Summary

In the Christian responses to the video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” it becomes apparent that the word ‘religion’ is defined differently among different Youtube users, or in some cases the term ‘religion’ is not really defined at all. There are multiple ways that lived religion is expressed through social media and it can be studied through religious symbols and images, action and practices, language and narratives, or location and context. Lived religion is not the same as official religion, it has a different approach and pays attention to different things. Lived religion is flexible and individualized, hence why it is so common to see lived religion on the internet. Lived religion pays particular attention to how actions identify beliefs as opposed to official religion which looks at how beliefs influence actions and practices. When looking at lived religion theories will emerge from observation and analysis, in other words it is inductive reasoning. 

Lived religion is important to study because observations made will show the gap between lived religion and official religion. Another factor about lived religion is that it shows how different individuals will interpret--or re-interpret-- their particular tradition. Like in the study I have been doing, all of the users I have observed are proclaiming to be Christian and yet they all have slightly different responses, both from one another and to the original video itself. 

This is where my research question comes in. We know that within lived religion people will have different interpretations because lived religion is so individualized. However, within the videos I have looked at, not only do they have different opinions about how to live out one’s faith, they seem to have different definitions of the term ‘religion’ itself. Why is that? It makes sense that these Youtube users have different ways of living out Christianity, but what does it mean when one considers the possibility that, in a way, they aren’t even talking about the same thing because they have different definitions of a common term? What I am purporting is that these individual Youtube users not only are living Christianity differently from one another, but they are also defining religion differently which affects the direction of the argument(s).

Relationship, Religion, and Rules

The first video I watched for this week was titled “RE: Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word” and I was listening mainly for how this individual was defining the term religion which seems to be the primary factor in the debate circling the original video content. Of course, this also highlights the fact that different people are going to live out their faith or religion differently and construct it in multiple ways. This totally contributes to the fact that lived religion is something separate from official religion, that practitioners of the overarching official religion can have all sorts of nuances in their daily lived religion. Well, as most of the responses to this video go, it was a critique of the original. This man, Joshua Watchman, argues with Bethke about what religion really is and how Bethke’s claims are not biblically sound and are, overall, incorrect. Watchman argues that religion is not a man-made institution but instead says that “Christ established the church.” Watchman describes the church as a place where people go to worship God as God intended, and that religion was not a result of sin or of man. At one point in his video he defines what he believes religion is; he says that “religion is just another word for relationship.” So, with Bethke’s statement being that a relationship with Jesus is important but religion is not, Watchman’s counter argument is that a relationship with Jesus is religion. (Well, the Christian religion at least.) Watchman makes some interesting points and comparisons toward Bethke’s video, some as intense as comparing what Bethke is propagating as being like what Lucifer was propagating before being removed from heaven. He believes that Bethke is making religion about himself rather than about God, that he is being selfish rather than selfless. (Again he compares this to Lucifer’s attitude in Isaiah 14-15.) He also argues that belief in Jesus is not enough, that even Satan (Lucifer) believes in Jesus, but that it’s not enough because one needs religion. Which, considering his definition of religion is a relationship, means that one needs belief plus a relationship with Jesus. He also makes the argument that there was religion, or church, in heaven. This he gathers from Isaiah 14 when it says “congregation” and the like. Toward the finish of his video, Watchman tells Bethke and the audience, “Don’t hate religion, hate the hypocrites...no, pray for the hypocrites. Pray for the hypocrites who are pushing people away from the church.” He ends with the statement that religion isn’t about big buildings, customs, traditions, or rituals; religion is about a relationship, that’s what Christianity is. So, he claims that Bethke is defining religion as hypocrites going through the ritualistic motions, and Watchman says no, that religion is, above all, a relationship. 

