Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Personally, I think that the relationship aspect of
Christianity should be stressed because it is an
essential base and many people are either unaware
of this or don't think in these terms.

Whether or not it's politcally correct is irrelevant
to me.

As to putting down "religion", I'm ambivalent.  I've
certainly heard the distinction between religion and
a relationship with Jesus and sometimes I make it
myself, but I'm also willing to call Christianity a
religion and myself religious at other times.

Collis

It is possible, I suppose, to be active in a church, to have a regular time
of devotion which includes prayer and the study of Scripture, to live a just
and moral life with Christ as one's example, and still have not encountered
the Living God.

It is possible, I suppose, to have an encounter with the Living God without
all the aforementioned disciplines.

It is possible, I suppose, that this is what some are trying to say in making
the distinction between "religion" and "relationship."

But you see, to me, religion *is* relationship.

Peace,
Richard

    I think we all "encounter" God, we just often don't realize it until
    sometimes a long, long time later - but by God's Grace we have been
    encountered.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

Re:  469.2

  >It is possible, I suppose, to be active in a church, to have a regular time
  >of devotion which includes prayer and the study of Scripture, to live a 
  >just and moral life with Christ as one's example, and still have not 
  >encountered the Living God.

Millions of people in non-Christian religions do essentially this every day.  
It's certainly no shock to me that many in Christian churches take the form 
over the substance (which certainly includes me more than I care to admit).

  >It is possible, I suppose, to have an encounter with the Living God without
  >all the aforementioned disciplines.

Agreed.

  >But you see, to me, religion *is* relationship.

Only Christianity.  And this is *not* a widespread view among non-Christians
as well as in many Christian churches.  Have you heard about the seminary
student who asked his roommate, "Do you think someone should be a pastor
if they don't believe in God?"  In many churches, relationship is rarely
mentioned and form is stressed.

Collis

    Ah, three great new base notes and 20 minutes left on my lunch hour. 
    Let's see what I can add in that time to each.  :-)  I start here 'cuz
    my response to this one is the shortest...
    
    I learned a great many things in my old DEC Bible Study in OGO, but two
    come to mind right now.  The first was one of those catchy phrases that
    holds a basic truth:  most people miss heaven by about 12 inches - the
    distance from their head to their heart.  Another friend put it another
    way.  She told me once that she could know about Abraham Lincoln - she
    could read books, read his writings, visit the places he lived, the
    theater where he was shot, etc., etc., and know all _about_ Lincoln,
    but she could never _know_ him because he is dead.  Jesus, on the other
    hand, is alive.  Therefore, we can not only know _about_ Jesus, we can
    meet and _know_ Him, too!  But many stop at the knowing _about_ and
    never pursue the invitation to meet the risen Christ.
    
    The second wise "bumper sticker" theological message from that time:
    "Religion is mankind's way to God; Christ is God's way to mankind"
    (semi-exclusive language not intended, but this is the way I learned
    it!)  Religion (any religion) is an institution.  And no matter how
    divinely inspired or faith-filled the people that make up the
    institution, it will still have it's brokeness because people are
    broken.  That does not mean we shouldn't try, nor does it mean that
    people of faith should not gather in corporate worship.  It does imply,
    however, that people of faith should be ever mindful of what they have
    put their faith into: the living God or the institution called
    religion.  I'll go into more of that in the disenchanted seminarian
    note.
    
    First, I've got something to add to the KKK note...
    
    
    
    Sue
      

    RE  .5  Sue,
    
    RE  your statement how Christ is God's way to mankind, of how we should
    put our faith in a living God, rather than an institution, which you
    call 'mankind's way to God'......  
    
    I essentially agree, however, I think mankind, many in the human race,
    have a proclivity to mimic the mistakes of that manmade institution,
    called religion, when they go about telling others how to put their
    faith in a living God and how to forge their own personal
    'relationships' with Christ.   In other words, when God reaches out
    to individuals, via the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, those who
    tell others how to *reach back* in their personal walks with God, IMHO, 
    are just as misguided as those who believe that others ought to put
    their faith in an institution, as opposed to a living God.
    
