The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Jefferson Bethke's "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"

Studies Film, Movie & Video Clips
#21

totally off topic, but, speaking of the Brothers Karamazov…
londontheatredirect.com/play … ckets.aspx
excellent show!

it’s really interesting if the de-emphasis of the resurrection and the loss of the Greater Hope happened at the same time. i’m not sure i believe in coincidences of this kind.

i agree with Johnny as stated above about the solution really only being found in total reconciliation.

i think that we have examples of evil on this planet that are so horrific, it’d take more good than i can ever conceive of to undo it. however, i credit God with this goodness and trust that He is capable. all i can say for now is that He walks with us, and is ready to comfort us.

#22

Alex wrote,

That’s interesting. I never realized that the incarnation as well has been de-emphasized. It would make sense that to change the original message of the gospel would have taken some major theological shenanigans to repaint into what we have now in ECT.

Your point about how the resurrection becomes a mixed bag for those who believe in ECT is a good point too Alex. I remember how before, the resurrection represented to me a small picture of hope for the elect but terror and hopelessness for the rest of mankind (and I in turn felt and took on their hopelessness which eclipsed my own private hope…how wonderful to now have hope for other people!)

So in relation to the original thread I guess we have learned that if you write a rebuttal piece for Bethke make sure you emphasize the resurrection and the incarnation. They both are integral to the logic of UR!

#23

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

Obviously, James didn’t hate religion!

#24

i think the problem is that the word religion, which used to mean something good (as per James), now has been tarred with the same brush as “hypocrisy”, “preachiness”, “self righteousness”, and “a list of rules to follow that you’re told will give you a nicer cloud to sit on in Heaven”.
of course, all that isn’t true, but i can understand where Jefferson Bethke’s coming from.
if we could restore the true meaning of “religion”, it might help.

#25

Thanks for the further thoughts on the problem of evil etc., Johnny, corpselight…

I agree. The incarnation (“He walks with us and comforts us”) and the resurrection (“all things new”) are the only story-lines that work with the present reality we are experiencing. This is the unseen hope that we understand and know by faith. And when we as a church really grasp this, especially the restoration piece, I believe we will have a legitimate Story to call the world into.

#26

But it appears that “religion” is a neutral word as it can be labeled as “pure” which implies it can be impure. So while I do understand where Bethke is coming from it probably was an unfortunate choice for a title. But it did get people’s attention and got a discussion going, 16 million people’s worth. That’s why I think we need a follow-up. It leaves so many questions begging (!) How’s that rap going SR?

Here are some definitions of “religion”:

I guess the question is: is your worship, what you find of supreme importance, God-ward or unto your self? James doesn’t say that religion is pure, he says the kind of religion or worship God finds pure is one which is in alignment with His heart for the “least of these” and the orphan and widow.

But if religion=worship then Bethke is essentially saying, “Why I hate worship, but love Jesus”. Perhaps he needed to say, “I hate empty religion/worship because I love Jesus”.

#27

One of the biggest criticisms he’s gotten is his perpetuation of the tired Christian meme of “relationship, not religion,” where “religion” is redefined to mean, “all those bits of religion I don’t like.” He has actually said in an interview that if he had the chance to do it over, he would word it better but the message would remain the same, and I certainly can’t knock him for that. The core idea he’s expressing–that shallow, hypocritical, Pharisaic incarnations of religion are utterly antithetical to the kind of thing Jesus came to found and such–is absolutely sound. We should all stand behind that.

In other words, I don’t think his theology is bad, but his semantics are terrible. Semantics, however, are fairly important when you’re dealing with people from the broad spectrum of backgrounds that the Internet brings together. I think he’s learned a good lesson about being more careful, and I think that a lot of people were very positively touched by the video as it presently stands. All in all, it’s not a perfect thing, but it’s a good thing, and as long as he’s willing to keep refining himself as he goes, his work will only improve from here.

#28

i still think, as marketing goes, it’s a good attention getter.

#29

I’m glad to hear Bethke backtracked and admitted his mistake of misusing words. But I agree, if you hear what he is saying (which he defines within his piece), he is spot on. And yes, anything that gets tens of thousands of people talking about Jesus and spiritual issues is extraordinary.

But to return to one of my questions at the top of the thread, how can Bethke put forth a gospel message like the one he did if he is a Calvinist? (he is from Mark Driscoll’s church and he mentioned in his ABC interview other Calvinists names he follows)

I don’t think the church (or the world) would be saying “right on” if they knew what the “dark underbelly” (after a thread here) of his Reformed theology was. Bethke is appealing evangelistically from an Arminian position not a Calvinistic one because the Calvinists don’t have one, or a sincere one anyway.

The ABC review was extremely favorable but all they needed to do was ask about some of the tenets of his Calvinism and it would have tanked his image.

I WISH someone would counter Bethke’s video with an appeal to its inconsistencies and present the real gospel that unites the two diametrically opposed views of Cal/Arm as ONE Story…that the God who can is the same God who will.

How’s that rap coming SR?

#30

Of course, Bethke would probably be the first person to cite ‘only in this life.’

Which is unfortunate, but likely.

–DS

#31

Yes, he unequivocally would. I have no doubt. That’s the blaring issue I have with his video. He is a Calvinist but talks like an Arminian and in this video he presents the gospel without warning anyone of eternal hell. He leaves out the Calvinist’s pillar doctrine of ECT. How can he not see the inconsistency in this? Why didn’t any of the theologians notice? I haven’t read any of his critics mention that he didn’t mention eternal hell. Here he launches a presentation of the “gospel” into cyberspace and he *forgets *to mention ECT? Or was he afraid to mention ECT? Or was he embarrassed to mention ECT?

Please pray that these inconsistencies will raise up questions within his own mind regarding the nature of Hell.

#32

Good point. Jesus could’ve been killed with any specific method; it’s the resurrection that seals the deal. The two things that matter here are the self sacrifice of doing the Father’s will, and the resurrection. The cross was just the specific instrument of death used.

#33

I believe it is a tactic of the Enemy to downplay and de-emphasize the resurrection because that is where he was defeated ultimately. It will be the return to the Early Church’s robust view and language of the resurrection that will be the fertile ground for UR. Moving from the cross to the victory of the resurrection in defeating death and the grave will provide the holistic paradigm needed for UR to take root in a more significant way. That’s why anything we produce, videos etc., we ought to make the resurrection central, which Bethke, so focused on sin and the cross, forgot to do.