with authority that needs to be named and owned. Please repent.

-Let’s find alternate ways of talking about what we actually mean when we use the term “religion.” Here I have four proposed terms to at least begin discussion:

-religiosity – the suffix at the end of the word “religion” now gives it the meaning “excessively religious, often for its own sake.” Religiousness will not really do because that simply means someone is religious. According to our definitions above, this cannot in itself be a bad thing.

-legalistic – here’s where the excessive and unbalanced emphasis on laws comes in, particularly if one thinks they need to get “good enough” for God through them.

-formalism – when certain modes of worship are used for their own sake, not because they lead one to God. This one can get tricky, because to use your standards of worship to judge another’s can lead to great misunderstanding and sinful judgment.

-will-worship – I first saw this term used by Richard Foster in Celebration of Discipline. It means essentially, to worship your will power – to believe that strenuous effort will in itself produce spiritual growth. It gives priority to my exertion over trust in God.

I would appreciate any further contribution to this discussion, along with suggestions on how we can accurately discuss problems we identify, without falling headlong into name-calling and unrighteous judgement.

Related posts

• Opposition to Pre-Written Prayers Comes From the Spirit of the Age (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 2) (3)
• Why Use Written Prayers? (A series explaining the logic and reasons behind Christian liturgy and worship) (0)
• Teach Us How to Pray (1)
• Readings for the Daily Office of the Book of Common Prayer (3)
• My Personal Prayer Action Plan (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 3) (0)

In my last post I described the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as forging the Church as a New Humanity, reversing Babel’s curse of social and national disintegration. Today I would like to look at the coming of the Holy Spirit as establishing a New Covenant marked by the dynamic corporate experience of God.

As with last time, my intention is to interpret Acts 2 through Old Testament narrative of Israel’s history as alluded to in the passage. Previously looking at Genesis 11, we now turn to Exodus 19. This is the beginning of the account of Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai. God comes down upon the mountain with manifestations of fire, smoke and the loud sound of a trumpet. These are common aspects of a Biblical phenomenon called a theophany (literally, “God-appearing”) in which God becomes perceptible in a visible and physical display (cf. 1 Kgs 19:11; Isa. 66.15; Ps. 18).

Immediately following the exodus from slavery in Egypt, this event is what solidified Israel’s identity as a nation through their covenant with God. It is likely that this moment was what later writings referred to as the “creation of Israel” (Isa. 43:1, 15). Israel was offered the covenant by God and when they agreed to the words God spoke, they became his special possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). Their incorporation was two-fold: (1) to have a unique relationship with God and (2) to be priests to the rest of the earth. As a nation, they received promises analogous to those offered to Abraham, which included a special relationship with God, and that he would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. As Abraham (whose covenant in Genesis 12 comes strategically following Genesis 11) was called by God to be the agent of His solution to the problem of sin amassed in Gen. 1-11, so now Israel as a nation carries that priestly task.

Of significant note, is that while God came down upon the mountain, only Moses was allowed to come near to God. Eventually, Aaron, the priests and the seventy elders were permitted to come to the mountain, but only “at a distance.” With the exception of Moses, those permitted on the mountain were told that “they shall not come near.” Furthermore, the people at large were not permitted to come close to the mountain.

Now we turn to Acts 2. Pentecost was traditionally a harvest festival (Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28-26), but came to be associated with both the renewal of the covenant with Noah and the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. It is certain that Jews in the first century associated Pentecost with the Noahic covenant, as it is attested in literature from before that time (The Book of Jubilees 6:17-21; ca. 150 BC). However it is less certain whether it was yet affiliated with the Giving of the Law (though it certainly was in the second and third century). What would make us think then that Acts 2 is meant to be understood in light of Mount Sinai?

First, the great sound and the fire descending upon the believers parallels the sound and fire that accompanied the Sinai event. In Rabbinic writing, fire was commonly used as a symbol for the Torah. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible is there an emphasis on both the descending of fire and a great sound in a theophany except for in Exodus 19.

Second, Philo, a prolific Jewish writer in the century before Jesus, spoke about the giving of the Law in this way: “Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed by it that they seemed to see rather than hear the” (On the Decalogue 46).” This shows us that in time the New Testament was written, the Giving of the Law was being spoken of in terms of communication by fire (“tongues of fire?”) that became recognizable to the audience in their language.

Third, Luke consistently uses Moses typology to talk about Jesus. Jesus is the “prophet like Moses” of whom it was promised that God would raise up. In Luke 9:35 a voice from heaven tells the people to listen to Jesus, much like Israel was to listen to Moses. Moses was “raised up” by God, but Jesus was “raised up” by resurrection (Acts 2:34-36). Moses “received the living words and gave them” (Acts 7:38) but Jesus receives the Holy Spirit and gives it to his disciples (Acts 2:33).

