By: H.Nord

H.Nord — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:53:17 +0000

I agree Mr. Paul. I’ve learned great things from authors like C.H. Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer, and others who have utilized the term RELIGION as it had been intended. We in the Evangelical community have distorted it’s definition and applied the word to our understanding of the excesses, injustices, and horrors the church wrought upon history and people. Coughing it up in a “pitch” or “witnessing opportunity” may get our audience to listen up, precisely because they’re already at odds with RELIGION. Perhaps you could suggest another term to use. Maybe a simple modifier such as “self righteous religion” would be an alternative.

By: Wolf Paul

Wolf Paul — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:41:42 +0000

My main problem with all such comparisons is that they represent a re-definition of RELIGION by Christians who would like to say that theirs is not a religion.
The accepted definition of religion is that it refers to the entire realm of the relationship between human beings and the divine, regardless of how particular human beings (or groups thereof) perceive the divine, and regardless of how they perceive that relationship.
In fact, the translators of the KJV of the Bible were quite comfortable with that meaning of the word and used it in their translation in describing “true religion” which was pleasing to God.
Evangelical Christians’ attempt to re-define the meaning of the term so as to exclude their own relationship with God from it does not convince me as a valid means of apologetics or evangelism.

Comments on: Religion v. The Gospel

By: H.Nord

By: Wolf Paul