According to a new survey by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 64% of young adults think that the Church is “anti-gay” and 25% of them now consider themselves to be “unaffiliated”.

Whether one leads to the other is to be debated, but it does seem clear that this issue is cresting in our country and might just prove to be the watershed debate that ultimately breaks up the marriage between America and Christianity.

The survey went on to tell us that Christianity has taken a big hit in America because of its position on homosexuality and gay marriage, and it suggests that the trend is only going to increase in the years to come.

So, as pressure mounts on the Church to get with the program and change its attitude toward gays, Christians are put in a precarious position. Either they amend their beliefs to save face in the culture or they toe the line and risk its retaliation.

This particular issue resonates with the culture we live in because it feels like it’s a matter of civil rights and social equality. The gay marriage movement has cleverly branded this issue as a battle against bigotry.

It has framed the debate as a matter of “human rights” and has blamed the Church for impeding its efforts. So, Christianity takes the fall for supposedly standing in the way of social progress.

Inevitably, Christians who continue to cling to apparently archaic beliefs or dare to speak up about so-called biblical values are branded by the movement as old fashioned bigots.

Just as Christians in the Deep South of Segregated America were expected to come around on racial equality so are Christians in the Bible Belt of Postmodern America expected to do the same on sexual equality.

Social progressives like to align the present “struggle for freedom” among gays with the past “struggle for freedom” among blacks. And, they will argue that being gay is no different than being black, but that’s where they are wrong.

You see, nowhere in the Bible is being black considered a sin. Skin color is never viewed as a moral issue in Scripture. But, sexual preference is. The Bible is crystal clear about the wrongness of homosexuality.

The only way to not see that homosexuality is a sin is to either ignore portions of Scripture or reject the authority of Scripture altogether. And, this is exactly why every Christian is now put into a predicament.

They have to make a choice between rejecting God’s Word thereby enjoying the acceptance of their society and keeping God’s Word thus suffering the persecution from their society.

What our culture does not understand is that we cannot just “change” our beliefs and still claim to be Christians. We cannot choose what parts of Scripture we will obey and what parts we will ignore.

We are required by our God to observe and keep all of His commands, and the consequence of disappointing Him is much worse for us than the consequence of frustrating our culture.

What our society is trying to do is to force us into choosing between our faith and our culture, and what they are really asking us to do is to not be Christians. After all, we cannot be partial Christians. That just isn’t an option for us.

To be a true Christian and to be the true Church, we must be against sin, all sin. This means that Christianity is not anti-gay. It’s anti-sin. Since homosexuality is a sin, we cannot accept it.

The Church does not reject homosexuals in the same way that it does not reject liars, cheaters, adulterers, and murderers. What the Church rejects is unrepentant sin. Everybody in the church is a sinner, but Christians agree to turn from their sin.

As the Apostle Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

But, notice what he says next. Paul writes, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

According to Paul, Christianity isn’t anti-anyone. The Church is pro-repentance. All people are sinners, but Christians just admit it. They confess it and turn from it. And, that is precisely why it is so absurd for the culture to expect us to go back to it.

This issue probably will not go away, and it might be the very one that isolates the Church from the surrounding culture. It might also be the one that shrinks the Church in America as it forces every Christian to choose between allegiance to our God and acceptance by the world.

But, let it be known that the true Church in America will never capitulate to the culture on this issue. We can’t. Our commitment to biblical truth won’t allow it. Whatever persecution may come, the real Church must never back down on sin.

As Joan of Arc once defiantly declared, “I would rather die than do something which I know to be a sin, or to be against God’s will.” And, die she did, and so shall we.

Now, I know what they are intending when they use this expression. I understand that they mean Christianity is different from other religions because it is not about keeping legalistic rules and performing empty rituals. It’s about trusting in Christ and not about trying to earn God’s approval.

And, I also understand that we may dislike the word “religion” because it has negative associations for people. For some, it has come to be associated with something boring or oppressive, but that is largely defined by one’s own personal experience so it shouldn’t be used to indict religion as a whole.

Just because religion has negative associations for some, does that mean we should all abandon the concept? Do we simply give up on the idea because some people had a bad experience or should we instead reclaim and redeem it? I am of the persuasion that thinks we ought to do the latter.

So, in the sense that religion is not about legalistic duty and that it has some real world negative associations, Christians who use the phrase are right. But, in the sense that they want to reject the word and ditch the concept of religion, they are wrong. When they say that Christianity is not a religion, they are simply mistaken because it is.

The dictionary defines religion as “A set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

So, according to that definition, Christianity is clearly a religion. The textbook definition is right, which means that we don’t need to get rid of the idea of religion. We simply have to define it or, in many cases, redefine it.