    I have much more to say in this topic, but don't have much time 
    right now....
    
    Regards,                          
    Paul
    

    Paul,
    
    I totally agree that God reaches out in different ways to different
    people.  My own experience has shown me that God truly finds us where
    we are and "talks" to us in the words and ways of the place.  For
    example, some of my most meaningful encounters with God have come
    through the words and music of secular music.  I can't tell you how the
    Beatles' "Let It Be" helped me through some very rough times.  Later,
    when I was involved in a faith community that unilaterally renounced
    secular music, I was mystified.  How could my own encounter have been
    totally wrong?  I found out, of course, that it had not been.  It was
    right for me, where I was at the time.
    
    
    >>In other words, when God reaches out
    >>to individuals, via the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, those who
    >>tell others how to *reach back* in their personal walks with God, IMHO, 
    >>are just as misguided as those who believe that others ought to put
    >>their faith in an institution, as opposed to a living God.
    
    I'm not sure what your experiences have been when it comes to others
    telling how to "reach back".  I look forward to hearing more of what
    you have to say.  
    
    
    Sue
    
    
    
    
    

    The point of calling Christianity a "relationship" seems to be to set
    up Christianity as exclusively valid and to put down all other
    religions, since its basic claim is that that Christians are the only
    people who have a relationship with God.  My perspective is quite
    different.  I believe that people of many faiths can and do have a
    relationship with God, and that their faith provides a mechanism for
    strengthening that relationship, regardless of how I might feel about
    specific theological claims.  I also believe that there is that of God
    in everyone, although the measure of that light within may be small or
    large.

    -- Mike

    REligion is relationship.  Relationship with ourselves, our God, and
    also our relationships with each other.  I could also include our
    relationship with Mother Earth in here too.
    
    
    Patricia

    I agree with you, Patricia.  To me, religions in general are valuable
    in that they provide a means for us to mending and developing our
    relationships with precisely the four things you mentioned:  ourselves,
    others, God, and the world.  Different religions provide different
    means to that end.

    -- Mike

    Re  .8  Mike,
    
    Thanks Mike.  That was beautifully put, and I agree completely.
    
    The term 'relationship' is an OK word, if it has a broad/flexible
    meaning that lends itself to each individual unique walk with God,
    and all that God encompasses.  However, I do feel a bit uncomfortable
    with the fundamental Christian use of the word 'relationship' because
    it implies that one cannot join and network with and 'know' God, as
    part of oneself, through faith;  rather, it implies that all of us
    must get close to something outside ourselves, namely, the person
    Jesus, but cannot experience oneness with the Christ.  In other words,
    it drives home the concept that we are not God, that we are basically
    nothing, and that Jesus is God; therefore it emphasizes *association*
    with a person (Jesus) rather than oneness/being part of any divine
    Spirit.
    
    Paul
    

    Mike and Paul,
    
    This is interesting.  It would seem that you have heard the
    "Christianity is relationship, not religion" theme in a different
    context than I have.  To me, it does not exclude other avenues to
    God (as Mike feels in .8).  In fact, it seems to me that fundamentalist
    Christians really do emphasize a set of beliefs, even while saying
    that relationship is primary.
    
    When I emphasize Christianity as relationship rather than religion,
    it is not to exclude some non-Christian believer who has found God,
    but to counter the insistence on rigid "right beliefs."  (BTW, I may or
    may not feel that any particular non-Christian has really found God,
    but that is not my judgment to make and I would tentatively accept what
    s/he says until I have reason to doubt it.)
    
