Why I'm Not a Religionist, II

I feel inspired right now, so bear with me here . . .

(I refer to some concepts I talked about in part one . . . )
Every time I talk with my dad I come away with something new.
I had been sharing my personal concern as to how I can give more in service to those around me. I feel as if I talk about this subject a lot but almost never actually act on it--a hypocrite, as they say. During the conversation, he reminded me of his motto while he was out in a mountain as a "bush" doctor (I guess technically it would be a "mount" doctor . . . ), Isaiah 58. Isaiah demands of Israelites true fasting, a major part of their religion. God asks them to share their bread with the hungry, clothe the naked, set loose the yoke of oppression and so on and so on. I've heard Biblical commands and secular calls to action similar to these more times than I care to count--if I had a penny for every time someone mentions "world hunger" or "world peace" . . .
I agreed with the passage, and he obviously did too. But then he gave me the one of the toughest questions he has ever presented me with: "What do you do when you have absolutely nothing. I mean, imagine, if you have no bread--not even for yourself--what are you supposed to give?"
It seemed like a question with an obvious answer, but at the moment I stumbled, muttered a few unintelligible words, and shot him a blank stare.
He went on ruthlessly. "What if what you have isn't yours--maybe you're in debt, or it's borrowed. What then? What do you give?"
He didn't know it at the time, but that question kept me up a couple of nights.
I had the same conversation with my uncle. He gave me the "obvious" answer: you can't give what you don't have. He said, "Sometimes you have to be content with doing your part, what you can do. Maybe your job is only to plant a seed, and then it is someone else who has the responsibility of caring for that person. Peter and John told the man at the gate that they could only give him what they had: Jesus Christ. Maybe that's what you have to do. Your part."
I couldn't help but almost feeling sorry for the man at the gate. They healed him, gave him Jesus, but what about the next day? He was still poor, and most likely now he was a healthy beggar--a beggar, nonetheless.
Recently, the sabbath school lesson has been all about evangelism, and, admittedly, I haven't studied it as I should. Still, I have sat in some classes and noted that the same concept my uncle brought up is the one that got brought up in classes as the main idea: We all have a part to do, and we can't do it all, of course, so we have to be content with planting the seed and letting God do the rest.
Here is where this and I disagree.
What my uncle forgot about the story is that Peter and John didn't just give the man what they had, but also connected him. Let me explain.
We all have a part to do, and we can't do it all, of course, so we have to be content with planting the seed and letting God do the rest. This has got to be the biggest cop-out we Christians make. We use passages like ones found in Luke 10 (where it talks about workers and the harvest) and I Corinthians 12 (where it talks about the body of Christ and the functions everyone has) to say "see, I am not endowed with being a great preacher. All I can do is plant the seed." But that is selfish.
Paul continues in chapter 13 to simplify what he was on about in chapter 12. His easier version? Love. Love is kind, love is faithful. . .
Love is not selfish.
When I tell myself "This is all I am supposed to do," I keep the command benefiting me. Alas, I'm not the one that is chiefly benefited from spreading the gospel, it should be the receiver.
The key is in connecting.
When I have no more to give, I shouldn't say, "Here you go, Jesus" and hand the poor man or woman a Bible, praying that God will use it to change someone's life, be it the poor man or whoever reads it because of him. All too often we are content with handing out literature in the "hope" that it will change someone, and then we wash our hands and say "I did my part, everything else belongs to the Lord and whoever will harvest it."
That is selfish.
What we should be doing is connecting (yes, this is the billionth time I say it) the person with the one who has the ability to keep going. As in, providing the homeless man not with the food I don't have, but with the address of the local shelter, all the while sharing Jesus with him. I give him what I have, Jesus, and connect him with what I don't: shelter, food, clothing.
When Jesus told the 72 he sent out to spread the gospel, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field" he didn't say "ask the Lord of the harvest to send out planters or sowers. He said workers. It is us who are in charge of the harvest, that is to say, the growing has already been done. It is noteworthy that while Jesus is still talking to the 72, he tells the story of the Good Samaritan. Coincidence? I think not.
The good Samaritan did not just bandage the man or give him food and said, "That is all I can do, and all I am sent to do." Actually, that is what the other people before him had done. No, he did what he could, and then connected him with the innkeeper, who had everything else the Samaritan could not provide.
What is the meaning of all this?
I hate the modern definition of religion. It only requires us to do what we must, because we have to, and not a bit more. By definition, it restrains us.
The true religion, worship, tells us to do love God with all our innards and our neighbor (those whom we have to share Jesus love with) the same way we love ourselves. (Said one of my teachers,"If you don't respect yourself, respect the rest of us anyway! You can't get out of [Class] Rule #1 on a technicality.")
I should not be content with handing out a flyer and letting God do the rest. Has He done it in the past? Yes. Can He do it still? Yes. But that's not the point. God sometimes blesses things he does not approve. Hence, Israel got their kings, Solomon, son of an illegitimate wife, became king, and so on and so forth. But why rely on that when we can do it with His help? He didn't just do what He had to do, He also connected us with Him through His Spirit.
This is what I believe defines our commission.
True Religion.
True Worship. 

