Category: Common Misconceptions

Religion vs Relationship: Revisiting an Unnecessary Bifurcation of Categories

December 17th, 2012
In recent times, the construct of “religion vs relationship” has been widely and commonly accepted among evangelical Christians. A good example of this is the YouTube video by Jefferson Bethke that went completely viral about a year ago, called “Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus” (this post isn’t about him, as he’s made clear of his intentions after much controversy surrounding his video; the point of referencing him is simply to illustrate that this line of thinking is common today). The big idea is this: Jesus didn’t come to convert us to a religion but to create a relationship with us. This idea is not new, however. The whole “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” slogan was popularized in the Jesus Movement of the 80s, I believe, as evangelicals focused on a more personal dimension of their faith in God over an external appearance of piety. One of the strengths of this movement was indeed calling attention to the more personal aspects of faith, like individual prayer and private Bible reading. One of the weaknesses of this movement was a lack of attention to the corporate aspects of faith and the importance of doctrine. Thus, we have today those who would call themselves Christians and followers of Jesus but lack a commitment to a local church body. They aren’t religious; but they have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Is this bifurcation between religion and relationship accurate? The most obvious observation that relates to this is that there is a type of religion that we are to follow. James 1:27 says: “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.” Religion is a neutral word; it simply refers to a set of beliefs and practices of a particular group of people in relation to a deity and worship. There’s good religion and bad religion. Bad religion, as an example, exploits the poor and the oppressed through works-based salvation, and is generally characterized by hypocrisy. Good religion, on the other hand, shows the way we can be saved by the grace of God through faith in his Son, and advocates good works that is produced by that changing grace.

I hate dead orthodoxy, but I am religious. I am committed to my local church, but I also have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. I call myself religious because I have a set of beliefs and practices that I follow, but I hate religion that is man-made. And I have a relationship with God because I spend my private time reading his Word and praying to him.
Share this:
Tweet
Email
Print
Like Loading…
“Abba” Means “Daddy” in Aramaic: Preaching Point or Possible Projection?

October 4th, 2012
I’ve often heard from well-meaning preachers that the Aramaic word “abba” is equivalent to the English word “daddy,” because it conveys an intimate, child-like relationship when used. So when Jesus prays to the Father, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you” (Mark 14:36), it is assumed that the Son is using intimate language with the Father. Growing up with my second language being Korean, this hit home for me, since the Korean word for “daddy” is “appa” (sounding very similar to the Aramaic “abba”), compared to the Korean word for “father,” “abuhji.” But does Korean have anything to do with Aramaic? And does “daddy” have anything to do with “abba”? Are we just projecting our preconceived ideas into this ancient word?

James Barr, the famous biblical linguist, back in 1988, wrote an article entitled: ” ‘Abba’ Isn’t ‘Daddy’ ” in the Journal of Theological Studies (vol. 39), where he examines the basis of this contention (made popular by Joachim Jeremias), and argues that the evidence in the extant literature suggests that the word “abba” is actually not like our English “daddy,” but simply the word for “father,” used by child and adult alike; and it may very well be either Hebrew or Aramaic. He shows that this “preaching point” is simply based on erroneous assumptions, and that the linguistic evidence suggests that there are actually many possibilities for determining the meaning of “abba,” one of which is likely just a variation of “father.”

In fact, the Greek NT shows three places where this word occurs, and all three instances in collocation with the Greek correlative (αββα ὁ πατήρ; Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). It is simply assumed that “abba” is Aramaic (in an emphatic form), but the more probable explanation is that it is just synonymous to “father,” and Jesus was probably using both words as emphatic (repetition is often used to convey emphasis in Greek).

The lesson to learn is this: don’t read your theological agenda into the text. Don’t make the text say what it does not say, just because it sounds good. Just because a certain “point” aligns with your theology doesn’t mean that’s what that particular text is saying. Yes, I believe we must have child-like faith and depend on God as a child does to his “daddy,” but that’s from other texts like Matt 18:4, not Mark 14:36. We honor God through his Word by properly interpreting his Word, rather than reading our own theological agenda into it. That’s how we accurately handle Scripture. It takes hard work and critical thinking (and the Spirit’s illumination), but it’s so worth it.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).
Share this:
Tweet
Email
Print
Like Loading…
Head Knowledge vs. Heart Knowledge: Fine Distinctions or False Dichotomies?

September 24th, 2012
It is commonly assumed that there are two kinds of knowledge when it comes to the Christian faith: head knowledge and heart knowledge. “Head knowledge” is often associated with knowledge limited to the level of information, without any practical implications or impact in someone’s life. On the other hand, “heart knowledge” is associated with that information that results in transformation in someone life. It may also refer to the emotional impact that results from information, such as joy that results from the knowledge of God’s love. Head knowledge is usually considered pejorative; heart knowledge, conversely, is generally favorable.

While I understand the intent behind this bifurcation and certainly believe that knowledge just at the information level is limited (in many, but not all, contexts), and while I share the sentiment of those who espouse these terms (whether intentional or unintentional), I don’t think the bifurcation is necessary helpful and sometimes can even be misleading. I propose two main reasons why. First, “head” and “heart” today does not mean the same thing it does today as it does in the Bible. “Head” today symbolizes the decision-making aspect of a person, while in Scripture has a variety of metaphors, one being “authority” (or “source”). “Heart” today refers to the emotions of a person, but in Scripture refers to the center of a person, including the mind, affections, and will. So to categorize knowledge into the two distinctions of heart and head seems to (intentionally or unintentionally) ignore the biblical uses of these words.

Second, when knowledge is referred to in Scripture, there is no taxonomy of knowledge, but it is usually synonymous to wisdom, and in many contexts is seen as a good thing. Solomon begins his book of Wisdom by stating “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov 1:7), implying a close relationship between knowledge, wisdom, and instruction. Furthermore, Paul refers to his fellow Israelites as having “a zeal for God but not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). Their zeal is based on ignorance. While I don’t have the space here to survey all the ways “knowledge” is used in the Bible, it’s probably safe to say that it is seen as a positive characteristic that one is to strive for. But the modern dichotomy of head and heart knowledge seems to indicate that there may be a type of knowledge that is bad, some actually even scoffing at those who have lots of it.

As an alternative, I would suggest that instead of using these misleading terms, we use preferable words like ignorance or hypocrisy. In fact, I would suggest that what some refer to when they refer to “head knowledge” is actually hypocrisy: their life does not reflect what they know. So instead of saying something like, “He has a lot of head knowledge but no heart knowledge,” I suggest that person really means is, “He is hypocritical: he knows a lot about the Bible, but his knowledge is not reflected in his own life.” The latter may get a few more frowns than the former and is probably more offensive to say out loud (and also highly judgmental), but that’s what we really mean, don’t we?

“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).
Share this:
Tweet
Email
Print
Like Loading…

Category: Common Misconceptions

Religion vs Relationship: Revisiting an Unnecessary Bifurcation of Categories

Share this:

“Abba” Means “Daddy” in Aramaic: Preaching Point or Possible Projection?

Share this:

Head Knowledge vs. Heart Knowledge: Fine Distinctions or False Dichotomies?

Share this: