Four Lessons I Learned from Jefferson Bethke, the "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Guy
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 12:02AM 
My nine year-old daughter listened to Jefferson Bethke’s Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus just two times, and pronounced him theologically orthodox. I would take her endorsement over many a seminary professor’s.
In my work as an editor for ChurchLeaders.com I had a chance to chat with Jeff Bethke for about 30 minutes by phone Saturday night. You can read the heart of the interview here. Students of Jesus is a blog about spiritual formation, so today I’d like to share four spiritual formation lessons I gained from the 22 year-old poet and follower of Jesus:
Spiritual formation begins with new creation: Even a sincere student of Jesus can begin to buy into the lie that it all depends on us. In our interview Jeff emphasized again and again that Jesus brings new birth: “Jesus isn’t just behavior modification; he’s also a heart change that leads to behavior modification. Religion picks the bad fruit off the tree when Jesus just plants a new tree . . . Religion tries as hard as it possibly can to pick off the bad fruit so no one can see it--which is possible with human will--when Jesus says, “how ‘bout we just plant a new tree so that the fruit grows naturally. The root is where the power comes from.”
Little kids can do big things, too: That’s the lesson my daughter took away from the poem, and she’s right: Jeff Bethke met Jesus just four years ago. He acknowledges there’s plenty more to learn, but he can smell the rotting corpse of dead religion (my words, not his). Brand new believers can do big things, too. For example, in John’s gospel, chapter four, a woman who had just one conversation with Jesus sparked a revival in her town. This was the woman with five failed marriages and a live-in arrangement with her current boyfriend: Jesus didn’t give her a new rule (or an old one) he gave her a new heart. Before the episode was finished Jesus told his disciples, the fields are white with harvest.
Spiritual growth follows a different curve than natural growth: In my work as a pastor I saw this over and over. Some people begin coming to church because they wanted to “be better people.” Apart from the new birth, change came slow (or not at all). After the new birth their lives were forever changed. New life in Jesus means we’ve entered a different realm. One sign of the new birth is actual hunger for the things of God. If a new-born baby isn’t hungry, it is either sick or still-born. Jeff Bethke displayed the signs of someone hungry for more of God: in a 30-minute conversation he ranged from Isaiah to Revelation. Jeff quoted scripture with the ease of someone who had begun to internalize the word of God into his life. I’ve seen people attend my church for years who displayed no signs of life. We need to realize that religion and new life can sit side-by-side in the same church. One brings death, the other grows into maturity.
Make room for the poet . . . and the singer, and the musicians, writers, painters, craftsmen and actors. The current pastor of my church has a saying: “The artists should be found in the church or they will be lost in the world.” Jeff Bethke has taken some criticism for using theological words without the precision of a theologian. Yet I loved his answer when I asked him if he would change anything about his poem now that the video went viral: “Part of me says yes simply because I realize the reaction to it made people shut it off without hearing, and I never want to close people's ears by a simple word. But at the same time, I think that was also the word that sparked what it did. [The poem] had a word that resonates; it has a deep influence and a deep history.” Good call: if I’m forced to chose between the theologians and the poets, I’m with the poets.
Internet fame is a fleeting wisp, an inconstant lover. It is fool’s gold. I got the impression that Jeff understands this. He displayed a humble heart and a teachable spirit, even when chatting with a complete stranger of the phone. He’s media-savvy enough to know that once his work was released to the world, other people will make of it what they will. I wish him well as he faces decisions about his future. I’ve learn a few lessons from him, not the least of which were the final words before we said good-bye:
“My biggest hope when I did the interview today is that it encouraged both generations, because it seemed like I was being used as the champion to say ‘screw you’ to the older generation and I really don’t like that. I hope that I can show myself as someone who loves the church, loves the Bible, and loves godly men who speak into our lives--because I don’t want to divide people.”
References (3)
-
Response: Brett Favre Women's JerseyIf you appreciate football, you probably have a favored team from the National Football League or two and have a list of players who like to have observed.
-
Response: click the next internet siteFour Lessons I Learned from Jefferson Bethke, the "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Guy - Home - studentsofjesus
-
Response: fishing tackle for saleFour Lessons I Learned from Jefferson Bethke, the "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Guy - Home - studentsofjesus
Reader Comments (13)
Make room for the scientists and theologians, as well as He did. ... though I am puzzled at times by your on-off support for thinkers. Sometimes you say, as you did a few days ago, "He welcomes the poor in spirit, not the rich in knowledge." [emphasis added by me]. It's not either-or of necessity, Sir. I "get" what you are saying. ... but you are saying more, I think, than you mean to. I may be wrong. I was not welcome at my VY fellowship, apparently because I wanted knowledge. And I was also very poor in Spirit about the matters in question. Just a thought, pastor.