Why I'm Not a Religionist

Lately, there was a video that went viral among my friends of a young man voicing his opposition to Religion, sparking a debate between those who believe that Religion should be done away with and those who stand by Religion.
I am not a religionist, and here's why.
Now, as any good journalist, I am biased--as is everyone in the world--but I will state my bias here, and what I believe is my personal belief based on my experience and knowledge gleaned from experiences, friends, and books, and from my personal study of the Bible. Again, this is my personal belief, it does not reflect the views of anyone else but me.
Let me give a bit of background. Religion isn't bad per se, but as a human institution it is prone to many faults. Heck, even divine institutions are prone to faults when men pretend to take control over it, like marriage (or lack thereof in this country). Thanks to the defaming power of human opinion and control, many good things have lost their good meaning. Take the swastika, for example. For many tribes and cultures of the world, the swastika held different meanings, nearly almost always something positive, like "life." It is still used today in Hindu cultures to evoke "Shakti". Even so, one glance at a swastika and the first thing that comes to mind is images of Nazi military parades and a wild man with a funny mustache.
Words can also lose their once good meaning. "Gay" used to mean (and is still in the dictionary as) happy, merry. 1953 came around, though, and people gave it another meaning. Now saying that you are gay is almost always received with the wrong connotation.
I believe the same thing has happened to the word/institution of "Religion." The word we use today actually comes from a 13th century Latin word which means sanction, supernatural constraint, and tie back. For us, religion is "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.)
To offset the video, my friends all chose to look at James 1:27, which states "A religion that is pure and stainless in the sight of God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (ISV). The defenders of religion then stated, "See, religion is not evil. This is what religion is."
And they were right. Here's my point: for the Greek mindset and Hebrew connotation of James and the early church, religion had a completely different meaning than what we have today. The word James uses for "religion", threeskeia, comes up again in Colossians 2:18, except that here it means something completely different to our eyes:  "Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels cheat you out of the prize by boasting about what he has seen. Such a person is puffed up without cause by his carnal mind" (ISV). Here, it means worship!
I believe that this is what I mean when I say I'm not a religionist. I do not believe in a system, mere protocol. This is what religion has come to mean now. Our understanding of religion comes from a word that means constraint, and that has been practiced over and over again by people, so changing what true religion (should I say worship?) is. What religion is now is a system of guilt, made so that we keep looking amongst ourselves and our pastors for knowledge, when God wants us to reason things, think things through.
Religion has told us to convert as many as possible, striking up Crusades against muslims, and decimating Native Tribes, shaking everything up in inner Africa as we hold up the banner of religion. That is NOT the gospel. We were meant to spread the gospel and make disciples who would turn into apostles and spread it even more. Sometimes we stay stuck as disciples, just taking everything taught to us and believing it. In this process, converting is not a step. "Baptizing them" usually throws people off--we must convert to baptize! But how are we to baptize someone who is more Christ-like than us? Maybe that person from a different religion is more Christ-like--they should baptize me. Spread the gospel. Not inject the gospel.
I am not a religionist. I believe that Jesus came to show us what true worship is. True worship is spreading the gospel. What is the gospel? Jesus spread it every time He went somewhere: He healed, He clothed, He fed, He soothed, He cried, He provided, for us to know how God looks like, who God really is. I cannot truly worship something or someone I don't know. I am not in this world to "Adventisize" it, I am here to be Jesus' hands and feet. True worship. Religion in its grassroots origin. With the freedom to think, to question. Not to be constrained, tied back by "it is written, and that's it. No thinking allowed."
Let us engage in true worship.