Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor/Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce?”

"He came to do what he is still in the business of doing: to redeem all." ## He was savage in His denunciations of the self-righteousness & hypocrisy & hard-heartedness & formalism & vanity & egotism & inverted priorities of the "religious" of His day & place. So they ganged up against Him with the Romans, and crucified Him. And the "religious" of later times are just the same, if not worse. To accuse Jesus of intending to remove one heap of steaming muck in order to replace it with a worse one, as the worshippers of religion imply He intended, is completely unfounded. We don't need the mess of blood & filth & lies that is Christianity - we need Christ.

As a young Christian, I asked the question "What is religion?" and noone gave me an answer. I felt it was being used a lot, and in most cases by people I thought were more religious than I had seen anywhere. There is abuse of words in "campaign-like" talks and slogans, and it reduces meaningful words into insults. There must be something the guy in the video meant when he used the word, and I refuse to believe it is the way it was originally used in the bible. Mostly used to hurt, demean, and ridicule others - and Jesus never uses it to insult anyone. And neither does He confront hypocritical Pharasies for being religious. Even His reference to the "Church", Christ does not define it as a religion, substitution of or addition to Judaism.No, not at all. Does He define the church as Baptist, Roman, or that? No, I am not aware of that. The bible seems to suggest the church is people, and not religion. And that supposed definition does not seek to replace Judaism or any religion... I say this and I am deeply aware that I am deeply religious, but I am aware of the dangers of that being theee end/goal (to belong to a cool religion with cool, smart peeps and buildings and still fail to identify with the Maker and His ways). Brief, yes Christianity (of which I am a part)has, lately, reduced words to meaninglessness - and wherever they are used, they provoke anger and disgust. Religious and loving Jesus, I have lent my thoughts.

As a young Christian, I asked the question "What is religion?" and noone gave me an answer. I felt it was being used a lot, and in most cases by people I thought were more religious than I had seen anywhere. There is abuse of words in "campaign-like" talks and slogans, and it reduces meaningful words into insults. There must be something the guy in the video meant when he used the word, and I refuse to believe it is the way it was originally used in the bible. Mostly used to hurt, demean, and ridicule others - and Jesus never uses it to insult anyone. And neither does He confront hypocritical Pharasies for being religious. Even His reference to the "Church", Christ does not define it as a religion, substitution of or addition to Judaism.No, not at all. Does He define the church as Baptist, Roman, or that? No, I am not aware of that. The bible seems to suggest the church is people, and not religion. And that supposed definition does not seek to replace Judaism or any religion... I say this and I am deeply aware that I am deeply religious, but I am aware of the dangers of that being theee end/goal (to belong to a cool religion with cool, smart peeps and buildings and still fail to identify with the Maker and His ways). Brief, yes Christianity (of which I am a part)has, lately, reduced words to meaninglessness - and wherever they are used, they provoke anger and disgust. Religious and loving Jesus, I have lent my thoughts.

Laura, that is a very gracious response to the earlier commenters. My main concern with videos like this is that they seem to be a claim to have "discovered" something that has been around for a long time, and that no one is taking steps to correct. Seriously? Jesus called people white-washed tombs, Isaiah accused people of hypocritical fasting, Malachi prophesied that the nation of Israel was trying to steal from God while keeping up an appearance of following the mosaic law, and the biblical examples go on and on. As you say, religion is not a dirty word. It's what some people do in the name of religion that is dirty, and this has been around for ages. No offense to Jefferson, but it's really just the latest riff on an ancient trope. Good work, Laura. Tim P.S. By the way, Kingdom Civics found a gracious response video and posted it today: http://kingdomcivics.com/2012/01/23/kingdom-voices-video-edition/

To RickB and Anonymous (the "Anonymous" directly below RickB), I appreciate what you have to say, but have to take (strong) issue with it. While I may disagree with other Christian people, I do not sit in my "office in that Christian college and separate yourself from those who are 'religious.'" That isn't my place, and the Church now needs less division and more unity than ever. I understand that people use the word 'religion' in a derogatory way, to mean legalism and works-based faith. What I am arguing for, though, is a different way of talking about religion, like what we read in James 1:27. Religion is not a dirty word, and we can all agree on ways to work together in God's plan of redeeming the world.

