'Not a religion vs a relationship vs a historical faith'

[EarlyActs]

A slogan has been the denominator of many Christians for decades: "(Believing Jesus) is not a religion, it's a relationship." I have some comments on this and am putting it here because the people that use this believe they are defending Christian faith.

Against a background of religion, that is partly true; there is no question. But that is not the part that concerns me. My concern is whether the 'relationship with God' (not even qualifying it by saying it is good or bad, nor even qualifying whether good or bad would be your treatment of God, or God's treatment of you), is anywhere close to what the apostles brought to their world.

So if I was to contrast 'a relationship' with the apostles, what would I put? We have taken 'religion' out of the way. People find that mythological. But they don't find a 'relationship' mythological though private. These believers believe it is the most solid, grounded, verifiable thing. The number of questions this raises is enormous, often dragging itself down into explanations about why evil things might happen to believers. And some of these might make sense as far as that goes.

I say that the apostle's taught a historic faith: things had taken place in history that had ongoing definition and structure. The enthronement of Christ through the resurrection was even a core vision of the high level prophecies of Daniel. So it tied back to roots like that of historic Israel. It also quoted 'in the Seed, all the world will be blessed' as a founding root from Genesis.

Of course it was the event of Christ's life, suffering, atonement and resurrection for us. And the meaning of these things has much to do with justification from our sins as well as serving the true King of this world.

To say it was historic means that one-time things happened that defined or solidified truth in a 'public demonstration' for the world. It also means things that affect our lives are not mostly direct circumstantial or experiential things, but rather the knowledge and character that form in us about the historic events.

To be clear: how many times have you heard believers say that they are quite sure God reigns even though the world is chaotic; it simply means he is sovereign. They won't be dissuaded that He is not in control. They enjoy having a relationship with the one in control. The 'gospel' of control is far more valuable to them than justification from sins. They usually expect there to be a tangible kingdom on this earth in the future.

But this is not the NT pulse. Instead, it is saying that the Son is now to be honored as King. You could call it the imperative kingdom; it is what should be, in honor of Christ. The prayer of Acts 4 that quotes Ps 2 depicts a world out of His control, yet calls upon him to be honored, and warns the public about the imperative expectations of the Son.

I can't see how the apostles would just say that that is a 'relationship.' There are actual, definitive, and courageous things to believe to be true about our world. We could lose all friends by asserting them.

 

[Fred]

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[Josheb]

God is a God of relationship. The God of the Bible exists, inherently already in relationship. This is the basis of the doctrine we call the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Separate Spirit (the word "holy" simply means separate) each existed in eternity. Their existence "predated" creation. Creation is an extension of the inherent relational ontology of the Godhead. This eternal relationship is the basis for love, and justice. Love wants to be loving. Biblical love is first and foremost operational; love is a thing that is done more than it is felt. The greatest commands are to love God and love others and that command to love does not mean have endorphin producing emotions or warm fuzzy sensations in one's chest (or loins). It means to be always kind, patient, altruistic, forbearing, hopeful, trusting, committed. We love because God first loved us. The same holds true of God's inherent justness. The Godhead did not simply or solely fawn over one another. Theirs is an inherently just experience, an inherently moral, righteous one absent the remotest hint of selfishness and the loss of fidelity, allegiance, commitment, submission, obedience, and endurance that selfishness begets. This is why creation is inherently moral and not simply utilitarian or apathetic (which is how the non-theistic religions tend to construe the universe).

So, while I agree with some of the sentiments expressed in the op, those who say Christianity is a relationship, not a (simply) religion, are correct. As @Fred has noted God Himself inspired His writers to inform us the religion He honors is inherently relational and not a relationship of personal enjoyment or class exclusivity, but of fellowship with the neediest, the lowest, those whose existence was defined by loss and the expectation of purity or righteousness. The latter can be had solely by relationship with God. The world cannot provide it. The world cannot, will not, love back.