    *If* the essence of religion really *is* being in relationship with God, 
    does it matter so much that you heard it first from a fundamentalist?  :}
    
    Paul, a relationship does requires two (at least) and certainly
    therefore implies that the two can be separate -- even alienated, which
    is, of course, on of the basic tenents of Christianity (with or without
    original sin).
    
    Are you coming from a pantheist viewpoint?  If so, I can see that the 
    idea of relationship may suggest more of a duality that you would like. 
    To me it certainly does *not* imply, however, "that we are bascially
    nothing!" 
    
    Nancy
    

    Nancy, that makes a lot of sense.  When what matters is the
    relationship, it would seem that focusing on having the "right" beliefs
    on this or that theological point really misses the boat.  I have to
    admit that I have often heard the "Christianity is a relationship, not
    a religion" comment from fundamentalists, and that was the basis of my
    comments; but of course the reason for my objection was my belief that
    Christianity is not the sole means for a relationship with God.  I
    certainly *do* agree that Christianity provides its believers with a
    relationship with God.

    -- Mike

    How can someone claim to be a Christian, believe in Jesus Christ, and
    not believe that Jesus Christ is not the one and only way of salvation?
    
    John 14:6
    
    Jesus answered "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to
    the Father except through me."

    You might want to check out topic 300 for an answer to your question.
    
    -- Mike

    Your seven replies in 300.* are interesting research, but you've
    written them as "on the one hand, then on the other..." without
    directly confronting the question.  Since you asserted that you are a
    Christian and apparently do not believe what's written in the Gospel
    according to John, the question is quite relevant, either here or in
    300.

    Well, Pat (if I may be so bold as to address you by name), I have never
    asserted that I am a Christian; I am not sure how you might have gotten
    the impression that I claim to be one, but allow me to correct any
    false impression that I may have given on that score.

    Perhaps, since you are a Catholic, and since you have, if I am not
    mistaken, asserted that Catholics must accept all of their church's
    teachings, you might want to consider directing your question to your
    own church, which appears to view the issue differently than you do. 
    Or do you agree with the following passage:

        God's saving will also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator,
        and among them especially the Muslims, who profess the faith of
        Abraham and together with us adore the one God, the Merciful One,
        who will judge men on the Last Day.

    If you agree with that statement from your own church, then that means
    that you do believe that devout Moslems and possibly people of other
    faiths will attain salvation.  How does that coincide with your
    question, which seemed to imply that you believe that only Christians
    can attain salvation?

    In any case, since the whole point of topic 300 is to discuss your
    question, I would consider it to be a more appropriate place to discuss
    it, rather than bogging this one down with a rathole.

    -- Mike

    Well, on second thought, I guess the question does relate to this topic
    after all, although perhaps not as directly as it does to topic 300.
    
    By the way, topic 327 also has some interesting discussion that relates
    to the question of religious pluralism.
    
    -- Mike

    It is cheap and patronizing to say "I am not sure how you might have
    gotten the impression".  This is after all, CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.
    If you are not a Christian, then what is your fascination with us?
    
    I believe what my Church teaches. God's saving will embraces everyone.
    The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict on this.
    
    Why do you answer my question with a question? By the way, this is not
    a "rathole" as you introduced the subject yourself in one reply in this
    note.  It is your evasion of directly responding to the question I
    raised that prolongs this.
                              

    Well, SDSVAX::SWEENEY, as I am sure you are aware, this notes file is
    not restricted to Christians, and is in fact open to participation by a
    large number of people.  Many people who are not Christians participate
    here.  I might add that you did not merely state that you assumed I was
    a Christian; on the contrary, you stated that I *asserted* I was a
    Christian, which I most certainly did not do.  It is hardly cheap and
    patronizing to point out that I did not assert what you claimed that I
    asserted.  Rather than trying to be at least somewhat diplomatic and
    saying that I may have given the wrong impression, I could have instead
    bluntly pointed out that you made a totally incorrect statement about
    an assertion I never made. 

