I've addressed the phrase "Relationship, not religion" before, but I'd like here to trace its evolution and implore believers to be careful and precise in what they say because most of the believers I know who say this phrase don't realize that what they mean often isn't heard.
Spiritual, but Not Religious
When I was in college, this phrase was all the rage. At the time, most churches blew it off. Eventually, the secular world did, too. At first it meant that someone had some kind of spirituality in his or her life, but no ties to any denomination or world religion. Later, as it became overused, it took on a connotation of someone flighty and wishy-washy, someone unwilling to stand on what he or she really believed. However, even as the phrase lost its power, its ideas stuck with society. We see this in the fact that more people than ever claim no religion at all, yet many also claim they are spiritual or have some kind of spiritual belief. The phrase fits our relativistic society well: You be spiritual the way you want, I'll be spiritual the way I want and no one's wrong or right.
Relationship, Not Religion
Enter the church. As society began to drift heartily away from the Christian church, the church took notice. Realizing that spirituality had become a focus, the church put forth this phrase. Do you notice that, in fact, "relationship, not religion" is a parallel phrase to "spiritual, but not religious"? To attract our culture and draw people in, the church took up a "spiritual" mantra. "No, it isn't about religion," the church said. "When you come into our church, we aren't about that religious stuff. We're about a relationship with God/Jesus." But what did the church mean by that? At first, and often still today, the church actually means "Relationship, not legalism," but that doesn't have two catchy R's in it and smacks of Christianese so it doesn't get a pass. Still, most churches who used the phrase and still do will go on to explain its meaning. What they mean is that Christianity isn't about following a bunch of rules to get to God. It isn't even about following a bunch of rules to get God to like me after I'm saved. I love God, I have a relationship with him and I obey him simply because I love him so much. Friends, that is the truth! Christianity can never be what it is intended to be if you operate in legalism. A heart that loves God is a heart that obeys God because it loves him. If that is true, then why is this phrase a problem at all?
Relationship, Not Religion--Alternate Meaning
Today this phrase is bandied around quite a bit. But if you ever hear someone say it, your next question should be, "What do you mean by that?" Because this phrase has moved away from "relationship, not legalism." Slowly, this phrase has morphed into meaning "relationship, not doctrine." Many churches today shy away from any emphasis or talk of doctrine. The line is this: "Look, we are just about having a relationship with Jesus. We don't claim that he's God or the only way. You don't need 'salvation' to come to him. The Bible isn't really trustworthy anyway, but you can still learn from Jesus and have a relationship with him." In the Bible belt where I live, evangelical churches are often blissfully unaware of this understanding of the phrase "relationship, but not religion." However, many other churches around the country do taut this meaning as well as many secular venues. I saw an example of this while reading an article on a secular news site. The author claimed he was a Christian and said that there were some things the church needed to give up, among them the fact that Jesus is the only way, the fact that the Bible can be trusted, the fact that the Bible has anything meaningful to say on moral issues like homosexuality, etc. By the end of the article I found myself asking, "Why are you even a Christian?" He threw out all the Christian foundations. How can he be a Christian? Because he's got a relationship, he doesn't need religion and by religion, he means doctrine. I'm going to get close to Jesus, but I don't need his truth claims.
So, Christian friends, we need to be aware of the meaning of this phrase. Inadvertently, the church has pushed the first phrase above: "spiritual, but not religious." "Relationship, but not religion" has evolved into a phrase that equals "spiritual, but not religious." It has come to widely mean I'll take the relationship with Jesus, but not the Bible's truth claims. Some people may wonder why this matters. It's just words. Friends, words are meant to communicate ideas. There
is power in words to formulate thinking. I am reminded of a similar issue that started with Thomas Aquinas. Before Aquinas, most biblical scholars focused on the fact that God is sovereign and reveals himself to man. Aquinas, however, asserted that God can be known to an extent without special revelation. That is, man can observe the world and know God. Aquinas was correct according to Romans 1. But Aquinas would also note that some things cannot be known by man without God telling him. However, this idea that God can be known without the Word took root. It next became, "If I can know about God with my own senses, I can trust myself over the Bible," then "If I can know about God with my own senses, I don't need the Bible" and eventually, "If I don't need the Bible and I can trust myself, then I don't need God at all." Phrases and words move cultures. What will be the next meaning of "Relationship, not religion"?
How do we handle this? Define your meaning, my Christian friend. Speak accurately and be clear. Realize that catch phrases in the church have different meanings and make sure when you speak those around you know what you mean.
For previous posts on this topic, see below...
Christianity IS a Religion
Jesus, Redeemer of Religion
Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater
