Elton John is being too kind here. The reality is, “organized religion” absolutely, overwhelmingly does not work.
In fact, “organized religion” is so wildly unsuccessful that just putting those two words together causes a negative reaction in people like me.
Because I follow Jesus of Nazareth — whom many people believe is the Son of God — you might not understand. Aren’t people like me all about “religion”? In a word, NO.
Serious followers of Jesus have zero interest in “religion” because it does exactly what Elton John says. Religious people seem addicted to:
- harshly opposing anyone who doesn’t agree with them
- judging others based on horribly superficial criteria like clothing, body jewelry, language and political positions
- ignoring or downplaying their own weaknesses
- isolating themselves from the world, instead of working to improve it
Where does this all lead? So often, it leads to religious people concluding that because they’re right, everyone else is wrong. It’s a pretty short trip from that conclusion to persecuting those “wrong” people.
Unfortunately, history overflows with horrifying examples of that thinking, from Christians rioting against Jews in the Middle Ages to present-day Islamic terrorists murdering Christians, Jews and anyone else who opposes their radical agenda.
There you have it; the hateful lemmings of “organized religion”.
Now let me advance to you the position of Jesus. In his book The End of Religion, Bruxy Cavey notes that in ancient biographries, Jesus “is not portrayed as the founder of a world religion, but the challenger of all religions. I am not suggesting that Jesus opposes all forms of organization, but that he opposes dependence on any one organization for our connection with God.”
Bruxy, a Canadian pastor, goes on to make this statement: “the primary mission of Jesus was to tear down religion as the foundation for people’s connection with God and to replace it with himself.”
Exactly. Being a Jesus follower is not about being part of a religion. It’s about establishing a relationship with the Son of God through prayer, reading the Bible and attending church. As that relationship deepens, Jesus followers open their heart, minds and souls to being led by Jesus to a place where we:
- Come to understand and support God’s position that all people, from terrorists to politicians, from blue-collar workers to billionaires, are worthy of His passionate love.
- Humbly agree that no one has the inside track on virtue; everyone has “sinned” — that is, missed the mark of what we can be — and that by following Jesus, God can and does change that through radical forgiveness.
- Recognize that we are Jesus’s loving ambassadors in a world that most of us will agree is not doing very well. In fact, as His ambassadors, Jesus followers are really God’s agents of change — allowing Him to work through us to make this planet a better place.
Do you want to be one of God’s agents of change? Yes or no, share your thoughts below and let’s have a conversation.
Frank's Cottage 
Great post! And timely too as there has been a to of discussion on WP lately on this very subject.
If being part of a religion is anathema to you then surely attending Church flies in the face of this?
Even in non denominational churches there is structure.
Presumably you are not Catholic? Thus, surely you are, by default a Protestant.(of some description)
Thanks for your comment. I don’t equate attending church with “religion”. I equate it with surrounding myself with people who will hold me to account for my actions and also to encourage me to be the very best ambassador for Jesus Christ that I can possibly be.
I was raised Catholic and now attend an “evangelical” church – that is, a church that is focused on telling people about Jesus Christ. I don’t pay much attention to Christian denominations; they seem to divide more than unite. The bottom line is not Catholic or Protestant. The bottom line is Jesus Christ – who He is, what He did during his physical time on earth and how He is working in the world today. 🙂
So if your church is evangelical it must, by default, adhere to Protestant liturgy, yes?
As an attendee of an evangelical church, how much of the bible do you consider to be inerrant?
I’m puzzled as to what your questions have to do with the topic of this blog. Can you enlighten me?
Well, firstly there is your closing paragraph:
Well, obviously my response is no, but as you have invited me (generally) I still want to converse.
As to the topic of the post … well,
Yet you attend an evangelical church surrounded by like-minded people.
As an evangelist you are, I believe, commanded to spread The Word. Even in this simple instruction there is organisation.
Your church has to have some sort of organisation, surely? Regular service times, bible instruction, including exegeses and hermeneutics, yes?
You have a church leader, elder or pastor of some description I presume who conducts services? And do you take offerings?
And the church must have a name of sorts and in all likelihood is registered if only for the tax benefits.
So while not being organised in the sense of having a centralized church authority, you are still firmly Protestant and this alone has religious doctrine.
You abide by most of the Apostle’s Creed, yes?
Maybe even the Creed of Nicea?
So, as an evangelical Christian do you consider the entire bible inerrant?
If not, which parts do you consider analogous?
And do you accept evolution for example?
I’m happy for us to disagree upon the role of attending church – especially as there tends to be few areas of agreement between Christians and atheists (which you’ve told me you are).
Can you explain how your final questions are connected to the topic of the blog?
If there was something I wrote that you consider false would you please explain why you disagree with my statements regarding church and your Protestant evangelical faith?etc?
I follow Jesus Christ, rather than any denomination’s “liturgy”. Can you explain how your final question is connected to the topic of the blog?
You cited Cavey. Is he not a pastor in Canada’s largest church?
Is it fair to suggest you consider this man at least worthy of your praise?
As for not following any liturgy …
is there no service at the church you attend? No ritual of any sort?
If you do then you at least partake in some form of liturgy. This is a fact.
I think I answered the final question on another comment.
But I shall try once again.Do you consider the bible to be inerrant and do you accept evolution?
Thanks for your comment.
1. I don’t know the size of Bruxy Cavey’s church. I’m sure you can find it on the church’s website. Just look up “The Meeting House”.
2. I’m just not intelligent enough to understand your fixation with a “liturgy” and how it connects with the blog.
3. I don’t understand what your final questions have to do with the point of the blog. I’m not trying to avoid them, I’m trying to stick to the point of the blog; your questions seem to be trying to go somewhere else entirely – perhaps to satisfy an agenda that has nothing to do with the blog?
Either way, we seem to be at an impasse. I’m hopeful others are open-minded enough to simply, thoughtfully consider the points of the blog. Thanks for reading anyway.
I think you are downplaying this somewhat, Frank. Christians slaughtered a great many Jews, thanks in no small measure to the belief and writings of Martin Luther.
Christians were also responsible for what some consider the largest genocide in human history, that of the slaughter of Native Americans.
So, one can see, Christians are not quite so guiltless, I’m afraid,and their murderous rampaging is equally on a par with their Muslim counterparts, and a great many of them undoubtedly felt they ere doing your god’s work by quelling the Red Savages.
Slavery is another example, as was modern day Apartheid in my country. Both sanctioned by Christians and ended by Christians – ironically!
The US even had a civil war over slavery.
It is just unfortunate we have a very nasty habit of forgetting or blurring certain aspects of history.
Thanks for your comments. However, I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make in relation to the subject of the blog. Can you make it plain for me?
It was part of the post and I responded to the statement, ”Christians rioting against Jews in the Middle Ages”.
This was almost an untruth, and in many case outright falsehood as Jews were slaughtered.
I beleive it best in the interest of honesty and transparency that you do not try to cover the heinous actions of Christians with ambiguity, Frank.
I hope you are able to grasp the significance now?
I used one example of evil committed by Christians. You are welcome to add many more to satisfy yourself. I’m very sorry you are apparently missing the point of the blog. I’m hopeful people who are open to spirituality will see the big picture.
Maybe they will.
But tell me, at what point do you consider some of the heinous things done in the name of Jesus can be written off?
I cannot defend acts committed by horribly misguided people many, many decades ago. Just as I believe atheists cannot defend the atheist regimes of Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong murdering millions and millions of people.
That said, I’m hopeful that people who are open to spirituality will not fixate on one thing that is not crucial to the points of the blog – but instead, give fair, open-minded consideration to those points.