On "Spoken Word."

UGH.

People who make videos like that need to be required by some ecclesiastical authority to go through seminary or divinity school, or at least first study some theology before going through and making them.  It is so misleading, but at the same time encrouches it in Christianese.  Thus, it makes error somehow orthodox!  And the unfortunate thing is that it started out actually very agreeably!  Like Jay Sean's "Down," the theology of the song quickly went down, down, down, down, down.

Putting aside the obvious fact that what he really was criticizing was legalism (which is NOT a religion, but an interpretation of religion), Jefferson Bethke betrays an utter lack of understanding of what a religion is.  A religion is, at its base, a system of beliefs.  Of course, such a definition is broad.  In a sense, even certain economic theories can be considered a religion.  Pure libertarianism, for example, doesn't exist.  But yet, many libertar-evangelists go around championing as if it works for sure.  The key facet of religion is that it is an organized set of ideas that cannot be proven.  This does not mean that it's automatically false. What it means is that it cannot be proven by human means (e.g. scientifically, experimentally, etc.).  For that reason, Christianity is necessarily a religion.  We cannot prove that God exists.  Even though we know that Jesus died on a cross, we cannot prove by some mathematical equation that we are saved by his sacrifice.  My dad didn't come back from the dead to tell me if heaven or hell existed, and neither can I prove conclusively, with sheer and rigorous logic that would bore the lamest deadbeat to death, their existence.

The most infuriating part of the entire poem was this:

Now back to the topic, one thing I think is vital to mention,
How Jesus and religion are on the opposite spectrums,
One is the work of God, one is a man-made invention,
One is the cure, and one is the infection.
Because Religion says, "Do," Jesus says, "Done."
Religion says, "Slave," Jesus says, "Son."
Religion puts you in shackles but Jesus sets you free.
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus lets you see.

So, for Jefferson Bethke to assert that Jesus and religion were on opposite spectra (plural of "spectrum"... grammar not his strong suit, apparently), is contradictory.  Religion, of course, can be the work of humanity, but it is not necessarily so!  Was Judaism the work of humanity?  Was that what the Old Testament teaches?  Because for us to accept that Judaism is a religion that is a man-made invention requires us to ascribe to the Marcionite heresy.

And religion says "Do."  But Jesus also said, "Do." as well!  What, then, was his Sermon on the Mount?   Of course, your response might be, "Henry - the Sermon on the Mount was not a legalistic list of things to do.  It is a vision for a community.  If so, then is not the Old Testament the same thing?  Religions tell people to do stuff.  It's not new.  But Jesus says, "Be."  Yes - that's the difference between Christianity and many other religions: Christianity is about being a people, not about doing stuff and therefore being classified as a class of people.  Yes - Jesus says, "Done."  But what did he do?  He saved us!  But this salvation is not the end of the story, because his salvation is not a ticket to some esoteric destination.  Salvation frees us in order that we can be constituted as a people of God!

Which brings me to his next point: "religion says 'slave', Jesus says, 'son.'"  I assume he unintentionally excluded women from Jesus' promise, so I won't quibble with it.  But this does not square with Paul's theology of servanthood!  He never defines what we were slaves to - and NO - you can't tell me that it's already assumed.  We are all slaves to something!  True freedom in the antinomian sense does not - and should not - exist!  The question is what - or who- are we slaves to!  When Paul emphasizes our Christ-given freedom, he is not advocating some antinomian quest to do everything possible under the sun in the name of Jesus.  No!  We are, rather, set free to do what is right!  We are set free from conventions, from arbitrary categorizations, from the things of this world, so we can rightly worship the one, true, and living God as the people of God!


The greatest irony, I think, is his statement that "I love the church, I love the Bible."  I'm not sure how he defines "church" although I suspect his definition of church is that nice building with people at the corner of two suburban streets.  If so, he's waaaay off the marker, because the church is not a local incorporated entity!  The church is, for the lack of a better term, the City of God.  It is a constituted people from various backgrounds who gather together in worship.  I agree with him that much of suburban church life is all about putting up facades and everything, but the solution is not a Jesus who 'takes it all away'!  We don't worship a problem-solving God who puts you on some nice psychologist-couch and hears your problems with a notebook in hand, and then writes a prescription.  No, no, no!

So my assessment?  The theology is under-salted.  The biblical analysis?  Forgot to turn on the light.  So my indictment of the video is quite simple: cut the bulls***.  The church is running into many problems on many sides.  The last thing we need is something half-baked in terms of biblical orthodoxy drawing the attention of so many people on YouTube.  It shows us how woeful the state of Christianity when we fall asleep when a missionary shares about his/her work in some distant country, and this half-baked theological blasé on YouTube generates lots of likes.