Moot The Point

I judged a book by it’s cover today and it felt good. I took a few steps back to get a running start at a huge leap of logic. Yes I dismissed the content of a book simply because of what was on it’s cover. And because of my snap judgment I’ll never read the book. Wow I’m really living on the edge.

The book at the center of my storm of my personal prejudice and controversy is entitled “Jesus Without Religion” Snappy title, right? I’m you sure you read a title like that and you think – “Wow some guy is cool and edgy for dissing religion, man! I’m buying this book.” I’m sure that you will by the book and then change your worldview and become the next Mother Theresa. You watch that’s what will happen. I’ll never read the book (at least of my own free will) but the title was enough to make me mad. To be fair I’m sure the book is great but I’m just saying that to sound unbiased.

It’s an example of a current trend to be catchy by juxtaposing what would normally be two congruent topics. The James’ book certainly isn’t an isolated incident. “Repenting of Religion” by Gregory Boyd or “How to be a Christian without being Religious.” by Fritz Ridenour. I’m sure there are more but that’s just another example of my athletic assuming ability.

The issue is that this practice is indicative of a larger problem. James (and I’m too lazy to look up precisely where) said that “pure and undefiled religion” was to help “widows and orphans.” You plug in a scriptural definition into the word “religion” and James, Ridenour and Boyd have a problem. Let use their book titles with our biblical definition of the word “religious”

“Jesus Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Rick James

“Repenting of Helping Widows and Orphans” Gregory Boyd

“How to be a Christian Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Fritz Ridenour

The problem with “Jesus Without Religion” (aside from the fact that it’s by Rick James. If you don’t know what that means you should watch more TV. Elitist jerk) What Mr. James does is to try to identify with potential Christians not by adopting their culture but by adopting their values. Now adopting customs and culture to identify with a potential disciple is a practice encouraged by the New Testament (Read 1 Cor. 9). But what is not encouraged is adopted the values of those we seek to help.

What Mr. James (and those like him) do is get all in a tizzy buddy-up to self-proclaimed-anti-church disenfranchised… (I’m not sure how to finish this thought) …people. Let’s wave the white flag and say “We’re cool too! We can dis religion together!”

Look if we want to be an example we have to be willing to be different. We have to be willing to be misunderstood. We certainly aren’t going be more clearly heard if we keep changing the definitions of perfectly good words. It sounds harsh (and I’m intentionally using harsh language to make my point) “I’m religious, you aren’t but you should be. And I can show you someone that can make you religious.”

What Mr. James does is take a perfectly good concept and turn it into a negative.

Now this certainly isn’t original with James. He’s just bought into a trend that’s been around for years. The Ridenour book was published in the 70’s.

If we really want to influence people why don’t we teach them what religion is rather than agree with them when they have a wrong idea. That doesn’t help either of us. Now you may have to disregard the last few hundred words. I never read the book. I just judged it by it’s cover.