on religion

There's a radio spot on the biggest local station advertising a site called "notreligion.org." It's geared, it seems, toward those who grew up disillusioned in the church and aims to persuade them that it's not religion that has eternal value but a relationship with God.

"I grew up in the 'church' and it was all rules and regulations. It wasn’t until I went to college that I found out that God doesn’t want “religion;” He wants a relationship. He’s made this relationship possible by sending us His Son, Jesus. (See John 3:16)," writes contributor.

"Would it shock you to know that God isn't interested in religion? Religion is the human effort to reach God through rules and rituals. What God wants is for you to respond to His invitation to join Him in a relationship," explains another talking point. "And while every family has rules, the rules aren't what the family is all about. Religion can never meet our deepest needs; for that, it takes a relationship."

This site and these arguments make me nervous. For one thing, it is essentially bashing the church and, well, either any positive experience a visitor previously had with a church may be trumped, or the visitor will stick with their positive view of the church and tune out the site's message. Church-bashing, while some of the reasons may be valid, puts the organization on some shaky ground because where they might try to "plug in" a responder locally will more than likely need to be a church.

Second, the modern trend of rebelling against liturgical religion is, in a way, a fad. Personally, I believe one explanation for this may be the strength of the Catholic church (and other liturgical traditions)in the 60s, when most of our parents were young. We tend to rebel against what we grew up with of late, so liturgy has been going "out." I would be surprised if liturgy doesn't rebound in the relatively near future as those who grew up "nondemoninational" grow to rebellion.

Third is mostly a personal dilemma -- included in these quotes is something I'm beginning to suspect could be a fallacy. (While many evangelicals accuse Catholics, etc. of adding scripturally-unbased theology, sometimes I think the finger may need to be pointing both ways.)This statement, Religion can never meet our deepest needs; for that, it takes a relationship -- what is it based on? Does anyone know of scriptural support for the promise that God can meet our every need? No doubt it is out there -- I just can't think of it offhand. I would like to believe it. It sounds nice. But I'm getting more suspicious of my own theology as time goes by. What do I believe because it sounds comforting, loving, radical, and what is there really evidence for?