Christianity is not religion!

I love this. This is cut & pasted from an article I read. I tried to keep it contexturally acurrate. The article is very long and I plan to borrow from it again. If you want to read it in it's entirety, click on the title above.

The most accepted historical tracing of the origin of the English word "religion" recognizes the root of the word to be the Latin word religare, which means "to bind again" or "to tie back." Jesus did not come to bind, fasten, tie, or attach us to anything or anyone! He came to set us free, to be functional humanity in the fullest sense, saying, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32), for "if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed"
(John 8:36). Paul indicates that "it was for freedom that Christ set us free"
(Gal. 5:1), "for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Cor. 3:17).

Jesus Christ did not come to found another religion. He came that we might have His life, and experience it in abundant human expression (John 10:10).

The Christian gospel is the presence of the life of the risen Lord Jesus, being made manifest in the behavior of true believers, which brings glory to God.

Such freedom of life and worship was unknown to the strictness and structure of (Jewish) religion that existed in the first century and is still foreign to the religious people of this day. It is reasonabe to say that Judaism in the first century represents religious perversion at its worst. Every form of legalism, exclusivism, moralism, etc. was rampant in their religion. This provided a perfect environment for Christ to exhibit the radical contrast to what He came to reveal in Himself, the "good news" of Christianity.

The Pharisees were the most visible and vociferous. Their origins traced back to the Hasidim, or "Pious Ones," who fought with Judas Maccabeus to liberate the Jewish people from oppression. Their name most likely means "separated ones," for they separated themselves from the amhares, the "people of the land," by their strict and legalistic rules of purity, tithing, Sabbath observance, etc. Ironically the Pharisees were still the grass-roots "people's party" during the early decades of the first century, because the common people could identify more with such strict religious observance than with the rich politically-connected Sadducees.

The "scribes" are often mentioned in conjunction with the Pharisees. That is because most of the scribes had Pharisaic connections and spent most of their time devising additional laws to interpret the Mosaic Law, which all of the Pharisees could then conform to and strictly obey. Later these additional laws and traditions were collected in the Talmud.

Since the Pharisees enjoyed the most popular support among the Palestinian people of the early first century, it is they who reacted most strongly to Jesus' presentation of Himself. When Jesus called upon all Israel to repent, the Pharisees were offended because they did not believe that they or their people needed such. It is in Jesus' meeting with the Pharisees that the old and the new are most clearly contrasted. The correct understanding of this meeting is of the greatest significance for the understanding of the gospel as a whole.

Jesus speaks with a complete freedom which is not bound by the law of logical alternatives. To the Pharisees, this freedom appears to negate all order, all piety and all belief. Jesus cast aside all the distinctions which the Pharisee so laboriously maintained. For the Pharisee, Jesus is a nihilist, a man who knows and respects only his own law, an egoist and a blasphemer of God.

First Corinthians counters the religious excesses that were developing in the young church at Corinth.

Second Corinthians differentiates between gospel ministry and the manipulations of religious method.

Galatians denies that legalistic religion is "another gospel," but regards such as damnable.

Ephesians rejects religious exclusivism, claiming a new humanity for all men in Jesus Christ.

Colossians combats the regional religionism of Asia, emphasizing the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ as our life.

Hebrews shows the division of the old covenant of Judaic religion and the new covenant life of Jesus Christ.

James refuses to accept the rituals of "worthless religion," arguing for the outworking of the life of Jesus in faith.

In the Revelation, John saw in pictorial imagery, the defeat of all religion by Jesus Christ, the Victor.

The confrontation of the gospel and religion is a major theme of the entire New Testament.

The dynamic of the life of Jesus Christ lived out by His Spirit in Christian believers, which is the essence of Christianity, was soon perverted by the natural tendencies of man to revert to religious forms; those who call themselves "Christians" as they fall back into standardized forms and moralistically regulated behavior. Paul chided the Galatians for being so foolishly mesmerized by the religious tendency to revert to legalistic works (Gal. 3:1-3), and encouraged them not to "be subject again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1) in religion. John recognized that the seven churches of Asia were being encroached upon by religious tendencies (Rev. 2,3).

Since the tendency to religionize is so pervasive among men, the question must be asked, "To what extent, if any, had religious thinking and perspective already pervaded the thought processes of the writers of the New Testament documents, and did this affect what they wrote?"

Is it possible to attempt to ascertain whether any of the writers of the new covenant documents imposed a particular religious bias into their writings?

Fundamentalists close their eyes to such questions by possessing a direct, divine dictational theory of scripture inspiration. The skepticism of liberal theology often runs off into subjective speculation concerning source and editing. Surely there is a balanced position wherein we can attempt to interpret the gospel records apart from religious bias.

Without a doubt, much of the explanation and critical interpretation and theological interpretation of the gospel records has been infected by religiously biased understanding. Throughout the centuries of Christian history, the preponderance of Biblical interpretation has been performed by commentators and theologians thoroughly inundated in the system of "Christian religion."

Even if they had the spiritual discernment to recognize the difference between Christianity and religion it is questionable whether they would have sacrificed their livelihoods in applying such knowledge to their own religious situations.

