Is it possible to be a Christian without being religious?

[GaryMac]

My view:

When religion is severed from the Christian faith, service and worship of God are done away with, and belief in and reverence for Christ are flushed down the toilet. All that is left is emotional fanaticism that neither honors God nor contributes to the establishment of His kingdom.

What is your view?

Religion is a belief system where law dictates to that system, the difference I see as one is Christ from a belief system with bylaws is in my state of being. Christ in you is not directed or controlled by law; it is the nature of God manifest in your mortal body. Thus giving meaning to the law fulfilled.

That first man of flesh, carnality, where law directs is where Christianity begins in the individual, then that which is Spirit comes and fulfills what we were searching for from the law. The law is only a tutorial to lead one to the Christ, Christ in you.

[BroRog]

BroRog, I guess that is what it is. Continue on teaching and practicing this distinction. However, your desire to pin on the Jews a BroRog ritual and not one on Christianity just doesn't fly. You said:

"we understand that Baptism was a ritual of Judaism as John invited the Jews, including the Pharisees, down to the river".

Can you give me the things in Scripture that qualify what John did as a BroRog ritual? Show me the prescribed order and elements, what was the script, dialog, music, and prescribed dress? You know that the Scripture will show much more prescription for the water baptism that followed John's, I don't have to even show it, it will just result in about 10 pages of posts of demonstrated intractability on both our parts.

You're right. I have no evidence from the New Testament that John's baptism was ritualistic in nature, just as we have no evidence from scripture that the Christian baptism was ritualistic. But if this thread concerns itself with the question of whether Jesus requires a disciple to practice religion, the point you make is an argument against it, which is pretty much my point as well. We have no evidence that Jesus started a new religion or that Paul developed a new Christian praxis.

I don't think I could argue that early Christians ceased the practice of water baptism. I think we have good evidence from the New Testament that early Christians continued the practice of water baptism. The question for this particular thread should be something like, "was the practice of water baptism a religious practice?" This may seem like a funny question to ask, but I ask it here because any undecided person, reading this thread for information, is going to need for us to define our terms. The OP asked the question, frankly, to challenge another person's definition of religion.

I could imagine someone argue that while baptism is/was a practice associated with Christians as a Christian activity, it wasn't a ritual practice associated with the "religion" of Christianity. And I put "religion" in quotes because if we are asking the question, we can't assume the answer in our question. Did early Christians baptize new believers. Yes. But did they think they were doing religion at the time. That's the question.

If you don't want to call water baptism a ritual, then fine, go and teach and practice that. That really is my point in this whole discussion and I thank you for making that for me.

You're welcome. In discussions like this, I realize that I run the risk of sounding like I am against baptism. I'm not against it at all. I have no problem with it, except to encourage my fellow believers to learn and understand what the Apostles intended by it. And so, in an effort to be fair in this discussion, I attempted to acknowledge that the practice existed among Christians as well as Jews and that it has a good purpose among believers. At the same time, though, I was also attempting to draw a distinction between a "practice" and a "ritual" since the discussion centers on the question of whether baptism is a ritual practice included as part of a larger praxis of the Christian religion.

I think humanity as a whole tends toward religion, and many people find religion and religious practice to be rewarding and fulfilling. I believe the early believers were Jewish in their religion and Christian in their doctrine. The early believers were Jews and they already had a prescribed religion to follow and it just so happens that the Jewish religion was the only religion commanded by the creator. Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the law, which I take to mean that he didn't come to start a new religion. He had some new wine to put into new wine skins, but this did not mean that the old wine was useless. It just wasn't good enough by itself.

The New Testament doesn't turn it's attention toward the question of religion until God announced that he is giving his Holy Spirit to those outside the Jewish religion. But I note the actual question being asked. The question on the table, prior to Acts 15 was, "Do the new converts need to practice Judaism with the rest of us in order to be called one of us?" Eventually, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, Peter, and Paul, the Jerusalem council decided against the idea that new converts needed to enter into Jewish practice. I also notice that early Christians did NOT ask or decide whether they needed their own religion. I get hints from subtle comments Paul makes, that he would prefer it if we simply had no religion at all.

Paul argues very strongly that God is granting his declaration of "right with me" to those who have faith in Jesus Christ apart from "works of the law" and by "works" he means, "ritual practices." What does it take, on my part, for the early believers and Jesus and the Apostles to consider me to be a member of the household of God and to be an heir to the promises? Do I need to fast on a regular basis? Do I need to practice the "spiritual disciplines"? Do I need to tithe, pray, attend church each Saturday or Sunday? What? Are those among us who are a-religious children in the household of God? Or must we be religious in some formal, official, practice?