The second video I watched this week actually has 2 parts. There was an original video that was done in the same spoken word style as the original WIHRLJ, but he also posted a video that explains his spoken word stance, so I decided to use both for this response since they correspond with one another. So, first I’ll talk about some of the things said in his spoken word video and then I’ll move on to his explanation of it. A few of the key phrases I picked up from his spoken word poem was that “true religion is a call to love one another” and that religion is “God’s means for us to know his son.” He states that “to throw religion away is a slap to the one who made you.” (Strong sentiments...) This man, like Joshua Watchman, says that Bethke is defining religion as hypocrisy; he says in his poem (about Bethke) that “the religion [he] describe[s] is hypocrisy and it’s not always synonymous with religiosity.” So, I’ll move on to his explanation of his spoken word because that has more defined information. In his explanation video he poses the question at the beginning, “Is it religion or is it relationship?” Ironically, this is one of the few, if the only, responses I’ve found that calls to attention the fact that Bethke never truly expresses what his actual definition of religion is. One can imply what he means by religion, but he never fully defines what he means. He says that Bethke was “defining” religion as “this hypocritical thing that we do in order to reach out to God” but he also says that Bethke never really defined that stance. This guy actually says that if Bethke had defined his terms (of religion) he wouldn’t have such a problem because he says that he and Bethke are actually speaking on the same thing (that things one does to try to gain favor with God is “not cool”). BUT he then says that to throw away religion completely is also not biblical or what Jesus wants.  He says that “Christianity is ‘both and,’ it is religion and relationship together...religion is what gives parameters to the relationship.” This guys says that religion is, or consists of, the epistles and most commands of Jesus, which are the parameters he was referring to. He says that the Bible states that “pure religion, in the eyes of God, is helping the widow and the orphan. Loving other people. Jesus didn’t come to abolish religion, but to connect it.” 

The third video I watched this week was from a young lady who titled her video “Comeback Response to Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus || Spoken Word.” She also is disagreeing with Bethke’s video (big shocker!) but is a bit more antagonistic toward the original message. Antagonistic may be a bit strong, but unlike the others she never states that Bethke had any good points or had any positive comments toward his definition of religion. She seems to completely, 100% disagree with Bethke. However, she also does not have a clearly stated definition of religion and what it is. She simply says that he’s wrong and why. Not that her argument is totally without basis, but the issue I’m pointing out (which is also an issue with Bethke’s video) is that the definition of religion and how they’re constructing that is never clearly defined within their argument. Actually, in some ways she does define it how Bethke does, or at least how she interprets Bethke’s definition. The best example is when she says that Bethke “doesn’t like religion because of the rules” and then she states that “those rules are tools!” So, from this she is saying that Bethke is defining religion as a set of rules, but she responds by also defining religion as a set of rules. The difference is that she says the rules are important. Either way, her “definition” of religion is never defined within the video, one can only imply what her definition is, the same of Bethke.

So Joshua Watchman says that Bethke’s definition of religion is that it’s hypocrisy, and Watchman’s own definition of religion is that “religion is another word for relationship.” The second guy, from ThePursuitBlog, also said that Bethke defined religion as “a hypocritical thing that we do in order to reach out to God.” His own definition of religion is that “true religion is a call to love one another” and that “Christianity is...religion and relationship together.” He also says that religion consists of the epistles and Jesus’s commands, which gives Christians parameters. The third video, the young lady, says that Bethke is spouting “man-made blasphemy” and that he is defining religion as a set of rules that sucks the fun out of life. She disagrees and says the “rules are tools.” As far as my own opinion about the arguments goes, I kind of like the second guy from ThePursuitBlog because he was the only one who noticed that Bethke never clearly defined his own constructed meaning of religion and pointed that out as a problem. 

The connection that I am still finding between these observations and past observations is that there is a disconnect and a kind of confusion that is occurring from the different constructed definitions, or lack of definitions, of what religion is. This makes it difficult to debate properly because, in a way, these individuals are debating different things because their definitions are not the same. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebkWDHzQEw (Joshua Watchman video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyYuLFlzFg (ThePursuitBlog Spoken Word response--part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_188895&feature=iv&src_vid=yiyYuLFlzFg&v=Tp6VLHIXfZA (ThePursuitBlog Part 2--explanation of part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-xvl5eT8bo (Comeback response)

Common threads: Difference in Definition

The common messages I found in the majority of responses to WIHRLJ is that Jesus and religion go hand in hand, Jesus did not come to “abolish” religion or the institution, and the church is important. Overall, most of the responses I could find were those who disagreed with Bethke. Sure, there were some comments in the comment section of the original video that agreed, but the responses I found that were studied and planned were critiques. Actually, the fact that most are critiques is understandable since there’s not a need for a rebuttal when you’re in agreement. 

There are certainly competing messages and ideas about how one is to perform or construct one’s religious beliefs and about religion in general. Bethke claims to be a Christian, but separates himself from the religious institution of the Christian Church. The responses vary, but the video responses I looked at all agree to disagree with Bethke. In all the video responses, it is argued that Jesus is not against religion and is actually for it. The critics reevaluate Bethke’s stance and, from their own study or opinion, state that he is wrong about religion and Jesus being on opposite ends of the spectrum. They argue rather that religion and Jesus go together and cannot be separated. They do, however, have different reasoning behind the argument that Jesus and religion go together and the ways in which they present those reasons vary. The basis for the critiques ranges from biblical reasoning to historical to personal opinion. When I look at these opinions, their similarities and differences, a few questions come to mind: Can one really separate Jesus from religion? How are these Youtube users defining religion and are they defining it differently from one another? If they are defining it differently, is one stance more correct than another? 

