I was going to ignore this mini-phenomenon. I swear I was. A poet doing some trite spoken word nonsense about Jesus and relationship and half the damn Internet acting like he'd stumbled on some new concept made for a cocktail I preferred to avoid. Alas. Out of the mouths of babes, or in this case, college freshmen. They keep talking about their "relationship with Jesus" whenever pressed on a difficult point of ethics. The viral appeal of Jefferson Bethke is absurd, and it demonstrates yet again that fundangelicals have no idea what they actually believe, and that they'll believe nearly anything (under the auspices of the confirmation bias) that makes them feel good. First, the video:
Lovely, eh? Never heard those ideas before, have you? Religion is man's attempt to get to God, but Christianity is God's attempt to get to man. Oh, hallelujah. All other religions are man's feeble attempt to earn God's favor. Christianity isn't even a religion; it's a relationship with Jesus. Sigh. Why anyone believes this horseshit is beyond me, and I don't mean the doctrinal aspects of Christianity. I know why people believe that. I don't understand why they swallow this religion/relationship dichotomy so blithely. Part of the reason is the evangelical/fundamentalist canard about the defintion of religion.
No matter what you believe about Christianity, it's still a religion. Defining the term is difficult, but I'm pretty sure it at least means a collection of beliefs, signs, symbols, and practices related to the understanding of who humans are, their purpose on the earth, and how (if) they relate to god(s). By that sketchy definition, Christianity qualifies. It's certainly a series of beliefs. Even the belief in question—that Christianity is about relationship with Jesus—is first functionally a belief. Now toss in Trinity, creation, resurrection, last things, etc., and explain how it's not about beliefs. Practices? Eucharist, baptism, prayer, praise, fasting, feeding, forgiving, etc. Yeah, got those too. Signs? Cursing a fig tree. Raising Lazarus. Walking on water. Check. Symbols? Cross, fish, trinity knot, crown of thorns, cup, bread, so many metonymic possibilities. Definitely qualifies on all counts.
Problem two is a misunderstanding or intentional mischaracterization of other religions. They are "man's plan to earn god's favor" or "man's attempt to reach god." What a load. Christianity is based on the revelation of God to humans. No revelation, no understanding of what God expects. Hmmm. So is every other theistic religion I know of. Do Christians believe the Tanakh and Qur'an are just the ramblings of humans who are trying to understand God? Hope not, since their text is largely based on the first, and the third draws heavily from the first two. This is, of course, special revelation. It's present in other world faiths as well, including Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. Humans know nothing of the gods if the gods don't condescend to reveal themselves. It's an axiom in theism.
Finally, Mr. Bethke is clearly confused as to the meaning of the word relationship. This can be easily clarified by using my not very famous except among my students "Cheeseburger Challenge." The basis of relationship is two-way communication. Theists have one way communication for sure, but the message back seems garbled, confused, or just plain missing most (all) of the time. When I'm told I can have a relationship with Jesus, I ask if that means I'll be able to have a cheeseburger with him, assuming he's no longer keeping kosher, and hopefully he won't object to my bacon cheeseburger. This is, of course, absurd to the young evangelist. Jesus is not available to me like that. Why not? What then do you mean by relationship? I ask. If they are stubborn, we begin a long process of me pointing out where literally nothing they do looks like a relationship with this invisible deity. Nothing. The term is what Fitch would call an empty signifier. There are all kinds of thoughts about what relationship means, but there is absolutely no substance to point to. It's simply a way of making Christians feel better about the truthiness of their claims over against "religions."
The final test is very simple. Show me a point of agreement between Christians about what God has said. Just one. Any one point. If God speaks so clearly through these relationships, why does it appear Christianity is just a grown-up version of the telephone game?