    As for your question, I don't know why you expect an answer from me.  I
    can't speak for Christians, since I am not one, and your question was
    directed at Christians.  The best I can do is offer several possible
    answers that Christians might conceivably offer.  If you read through
    topic 300, you would know that I cited answers from several possible
    perspectives, including one from your own church.  Those are all
    different approaches to religious pluralism, an issue that is near and
    dear to my heart.  I stated that my own perspective comes closest to
    that of the theologian John Hick, who does not believe in the primacy
    of Christianity.  If you want a personal opinion from someone who *is*
    a Christian, then I am hardly the one to ask.

    Since you accept your church's teaching, then you apparently do believe
    that it is possible for non-Christians to attain salvation.  So what is
    the basis for your question?  Are you genuinely seeking information, or
    was your question merely a rhetorical device for attacking a position
    you disagree with?  You ask me what my reason for participating here
    is, and although I have every right to be here, and although I have
    answered that question elsewhere in this notes file, since you are an
    infrequent noter here I will answer your (apparently hostile) question
    anyway.  My faith, Quakerism, is historically rooted in Christianity,
    and my own religious perspective is greatly influenced by Christianity. 
    Most contemporary Quakers are are Christians.  Also, I have an interest
    in the faith as the most important influence in my own personal
    religious experience.

    I happen to feel that my participation here is legitimate.  If you feel
    differently, that is a shame, but that won't influence my own
    participation here.  I am glad to see you participating here more
    frequently now, and I hope you will continue to do so.

    -- Mike

   Patrick,

   Christian-Perspective is not exclusivity, it is the point of view
   from within the conference.  You may read note one if you haven't
   already.  Many here are not Christian, but may have had contact
   with Christianity through people they've met or by prior religious
   experience. There is no inherant badness or goodness in any religion
   from my experience, except when it is imposed upon others.

   Peace,
   Allison

	And I have long believed that there where people who noted here in
	order to convert us Christians from our "wrongful" ways. .5 :-)

		Alfred

    What this topic is about (not 300) then is about "identification",
    if you want to roll up your sleeves and practice semiotics then we have
    these statements:

    I love the idea of friendship.
    I love the idea of friends.
    I love everyone who may be my friend.
    I love everyone who is my friend.
    I love my friends, John and Jane.

    I'll tip my hat towards pluralism and use a term that is commonly in
    the plural.  Now change "friend" to "God". and you can see the
    progression in shades of meaning.  There's a symmetry around "friend"
    that I do not believe exists for God.  In my belief, God is the
    creator, we are created by Him.

    Patrick,
    
    I do not call myself a 'Christian,' either, but was raised as Roman
    Catholic, and have much reverence/adoration for the teachings of Jesus
    and the sustenance that comes from the Spirit of Christ.   Christian
    perspectives are important to me, in terms of my own references points
    and walk with God.   I have no intention of tearing down anyone's
    belief system; that is, I respect your own unique relationship with God 
    and your life with the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand, I won't hestitate 
    to share my own perspective, especially given questions like this:
    
          .14>  "How can someone claim to be a Christian, believe in Jesus
               Christ, and not believe that Jesus Christ is not the one and
               only way of salvation?"
    
    Well, first, I personally don't claim to be a Christian, and I don't 
    view Jesus's words in the precise way that you do, in terms of what you 
    mean by the 'way' and by 'salvation.'
    
               "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to
                the Father, except through me..."
    
    Good stuff, isn't it?   I see the Truth in this statement, but do not
    necessarily see precisely what you see, in terms of having to cultivate 
    a personal realtionshiop with the personality, Jesus, in order to realize
    the Kingdom of God, Oneness with God, salvation.
    