You choose to elevate Biblical Christian water baptism above being a ritual because: you just don't like how it sounds; or maybe you have preached against rituals and now everything that is a ritual has to be reassigned new definitions; Or maybe you want to reconsider calling John's baptism a ritual.

I guess you could say I am against ritual. However, I have come to understand the value of routine. I am against ritual but find value in routine, if that makes sense. Let me explain the difference as I see it.

The idea behind "ritual" is an erroneous view of God. Those who teach and practice the necessity of ritual hold a pagan view of God as a reality shaping force that when manipulated according to the set formula and procedure will make life go better. In a way, pagan ritual practice was an attempt at natural science in that the pagan worshiper was attempting, perhaps by trial and error, to figure out precisely what formula, procedure, practice, or method gets God to give us what we want, which is perhaps more crops, more children, peace with neighbors, a good looking wife, and etc. Or to put it another way, how can I get that big, reality shaping force, to keep insects from wiping out my food supply, from disease, accident, and starvation from killing my animals, to make my wife fertile, to keep the weather from destroying my house and etc.? The idea behind religious ritual practice is the underlying idea that God can be manipulated through a technique and that all we need to do is discover the right technique given the proper procedures and the correct formula with the right incantations and etc. and we can get God to make life go easier for us.

By contrast, the actual God we discover from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures is quite different and is not subject to manipulate through a technical method or formulaic process. The God of the bible prescribe a religion to Israel, not so that Israel might manipulate God, but so that by the routine practice of a staged play, Israel might learn something about God. That is, the Jewish religion isn't a way to manipulate God, it's a pedagogical tool he used to teach his children. The repetitive routines built into the society were given in order to bring the hearts and minds of the people back to God, when our daily struggles as human beings and our constant sources of distraction would cause us to forget about the real God and seek our technological solutions, if not through ritual then through science.

It is the same thing within Christianity today, folks want to elevate their faith above being a religion because... : they just don't like how it sounds, they don't want their relationship defined, Christianity prescribes something different and unique then those in the building down the street with the steeple on top. What is going on in the movie theatre is not religion like they in that building are all blindly following. In so doing, they make a new definition for religion: blindly following. In so doing, you get the old and tired "come out of her" movement where the Church is the mission field, let's pray for mom and dad to have a real relationship with Jesus Christ and abandon religion.

I think what you say here raises a lot of important issues and questions that we need to examine. I agree with those who want to elevate faith above religion. But I don't advocate for that position out of a sense that religion sounds bad. I never level criticism against those who find meaning and value in what we call "high church" as long as they keep things in perspective.

I think we confuse aesthetics and the emotions associated with the apparent beauty and majesty of a well done church service with the sense of awe associated with making personal contact with actual glory. And I don't intend to be mean or insulting when I say that a well done Charismatic service is no different in that respect than a "high church" service. Each service attempts to use various forms of art and music, pacing, rhythm, vocal intonation, group dynamic, and such things as these in order to cause a person to have an ecstatic experience. And I think those who attend high church services and/or Charismatic services should be aware of how they are being manipulated to feel something which only mimics an actual encounter with glory. As long as we are aware of that, and we find that such a church service continues to bring our thoughts back to God, then I see nothing wrong with it. But I understand those who want to draw a sharp distinction from the emotions we feel at such a service and the faith we affirm. After all, we can have the same experience after listening to a well crafted secular song, which doesn't have anything to do with our beliefs about God or our hope for the future.

Have you ever been on either end of this one BroRog?

Well, not as you understand James 5, no. I think James 5 is speaking to those who are struggling with sin and need extra encouragement to keep believing during times of struggle. Or perhaps, like Job, sin isn't the issue front and center but simply living under extreme conditions of persecution might put pressure on someone to leave the faith. James is asking those folks to seek prayer from the elders. And I have done this on a few occasions.

But I wouldn't call this a religious practice or a ritual practice of the Christian religion. James isn't suggesting that we make it our habit to visit with our elders regularly, on scheduled visits, according to a prescribed schedule, time, place, greeting, and etc. It's not part of a religious practice; it's just something we do for each other when the moment arises.

[watchinginawe]

I am going to try and cut this down some. I see where we differ and I think I can at least point that out.

...But if this thread concerns itself with the question of whether Jesus requires a disciple to practice religion

Requires? That isn't my point at all. I am suggesting more along the lines that grasshoppers are insects regardless of how offended they are by the association.