It seems then, that Pentecost is meant to be understood in parallel to the Giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Obviously, much could be said about the relationship between the Law and the Spirit, but that will have to be said at another time and place. For the present, I would like to simply focus on the theophany aspect. If Pentecost is a New Sinai (following the New Exodus in Jesus’ death and resurrection – cf. Lk. 9:30, when Jesus speaks to Moses and Elijah about the exodus he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem), notice how instead of God descending upon the mountain, he descends upon the entire community of believers. Rather than the people remaining at a distance while only Moses approaches God, the community of women and men is the place where God manifests his theophanic presence. The Church, the New Covenant people, become a theophany in person.

The Church is the mountain upon which God descends in theophanic glory and like Israel, takes up a priestly vocation to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth – to be agents through whom God deals with the problem of sin and restores the creation to Himself and to His intentions for it. As Moses proclaimed the Word of God to the people after God met him on the mountain – the assembled believers began proclaiming the mighty acts of God to those who were in Jerusalem.

As I asked previously, so now I ask – what would a “praxis of Pentecost” look like, in light of this understanding? I think, in relation to what has been said here, it begins with the recognition and celebration of the fact that God is with us. There is much to be said concerning intercession for God’s presence and purposes as well as much to be said about the experience of God-forsakeness (cf. Ps. 22). Jeremiah spoke of a time when there would be a New Covenant and one person would not tell another to “know the Lord” because they all would know the Lord. This time of New Covenant has come and is an experienced reality in the community of believers. Few could deny our need to know the Lord in deeper and clearer ways. I am even aware of a deep reticence within myself to speak concerning my knowledge of God, conceivably in order to maintain some form of humility. However, I think we need to find a way to speak positively about our knowledge of God – to recognize that God has descended in our midst, that he dwells among us, and we do indeed know Him. Perhaps a way forward in this is the awareness that the Church corporately is the location of this New Covenant theophany. Individual, all of “see in a glass dimly,” (1 Cor. 13:12) but together “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

Related posts

• We’ve Been Unbabeled – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 2) (1)
• When the Day of Pentecost had Fully Come… (Part 1) (0)
• Out of Exile – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 4) (0)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)

This is a continuation in a series on Acts chapter 2 and the account of the Day of Pentecost. Pentecost was an epochal event. The way it is described in the Acts of the Apostles indicates that more is going on than a lively outreach — there has been a dramatic intervention of the covenant-creator-God to deal with the problem of sin, overturn the effects of the fall and inaugurate the eschatological age of righteousness, peace and joy. The technical term for this is inaugurated eschatology, in that while a future consummation awaits us in the new heavens and new earth, the life, power and reality of the age to come has already become present in partial form (already but not-yet). In a mysterious manner, the future and the present have intersected and overlapped so that God’s future for the world has rushed into the present time, filling it with the joy of promise fulfilled and the hope of untold possibilities that yet remain.

This becomes especially clear when the passage is understood in light of the larger narrative of Scripture and the numerous passages that are alluded to or quoted. Today I want to look at one passage in particular: Genesis 11. This chapter records the infamous ”Tower of Babel” incident. It is critical to see where this story occurs in the unfolding narrative of the book of Genesis and the Old Testament as a whole. Genesis 1 and 2 record the creation of the world and all its life. Human beings are given the blessing and command to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. They are commissioned to be God’s vice-regents on earth, administrating and increasing his gracious rule through their ever expanding family. You’ll have to believe me on this one, since I don’t have the time to develop it, but Genesis 2 is intentionally evoking the imagery of the temple and it is intended for us to understand the Garden of Eden as a temple, a sanctuary, the dwelling place of God’s glory. Therefore Adam and Eve’s tasks of cultivating (i.e., expanding) the garden and forging a family that will fill the earth can be understood as the call to fill the earth with the dwelling of God’s glory through their world-wide family. Note the dynamic interplay here between the God-blessed relationship (marriage/family) and the God-commissioned rulership.

As grand as this seems, the plan gets muddled rather quickly, with Adam’s sin in Genesis 3, Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis 4, and the growth of violence as documented in the Noah account. Nevertheless, despite “The Fall,” the original commission remains and Noah and his descendants are called to “be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.”

This brings us to Genesis 11. Here I would like to propose an alternate (yet complementary) explanation of why God took such issue with Babel. Of course it is clear that they were attempting to build their “tower” to make a name for themselves. This undoubtedly included some aspect of pride. However, I cannot imagine that God was threatened by a supposed “take-over” scheme and that he needed to stop it before it got out of hand. In fact, it is likely that the “tower” they were building was in fact a ziggurat and is a spoof on the temple of Marduk in Babylon, whose name “house with the uplifted head” suggests a claim that it reached to the heavens. (See commentaries on Genesis by Wenham and Sarna). Thus, they were not trying to take over the role as gods (something that would likely have been a ridiculous thought in the ancient world), but were building a shrine for God/god(s). Additionally, though attention often focuses on the “tower,” in the text it mentions that they were building a “city and a tower.” When God comes down, he comes to “see the city and the tower.” After their languages are confused the text says they “left off building the city,” with no mention of the tower. In the text, the tower is never conceived of by itself, apart from the city or even as a focal point.

