The internet is a funny place. It doesn’t take long for a controversial video, picture, or article to go viral. It takes less for the rebuttals and commentaries to come out.
Within the past week I have seen two pieces of media over one controversial subject being posted all over Facebook. I’ll even unashamedly admit I took part!
It started with a video created by Jefferson Bethke giving a Spoken Word Poem titled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” Bethke uploaded the video to youtube.com on January 10th, and within 3 days the video went viral and rustled enough feathers for Kevin DeYoung, a Michigan Pastor and blogger at thegospelcoalition.org to post a critique/rebuttal titled “Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really.”
Now I’m seeing DeYoung’s article posted all over Facebook with accompanying posts saying the equivalent of “BOOYA!”
Since then, DeYoung and Bethke have been in contact with each other through e-mail and a rather heart warming follow-up article has been posted.
But, since I love theological debate and I’m getting ready to go discuss the video tonight with some friends, I’m going to throw in my 2 cents and say why I think DeYoung’s critique is really a moot point.
First off, I would like to point out that Bethke’s video is not an emergent manifesto of any kind. It’s a poem; a work of art. By its very nature it uses language aesthetically and is supposed to provoke its listener to find the deeper meaning beyond plain words. DeYoung, to his credit, does a little research, and through brief reflection, figures out what Bethke means by “religion.” DeYoung says, “Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.” (emphasis added) DeYoung admits that he then agrees with Bethke’s view… so it would seem the critique could stop there. Instead DeYoung goes on to give an argument for what he considers religion. This is just an argument over semantics.
I know some people out there would say “but Darby, words have meaning and we shouldn’t just throw them around with reckless abandon!” I agree, but remember, we’re not talking about prose but the language of poetry; a language that can be molded and shaped to its creator’s will. Also, the word “religion” itself is a vague word. Some theorists say the word comes from the Latin words re+ligare meaning to continuously re-bind one’s self to something (usually a deity). Bethke repeatedly refers to the things religious people bind themselves to like: “behavior modification,” “chores,” and being known as “a Christian by your Facebook.” It seems we would have no problem saying Jesus hates it when we bind ourselves to things like these. Although, I’m pretty sure Jesus never actually says he hates anything; he merely implies. But it’s a dangerous game to start putting words into Jesus’ mouth. Which brings me to my next point…
Some of the theology in the poem seems a little shaky, DeYoung is quick to point this out, but I think with the proper knowledge behind it, Bethke could actually make a strong case. Just for an example, Bethke says “Because when he [Jesus] was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you.” There is a strong constituency of people (of which I am one) who say that Jesus was not thinking of us while on the cross, but was only concerned with fulfilling the Father’s will. But, if God is of infinite knowledge, knowing each one of us before we were even born, then it is quite reasonable to say that he was indeed thinking of us individually. If Jesus and God are one in the same, then one could make the case that Jesus was in fact thinking of individual believers and non-believers. This line of thought raises questions about the divine nature of Jesus which has been a debate in Christianity since the 3rd and 4th centuries and also sparked some of the first Nicean Councils.
Lastly, I feel like DeYoung takes some pot shots at Bethke and his supporters by saying “This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? …Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.” Basically, young Christians don’t really know what to believe and are persuaded by pretty lights and shiny things. He even later suggests (very nicely) that Bethke take some formal theological training. I just don’t think this sentiment holds water. While the statement of confusion may be true for some young Christians, I don’t think it’s true for all and certainly not Bethke. It’s just a case of one person disagreeing over the (possibly) well founded theology of another and nitpicking at details that in some ways are not relevent to salvation.
I’ll freely admit that I am a supporter of the video, not because it is flashy and is an expression of a misguided youth, but because it is from an artist who has his fingers on the pulse of culture. It needs to be said that “Christian” doesn’t equal “Republican.” It needs to be said that just because you put “Christian” on your Facebook, it doesn’t mean you’re actually following the footsteps of Christ. And it needs to be said that any system or institution made by men is doomed to fail and that is why God searched for us instead.
“Jesus didn’t come to make us Christian. Jesus came to make us fully human.” -Hans Roomaaker


















