[OBW]

Speaking of someone being religious in a demeaning way is a cop-out. It is itself worse than whatever kind of error “being religious” is thought to be. It is a dispersion upon a fellow believer because of an outward perception of their inward being. Something you cannot discern merely by the form of their worship.

And you can’t discern it by the amount of “juice” that is found in it. The Spirit is not “juice.” It is not upbeat nor is it sedate. It is not charismatic nor liturgical. It is not flamboyant nor mundane. The Spirit is God. God meets people where they are. He comes into their situation and reality. He does not stand afar and entice them to come away to somewhere else. He may ultimately take them somewhere they have not been, but He will start by coming to where they are.

Worship is not simply songs or prayers. Sermons or reading of the Word. And songs are not just praise choruses or deeply theological hymns. And prayers are not just about Kingdom matters, but also our daily bread, our needs, and our confession of sin coupled with the request for forgiveness. Sermons are not just lengthy and expository. And the reading of the Word is not always for a targeted need, but sometimes just for the Word.

And church is not just what appeals to us. Or what does not. It is not to meet my needs, yet through it God does meet our needs at times. It is not perfect in any instance. Yet at some level it is perfect in all instances.

And religion is not just man trying to get to God on his own terms. It is also the term used to describe the whole of the practice of the worship of God (or a god). And being religious is not just about going through motions because they are prescribed. It is also the very willful subjection to a course of action in response to your faith in the God to whom the “religious” activity is given. Liturgy is not just someone else’s words repeated because they are magic. It is also the realization that others before us have traveled the same road and had the same struggles, fears, heartaches, successes, joy, etc., and we take their prayers as ours, speaking them for ourselves to the God we serve.

No matter what form you do it, baptism and communion (the Lord’s table) is a ritual. Ritual is not bad in itself. It is the marking of a step in a journey, like the stones on the shore of the Jordan after the crossing into Canaan, and the constant remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ for our fallen condition. Are all others to be avoided because they are not mentioned? Is there no reason to use other outward acts as either milestones on our journey, or as reminders of the truth of our faith?

Yes. You will find people who participate in ritual who are simply following the example of others but who have nothing in them for the God that the ritual is about. And you will find participants in communion who have no true belief in the sacrifice that it remembers. If you simply say that it is religious and should be rejected, then you should reject communion.

Remember, the next time that someone says “Oh boy! We’re going to recite the Lord’s prayer again!” in a sarcastic tone that they are mocking the very God who said “This is how you should pray,” and followed it with those words.

And I would (and did) agree that there is much to be avoided in the RCC. But simply saying that the mass is nothing is too much. Do you think that no one is instructed toward God and Christ in the mass? Do none come to believe that Jesus is the savior — their savior? Do they have to have an evangelical Protestant conversion experience to be truly Christian?
When you speak disparagingly of those who are “religious” you can only claim to be correct with respect to those who are following a pattern but have no reality of that pattern either through no real thought for God, or a lack of knowledge of God (as in not “saved”). But do you presume that even the unsaved cannot learn from their participation in something that they do not yet believe? Is it really any different than the unsaved that comes among you because they are in the process of being lead toward Christ? To the extent that they engage in the singing, or the reading, or any other aspect of worship, they are just going through the motions because it is not yet their reality. And since they are going through the motions, then everyone else must just be going through the motions. Or because someone is there who has had a bad week and their thoughts are far from God and they still engage in the singing, etc., but with nothing of their faith engaged, should we assume that they are merely being religious and dismiss them? And since they engaged in something that you would otherwise do from what is within you, is your worship diminished or made into that negative “religious” thing that you want to exterminate?

But I return to one of your comments. It is two simple words — “no juice.” Define “juice.” Is it presumed that the rather old patterns of worship in, for example, a Lutheran congregation have no juice? And if so, why? Is it because they are not lively? Do we presume that having Christ living in us requires that we act lively in an outward way? If not, then what is “juice”?

Do all those places that you have attended over the years have the right kind of juice? Or did they just appear to? Can you commit yourself to a group of Christians, or is there no group worthy of your commitment? And do you think that committing to a group means that other groups are inferior? And just because there are some groups that are just not the kind that fit you, does that make them without juice? Or just without the juice you are looking for?

If “juice” is the Spirit of God, then do you think that the Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Bible, Baptist, Pentecostal, charismatic free group, emerging free group, or any variation of these is simply without juice? Are any of these, by definition, no longer actually churches? Or are they just not your type?

And before you start in on another “dissect every snippet and ignore the context” reply, I really don’t want you to answer. I want you to consider. To meditate. To take it to God in prayer. These are the questions that have been bothering me for some time. I have some clarity on a few of the questions I have raised. (Note I said “some clarity.”) But I am unclear on others. And probably where I think I am clear I am only deluded. I do not have the answers. I challenge you to join in rethinking.

But this group of former LRCers tends to either be pretty certain that they have it all figured out (and it looks a lot like the LRC that they rejected) or they are so bitter with the whole thing that they are bordering on (or have actually become) at least somewhat agnostic. I am not saying that they are stuck. But that is what comes out. (And this does not cover everyone.)

And while this particular forum is open to discussion beyond just LRC issues, the first response is too often a modified Lee kind of “this is it.” I think that discussions of the LRC are valuable. But there are fewer and fewer of them. And they are too quickly overrun by someone pushing something else.

While I have issues with the LRC, and will continue to because of my Dad, brother, sister, and their families, I’m not sure that these forums are helping any more. And the rest of the discussion is so certain about how right certain positions are and how wrong others are. And I know that you think that I am just doing the same thing on this one. But there is a difference. I am pushing a truly open position. A position that admits that it is not all figured out. One that is willing to recognize Christ working in the very demonstrably spiritual and the very willfully obedient. I see a general trend in Christianity toward something that is far superior to the lop-sided ‘inner-life” teachings that are the core of the LRC, the apologetics-based propositions of the evangelicals and fundamentalists (also including the LRC), or the simply obedience-based liturgy and ritual of what has been demeaned as “works-based” Christianity. And this trend is toward realizing that each of these silos has both truth and error, and finding a way to bring the truths together. It will not result (at least in the near future) in some homogenized group that could be a new version of the LRC. It is more likely to settle in, for now, as groups that look a lot like they did in the past, but with additions. Evangelicals that do liturgy, are dedicated to the needy, and who embrace the mystical aspects of the faith. Liturgical that more openly preach the gospel, engage in more than the old ways of worship, etc. Get the picture?

Will you run for the door if you enter what you thought was an evangelical place and find a bunch of candles randomly placed along the edge of the platform, obviously left there by members who were praying? Is the first thought that Catholicism has taken hold and must be exorcised?

I do not challenge you or anyone else for the purpose of being right, or proving you wrong, but to challenge you to think. When you hear/read the word leaven in scripture, do you automatically think it is something bad? Is the term “flesh” just our sin nature?

And when you see the word “religion” do you simply jump into “all religion is bad” mode like you learned it from Lee? Do you not realize that the elimination of “religion” as mentioned in this article will not make Christianity better? It will turn it into millions of sects-of-one. That is not a good thing. But it would be the first reaction from someone who has retained more than they thought from Lee.