In today’s world, universalism is pretty popular. Believe whatever works for you or whatever makes you happy. Does that mean that all religion is subjective? If universalism is true, wouldn’t that mean there is no objective truth? How do people of religion cope with that, especially within Christianity where the doctrine does proclaim objective truth? 

This case study researches Youtube users and the Christian response to the video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” and focuses on how these Christian users construct their own views of Christianity as an institution.  I will now be more narrowly focusing on the question: How are these Youtube users defining, constructing, and reinterpreting the meaning of the word “religion” and how are the different personalized interpretations contradicting or agreeing with one another?

Catholics, Comments, and Corrections

Well, this week I have taken a look at three new responses to the original video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” From now on I want to refer to the video as WIRLJ (acronym of the title) because that is far easier to write than the full title. The three responses I chose for this post are two video responses and comments on the original video material. 

The video responses made for WIRLJ are actually pretty similar in their format. Most individuals who decided to respond in video format decided to create their argument in the same style as Jefferson Bethke’s original video. The responses consist of spoken word, take place in a metropolitan area or church, and utilize the same style of onscreen text. These individuals mirrored the original for a reason; perhaps it is because Bethke’s original video garnered such a huge response and was impressive in nature that these responders felt the need to argue in kind. 

Let’s look at the first video which is titled, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus - A Catholic Response.” Now, if you remember, I looked at a Catholic response last week as well. However, this response was different in its critique of WIRLJ. While this video kept with the style of the original, and other video responses, the argument posed has a different tone to it. Something to notice is the use of personal pronouns. He uses “we,” “us,” and “my” in reference to the Catholic church. This indicates a strong attachment to the institution of the Catholic church, which plays a major role in the focus of his argument. Something that the use of these possessive and personal pronouns is that it causes a separation; He is completely connecting himself with the Catholic church (as a religion/institution) while simultaneously dissociating with Christians outside Catholicism. Bethke’s argument consists of his conviction that Jesus is greater than religion and came to abolish religion. This Catholic man responds in a couple of ways. In the video he refers to doctrinal type facts, showing that he has constructed his faith around the doctrine of his church, but he also argues by listing all the accomplishments of the Catholic church throughout history. He equates the Catholic church with progress and more or less poses the question, where would you be without the Catholic church? So, does his obviously strong attachment to the Catholic church (at one point he refers to the Catholic church as being like a mother) affect his response? Does this imply that the response was more emotionally driven? Also, is he constructing his faith based on the doctrine and beliefs of the Catholic church or around the history and accomplishments of “his” church? Simply based off of this video, I would have to assume that a good portion of his faith is constructed around the accomplishments of the Catholic church.

The second video is called, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Critics and Jefferson Bethke Corrected!” This guy proved challenging to analyze. Like the Catholic response, this man dissociates himself. However, he dissociates himself from both Bethke and critics. So my question to him would be, where would you place yourself then? He’s correcting Bethke. He’s correcting those who disagreed with Bethke. He himself disagrees with Bethke, and yet he does not associate with the critics. So, he’s in a realm of his own? I’m not sure what his response would be, but I’ll move on. It’s somewhat difficult to piece together how he is constructing religion. He claims Christianity, though something I find interesting is that he believes that the Sabbath should only be on Saturday--or more technically, sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. I find this very interesting because that is the Jewish holy day, it’s generally not the “holy day” for Christians. Generally Christians have their day of rest or “holy day” on Sunday. I believe the main reason for this switch is because Sunday is believed to be the day that Jesus rose from the grave after being crucified. Yet, this Christian guy says the Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday, and only Saturday. So, he’s obviously diverging from the Christian “norm” in his construction of his faith. Also an interesting thing to notice is that he says many Christians “jump to legalism” when he argues his point of having a very specific day, and he argues that that’s not how it is. Also, he somewhat dissociates himself from other Christians, which I find odd since he is still claiming to be a follower of Christ. So, he definitely constructs his beliefs differently than the majority of Christians who use generally Sunday for rest, but can use other days as well, like Saturday or Friday. As far as his visuals go, they mirror WIRLJ. It takes place in a metropolitan area, uses onscreen text of what he’s saying, and he makes many hand gestures for emphasis. However, I don’t see anything necessarily original in his visuals or anything that causes me to pause or ponder. Visually, I believe he achieved his goal which was to monkey the original video. Actually, there is one difference visually that I feel is important. This man, Jordan Gardner, performs his spoken word and gives his argument while holding a Bible. I feel this is a rather important difference because whether he used the Bible in his argument or not, it gives the impression that he did. Him holding it as a prop implies that his argument is based in the Word and therefore perhaps would make it seem more plausible to someone who puts worth in the Bible or believes it to be true. 