    When I read the new testament and put it together with the whole context,
    and in light of my other (non-Biblical) exposures to, and communions
    with, God I've had with God to date, I see a somewhat different meaning
    and context and interpretation of Jesus's teachings, including some of 
    the lines that follow JOHN 14:6, such as JOHN 14:10-12:
    
              "Do you believe I am in the Father and the Father is in
               me?  The words I have spoken to you do not come from me.
               The Father, who remains in me, does his own works.  Believe
               me that I am in the Father and the Father in me.  If not,
               believe because of these works.  I tell you the truth:  he
               who believes in me will do the works that I do, yes, he
               will do even greater ones ..."
    
    The 'way, truth, and life' is the way of the everlasting nature of,
    and inherent in the truth/reality of, the *essence* of the Spirit of God, 
    the Father, Divinity, *embodied* in the *essense* of Christ and in the 
    Holy Spirit.   This esssence of the Spirit of God, which did embody in
    Christ, can manifest in many other ways.  This is how I view the 
    Truth of Jesus's life/teachings.   It refers to the essence of the Spirit,
    not the personality/person of Jesus.   "The Father, who remains in me, 
    does His own works."    Jesus was teaching, by example, that we must
    believe in/worship the Truth/Reality of the the Divine essence of Spirit 
    of God, which was manifested and demonstrated in, became one with, was 
    embodied in the person Jesus.   He demonstrated for us that we can realize
    this Spirit essence in ourselves, through faith/trust in God --  not to 
    forge our own personal associations with the person Jesus, at face value,
    in hopes that this assocation, by itself, will bring us everlasting
    peace.   I don't mean to put down your own walk with God, however you 
    define it.   I do mean to answer your question by telling you that there 
    exists more than one mindset and interpretation and perspective of the 
    life/teachings of Jesus.
    
    I would also be interested in knowing whether you believe that non-
    Christians can realize salvation/Kingdom of God.   None?  Some?  Many?
    
    Peace,
    Paul
    

    Patrick,
    
    I'm sorry you think I am 'playing games' and 'baiting' you into 'some 
    sort of rhetorical trap' and so forth.   In .25, I was sharing my own 
    view of Truth, in terms of the life/teachings of Jesus, including those
    particular entries in the gospels, book of John.   I would like you to
    share your views on Truth also, as it manifests through Chrisitianity.  
    If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, as your reply here
    indicates, it would be nice to know where you disagree.
    
    Paul
       

    I been giving this religion vs. relationship some thought and
  as is often the case I am confused.

    If the idea of relationship is stressed as doctrine in conservative
  Christian circles, well...it's almost contradictory. Doctrine as used
 in this case implies religion. So what is really being said is that
 a religious doctrine says that that a personal relationship takes
 precedence of religious doctrine...how's that again ?

   I would also wonder how conservative Christians can criticize liberal
 Christian denominations for not holding to doctrines such as Biblical
 inerrancy, for instance, if relationship is stressed over specific
 denominational religious doctrine. Clearly, Scripture and its interpretation
 are matters of doctrine and by their very nature it would be very difficult
 for them to take part in a personal relationship with Christ. 

   It has struck me as odd that when I've tried to explore this concept
 of a personal relationship with conservative Christian friends or family
 the discussion is centered almost exclusively around Scripture and the
 religious doctrines associated with the interpretation of Scripture.

   It has gotten to the point that whenever I am told that Christianity
 is not a religion, but is a personal relationship with Christ ( and I have
 lost count of how many times I've been told this ) that I just sort of
 tune out whatever follows.

   Wouldn't nearly all Scripture be basically useless if Christianity was
 a personal relationship with Christ and not a religion based on the 
 interpretation of Scripture into religious doctrine based on denominational
 points of view and prejudices ?

                                                               Mike
  

    Mike, you make the observation that a religion (a set of beliefs
    regarding God or transcendant reality) and a personal relationship with
    God is contradictory without defining what the contradiction is.
    
    I love the idea of families and I love my family and my father, and I
    have a personal relationship with my father.
    
    Where's the contradiction here?

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
               re:Note 469.29              
    
    Patrick?,
    
    
>    I love the idea of families and I love my family and my father, and I
>    have a personal relationship with my father.
    