Christianity is a religion because it needs to be. If Christianity is not a religion, then it is in a category all to itself, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. The reason why is because defining Christianity as something else altogether does set us apart, but it also isolates us.

If Christianity is not a religion, then there are two significant issues that arise. First, if Christianity is not considered a religion, then it means that we do not have a place in the religious marketplace of ideas. We only have our own circle in which to talk about “relationship”.

In other words, if Christianity is not also a religion, just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam are, then how can we expect to be taken seriously in the debate? After all, how can we enter into the forum of world religions if we don’t belong there?

If we want to enter into the religious studies debate, then we need to have a seat at the table of world religion. If we secure a seat, then we can get the opportunity to exhibit the Christian worldview and negotiate its relevance to the religious discussion.

To be taken seriously in the religious milieu today, we shouldn’t be trying to exclude ourselves from the dialogue. We ought not to retreat to our own domain, but we inadvertently end up doing this very thing when we don’t call ourselves a religion.

If we say we’re not about religion but relationship, then we make it sound like Christianity is thin and hollow, not thick and substantial. The Christian faith is something to take seriously, and it belongs in the discussion of religion.

And, second, if Christianity is not a religion, then it also means we are not recognized by the State and are therefore not protected by First Amendment rights. If you recall from your American History class in high school, the First Amendment is what guarantees freedom to practice “religion”.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice that it doesn’t say that Congress shall not respect or prohibit the exercise of “relationship”.

I think people just repeat an expression like “Christianity is a relationship and not a religion” because it sounds nice and people use it a lot. It’s a cliché, and we are notorious for repeating Christian platitudes and clichés. But, platitudes and clichés make us look bad. They make us sound shallow like we’re an inch deep and a mile wide.

Sometimes I fear that we keep coming up with clever ways to say things in order to either side step honest debate with others or to preclude ourselves from any serious scrutiny. In other words, not calling ourselves a religion can be a sort of trump card that we play in order to evade criticism or avoid intelligent interaction.

The truth is that religion does require us to do certain things and do them “religiously”. There is value in “doing” religion and not just in “being” in a relationship. The truth is that the Scriptures talk just as much about doing the right things as they talk about being good people.

In fact, James tells us explicitly in his book that there is such a thing as doing religion, and doing it righteously. James 1:27 says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

James’ command shows that he is not down on religion at all. Rather, he is quite up on it as long as it’s the right kind. He writes that real religion is about doing something (caring for the most vulnerable) and about not doing something (avoiding the temptations of this world). So, religion is about doing and not just about being.

As Christians we need to be thoughtful in the way that we talk about our faith. Though we do want to distinguish our religion from all the others and to make the case that the Christian worldview is the best one, we must first get the opportunity to do so.

When we use Christian clichés like “Christianity is a relationship and not a religion”, we often end up shutting down our chances to gain a hearing with others. The reason why is that it often comes across as dogmatic and even triumphalistic.

The message that this sends is that we are not interested in debate and that we are somehow superior to others. The fact is that people are turned off by those who appear to be closed off or puffed up, so we clearly don’t want to project that kind of image to the world.

Instead of promulgating a message like that, it seems to me that it would be better to try to open the doors of communication with the world rather than close them. And, one of the ways that we can do this is by choosing commonalities and building bridges with others.

We can prop one of those doors open by dropping our resistance to using the term religion and embrace what it provides us in the marketplace of spiritual ideas as well as what it protects us from in a country that guarantees religious freedoms.

So, the bottom line is that Christianity is a relationship, but it is also a religion. It is a religion by definition and by practice, which means that religion is not a bad thing. It is not a word to be avoided or a concept to be ignored.

The Christian religion is unique and offers the best and most holistic view of the world, and we want to get the opportunity to share that with others. But, in order to have that chance to voice our faith, we need to take our seat at the table of religion.

Why? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all ashamed by the subject matter or by the fact that a church is willing to talk about it. I’m embarrassed as a Christian and as a pastor because the gimmicky appeal simply perpetuates the negative stereotype of Christianity that it is a cheap and shallow religion. You see, many people already think that Christianity is an American religion that derived in the last few hundred years, and this kind of ploy only reinforces that perception.

Any student of religion knows that Christianity is certainly not a modern invention of American culture, and it is absolutely not even a Western religion as its origins and foundations are in the ancient Middle East. In fact, its Judaic roots go so far back into history that in its incipient form Christianity can make the claim that it actually predates all the other religions in the world today. But, you wouldn’t know that when you get a mailer or drive by a billboard like that here in the United States, would you?