Finally, I’ve been looking through comments made by one individual in particular. His username is bushman0145, and though I’m not 100% sure he associates with Christianity (though I’m relatively sure he does) he at the very least defends Christianity. His responses are interesting. At times, he responds with a more academically charged argument, while at other times it’s more emotionally driven. His comments are found in the stream on the original video, and it is a stream that has been quite active for over a year. From what I’ve gathered, he is one of the regulars and one of the few who defends Christianity. The majority of the comments are extremely antagonistic toward religion, some pinpoint Christianity specifically and others simple hate all religious institutions. Bushman0145 responds to many arguments and has a constant debate going with users such as Lord Dennis and Haythem Kenway. One thing I’d like to point out is that the debates occurring in the comment section have almost completely veered away from the video itself and are now focused around more basic, but certainly not less debated, topics such as the existence of God, the origins of the universe, the origins of man, etc. Something I find so...well, interesting at times and frustrating at other times, is all of this construction happening online. The internet has so altered the way people approach religion and the way they live it out. As I’ve said before, it’s safe behind the computer screen; there’s a definite sense of anonymity and deindividuation. These users, including bushman0145, are constructing their beliefs using a keyboard and a computer screen. They debate, accuse, question, and relay all kinds of information about what they believe. Some pull from doctrine, some from academics, and some from their own emotions, but all are creating this sense of faith that the others are able to see and either accept or not. Bushman0145 has given me the impression that he constructs his beliefs on both emotions and academics. He makes some good seemingly logical arguments, but some of his arguments are more emotionally charged and perhaps less logical. Many times he will utilize reciprocity in his responses and will respond academically to an academic argument, but will allow his emotion to come through on a critique that is emotionally driven. 

All of these responses bring a different construction of faith to attention. Partially because of the different mediums used. However there’s also the difference in reasoning behind their respective constructions; there’s a doctrinal/biblical argument, a logical/academic debate, and a defensive stance for the Catholic church. All claiming Christianity as their tradition, all responding the the same video, and yet if I were to see their responses separately I may not guess that they had the common origin of WIRLJ. (Well, except for the stylistic similarities of the two videos.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGr3CduTlY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dqnfz4y8uA

Observations

The topic I originally came up with was to look at videos and comments made in response to the Youtube video, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus." However, I wasn't going to look at just any ol' response. No, I stated that I was going to hone in on Christian responses. Well, this is still accurate of my primary focus, however I believe it will be beneficial to look at many different video (and comment) responses whether they are Christian or not. This will open up an opportunity to compare and contrast how other religious beliefs react versus how Christians react to a "Christian" video. On top of that, there can further be a comparison of the Christian Church's reaction versus the Youtube users who generally haven't earned a doctorate in theology. My primary focus, however, will remain on the Christian responses to this video whether those Christians are in agreement or disagreement, and that, my friends, is where things become interesting.

I have only watched a handful of video responses and yet the opinions vary widely even amongst Christians. Is this a surprise? Well, perhaps to some it is, but to me it isn't a shock. First of all, the internet is open to all. Come one, come all! That's what the internet offers, which leads to myriad of opinions, thoughts, perceptions, etc. With the internet so readily available to millions of individuals, of course one is going to come across different opinions, even within one's own set of beliefs! This is where a line starts to appear, the line between official and lived; what you do and say at church versus your actions at home, at work, or at school (Or on the internet. *hint, hint.* See where I'm going with this?)

I watched a few different videos in preparation for this post and I specifically chose videos that seemed as though they would have interesting views whether that reason be because it argued with the original video or defended it or added to it.  One thing I  will point out as something that I find interesting is just how many responses have been created in light of this video. I would also like to point out the fact that this video is about one year old, give or take, and there are comments being posted as recently as four minutes ago. Literally. I just checked. There are still conversations, and extremely heated debates, still thriving on this video that's a year old. That's impressive for our short attention span society! So what is it that is spurring these Youtube users on? Why do people fight so vehemently, especially over the internet, about their religious beliefs? Well, as far as 'why on the internet,' that's easy: It's safe. There's no danger of things going further than verbally violent. So the second part is, why such a fuss about religion? Easiest answer: People are passionate about it. That passion is spurred on by religion's, and theology's, goal to answer questions that both fascinate and frighten people. What is ultimately true? What is good and evil? What happens after death? Where is joy found? These are just a few questions that different religions attempt to answer, and people either adore, accept, or abhor the answers religion provides. Anyway, I digress.

