The Myth Of A Christian Religion

[Sudsy]

I just ordered this and now have it on my Kindle. Has anyone here read this and if so what do you make of it.

Author Greg Boyd. Also wrote The Myth of a Christian Nation.

[Sudsy]

An interview on this book

[QuietlyListening]

My husband read this about a year ago. Said there were some very good points but like many things some good, some you want to pass over but much food for thought.

[Sudsy]

My husband read this about a year ago. Said there were some very good points but like many things some good, some you want to pass over but much food for thought.

I'm just getting started on the book. I like books that challenge the way we 'do church' today and how our Christianity is practised considering what Jesus said was most important. Greg is one, like Bruxy here in Canada, who I like to listen to. I don't believe they have all the answers but many of their views on Jesus and being a Kingdom Citizen are the kind of Anabaptism that I can relate to.

I think they and some others are quite tired of dead, argumentative forms of churchianity that have little impact to reach lost people in a radically changed way. How many church going, professing Christians are really experiencing the abundant life that Jesus said He came to give ? There is a cost and most of us are not willing to lose our lives to gain it and/or don't understand what all is necessary to give up our carnal, ego driven lives. I'm not there yet and running out of days on this earth.

Well, time to exercise my knew prosthetic knee. No pain, no gain.

[Neto]

First response:
He has his own definition of the word 'religion' (which he gives at around 3 1/2 minutes in), one of which he is probably the only proponent. So it comes off as a catchy title that doesn't mean to any one else what it means to him. (If it sounds like I'm coming across pretty strong, that's because of my background in missiology and anthropology. It side-steps common usage, and also ignores the Scripture's own use of the term.) He gives a bit about his church upbringing at around 7:45, and if you think of 'religion' from that perspective (if he is being fair to them), then it is perhaps understandable. But James says 'true religion is this...' recognizing that there is also 'false religion'. But the Christian religion is not a myth.
I sensed a subtle change in meaning of what Paul says about our battle not being against flesh & blood, but rather spiritual powers. I cannot quite lay my finger on what about the way he talks about this sounds wrong to me, and I listened to it several times. Maybe that 'fighting the spiritual powers" means that we do not engage with people when we hear wrong doctrine taught.

(I initially had a positive note here to end my comments with, but as I continued listening, my enthusiasm waned.)

[Sudsy]

First response:
He has his own definition of the word 'religion' (which he gives at around 3 1/2 minutes in), one of which he is probably the only proponent. So it comes off as a catchy title that doesn't mean to any one else what it means to him. (If it sounds like I'm coming across pretty strong, that's because of my background in missiology and anthropology. It side-steps common usage, and also ignores the Scripture's own use of the term.) He gives a bit about his church upbringing at around 7:45, and if you think of 'religion' from that perspective (if he is being fair to them), then it is perhaps understandable. But James says 'true religion is this...' recognizing that there is also 'false religion'. But the Christian religion is not a myth.
I sensed a subtle change in meaning of what Paul says about our battle not being against flesh & blood, but rather spiritual powers. I cannot quite lay my finger on what about the way he talks about this sounds wrong to me, and I listened to it several times. Maybe that 'fighting the spiritual powers" means that we do not engage with people when we hear wrong doctrine taught.

(I initially had a positive note here to end my comments with, but as I continued listening, my enthusiasm waned.)

Thanks Neto. I think sometimes books are titled in a way to entice people to read them and perhaps this was his intent, I don't know. This was an interview and I need to get more reading on the book.

My guess about his comment on our wrestling as believers is that we should not make our warring personal i.e. I should not despise or be angry with a brother that follows the Lord differently than I do. I
would be surprised if he thought we should not engage one another over correct doctrine as he does this all the time.

Greg has had a huge number of people walk away from their church on some of his teachings. It is interesting to me what beliefs these are.

[Neto]

First response:
He has his own definition of the word 'religion' (which he gives at around 3 1/2 minutes in), one of which he is probably the only proponent. So it comes off as a catchy title that doesn't mean to any one else what it means to him. (If it sounds like I'm coming across pretty strong, that's because of my background in missiology and anthropology. It side-steps common usage, and also ignores the Scripture's own use of the term.) He gives a bit about his church upbringing at around 7:45, and if you think of 'religion' from that perspective (if he is being fair to them), then it is perhaps understandable. But James says 'true religion is this...' recognizing that there is also 'false religion'. But the Christian religion is not a myth.
I sensed a subtle change in meaning of what Paul says about our battle not being against flesh & blood, but rather spiritual powers. I cannot quite lay my finger on what about the way he talks about this sounds wrong to me, and I listened to it several times. Maybe that 'fighting the spiritual powers" means that we do not engage with people when we hear wrong doctrine taught.

(I initially had a positive note here to end my comments with, but as I continued listening, my enthusiasm waned.)

Thanks Neto. I think sometimes books are titled in a way to entice people to read them and perhaps this was his intent, I don't know. This was an interview and I need to get more reading on the book.

My guess about his comment on our wrestling as believers is that we should not make our warring personal i.e. I should not despise or be angry with a brother that follows the Lord differently than I do. I
would be surprised if he thought we should not engage one another over correct doctrine as he does this all the time.

Greg has had a huge number of people walk away from their church on some of his teachings. It is interesting to me what beliefs these are.

I was not familiar at all with him - I'm not sure I had even heard his name before. I did hear or read (perhaps someplace else, where I went to get a little background on him) that he had moved from his former home into the inner city. For that I can only admire him, because he has taken that important step in creating connections with people.

[PetrChelcicky]

Attacking "religion" was a major point for Karl Barth and his supporters in their fight against theological "liberalism". The liberals tended to see religion as man-made - which led to a crisis in preaching: the pastor was rather occupied with observing the religious development of his community resp. its members, only sometimes intruding with advice etc.
In contrast, Barth emphasized revelation as the center and "faith" - opposed to man-made "religion" - as the mere answer to that revelation. So the "preaching crisis" was overcome. Thus, "religion" became a term for everything in the church which was only man-made.
(Personally, I m more of a liberal.)
I suspect that this book here is a, somewhat overworked, repetition of Barth's ideas.