No, you’d probably think that Christianity is an American invention created by the founders of our country as part of the great American experiment. As Christianity is often presented in our culture today, you might easily get the impression that it is a religion that exists to serve the needs of American citizens and to make their lives better here in this country. But, that is simply not what Christianity is about.

In his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, Neil Postman wrote this: “I believe that I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether.” American Christianity, when it is portrayed as light and entertaining, is not really Christianity at all. It is, as Postman says, “another religion altogether”.

Personally, I’m having a hard time picturing James or Peter back in Jerusalem sticking flyers in the doors of their neighbors inviting them to come hear a series on “How to have great sex” or “How to be successful in your trade”. Had they done so, I’m quite sure more people would have shown up, but those people would probably have gotten the wrong impression about Christianity.

They would likely have drawn the conclusion that Christianity is there to serve their needs and provide them the keys to living a more fulfilling existence. And yet, that isn’t what Jesus offered to his followers during his time on earth. Jesus told his disciples that following him wouldn’t add more friends, it would subtract them. Following him wouldn’t make them more successful, it would likely take it away. And, following him wouldn’t give them a better life, it would probably cost them theirs.

When Jesus preached wherever He went, we see that He deliberately thinned the crowds who had gathered by calling them to count the cost of following after him. People came from all over, perhaps hoping to hear something they liked, but we read in the gospels that many turned away from him when Jesus didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

What resulted after this exodus was a gallery of followers who were fewer in number but who also were more sincere and devoted in their faith. This small band of disciples were more than willing to give up their comfort, give away their possessions, and give their very lives for the One who called them. And, it was this band of followers that, as it says in the book of Acts, “turned the world upside down”.

There is a story about the Italian warrior Garibaldi who long ago asked young followers to join his crusade to defend his country. They asked him: “What do you offer us?” His response was: “Offer you? I offer you neither pay nor quarters nor provisions. I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battle, and death. Let him know who loves his country in his heart, not with his lips only, follow me.”

This is akin to what Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 10:34-39 when He said: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace (read comfort, pleasure and success) to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Now, admittedly that is not a very likable message, but it is the true message nonetheless. The call of Jesus upon his followers is to a life of sacrifice and devotion, not a life of comfort and pleasure. That message doesn’t sell too well here in America, but we must make a choice between selling success and telling the truth. And, the truth is that real Christianity isn’t cheap and shallow, it’s costly and challenging.

Hundreds of years ago there was a king named Abu Taber, when threatened by invading forces and visited by an ambassador with terms of peace, he summoned one of his soldiers, handed him a dagger and commanded: “Plunge this into your chest.” Immediately the soldier obeyed and fell dead at his feet. Then, calling another, he ordered: “Leap over that precipice and into the Euphrates.” Without a moment’s hesitation that soldier leaped to his death.

Then, turning to the ambassador, the king said: “Go, tell your master that I have 500 men like that, and that within 24 hours I will have him chained with my dogs.” And, the story is that even against overwhelming odds, Abu Taber and his small but devoted band of followers won that war convincingly.

What is the point of this story? Well, the point is simply that having fewer but more devoted followers is actually preferable to having more but less faithful ones. That is what Jesus chose for himself and intended for those who would follow him, but many wouldn’t know that by the caricatured version of Christianity that they experience so often today.

Rarely do people hear the convicting but truthful message about Christianity in our culture, that it is indeed as Neil Postman said “a demanding and serious religion”. The honest truth is that Christianity isn’t shallow and cheap, and it’s high time that pastors and churches stop presenting it that way.

If you are a pastor, elder or ministry leader of any kind, consider this a plea to stop trivializing our faith by peddling an inauthentic form of Christianity. Please stop the mailers, the flyers and the billboards that embarrass the church and make her look like a cheap tramp when she is the holy and unblemished bride of Jesus Christ.

For those of us that care deeply about preserving not just the message of our faith but also the legacy of our faith, we are asking that church leaders rethink how they sell the gospel in America. The truth is that Christianity is supposed to be a hard sell and many people just won’t be up to the task, so we are not doing them or our faith any favors by selling it on the cheap.

What I’m genuinely concerned about is that by peddling gimmicky Christianity we are not only filling our churches with insincere, halfhearted consumers but that we are also jeopardizing the legitimacy of our faith by encouraging it. This kind of selling doesn’t accomplish the mission that Jesus began and it even imperils the reputation of the Church in the world.

I believe, therefore, that the best thing we can do both for people and for our faith is to be up front and honest about the serious demands of Christianity so that we won’t defraud the people who come to our churches looking for genuine Christianity and so that we won’t defile the reputation of our churches in front of those who don’t.