Back to the videos I watched. The first was a video response named "Why I Love Religion, and Love Jesus." Well, I think it's relatively easy to tell from the title where this response is going, but let's look at  it. This video is a Catholic response and the description of the video states it was made "in a spirit of love, but also with a spirit of passion...to be direct about what [they] believe and what [they] stand for." Using scripture and the spoken word, in the same format as the original video, this response is made as a critique and disagreement, albeit polite, of the original video's message. Even this video, a mere response to the original, has comments being made today ranging from people praising it for what they find to be truth to people claiming all religion is a scam. The second was a video who also posted in the same format as the original (spoken word), but he seemed to agree with parts and disagree with others. The third video, and the one I found most interesting, was a response by a Catholic priest, Father Barron, who was asked by his students to post a response to "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus." His response is interesting because it is by someone who has dedicated their life to the study of Scripture and theology, and the practice of religion. He discusses the pros and cons of Bethke's (maker of the original video) theology and the information being presented. Fr. Barron even says toward the end, I'm paraphrasing, that he agrees with Bethke that corruption in the church is not good and something that should be changed. He also points out that saying you dislike church corruption is like saying you dislike rotten eggs. Of course it's not going to be liked, that's a given. He also says that if you look for church corruption it's going to be like fish in a barrel, you will find it rater easily. But he also argues that Jesus did not come to abolish religion as Bethke is claiming. In the end Fr. Barron says he is opposed to Bethke saying that "Jesus did not come to abolish religion, but to fulfill religion."

One of the interesting things about these responses on Youtube, and the original content itself, is that it isn't necessarily calling anyone to action or even openly attempting to persuade anyone. The way I see these videos are as informative communication. The first is meant to 'open Christians' eyes' to the dangers of organized religion. And yet people responded strongly, and interestingly, many responses in the comment section are persuasive in nature rather than informative. Plus, the fact that it is on the internet rather than face to face with someone, people are more willing to fully disclose their opinion on the matter. In some ways, this may open communication about religion, particularly between Christians or between Christians and the secular. However, something I've noticed is that in some ways it seems to close off conversation. You would think with lack of boundaries it would only open, but that's not the case. Because people are so passionate and arguments get heated, one can almost see the dissension and animosity growing until one person passionately exclaims, "All Christians are--!" or "All Atheists are--!" or any number of other religious traditions. Thus, judgement is formed and communication is severed in many cases.

One of the limits of using Youtube to practice one's faith is the lack of true communication. Since it is a computer screen that you're responding to (not technically, but that's how it seems many times), it seems to decrease the notion of being polite or understanding. I read comments on Youtube that I would be shocked to hear out loud in an actual conversation. People don't hold much back when posting things on the internet whether they be video material or comments; individuals aren't afraid of the repercussions of posting online, because let's face it, there aren't too many threats of consequence.

The primary message, be it true or not, that seems to connect the different responses is that religion may be somewhat subjective, even within the practitioners of one religion--in this case, Christianity. When watching responses to the original post, one finds opinions varying from outrage, to agreement, to acceptance--and all claim to be under the umbrella of Christianity.

Overview of Study

Around one year ago a video was released on Youtube that sparked quite a bit of controversy and many responses, responses and arguments that are still active even after a year. The video is entitled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” The video consists of a young man performing spoken word of his view on following Jesus as opposed to following a religion.

For the next few weeks I will be looking at the various responses to the Youtube video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” I will be researching video responses to the original video and comments made to get a better understanding of lived religion on Youtube as it applies to this particular video. I will mainly be focusing on the responses of Christians to this Christian video, but I may also use responses of a different view as a means of comparison or to add more understanding of context. There are many arguments that consume the comment section of Youtube and some of those arguments will be pertinent for my observation of how Christians are living out religion and responding to both the Christian video and the responses that are opposed. 

I chose this topic because I believe it will be interesting to look at a controversial video that garnered many, many responses, many of which are those who claim the same beliefs as the star of the video. This only begins to show that lived religion may be quite different from individual to individual. What do these differences in lived religion mean? Could this shift in lived religion be simply a generational development or is there more at work here? I believe this video and the responses to it will provide a very interesting and enlightening platform on which the comparison of different ways lived religion is practiced within the same faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY