Is a religious Christian that bad?

Is the word religion good or bad, or is it just a really misunderstood, and therefore misused, term?

Today it can be used very broadly and even includes using it as an insult: 'you are really religious' (which could mean: hypocritical, arrogant, legalistic or just simply that you hold to traditional view or that you disagree and the person doesn't like your view). I believe that aiming to use words well, especially when discussing theology and faith which often includes making bold statements, is empowering.

The word for religion in some passages in the Bible such as James 1:27 is based largely on practices. This means that religion in this sense is to do with what you do based on some form of worship of the divine which is similar, though not identical, to definitions 2 and 4 below.

This means that if you pray, that is being religious, if you give because of service to God, love for God, if it was related in any way to God or a person's faith, it was religious.

The Greek words often translated as religion are actually very rarely used. The gospels do not talk of it directly at all. With so little attention given to the term, why does it have so much attention in many denominations and church cultures, and is what they are saying correct? I will explore the latter of those two questions.

But the English word religion seems very different from the Greek (thréskeia), so in looking at the etymology of the word 'religion' I found the following comments (specifically taken from www.etymonline.com) which I have seen the same elsewhere.

1. ' 1200, religioun, "state of life bound by monastic vows".

2. 'also "action of conduct indicating a belief in a divine power and reverence for and desire to please it".

3. 'from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion, relegion "piety, devotion; religious community," '

4. 'and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness" in late Latin "monastic life" (5c.) '

There is also debate over the term and where it came from before that. And seriously, its not worth looking into as it is largely guess work. But it has been used along the lines mentioned above for a long time. Even today modern definitions talk of beliefs in relation to the divine, super natural powers, beliefs and practices based on a spiritual leader or just simply that which comes from beliefs in things like God, gods or the afterlife.

But what I will say is this, while religion may have a range of slightly meanings in different contexts, it does not mean religion nor a religious person who is part of a religion, is inherently a bad thing, legalistic or self righteous.

Religion is not a word which prescribes a specific set of practices. If you have a church with a choir and organ and have one with a worship band, neither one is less or more religious than the other. The fact is they are both conducting music and singing from the basis of their beliefs in God. Therefore, by definition they are religious, and equally so.

In addition, maybe you hear criticisms of specific beliefs as being religious or not. For example you might hear 'religious people are those who don't let women preach' whereas 'letting women preach isn't religious'. However, sorry to break it to you, but whether you let women preach or not is irrelevant. If you allow women to preach because of what you believe about God, that is equally religious to those who don't. This is based on the Latin and French origins mentioned above but also the biblical term thréskeia which is similar to those definitions.

Even with religion being connected to being in bondage, which may not even be true depending on what you read, but as with the definition above (1) based on the words usage please note: the bondage was not forced, it was voluntary, no different to making a promise. It was a free choice, and they (the monks) were not bound by specific doctrines but rather their chosen way of life. If you are married, you are bound to your husband or wife through promises. It is not a bad thing in itself. People put themselves in contracts, and are bound by the terms. Religion, therefore, even in that sense of being bound to something is not bad.

Looking at Christianity, Paul describes himself as being a bondservant of Christ, he uses the word doulos of himself at the very beginning of Romans which is the word translated as slave. Was he wrong to do that? So again there is nothing even in that which paints the term or idea of religion in a negative light.

Why is this an issue, does it matter? I would argue that yes it matters, in fact it matters very much. Words have influence and power, misuse words and you confuse rather than help issues. It can also confuse outsiders when you say you are not religious but you go to church, you pray, you read your Bible etc.

Significantly the word 'religion' has also been weaponised by some to attack specific beliefs by using it in a derogatory way (mentioned briefly at the start): 'We are talking about real faith in God, you religious people don't have a clue.' Or 'only religious people believe this or that'. Used in this way is becomes divisional and is neither a correct use of the term nor Christ like in attitude by any stretch of the imagination. It also insults people who are not even showing negative traits such as hypocrisy and arrogance, yet consider themselves religious.

There is such a thing as religious hypocrisy or man-made religion. But it is not hypocrisy or man made because it is religious. The term 'religious' or 'religion' in this context just denotes the nature of the problem not the cause. Otherwise you attack religion when the problem is something else.

There is a Greek word, only used one time in the New Testament in Colossians 2:23 ethelothréskia. This refers to self willed religion. I.e. religion that comes from self, other than God. But here, note, it is not the word religion that is the issue, but the self willed bit ('Ethelo') that defines what is actually the problem. Self willed religion is a problem, but not all religion is self willed.

In conclusion, 'Religion' is not the all in one catch term people use it for, such as all the things they don't like about churches or people's attitudes. It is not something discussed much in scripture, and rarely is it used negatively. You can have both positive and negative religion.

Using words well is empowering. Using words well empowers us into correct thinking, and correct understanding and can reduce confusion. It also helps with focussing on the important matters- if you want to challenge self righteousness, hypocrisy, legalism, man-made rules or arrogance then challenge these things without throwing them all into the box of 'religion'. You can have no religion and still have issues in all these areas, and you can be very religious and have none of them.

I hope that you will consider how you use the word religion and how you think of yourself and others in relation to it. Do not be quick to label people you disagree with as 'religious'. Equally do not be ashamed of calling yourself religious. It is a descriptive term that is only negative or positive based on the nature of it that you are referring to for example: self willed; arrogant or god centred; committed.

Christianity is a religion, by definition, all believers are religious, by definition. But not all religion is good nor bad. Christianity is meant to be a gospel religion, a Christ centred religion and is the one and only true religion.