Thanks, Charles, for raising several important issues. First we should welcome the scientists for sure, and you are correct in identifying the theologians as recurrent whipping-boys here at this site. Scientists (from doctors to astrophysicists) all engage in useful disciplines and have served humanity well. Like all disciplines these people work within subcultures that are vision and have blind spots--it can't be helped.We can and should make room for them, and such foolishness as requiring one and only one view of human origins is short-sighted and wring.
Theologians, on the other hand, receive in for special treatment from me because (in my view) the Biblical record is filled with example after after example of the pride of knowledge--especially religious knowledge. We should all keep in mind the Biblical warning that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. As I've said repeatedly here: an omniscient God is never impressed with human intellect, but he is impressed with such things as faith and humility.
As for "saying more than I mean too," yes, I am frequently guilty of the charge! Blessings to you, Charles--you are always welcome.
I really appreciated this! It did spark a lot of controversy but I really supported his efforts into bringing a simple message of hope. Religion has done harm and it has done good. But I cannot cease to forget that it was religion that crucified Christ, the very thing He gave up His life for.
I'm sure there is a good intention here, but a statement like "if I’m forced to chose between the theologians and the poets, I’m with the poets." demonstrates that one knows very little about and/or has read very little of Christian poetry. This is another example, almost as bad as the youtube video, of a false dichotomy based upon very poor definitions: why would someone ever have to choose between theology and poetry? Theology and poetry are not set against one another; rather, the Bible is a wonderful proof that they are harmonious. Furthermore, what virtue is in a poetry that doesn't urge us toward the Truth, or, if it is much worse, sets us against the Truth; namely a ridiculous statement like "Jesus hates religion"? How a person could read the Gospels and divorce them from religion, especially given their genesis, is fascinating to me. I can't help it, but a great deal of me wishes Bethke would meditate a on this verse of Scripture: "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent." - Proverbs 17:28
Peace and good.
Josh -
Why do you need to incorporate Bible verses to call someone stupid?
Wayfarer and A: Thanks for stopping by.
Josh: Thanks for stopping by, too, but please let me address some of your concerns. First, I've read a bit of Christian Poetry in my day. Some of it, especially that portion which chooses "message" over "art" is quite poor indeed. You and I would probably agree that the scripture is filled with examples of wonderful poetry. Some of that poetry that has given rise to some pretty awful theology when an interpreter insists on strict representations of theme (Song of Solomon would be one example, Job another). I'm not sure it's the task of all poetry to "urge us toward the truth," but Jeff Bethke's peace does, in fact, do just that--I refer you to his full interview (the link is in the blog post). I suspect that if you read Jeff's definition of "religion" you would agree entirely--at least I hope so. Having chatted with Jeff I can assure you he is no fool, but a lover of God and a disciple of Jesus. I wish I had his insight and passion when I was 22 years old. As for the author of this blog, there is no defense--there's plenty of foolishness here weekly. Peace!
Wayfarer, that wasn't my intention, but thanks for the insightful comment.
Ray, trust me, I believe you, and I believed it before I read any of your commentary, the guy has passion - but I think you will agree with me that demonstrating that he isn't lukewarm is much different that demonstrating that he is speaking the truth. Religion has never meant "hypocrisy, legalism, self-righteousness, and self-justification" and it's ridiculous to suggest that it has meant or does mean those things. Do you really believe that it is a loving, truthful statement to conclude that people practice religion for those reasons? Do you really believe that the millions of people who have proclaimed to be religious and devoted their lives to feeding the poor and clothing the naked do so because they are hypocrites and self-righteous? If not, what's so great about a poem that suggests that? I'm sorry, but the guy either knows nothing about history and somehow things it's ok to use muddled terminology to tear down man's just response to God, or he is a self-righteous hypocrite. Why should anyone have to accept his non-sensible definition of religion over the sensible definition of antiquity?
Well, I tried to leave a comment here first thing this morning, and I'm not sure what happened to it. I think what's tough about this video is that some of the theological imprecision about how to define religion both confused some readers and lead to such widely diverging responses. There's no excuse for those who attacked him for this video, but I think part of our discussion about the value of the poem as it is has to take into account whether he communicated something clearly. I've failed at this in plenty instances. I have things in print that now make me cringe. The value of my work has suffered in relation to the clarity of my presentation.
