Having an "evangelical-charismatic" background, religion is often seen negatively and the word is used in a negative way. But I'm beginning to discover that religion isn't all that evil after all.

In my background, religion is defined as a works-based belief that teaches we can set ourselves right with God by doing enough good things, usually by performing 'empty' rituals and so forth. Imagery like crosses and icons and everything that comes with a grandiose building is all seen as "religious". Christianity, however, is "not a religion but a relationship". I think most of us are quite akin to this kind of thinking.

But I've come to see things differently. I've come to understand that very often what people snidely call "religious" isn't what they think it is at all. The problem is they just don't understand it.

If we look at the argument carefully it seems that actually what is being said is if it can't be understood then it's just empty and therefore 'religious'. But often it's just because evangelical-charistmatics just don't like anything <em>old</em>. We're moderns through and through, with this subconscious idea in the back of our heads that if it's <em>new</em> it's better and more Holy Spirit filled. But at the end of the day this may be for no other reason than this is the space where we are comfortable and find it easier to relate to God.

Let's take music for example. It might come as a shock to many of my evangelical-charismatic friends for me to say that the drums are not holier than the organ. Just because I might find I have a better worship experience with a modern rock band singing songs to Jesus doesn't make modern rock or rock instruments more authentic than Gregorian Chant or the organ. Perhaps it's just a style I prefer. That doesn't mean that God works through it any more than other styles. I have a sense that God is far less interested in relevancy than He is in worship that is done in Spirit and in Truth.

There is also a reality in saying that most evangelical-charismatics are very practical people. It's in our heritage to put practicality first. We also do have the Calvinist-puritan influence when it comes to imagery. As a result, art is relegated to the weird people in the church. We'll give space for them in the worship band (as long as they play our rock music) but we're not so keen on it when they create any form of imagery. Because, for some reason, imagery is for the secular art gallery, not for the church.

Maybe we're okay, as charismatics, for artists to indulge in 'prophetic art' but so long as it's done in the way that we understand or see prophecy. Here's an example and within it lies the crunch: we don't classify Catholic imagery as 'art' but as 'religious', and we don't classify it is 'prophetic' but as 'empty tradition'. Meanwhile when you look at a lot of the meaning it is deeply prophetic. The problem is that most of us (many Catholics included) just don't understand what it all <em>means</em> (perhaps it's too much work to find out?) and if we can't understand its meaning we think it's empty and not in Spirit and in Truth.
<div class="mceTemp mceIEcenter"><dl><dt><a href="http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ChurchBuildingInside.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-5226" src="http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ChurchBuildingInside-225x300.jpg" alt="Catholic Church Building" width="225" height="300" /></a>[/caption]

For the first time in my life I'm doing Lent this year. I've decided to give up chocolate for forty days. That's actually going to be difficult because I find every day I have to have a piece of chocolate. And forty days is a long time.

Having an evangelical charismatic background, doing Lent can be a bit of a surprise for many of my friends. It seems so, well, <em>religious</em>. But for many Christians throughout the ages and across the world today, Lent carries meaning. For many others they do it because it's their culture or tradition. But that doesn't mean the practice of Lent doesn't have any meaning in itself, it simply means that people are all in different places.

Religion is actually about <em>devotion</em>, not empty rituals. We find ways in which we can devote ourselves to God. Some of these ways incorporate ideas and imagery we might not understand but for others carry incredibly deep meaning. To look on that negatively might make us evangelical-charismatics the real 'religious' ones because we're basically saying that if Christianity doesn't look or smell or taste the way we like it to (according to our tradition, but we'd never call it that!) then it isn't genuine.

I'm doing Lent because I want to connect, in a spiritual kind of way, with my Christian brothers and sisters throughout history and across the world today. I want to tap into faith treasures ancient and new (Matthew 13:52). I want to draw out depth wherever I can.

In some ways I find I get tired of being a charismatic, which seeks to often separate itself from the rest of the church and church history because it's scared of becoming 'religious' or being associated with religion. Over the last couple of years I've been drawn to liturgical ideas, Christian imagery throughout the ages (I love old church buildings with a strange passion) and all kinds of worship styles (from rock music to Gregorian Chant to Lectio Divina to silent prayer) because if it's done in Spirit and in Truth and its focus is on Jesus, I can't see why there is a problem.

Thankfully, I'm in a church family where how I worship isn't prescriptive and relationships with each other are put ahead of anything else, except our relationship with Jesus. This makes it a real family (not just a church that claims to be a family but isn't) and it's the reason why I would never change churches because I'm looking to worship in a different style (on some Sundays). My post isn't a reaction to what happens at my own church – friends I love deeply – but more a statement on the larger evangelical-charismatic culture.