First, if you've not seen it, check it out - Jefferson Bethke actually does a good job talking about what Christianity is in a medium that makes definitions difficult. (I've always struggled to express accurate theology perfectly in verse) Things like "Religion says do, Christ says done" echo a friend's vision for his recent church plant, "Unfinished people resting in the finished work of Christ."
But a whole poem whose focus is a trite idiom from evangelical subculture? An alternate title for this post could be "Shit Christians Say" in a tribute to the popular YouTube video epidemic. Such phrases as "I love Jesus and hate religion" or "love the sinner hate the sin" are unhelpful on several levels, including that they gain meaning and context from within the church and therefore seldom resonate with those outside. So who is the audience for this piece? And towards whom is Bethke aiming his darts?
1) Unchurched? If this piece does nothing else, I hope that it draws out the tension in the assumptions that many inside the church have about those outside. No one outside understands the distinction between "faith & religion." The distinction is rooted in twentieth century evangelicalism, and therefore it either assumes the context of a Christian subculture or comes across as inane.
2) Dechurched? I sense this is closest to the mark, trying to convince people that their previous experience of or interaction with Christianity shouldn't define it. Implicit in this argument is that Christianity has changed .. how so? Is it cooler? More palatable? I think Jared Wilson addresses this best in his response "Jesus Was Religious." Go read it, it's better than this one. A quick teaser:
Some make a boogeyman out of the idea of "religious people," by which it becomes clear what they mean is "traditional people" or the uncool. My feeling is that the Bible-thumping, starched suit-wearing, hellfire and brimstone religious people taking the fun out of fundamentalism are becoming fewer and farther between, while the church is brimming with self-righteous hipsters and cooler-than-thous. The Pharisees look like Vampire Weekend now. I'm not saying Jefferson is one of those guys; I'm just saying he's offering them red meat.
3) Churched? Is it a warning to those in church to be less religious? Possibly a good personal reflection and distinction, but a dangerous accusation to introduce within the church. As Jonathan Edwards noted in discussing the harvest of the First Great Awakening:
They, therefore, do greatly err who take it upon them positively to distinguish and gather out the tares from amongst the wheat. Many of the servants of the owner of the field are very ready to think themselves sufficient for this, but their Lord says, "Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together til harvest." (Commentary on Mt. 13:28-30, taken from "Marks of the Work of the Spirit of God")Perhaps the biggest problem is that the premise of comparing Jesus to religion assumes that Jesus needs to be rescued from religion. In fact, it's the opposite - religion needs to be rescued by Jesus - that's why he came! No matter what the audience, the piece seems apologetic in nature, and while apologetics (defense of faith) can be helpful, they aren't what ultimately convinces people. Jesus convinces people. If I want to see people changed, I need to talk about what Christ is - beautiful - rather than arguing about what he's not. I can attest that I have won a lot of arguments, but never any converts though those arguments. Again, as Edwards noted in his observations on revival,
"For persons to profess that they are so convinced of divine truths so as to esteem and love them in a saving manner, and for them to profess that they are more convinced or confirmed in the truth than they used to be ... are two very different things." (Edwards, "Marks of the Work of the Spirit of God")