VERY nicely said. Your rebuttal is civil, smart and most importantly scriptural. I was torn too by some of the false concepts of God and religion postulated by Bethke. I imagine his youth and lack of practical life lessons that the purifying fires of living to a ripe old age provide us with will cause his vision to adapt and evolve. In any event it is thrilling to see the mostly civil democratic discourse his video has provoked. I only wish Bethke had the political savvy to know that most liberating movements in American history were started in the republican party. He has not realized yet that the power to tax and spend as the democrat party is addicted to includes the power to enslave and destroy. Does he know that the modern woman's liberation was started by 2 republican woman one named Susan B. Anthony? Does Bethke know that the first free black person, Frederick Douglas to ever enter the White House was a republican? Does Bethke know that democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt killed the 1933 anti-lynching bill to win favor with racist souther democrats? Does Bethke know that FDR had full knowledge of the Holocaust and did nothing? Does Bethke know that is was the democrats who denied Japanese Americans their civil rights and property by herding them into internment camps. Does Bethke know that the only president in history to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian population (2 times) was democrat Harry Truman? Does Bethke know that since Obama took over the numbers of people in America living in abject poverty has skyrocketed and the inflation Obama's policies have created steals food from the mouths of the most vulnerable poor, homeless, working poor, senior citizens and disabled people? EVERY WORD I HAVE PRINTED IS ASCERTAINABLE, IRREFUTABLE FACT and FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS. Attack the facts not the messenger. I have an inkling that youthfully liberal Bethke in his heart means well and hope that as he grows up he relies more on his knowledge of the facts than on his the conjecture of his heart.

I appreciated Laura's article. I agree with her concern over what Bethke's video means at it's core -- that it's better to be a follower of Jesus WITHOUT the church, than to be a Christian IN the church. Yes, there are many problems and scandals and difficulties in the church ( hasn't this always been the case?), but how can we walk away from the church Jesus has established, in violation of the clear teaching of Scripture? This, I fear, is the spirit of Bethke's video, and the feeling of many today -- especially those in their 20's and 30's. I like what one of the earlier commenters had to say, "What do you bring to the church?"

"To point a finger at 'religious' people and separate ourselves from them isn't, as you point out, the gospel of Jesus." OK Laura. After reading your comment again I have to ask. Who are the "religous" people? In today's culture of seperationg the Christian belief by denominations and titles are you talking "born again" versus "Lutherins" or "catholics"? And who do you mean when you say "ourselves"? Allthough I agree with this statement in general,you missed what he Jefferson was saying completely and your interpetation of what he was saying is your opinion, not an exact observation. And honestly, don't you and your peers sit in your office in that Christian college and seperate yourself from those who are "religious" becuase do not adhere to the doctrine of salvation as your sect interpets the bible? I certainly have spoken such things. I"m not trying to be hard, but I think your not as objective as you think you are. Grace

I appreciate "Laura" clarification comment. However, your mistake here Laura is not in what you wrote, but in not recognizing that the real message of the video is comparing today's "mainstream" christian churches in America with the biblical message of Christianity. Everything Jefferson said was right on. You simply cringed becuase you understand the correct interpetation of the word "religion" in context to scripture. But the truth is Jefferson and Rice are one of many who from generation to generation see the church selling out to the world, and compromizing the fundamental Jesus message of the bible. It happenned in the 60's and then came the Jesus movement, it happenned in the 80's with churches trying to convince the youth that were as cool if not cooler than our counterparts, and now we have books like "radical" by David Platt which is also critical of mainstream Christianity. You can also tell by the posts that the readers get "Jefferson" and you did'nt. You simple "cringed" at his use of samantics rather than going beyond that. If you want to be truly "theologically" correct, When the New Testament speaks of the "church" or "saints" its really talking people. Your a good writer, but get better at understanding the bigger picture, cuase he and Rice are right on! Along with David Platt and Francis Chan (Crazy Love) and others. Allthough they might get their words mixe up.