This becomes further significant when the builders give the reason for their project – “otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” The central motivation was to consolidate the human race in one central city. Here we come to the main problem with the Babel building project – it is a direct violation of God’s primary command (which is actually a blessing) to the human race – “be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth.” They were never instructed not to build towers. They were never even instructed how to avoid pride. They were however, instructed to fill the earth with the world-wide family as the means for ruling the earth and filling it with God’s glory. The main sin of Babel was a refusal of the blessing of creation, fertility and vice-regency with God and thus the invention of measures to derail its fulfillment. God’s comments are not against the tower, but against the entire building project understood in this light. Thus God confused the languages of the people and scattered them across the earth. Though commonly thought of as anti-climactic, certainly much less severe than the flood, there are several reasons why this judgment is the definite low point thus far in the Bible.

“First, the Flood left no permanent mark on humanity; though the generation of the flood was destroyed, humankind was preserved, and continued to grow. The scattering of humanity, however, is of lasting effect. There are no survivors of Babel.

Second, what is destroyed at Babel is the community of humankind as a family; hitherto, as the genealogies have witnessed, humankind is one family, and the Flood has only accentuated that fact by making one family in the narrowest sense of the word co-terminous with humanity. But the punishment of Babel divides humankind irrevocably from one another (as did also the first sin in its own way). Now humanity is no longer one “people” or “kin-group,” but “nations.” (David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 70).

It is critical to see what happens on Pentecost in light of what was previously said or we will miss the epochal nature of the event. We will not see that what follows is indeed God dealing with and overturning the problem of sin and its effects. The idea of the disintegration of humanity and the loss of a unified family is not often seen as a direct and central aspect of sin and the larger Fall (viewed as Genesis 3-11, not just Genesis 3). Indeed, alienation is a significant theme throughout Genesis 1-11 and is central to a truly biblical understanding of sin.

So what happened at Pentecost? What we see is the beginning to undo this dispersion of nations and languages. At Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, began to speak in other languages and people from many nations, gathered in Jerusalem, each heard them speaking in their own native language. What is going on? The advent of the Spirit is actually reversing the curse of Babel. Adam’s and Cain’s sins alienated humans one from another, while Babel divided the nations and destroyed the common family of humanity. The Spirit of God, however, brings diverse peoples together as one family and one “kin-group.” The Spirit forges the Church as a new humanity which is reunited as a downpayment and sign of God’s eschatological purposes to bring all peoples to unity before God (cf. Zeph. 3:9; Psa. 22:27; 86:9-10; Isa. 2; Jer. 16:19; Zech 2:11). That which was alienated is now reconciled. That which was contentious is now at peace. Those who were enemies are now family.

It is no coincidence that immediately following the outpouring of the Spirit, Luke describes the profound community life shared among the early believers, meeting together day by day, having all things in common, providing for all in need, devoting themselves to the apostles teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42ff.). The “they” in Acts 2:42 undoubtedly included many of the 3000 converts mentioned in verse 41. This means that this early apostolic community likely had “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene…Cretans and Arabs” (v.9).  This theme of ethnic diversity and unity continues to be a major theme throughout the book of Acts (esp. once Gentiles get in the picture) and through much of the Pauline epistles. Over and over again, unity emerges as a central theme and pastoral concern of early Apostolic Christianity.

To conclude, I want to give a few thoughts on a potential “Praxis of Pentecost” (praxis simply refers to practice, as distinguished from theory). If one of the major things the Spirit was doing on Pentecost was uniting the people of God as a new humanity, a new “kinship-group,” what might that mean for those of us who endeavor to walk in that same Spirit? I would suggest that a major priority of the Spirit is the preservation and the advancement of unity in the Church. While this of course begins with individuals one to another, it expands to include entire congregations and communities, to all believers in a given geographical region and indeed, the unity of ecclesial bodies over the entire earth. Shortly before his death, Jesus’ priority in prayer was for the unity of those who would follow him – unity that would mirror the divine life of the Trinity and functioned as the sign par excellence to the world. To be people of the Spirit means to be those of whom unity is a central value and priority. Let us ask the Lord to root out tendencies toward enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy and things like these (Gal. 5:20-21) from our own hearts and to fill us with deep and profound love for those with whom we are in immediate spiritual relationship. Let’s not stop there though – let’s ask the Lord to fill us with a deep love for the whole church, to be open (indeed eager!) to receive from and be in relationship with individuals, groups and traditions that are different than our own. May the prayer of Jesus be our own – that the Church would be one – as He and the Father are one!

Related posts

• God is with us – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 3) (0)
• When the Day of Pentecost had Fully Come… (Part 1) (0)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (0)
• Spirit and Flesh Part 2 (2)
• Out of Exile – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 4) (0)