As to your lessons, I think there's a lot of good stuff in there. So I certainly don't want to discount the value of this video. For me, I think it shows that we are hungry for passionate, creative expressions of the faith. Who wants to read a theology book when you can watch an engaging video like that? We can all watch that video and say, "I want to be like that guy!" I know I do. However, those good things can't undo the part where people get confused over the muddled definition of religion in the video. That just means we have two lessons here: some artists have to learn a bit more theology and theologians have to learn a heck of a lot more art and how to speak to more people than themselves. In fact, theologians should probably be trying to help this guy more than anything.
I'll buy that, Ed. I tend to tilt in favor of the artist nearly every time. If you read the interview at ChurchLeaders.com, he said he regrets the confusion over definitions *but* wouldn't change the wording because of all the associations brought up by the word "religion." Even if that's theologically imprecise, it still rings true with me. Thanks so much for your insight!
Excellent points, all, Josh. Thank you for contributing to the discussion. In one part of the interview, that was left out of both the ChurchLeaders' piece and this post, Bethke used this example (which rang true with me): he said that when people are injured or sick they head to the hospital with the full assurance that they will be received and cared for--yet people lack such assurance about their reception of at most churches.
I think I understood his point: there are denotative meanings of words (which underscore your argument), and but there are connotations associated with words as well. It's true--the dictionary supports you. But how people (especially lost people) feel about the church seems to support Bethke.
Either way--you are always welcome here at Students of Jesus with your viewpoints and passion for Jesus!
i'm with you ray. the critics and naysayers - they're everywhere and it's unfortunate. understanding is forfeited when we trade in pettiness. i suppose if a youtube video went viral with heresy, or if mr. bethke's poem were being added to the canon of scripture, then it would merit all the hoop-la & scrutiny. otherwise we should rejoice with him at god's goodness, and if at some point he's wrong in some little way, well, this too god will make clear to him. i truly doubt anyone is getting shut out of the kingdom because of this video. in fact, it's most likely it's the other way around.
Ray, I just re-watched the video (twice) and a few interesting things occurred to me.
First, I noticed that the video had an advertisement immediately preceding it. I found this curious because, as I've been told by several people, it means that youtube pays the person to be able to advertise on their channel. I noticed these advertisements on other videos that he uploaded as well. I then tested this on other "religious" youtube channels that will have the necessary number of views to merit the advertisements. I found it very interesting that all of the "religious" youtube channels that I went to didn't have the advertisements and, thus, are not being paid by youtube for their videos, while Bethke is being paid by youtube for his work.
Second, on my re-watching I could never pick out where he makes a clarification of the definition of religion that he gave to you. He doesn't even write the clarification in the space given to him immediately below the video. So I'm not really sure why anyone would be ok with this or could see the clarification that he gave to you, and maybe others, as anything other than a cop-out. Let me put it this way. Suppose that I define "idiot" as "a really nice loving guy". Would you support me going around saying, without clarification of my definition, "Jefferson Bethke is an idiot"?
Third, his analogy of the hospital and the church is a complete strawman and goes against the testimony of about everyone I know (and that's lots of people who both go to church and work at a hospital - and I can include myself since I previously worked at a hospital). And even if it were true I'm quite sure it does nothing to advance his cause. In other words, the decision to not practice region or go to church is because he or others have had or might have a bad experience with others when they go there? Really? How "man-centered" can you get? His "man-centered" view is his whole reasoning for dismissing religion.
Fourth, I'm sorry Ray, but I also think that you are making a cop-out by saying that the dictionary supports me, but people support Bethke. Do you think that dictionaries just spring out of the ground? If a word is in a dictionary it's because that's how the word has been defined by people. And Bethke's definition would be rejected by just about everyone in history, but also by the overwhelming majority of people that are currently living. Do you think his definition would be accepted by the over 1 billion Catholics? Do you think his definition would be accepted by the over 1 billion Muslims? Do you think his definition would be accepted by the over 1 billion Hindus? It's not even recognized as a good definition by the overwhelming number of Protestants that I know and I'm quite sure they're consistent with the majority of the world's Protestants. Sorry, but anyone that accepts Bethke's poor definition as true is in the very small minority.
Peace and good.
With respect pastor, I press you: I didn't lose my faith because people in the VY were not nice to me. I lost my faith because they not only didn't have answers (about mandatory tithing, but were willing to send me away over it) but because they didn't have any answers. The relevance to this discussion: There are lots of people who love Jesus but hate religion. And the VY is drifting into the latter, IMHO; even if it is dressed up in religious language. I don't think I am so afar afield in thinking that eventually the organization that ordained you and the Man you serve will have a conflict.