The question for this particular thread should be something like, "was the practice of water baptism a religious practice?"
...
I could imagine someone argue that while baptism is/was a practice associated with Christians as a Christian activity, it wasn't a ritual practice associated with the "religion" of Christianity. And I put "religion" in quotes because if we are asking the question, we can't assume the answer in our question. Did early Christians baptize new believers. Yes. But did they think they were doing religion at the time. That's the question.

Again, if they were walking down the road, there is no requirement for them to think they were walking at that time in order to establish they were walking. If in Acts 4 one repented and professed Jesus Christ, submitted to baptism, sold all their possessions, had everything in common with people of like testimony; it doesn't matter what they thought they were doing (in my opinion), they were doing the Christian religion of that time and culture. It was normative for them and it distinguished them from other religions. Said another way, for an unbelieving reader of the text nearly 2000 years later, what are they to understand? That they were having their form of personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

... I was also attempting to draw a distinction between a "practice" and a "ritual" since the discussion centers on the question of whether baptism is a ritual practice included as part of a larger praxis of the Christian religion.
...
Paul argues very strongly that God is granting his declaration of "right with me" to those who have faith in Jesus Christ apart from "works of the law" and by "works" he means, "ritual practices." What does it take, on my part, for the early believers and Jesus and the Apostles to consider me to be a member of the household of God and to be an heir to the promises? Do I need to fast on a regular basis? Do I need to practice the "spiritual disciplines"? Do I need to tithe, pray, attend church each Saturday or Sunday? What? Are those among us who are a-religious children in the household of God? Or must we be religious in some formal, official, practice?
...
The idea behind "ritual" is an erroneous view of God. Those who teach and practice the necessity of ritual hold a pagan view of God as a reality shaping force that when manipulated according to the set formula and procedure will make life go better.

The problem here is you link ritual to necessity, error, and paganism. You already allowed that Judaism was ritualistic, so I am not sure I understand that. Do we have to be baptized in order to be a member of the household of God? My belief is no. Is baptism a ritual? Outside of some desire to hold to some form of religiously correct language, of course it is. Just like the grasshopper is an insect. Just like Christianity is a religion.

I think what you say here raises a lot of important issues and questions that we need to examine. I agree with those who want to elevate faith above religion. But I don't advocate for that position out of a sense that religion sounds bad. I never level criticism against those who find meaning and value in what we call "high church" as long as they keep things in perspective.

I think we confuse aesthetics and the emotions associated with the apparent beauty and majesty of a well done church service with the sense of awe associated with making personal contact with actual glory. And I don't intend to be mean or insulting when I say that a well done Charismatic service is no different in that respect than a "high church" service. Each service attempts to use various forms of art and music, pacing, rhythm, vocal intonation, group dynamic, and such things as these in order to cause a person to have an ecstatic experience. And I think those who attend high church services and/or Charismatic services should be aware of how they are being manipulated to feel something which only mimics an actual encounter with glory. As long as we are aware of that, and we find that such a church service continues to bring our thoughts back to God, then I see nothing wrong with it. But I understand those who want to draw a sharp distinction from the emotions we feel at such a service and the faith we affirm. After all, we can have the same experience after listening to a well crafted secular song, which doesn't have anything to do with our beliefs about God or our hope for the future.

Well, I can't parse that one easily. No where do you mention the preaching of the word of God, you don't think that goes on in any of their services? Anyway, the grasshopper can think to elevate himself above being an insect, but that will only be a local distinction inside the grasshopper.

Well, not as you understand James 5, no. I think James 5 is speaking to those who are struggling with sin and need extra encouragement to keep believing during times of struggle. Or perhaps, like Job, sin isn't the issue front and center but simply living under extreme conditions of persecution might put pressure on someone to leave the faith. James is asking those folks to seek prayer from the elders. And I have done this on a few occasions.

But I wouldn't call this a religious practice or a ritual practice of the Christian religion. James isn't suggesting that we make it our habit to visit with our elders regularly, on scheduled visits, according to a prescribed schedule, time, place, greeting, and etc. It's not part of a religious practice; it's just something we do for each other when the moment arises.

BroRog, I offered a Scripture, not an understanding. Don't disagree with me just for the practice. I find it no surprise that you find the reference neither a religious practice or ritual. Your understanding that rituals have to be part of some kind of vain repetition is invented. In James 5, the ritual is prescribed as annointing with oil and praying over them. How do we know it is a Christian ritual? We do this in the name of the Lord.

[SPITWAD]

I know I am a new kid on the block, but my pastor used to say, "I brush my teeth religiously but that does not make me a dentist". True religion is what? James coined that one, take care of the widows,the orphans and feed the poor. I go to church every Sunday but that does not make me a christian. Relationship, relationship, relationship.

