'Religion' is not a dirty word

[Ask Mr Religion]

The term religion is used in Scripture in positive and negative contexts. There is a tendency among many today, in what I think is a wee bit of self-righteousness, to eschew the word religion, making it a shibboleth for the self-righteous, as if Scripture only denounced it whenever the word appeared. That is not the case (James 1:27). Christianity is a religion, the one, true, religion, so we need not be embarrassed by claiming this. Indeed, we should embrace it.

Religion is devotion, worship, and service to something, usually something supernatural.

Christian religion is devotion, worship, and service to the God revealed to us in Holy Scripture, the one, true God. That is why we claim that Christianity is the one, true, religion.

See also: http://christianreader.typepad.com/c...-religion.html

[Cow Poke]

Interesting points.

[Jedidiah]

James 1:27 seems to define religion in terms of activity more than worship or devotion - or rather as expressed through activity, or behaaviour.

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

[PsychGuy]

James 1:27 seems to define religion in terms of activity more than worship or devotion - or rather as expressed through activity, or behaaviour.

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Worship and devotion are activities/behaviors.

[Jedidiah]

Love for others is worship and devotion in action.

[emilswift]

Just joined so this is the first time I've seen this thread.

Mr. Ask — In your OP, I think the argument you posit is rather weak. Not only is Jedidiah's point noteworthy (love in action vis-à-vis "devotion" to God), but your argument implies that there are a sufficient number of usages of the term "religion" to determine both its definition and its (say) "mood" — that "Religion is devotion, worship, and service to something, usually something supernatural" and that it's "used in Scripture in positive and negative contexts".

But the word "religion" is only used by two, biblical authors: Paul and James (its use in Acts is still Paul's words.) It's not used in the (KJV) Old Testament at all.

Paul's use of "religion" cannot be identified as positive (not even neutral) as he's clearly speaking of the carnal religious worship in which he engaged prior to knowing Jesus. (Acts 26.5; Gal. 1.13f)

This means that there's only one place in Scripture that uses "religion" in a positive light. And, as Jedidiah observed, it doesn't speak of "religion" in the broad sense you gave (as "devotion, worship, and service to something, usually something supernatural") but in the very specific and narrow sense of love in action. (This also fits James' "definition" of "faith" as well — faith is defined not as one's "words" but as one's actions. Jms 2.18.)

My point isn't that Scripture treats the term "religion" solely in a negative light — my point is that we can't determine, from Scripture, whether Paul, et al., considered "religion" exclusively good or bad. One positive text and two negative texts are a very weak foundation for declaring a position one way or another.

But actually, there's really no need to do so. After all, with Scripture's almost total lack of addressing the characteristics of "religion", the term is best considered non-biblical — whatever people mean by "religion" must be evaluated in the context of their post-biblical writings, teachings and sermonizing.

I'm sure, if someone were to explain to you the meaning they intend for their use of "religion", you might even agree. For example: if you tell me that by "religion" you mean, "devotion, worship, and service to something, usually something supernatural", I would agree that it could be either positive or negative. (i.e., if your "devotion, et al." was to Kali, I'd consider it to be negative.)

But if the person who uses the term "religion" to specifically refer to "man's personal effort or desire to achieve peace with God on one hand and his fellow man on the other", you'd probably agree it was negative. (At least, I hope so — Jesus & Paul both certainly denounced earning one's own salvation through good works or carnal effort.)

Since "religion" is barely considered a biblical term, its conversational usage today really demands that those who are using it, define it first — else those who use it in debate or dialogue will go in circles, absurdly denouncing it and applauding it when neither conversationalist bothers to first understand what is meant by the other's usage of the term.