>    Where's the contradiction here?
    
     This made me think of Paul's writings at Ephesians chapters 5 and 6.
    
             robin

re Note 9.204 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     No, the question is a rhetorical trap to trigger hostility towards the
>     beliefs of Roman Catholics.  Many here know what the Roman Catholic
>     Church teaches regarding salvation and lie in wait for a foil to
>     mention those beliefs only so that they can be disparaged.
  
        Pat,

        You seem so overly-sensitive on this issue!

        I personally think that the Roman Catholic Church's teaching
        on this subject stands head and shoulders above that of most
        conservative denominations.  It is a shining example of how
        much baby was actually lost when the reformation threw out
        the bath-water.  It is a prime example of why an
        authoritative Scripture does not stand alone without an
        equally-authoritative teacher.

        This wasn't a trap -- but a golden opportunity!  Why do you
        leave it to former- and non-Catholics to present it?

        Bob

    Re.29

     Pat:

           To me the contradiction is that I have been repeatedly told
          that Christianity is not a religion ( I strongly disagree with
          this point ) by those who border on fanatic on the correctness
          of certain specific doctrines.

           I did not say that religion and a personal relationship with
         God are contradictory. In fact your explanation is an excellent
         analogy of how they are compatible concepts.

           I am at a loss as to explain why many conservative Christians
         I know steadfastly insist that Christianity is not a religion as
         if there were something wrong with idea religion.

                                                               Mike 
     

In my experience I've seen "relationship vs religion" used to distinguish
the focus: "relationship" focuses on the fact that an individual is in
a personal relationship with God, with all that "personal" implies, whereas,
"religion" focues on the individual, ie the things the person does or does
not do.  This use of the terms means that it doesn't follow a convervative /
liberal breakdown since both can have "lists" of correct things one does.

I've also seen the terms used in a context where "religion" was characterized
as a practise without a personal relationship with God as the focal point which
often results in just going through the motions.

Personally, I tend to favor the "relationship" view, realizing that I'm 
clearly not the important one in the relationship.  I'm to conform to
Christ's likeness my the renewing of my mind (which needs renewing), and
not Christ to conform to my likeness.  This means that that if I'm
satisfied with myself or my "progress" then I know that something is wrong.


---
Paul		loptsn::ferwerda
Gordon			or
Loptson		ferwerda@clt.zko.dec.com        
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

	A definition of Religion is "any system of faith and worship"

	Not all religion is good, for example some worship their own
	selfish desires, Philippians 3:19 NWT reads "and their finish
	is destruction, and their god is their belly,".

	However, religion is important and worship needs to be directed 
	to the one who created all things. By doing so one acknowledges
	the creator, Revelation 4:11 NWT reads "You are worthy, Jehovah,
	even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power,
	because you created all things, and because of your will they
	existed and were created." Exceptable ways of worship can be 
	found by examing the Scriptures. 

	A relationship with Jehovah is also important, James 2:23 NWT
	"and the Scripture was fulfilled which says:'Abraham put faith
	in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness' and he
	came to be called 'Jehovah's friend.'" Without a relationship
	how can one be called a friend? All relationships either get
	better or get worse they never stay still. It is important to
	choose your friendship well, James 4:4 NWT reads "Adultresses,
	do you not know that friendship with the world is emnity with
	God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is
	constituting himself an enemy of God." 

	Phil.
	

    Be imitators of me, my brothers.  Take as your guide those who follow
    the example that we set.  Unfortunately many go about in a way that
    shows them to be enemies of the cross of Christ.  I have often said
    this to you before; this time I say it with tears.  Such as these will
    end in disaster! Their god is their belly and their glory is in their
    shame.  I am talking about those who are set upon the things of this
    world.

    Philippians 2:17-19 (in full) New American Bible

    This shows why exegesis doesn't happen in four words or less.

