Ok. So I've seen Jefferson Bethke's video literally EVERYWHERE. Not only has it attracted a healthy amount of praise, but it's also seeing a firestorm of critique and criticism, especially coming from catholic, reformed, and muslim circles. When I first saw the video I thought I understood what Jefferson was trying to get across, but now I'm really not so sure, so I'm going to start by going over what I really don't understand. Before I do that however, I'd like to just affirm my respect and admiration for Jefferson Bethke. He may not be Lecrae, but the man has rhyme and rhythm! He seems to be very theologically sound and genuinely love Christ and is seeking to make His name known. His "Sexual Healing" video was great, and even greater was his response to "Love Wins" by Rob Bell. Good good stuff.
Let's get to his current piece of art though. The first thing I don't understand is his choice of WHERE he made the video. I feel like so much would make more sense if he was actually standing outside a church building. But he's not. It looks like he's standing outside a university or government building. That is confusion point No. 1. It's confusing because throughout the video I simply never quite get WHO exactly he's talking to. At first glance I would say it's obviously the "religious". But we're faced with a problem. What is religion? And that's where the heart of this strange argument over the definition of a word seems to be.
"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish relgion.". Ok. Define religion please. Nope. Instead he continues with "What if I told you voting Republican wasn't really his mission?" This confuses me. So he's talking to Republicans? Don't get me wrong, I believe he's quite correct! Jesus would want us to vote for those who have integrity and believe in the biblical principles set down for government, no matter what their particular political affiliation happens to be. But I still don't understand what it has to do with Jesus being ">religion".
He asks another question toward the beginning of his rhyme, this one I believe I have an answer for: "I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?" The answer I believe can be found in Matthew chapter 10: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." I think that may be why religion has started so many wars.
Jefferson goes on. He doesn't say anything heretical in the least, (in fact I especially like when he says: "He looked down and said 'I want that man!'") but at the same time, we're left without a definition for religion. I've raised this objection to several people and the response has been this: words change meaning. So really what we're arguing about is not whether or not as Christians, we want to change the definition of religion. I would argue NO, and for this reason: Changing the definition of a word adds to deconstruction and confusion in a language. It WILL happen I know, but words have meaning, and trying to change a definition only causes confusion. In this context, while I know and understand the good intention behind: "it's not a RELIGION it's a RELATIONSHIP", this statement generally only adds confusion to an unbelieving mind. I would argue the "nonreligious" unbeliever doesn't need to understand that Christianity is not a religion, but needs to understand in their unbelieving state they are indeed devoutly religious- worshiping themselves. Furthermore, the statement (religion not a relationship) is not found in the Bible- instead we find a description of what James calls TRUE religion (Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.- James 1:27).
It's important to remember that this is a discussion within the body of believers, and there's no reason to get bent out of shape or to emotionally invested in the argument (2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.).
Let's get to his current piece of art though. The first thing I don't understand is his choice of WHERE he made the video. I feel like so much would make more sense if he was actually standing outside a church building. But he's not. It looks like he's standing outside a university or government building. That is confusion point No. 1. It's confusing because throughout the video I simply never quite get WHO exactly he's talking to. At first glance I would say it's obviously the "religious". But we're faced with a problem. What is religion? And that's where the heart of this strange argument over the definition of a word seems to be.
"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish relgion.". Ok. Define religion please. Nope. Instead he continues with "What if I told you voting Republican wasn't really his mission?" This confuses me. So he's talking to Republicans? Don't get me wrong, I believe he's quite correct! Jesus would want us to vote for those who have integrity and believe in the biblical principles set down for government, no matter what their particular political affiliation happens to be. But I still don't understand what it has to do with Jesus being ">religion".
He asks another question toward the beginning of his rhyme, this one I believe I have an answer for: "I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?" The answer I believe can be found in Matthew chapter 10: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." I think that may be why religion has started so many wars.
Jefferson goes on. He doesn't say anything heretical in the least, (in fact I especially like when he says: "He looked down and said 'I want that man!'") but at the same time, we're left without a definition for religion. I've raised this objection to several people and the response has been this: words change meaning. So really what we're arguing about is not whether or not as Christians, we want to change the definition of religion. I would argue NO, and for this reason: Changing the definition of a word adds to deconstruction and confusion in a language. It WILL happen I know, but words have meaning, and trying to change a definition only causes confusion. In this context, while I know and understand the good intention behind: "it's not a RELIGION it's a RELATIONSHIP", this statement generally only adds confusion to an unbelieving mind. I would argue the "nonreligious" unbeliever doesn't need to understand that Christianity is not a religion, but needs to understand in their unbelieving state they are indeed devoutly religious- worshiping themselves. Furthermore, the statement (religion not a relationship) is not found in the Bible- instead we find a description of what James calls TRUE religion (Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.- James 1:27).It's important to remember that this is a discussion within the body of believers, and there's no reason to get bent out of shape or to emotionally invested in the argument (2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.).
