You who despise "religion", could you tell me which Biblical apostle you are quoting in your anger? Which Bible writer actually condemned religion? If the Bible does not condemn it, what is your basis? Do you know where the word religion is found in your Bible, and do you know what it means?

May I answer? The Greek threskeia means "a ceremonial observance." A form of worship. The King James translates the word into "religion" a few times, and into "worshipping" once. In none of the "religion" passages is anything negative connotated. In Colossians 2:18, however, where the word is "worshipping", the apostle rebukes angel religion.

He warns believers that there are false teachers out there who are puffed up with pride because of their supposed relationship with angels, and who are therefore pushing their angelic religion on to the Body. That sort of "religion" is condemned. Strange that the strongest false teachers of our day have a similar emphasis. As is my custom, I will not name names. But the state of Kansas that I mentioned in a previous blog, is the source of much of this angelic religion.

Religion is a positive word in the Scriptures. It is our brother James who points out that there is pure, undefiled religion and then there is vain religion. In both cases, these religious practices have nothing to do with the Sunday meeting. A man whose religion is pure is one who cares for such as the orphans and widows, and one who keeps away from the defilements of this world. A man whose religion is useless is one who cannot control his tongue but still keeps on telling himself he is a true believer. Notice, he has a religion. He does "worship", and maybe with great enthusiasm. But his religion is vain.

Let me be charitable then to the attackers of religion and suggest to them other questions. Did you really mean "down with bad religion" ? Are you talking about the quiet forms of worship versus the louder more "free" expressions? Truly dead formality deserves a shake-up. But are you sure your target is even then a valid one? When you divide churches between the quiet and the loud, are you sure that the loud ones are the ones following Jesus? Could some of them have a vain religion? And could you have missed some pure ones on the other side?

Is a quieter method of getting God's work done to be despised? Is it possible that some who are quiet in church actually are very vocal in their own prayer times? Is it possible that the quiet ones love the Lord with their gifts as much as the loud vociferous types?

Are some good things being thrown out in the name of this revolution? Like song books? Like use of Bibles? Like rich doctrinal teachings replaced by scanty messages so that there is more time for shouting? Is it not true that there will come a time when people can no longer endure sound teaching? Is it not true that they will heap to themselves teachers because they have itching ears?

Is it possible, forgive me for suggesting it, that there are men among us trying to upset the old order so that they can come to power in a new one? Will their new hyped-up style that is meant to replace "religion", itself deserve the title "religion" in just a matter of weeks? Can people be at this fever pitch for long periods of time? How many new "signs and wonders", real or imagined, can be introduced to the people of God before they see it as just ho-hum and a new form of ceremonial observance?

Bottom line, for those who seek the presence of God, is the sign of that presence some miraculous show, or is it in fact a changed life? Though most of the "healings" in your non-religious meetings cannot be substantiated, even if they were real, do they compare to the standard God has set for His people in terms of holiness, and transformation, and repentance from dead works?