    A relationship with God is like looking for your feet before you seek
    out on your journey.  It's part of starting out.  A Christian has found
    his feet, found the road, and has begun the journey.

re Note 469.34 by YERKLE::YERKESS:

> 	A definition of Religion is "any system of faith and worship"
  

        I would certainly agree with this definition of "religion".

        However, I must observer that both "faith" and "worship" are
        a relationship to an "other".

        Bob

I've been told that the root of the word religion means "that
which binds together."  This, at least to me, implies relationship.

Peace,
Richard

Some believed that they had a good relationship with God and Jesus showed
them that they were mistaken, John 8:41-44 NWT reads "You do the works of
YOUR father.' They said to him 'We were not born from fornication; we have
one Father, God.' Jesus said to them: 'If God were YOUR Father, YOU would
love me, for from God I came forth and I am here. Neither have I come out
of my own initative at all, but that One sent me forth. Why is it you do
not know what I am speaking? Because you cannot listen to my word. YOU 
are from YOUR father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of YOUR
father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast
in the truth, because the truth was not in him. When he speaks the lie,
he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the 
father of [the lie]." If they had a good relationship with God then they 
would have recognised Jesus as being sent by Jehovah.

I find this portion of Scripture sobering and highlights the responsiblity
I have in checking the fruitage displayed by the Religion I belong to. Does 
it recognise Jehovah's anointed one? Do they show love amongst themselves
John 13:34,35 ? If I have got it wrong then I only have myself to blame.


Phil.

   "It is a great mistake to attempt to escape comparison by asserting that
Christianity is 'not a religion,' that is, not one more of the many religions
that have held the hearts of men over the centuries, but is a wholly new
'way of life,' of 'access to the Father' which has been opened up by Christ,
and therefore should be viewed as the final fulfillment of all the highest
yearnings and aspirations reflected or expressed in the many faiths of
mankind.  To say all this sounds like praise, and it seems to lift
Christianity above the range of criticism or of comparison to other
religions -- including Judaism.  But it is false, and it leads to a
misunderstanding of Christianity -- by those who profess it, if not by
others."

	pg 23, _Ancient Judaism and the New Testament_, Frederick Grant (1959)

Oh, Fred, you just want to spoil it for the Fundamentalists. ;-}

Shalom,
Richard

    Every once and awhile, someone brings forth a word or phrase that
    may mean a great deal in the context it is presented, but then it
    catches the popular conciousness in just that oft repeated phrase,
    and becomes a slogan that is soon over-used and trivialized as a
    result of that over-use.  I think this happened to "born-again",
    and it has also happened to "Christianity is a relationship,
    not a religion.  
    
    The problem really began with the word religion, which became 
    commonly used to refer to forms of worship rather than the object
    of worship.  The dictionary definition of religion is "1.a.Belief in
    and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and
    govenor of the universe. b. A specific unified system of this
    expression.  Certainly Christianity fits both these definitions so 
    it is a religion.

    However, when a person was called religious, it usually meant they had 
    a fervor for the rules and doctrines of their faith, and the ceremonies
    associated with their religion or denomination if you are talking about
    the Christian religion.  In other words, people were refering more to
    the unified system of 1b while ignoring the definition given in 1a.

    The idea of a Christian having a relationship rather than a religion was
    to try and bring the emphasis back to God, the One Who is to be worshiped
    rather than to focus on the rites, prayers, customs, and traditions.
    Unfortunately, its been over used now as well, but the idea that there
    is a personal Being, with Whom one has a relationship - that is you can
    know God and God knows you, and that there is interaction between 
    the person of faith and God - is not something that should be either 
    scorned or sneered at.  

    Judaism, though it has not used the same words, is also certainly about 
    the relationship between God and humanity - its one thing the two faiths 
    share in common.  There are also people in both these faiths for whom 
    religion has become about custom and rite rather than about God.

    Leslie