What we have is a tragic history of inadequate and misconstrued Biblical interpretation, especially of the gospel records, throughout the history of the "Christian religion." Any and all prior interpretations of religious commentators and theologians should be treated with a degree of healthy skepticism due to the inevitable baggage of religious bias that they carried with them into their interpretive task. At the same time, we must constantly examine our own baggage of religious understanding, refusing to accept at face-value the common and popular explanations of meaning.

In order to do so, we must first determine what we perceive to be the overriding purpose and meaning of Christ's advent and work. For "the revelation of God is the abolition of religion."6

As you approach the study of the gospel narratives, seek to get "behind the scene" of the events and statements. Seek to find out what was the "setting in life" in which Jesus acted and spoke. Strive to ascertain the historical, political, cultural, racial, social, geographical and religious settings, apart from traditional religious accretions and interpretations. Remember the limitations of the finite human mind. We will never understand all the complexities and intricacies of what took place. We desire to understand, to the best of our ability, how Jesus' revelation of Himself led to confrontation with religion, and still continues to do so.

We must consider Jesus' confrontation with the prevailing Jewish religion of His day, seeking to understand the religious environment in which He lived, and the division of that ideology and methodology with the reality and character of God in Christ. From that understanding we shall note that the Judaism of the first century was indicative of the general religious tendencies of all religion, which are still confronted by the reality of Jesus' life. We must consider the religious interpretations that have long been imposed upon the various texts of the gospel records throughout Christian history, the fallacies of which continue to be confronted and exposed by the reality of Christianity. We must seek to interpret the gospels apart from religion.

Writing to Timothy, Paul indicated that there is "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5). It is important to remember that although Jesus was inherently and essentially God, He "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7) of independent divine function, and functioned as a man who allowed the Spirit of God to function within His humanity for every moment in time for thirty-three years. Throughout the study of the gospel-records you will repeatedly see the human side of "the man, Christ Jesus," who was never less than God, but never more than man.

Pointing out the singular uniqueness of Jesus Christ, South African author, Albert Nolan, explains that, "It is difficult for us to imagine what it must have been like to differ radically from everybody else, past and present, in an age when group conformity was the only measure of truth and virtue. The immense learning of the scribes did not impress Jesus. No tradition was too sacred to be questioned. No authority was too great to be contradicted. No assumption was too fundamental to be changed. There were no traces of fear in Jesus. He was not afraid of creating a scandal or losing His reputation or even losing His life. All the men of religion were scandalized by the way He mixed socially with sinners, by His permissiveness with regard to the laws. He soon acquired what we call a bad reputation." 7

Jesus did nothing and compromised on nothing for the sake of even a ounce of prestige in the eyes of others. He did not seek anyone's approval. His family thought he was out of his mind (Mk 3:21); the Pharisees thought he was possessed by the devil (Mk 3:22).8

Jesus proclaimed the truth without hesitation, whether he was using the persuasive methods of the parable or the more forthright pronouncements of the sayings. There was never any place for 'maybe' and 'perhaps'; there were no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts'. This is the truth about life; can't you see it? 9

Jesus was straight-forward in exhibiting and explaining the life of God that He came to bring in Himself. The primary contextual setting in which the gospel-narratives must be read is that of constant awareness of the confrontation that Jesus' life had with all religion. In every recorded incident in the life of Jesus, we must ask ourselves, "What were the religious concepts that came into play in this situation?" "How is it that Jesus is contrasting the message of the gospel, His own functional dynamic of grace, with the natural religious tendencies of mankind?"

Jesus broke through the piety and theology of his contemporaries, and brought God's promise and love in place of the Mosaic law, his own endowment with the Spirit in place of the Jewish tradition, clarity about God's will in place of rationalization, and grace in place of good works. 10

Through study of the gospel-narratives, you shall discover how Jesus presents Himself and the provision of God's grace in contrast to and in confrontation with, religion.

The American Episcopalian priest, Robert Capon, has a straight-forward way of explaining the difference between religion and Christianity. He states, "Almost all people, inside as well as outside the church, find that the notion of grace stands in contradiction to everything they understand by religion."15

"The gospel of grace is the end of religion, the final posting of the CLOSED sign on the sweatshop of the human race's perpetual struggle to think well of itself. For that is what religion is: man's well-meant, but dim-witted, attempt to improve on his unimprovable condition by doing odd jobs he thinks some important Something will thank him for. Religion, therefore, is a loser, a strictly fallen activity. It has a failed past and a bankrupt future. There was no religion in Eden and there won't be any in heaven; and in the meantime Jesus has died and risen to persuade us to knock it all off right now."16

"I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass."17


FOOTNOTES
1 Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I, Part 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1956. pg. 280.2 Hunter, A.M., The Work and Words of Jesus. London: SCM Press, Ltd. 1950. pg. 27.3 Goppelt,Leonhard, Theology of the New Testament. Vol. I. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1981. pg. 27.4 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1955. pg. 26.5 Ibid., pgs. 29,30.6 Barth, op.cit.7 Nolan, Albert, Jesus Before Christianity. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. 1976. pg. 117.8 Ibid., pg. 118.9 Ibid., pg. 123.10 Kasemann, Ernst, Jesus Means Freedom. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1969. pg. 40. 15 Capon, Robert, Between Noon and Three: A Parable of Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 1982. pg. 136. 16 Ibid., pg. 166. 17 Ibid., pg. 167.