The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Do you consider Christianity as a religion

I know many Christians who maintain that Christianity is not a religion? I wonder what those on the forum think? I tend to not use the word, religion, in explaining my faith or Christianity.

Why would it be, and why wouldn't it be?

I certainly consider Christianity to be a "religion", although it may not be prudent to refer to it in this manner with some who are blinded by prejudice and ignorance.

I believe it can justly be called a "religion" because it is definitely an organization that is populated by a living organism; the Body of Christ. It has rules and regulations, order and purpose. It has as its foundation, the propositional infallible truths of a book, the divine revelation of God Himself. Those things alone, I think are enough to classify it as a "religion".

In His Grace,

I agree.

I've heard people say (mainly "evan-jelly-cals") that "it's about relationship, not religion." My question to those people is this: why do the terms have to be opposites? Christianity is both. Religion without relationship, however, is dead. I guess we need to define "relationship" too, expecially since many today base their "relationship with God" on feelings and subjectivity. I'm thinking of those who say that one can have Christ as Savior and Friend without Him being their Lord and King.

James 1
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

Webster's says;

Religion
RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]

1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

I get this from most of my old pentecostal friends, and even heard it plenty at college. I always answer, "Christianity is a religion by definition, one based upon a personal relationship with Jesus".


God bless,

william

Here is a good article on what religion is and is not:

http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb03.html

The Bible calls Christianity a religion.

James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled..."

Tom

To state the obvious, I think some Christians have a problem with calling Christianity a religion among other religions because people today tend to think that all religions are of the same value and substance. I also stay away from the word 'religion' not because I don't believe Christianity to be a religion, but because it may suggest extra topics or trigger more conversation that is not fruitful to the proclaimation of the Gospel.

Ben

I was listening to a R.C. Sproul tape recently and he mentioned a story about how he was invited to a certain college and he noticed that one academic deptartment name had been changed from the "Theology" department to the "Religion" department.

I think the shift is subtle but the focus is shifted from God to what we do as Christians. (anthropology) I tend to shy away from the term though I don't think it is wrong to use that term. I think when non-believers hear it they think of the things we do rather than who we serve. Just my 2 cents!

CNM: I think the use of terms often should be context related. Averagefellar posted in this thread:

"2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1."

Iow, it is unfortunate that the word "religion" has become a categorial term rather than descriptor of experimental piety, as Philip Doddridge's title: "The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul" contemplates.

Similarly....


CNM: Why do we deride our important theological distinguishers? If one is "Reformed," one is certainly "evangelical"; are they not? What better term to differentiate among Western nominal Christians?, that is, a way to say one is not Roman or liberal.

I am evangelical. Of course, I mean that in the historical sense. Here is a good article on this term:

http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415584,00.html

I would direct you to a wonderful book called The Coming Evangelical Crisis, edited by John Armstrong. It consists of articles on the sad status of the church today. The Compromised Church, also edited by Armstrong, is very good too.

So when I say "evan-jelly-cal," I mean a certain type of evangelical that is all too prominent today. Like jelly, it's all sugar and no firmness.

CNM: Yes, historically. But, more importantly: theologically. We should -- and must -- educate our fellow evangelicals just what it is we mean historically/theologically by the term. They then can decide whether they've signed up for the right movement (if you will). Words mean things, and just as we should make the case for justification in the classic Reformed sense --- as distinct from the Roman sense -- (and thus why ECT is an incompatible concept), so also, the beautiful meaning of the term "evangelical" (one who affirms and asserts the primacy of the evangel in Christian kerygma and corporate worship) must, in my view, be stressed.


CNM: Yes; thank you. I have it, but haven't got around to reading it yet.



CNM: Thanks. Also, these kind of warnings were preceded by a similar call by Francis Shaeffer in: THE GREAT EVANGELICAL DISASTER.


CNM: Well, yeah, I know the nature of the jab, but I think that it is somewhat counterproductive, and a little snobbish. I don't mean to suggest that about you ('cause I don't know you, and your posts seem insightful anyway) but, I mean oftentimes, and especially on the internet, those who claim the descriptor of "Reformed" obcess about the some alleged distinction between that term and "Evangelical." In my view, a right understanding of both terms sees them as complimentary and not antagonistic.