[Raybob]

I know I am a new kid on the block, but my pastor used to say, "I brush my teeth religiously but that does not make me a dentist". True religion is what? James coined that one, take care of the widows,the orphans and feed the poor. I go to church every Sunday but that does not make me a christian. Relationship, relationship, relationship.

Kieth Green once said, "Going to church doesn't make anyone a Christian, any more than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger. There's a good youtube of him speaking on "devotions" here.

[Boo]

Brothers and sisters, would it not be much more profitable to discuss ideas than words? As I posted in answer to BroRog:

I do think that terminology will really confuse the issue, though.

We get so wrapped up in dissecting words that we miss the point.

Words that cause arguments probably need a real definition that we can all agree on prior to a discussion. The most damaging words and phrases that I can think of are:

works
salvation
regeneration
religion
repent
living in sin
spirit-filled
healing

Because of those words and what they mean; we have whole denominations created.

Perhaps there are more?

Does anyone else see that many discussions get heated only because the two opponents are using different meanings for the same word? Anyone care to set up standard definitions for us to use?

[poorinspirit]

I don't see any irony between James 1 & 3. The two chapters are internally consistent. Explain the irony.

The post was in reply to your quote below:

If James never wrote what he wrote and we didn't have it in our Bibles today, and say we bumped into James on the street today in the 21st century and he said to us today what he said in James 1:26-27, I fear so many Christians would attempt to correct him and explain to him that Christianity isn't a religion and treat him in some negative way.

The irony is that they would be wrong in trying to correct James for failing to see what man can do as opposed to what man can't do. James wasn't "religious" at all. He was just stating that there are opportunities to do good in what man can do, but being good is up to Jesus Christ and His workmanship in us as it is obvious that no man can tame the tongue, but Jesus can.

Psalm 19:12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

Only Jesus can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart to deal with envy and strife and anything else that may be at the root of the violatile tongue.

Psalm 16:2O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee;

That means all that is good in me is of the Lord.

Although James did not quoted the Psalms, it is by His grace and by His help that I have understood what James had meant.

In any event, the irony is that the people would be wrong for trying to correct James, accusing him of being religious about His work in us, when he was just citing opportunities to do good that would be in the power of man to do. James even bothered to say that it was "evil boasting" to speak of planning things tomorrow or planning to do good tomorrow, thus downplaying man's ability and willpower in his religious endeavors in keeping decisions, commitments, and promises. That is why we live by faith.

James 4:¹³ Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: ¹⁴ Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. ¹⁵ For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. ¹⁶ But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. ¹⁷ Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

[poorinspirit]

In Ezekiel 4 (verses 12-15), God tells Ezekiel to eat bread mixed with dung. God has appointed times and holidays for us, and we are not to mix the "dung" of paganism with that of his holy "bread" -- Which is exactly what Israel was doing, worshiping baal and such. I think it is very important to honor and celebrate those holidays given to us by God, and get rid of the "traditions of men" such as "christmas" and "easter".

That would also imply the keeping of the Jewish "holydays" if you apply those verses for believers today.

Colossians 2:¹⁵ And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. ¹⁶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ¹⁷ Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

You are free to regard the days as unto the Lord to do so, but do not hold it against other believers in judgment.

Romans 14:⁴ Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. ⁵ One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. ⁶ He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. ⁷ For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. ⁸ For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. ⁹ For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. ¹⁰ But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. ¹¹ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. ¹² So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. ¹³ Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Consider the topic by Paul about meat being offered unto idol in this chapter below at this link.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+8&version=KJV

If you can see how the idol is nothing that a believer can eat the meat that was offered unto the idol, then you can apply the faith in Jesus Christ so that the origin behind the holiday is nothing too. You are free to regard the day as unto the Lord or not regard the day as unto the Lord for we are the Lord's.

[BroRog]

The problem here is you link ritual to necessity, error, and paganism.

. . .

I find it no surprise that you find the reference neither a religious practice or ritual. Your understanding that rituals have to be part of some kind of vain repetition is invented. In James 5, the ritual is prescribed as anointing with oil and praying over them. How do we know it is a Christian ritual? We do this in the name of the Lord.

Both from your examples and your objections here, I believe that when you talk about "religion" and "ritual" you actually have in mind "customs", or "activities". For instance, you suggest that baptism and anointing with oil are rituals within the Christian religion. But I think you will find, after further investigation, that such activities are not rituals until such time as a set of rules and methods have been established.

For instance, while James recommends that a weak/sick believer ask the elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil, James does not dictate a scripted prayer, specify what plant to use for the oil, anything about official ceremony, whether the prayer should be given during a church service etc. Without such specific details such as these and others, one can not say that James was recommending a ritual practice.