So, what kind of religion would Christianity be if it is presented as easy and amusing? I think his point is that the American persuasion of Christianity fits that description well. By his observation, the American Christian on average is a different breed of Christian than the historical kind. In the book Postman argues that we are, as a nation, the most misinformed people in the world, and that applies as well to the knowledge and application of our so-called faith.

American Christianity has become to the world something of a caricature of its historic self. In other words, the Church in America today has been qualified as a lightweight version of a heavyweight institution because for the bulk of its history, the Church has leaned hard on its people and demanded much from them whereas today very little is asked or demanded of people by their Christian faith at all.

Yes, we hear sermons about taking up our crosses by being willing to suffer or even die, but almost none of us will ever be called upon to do so. We also hear about hating our mothers and fathers in comparison to loving Jesus, and still very few of us will ever really choose to do that. And, we are told that we should forsake the world in exchange for eternal glory, and yet only a small segment of us will be serious enough about our commitment to follow through with it.

The simple truth is that we are the most comfortable, self-centered and affluent generation living in the most protected, egocentric and excessive nation in all the world, and we have chosen a version of Christianity that fits our paradigm perfectly. Our persuasion of the Christian faith is very much a reflection of ourselves and our culture, and one of the distinctives of that reflection is a relatively easy and amusing Christianity.

Even Neil Postman is cynical about how Christianity is sold and exchanged in our country as a form of shallow entertainment and dedicated a whole chapter in his book to the embarrassing subject. His conclusion is that we have created this brand of Christianity by treating the church like we treat listeners or viewers on radio or television, as demographically monitored consumers to be studied and marketed to. In other words, Christians in the pews are not so much soldiers of faith or servants of righteousness but clients with felt needs as well as thick wallets and open calendars.

The suggestion is that we are responsible for creating this thimble deep Christian consumer culture because we do try to give people not what they need but rather what they want. And, as Postman pointed out, that is not what religion is for. As he rightly said, no recognized worldwide religion in history has offered people what they want, only what they need. And, what people need is not more forms of entertainment but answers to real problems, which aren’t losing weight, making money or having a happier marriage, by the way. No, real problems are personal corruption because of sin, self destruction because of immoral choices and self consumption because of poor stewardship.

Postman rightly observes that Christianity is actually a very demanding and serious religion, but one wouldn’t necessarily get that from a cursory overview of the average church experience. Nor would they get that from the average sermon or book or television simulcast. Though there are obvious exceptions, the usual message sent across pulpits, through pages and over the airwaves is usually a non-offensive user friendly message intended to appeal to and offer something positive to the masses.

Now, it’s not that there isn’t something very positive in the message of the gospel, which is that there is genuine forgiveness, life and purpose for all who believe in Jesus Christ, but that promise is often attached to personal sacrifice, societal rejection and even global persecution. Jesus never offered his followers promises of or keys to prosperity and health but rather guarantees of and invitations to suffering and death. Admittedly, that message doesn’t sell very well to an opulent, egocentric culture, and one can understand why the message has been softened and translated the way that it has today.

However, understanding why and how the message has been changed doesn’t make that aberration acceptable or even tolerable. In fact, accepting and even tolerating that message is precisely the reason why we are in the dilemma we are facing now. Perhaps if we had followed historical precedent and carried on the tradition of keeping the message pure, then we would be in a very different place in the world than we are today.

Postman’s assessment that the message of Christian faith is largely easy and amusing today is primarily why the Church is so large in America in comparison to the Church elsewhere in the world. America has long billed itself as the Christian nation of the world, and it is still perhaps true to make that statement only in the sense that more people call themselves Christian in America per capita than any other country in the world. Now, that number would absolutely plummet to the point of being realistically on par with other nations around the world if we dropped the label and counted genuine disciples of Jesus rather than professing cultural Christians.

I, for one, am convinced that the Church in American is probably nothing close to the size that we boast. And, though I am admittedly skeptical by nature, I feel in my spirit that there are a great many people who fill churches around this nation who neither know Christ or His Word in any sort of personal way. Though they may squeeze attending church into their public life as part of their American social portfolio, the truth of the matter is that likely nothing seismic has occurred in their hearts that would call them to genuine radical and sacrificial faith.

I’m convinced that if we started to call people to make a choice between the two, then the Church would start to take its real form and begin to function as it should. At the same time, I believe that if we did this, then Christians would have to get used to the realization that we are and have probably always been among the religious minority in our country. The truth is that the public face of our nation has always been Christian, but the private practice of our people has really always been something different.

So, perhaps what we need to do is take another look at ourselves in an honest mirror and see what we really look like. Though, we should be forewarned and prepared for the fact that we might not look like we thought we did and might not actually like what we see. But that, after all, may be just the kind of motivation that we need.