"It's A Relationship, Not A Religion"

February 9th 2026

In this post, I'm going to expand on a previous idea where Christians ask other folks they think aren't their kind of Christian "You say you believe in God, but are you saved?" I want to share a little bit about a certain kind of language of salvation I used to believe that I actually didn't learn about as an ex-Christian until I started attending the contreversial Springs Church in 2004. For the first time in my life over 20 years ago, Springs had exposed me to the understanding of Christianity that ties in with a concept of relationship.

If you're reading this but are not religious, the strain of Christianity I grew up with indicates that in order to get to heaven, you have to have what is called a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." What this means according to hi-control evangelicalism is that you have accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. The daily Christian life, or what it means to be a Christian on a day to day basis, to do Christian things and "live on-fire for god" is often spoken of in terms of having a relationship with Jesus or a relationship with the lord or other variations of this idea. At Springs, this idea expands into a form that goes so far as to say that Christianity itself is not a religion, it's a relationship.

So what it mean to say that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion? It's a strange way of presenting Christianity, American Protestant baptist or evangelical Christianity to be specific, especially to people outside the church. There is a deep rabbit hole to explore in terms of its origins and many types of theological thought outside of the Bible have added to the influence of this kind of thinking. What anyone reading this outside the church needs to know is that this idea goes back to forms of Protestant and Pentecostal Christianity that emphasize a direct, immediate spiritual experience of god. By immediate, what I mean is, it's not mediated by, let's say, religious institutions like Catholic churches, or by priests, or by having to performed certain rituals like communion or confession as done in non-Protestant churches. The Protestant's relationship with god is basically a way of bypassing a lot of traditional structures within Christianity. Having a relationship with god or Jesus emphasizes that an individual believer can have a direct encounter with god. Sometimes when Christians first go to church, they actually don't stick around when they hear about a relationship with god because they get the idea that they don't need a priest, or they don't need a church, or they don't need sacraments or any of these silly things to get in direct contact with God. Through a long history, this leads to kind of a democratizing of Christianity. Being a Christian, encountering God is something that regular people can do.

This idea, along with sanctified self-help doused in holy water, started to ensure that Christianity became a very popular movement. And one of the biggest movements that is still trending and experiencing what are called "revivals," is called "The New Apostolic Reformation" (I will go into details about this cult that I was also a part of in another post). This kind of "relationship with Jesus" Christianity spread through the general population. Christians will point to certain milestones of this growth with events like the Great Awakening, Billy Graham Crusades, Rock the River events in Manitoba, or the viral revivals associated with modern televangelism. This movement spreads because part of being involved with a democratizing Christianity, is that it doesn't require education. As a Christian, you don't have to be able to read the Bible or write out your prayers or testimonies, and you don't have to be able to understand complex doctrines or theology. To have a relationship with god doesn't require a seminary for training with professional clergy.

The only requirement is that a believer needs to just be a person capable of having a unique encounter with God that is relevant to people in their church. Oh...actually wait, there are more requirements. By relevant to people, I mean that the evidence of salvation is not just the confession of certain beliefs (as part of the encounter, a believer is supposed to confess certain beliefs as cited in Romans 10:9). Another requirement is that believers are supposed to believe certain things. And another requirement is that believers are supposed to live a certain way. And then there's more requirements and more requirements. But hey, regardless of the requirements, the real evidence of a Christian life is an experience of an intense and ongoing encounter with God. This is the kind of emphasis that, in an ideal "relationship with god," develops over a long period of time.

So now that I've gone over this, let's say you're at your family gathering, and your Aunt Lydia or Uncle Josiah talks to you about a "realtionship with god or Jesus Christ." Having that knowledge of what you read so far, you'll note that they're not talking about Christian history (and they probably know jack about Christian history). They aren't talking the Great Awakenings, or Billy Graham or let's say the "Latter Rain" movement in Saskatchewan. They're just talking about Christianity as they understand it. But without being aware of what they are saying, they participate in that history.

However, when someone talks about their "relationship" they're referring to a way to set Christianity as the true religion while implying other religions don't work due to a lack of relationship to their deities. The kinds of Christians who drone about this are the kinds of Christians who believe that there can only be one true path to salvation. They believe in the idea that humans have a soul that is eternal. For Christians like Lydia or Josiah, there's only one way for that eternal soul to get to heaven: a Christianity that has that relationship (they believe that without that relationship, or by just simply going to church and being a good person or doing other religions, heaven will be out of reach). They believe that other religions that don't believe in the idea of a relationship with god have false teachings, and that if you are not a Christian, when you die, you will go to hell. Sounds harsh, and it's wrong, but according to how they see the doctrine or read the bible, that's how it works.

What believers are really trying to do when they say this is emphasize that Christianity is something different from other religions. In fact, they say it's not a religion at all. It's something completely different. They say that all religions, even let's say "progressive" Christianity, push required rituals or practices of different kinds, but with their Christianity, none of that nonsense is required, so it's qualitatively different. This hi-control religion, whether it's Pentecostalism, Baptist, Dutch Reform, or even simply non-denominational, is ALL about a direct personal relationship with God through Jesus. And to them, this salvation experience is evidence that what they are participating in is something different in kind from what other people are participating in. Get it, got it? Good. I'm sorry for repeating myself, but it's something that a lot of people who think about this always forget and sometimes don't understand no matter how many times they hear about it.

So when looking into the relationship with Jesus idea further, one can realize when comparing the many strains of Christian practice that this "relationship with god" Christianity differentiates real or authentic Christians from other kinds of, what are called, lukewarm Christians, whether it be mainline Protestants, some Catholics, or other Christians who don't talk about the Christian faith as a relationship. Or the church may have certain beliefs, practices, and rituals, but they will claim that those things do not have primary importance compared to being directly related to God.

Some Christians who buy into this, will say that "The difference between being saved and not saved is the 18 inches between the head and the heart." I've never heard this in Canada since we use the metric system, but when straight American Christians go on about this, they are saying that a cognitive understanding of Christian belief doesn't make you a Christian, you have to have the direct encounter with God. All those other things, things like theology, and belief, and participation, and rituals, and church attendance, and stuff like that, are intended to facilitate this encounter with God (which conflicts with the previous idea I shared about that stuff not being important). It is intended to express that they already have this kind of relationship with God. It's intended to help people in the evangelical hi-control religion maintain it, even though it's all secondary. And if a "believer" hasn't had that, the Christians, who claim to have that spiritual relationship, question if that "believer" is really a Christian. Pretty crazy, right?

Sorry this is such a long info-dump. Here's the part that's important. Let's talk about the sociological or cultural impacts this idea has on the dimensions of Western culture, perhaps even popular culture as well. Let's start with this: in the industry of American marketing and advertising, some targets the industry leans into are relationships, lifestyle, and experiences. The brands we buy into that "define" us, aren't just purchased for their utility. We buy them because they mark us as a certain kind of person who lives a certain kind of lifestyle. This is a large part of the American mass market consumer capitalist culture we find ourselves in. And for those who are politically savy, it's obvious that America also markets individualism. They say things like "be your authentic self" or "live your best life" or be who you truly are" (and Springs has their own variations of that stuff but twist it so that you be and live who god or Jesus "calls" you to be while getting to know this god in that relationship). However, all that language of authenticity that becomes marketed, even when what we authentically become, looks like millions of others. And somehow, we still have this sense that it is most authentically and individually us. So in churches, believers take in this cultural context that emphasizes experience, relationship, and lifestyle of the individual. That's how this religious articulation of an individual relationship through a personal experience of God goes viral and becomes so influential in Western religious culture. As a result, Christianity becomes a super brand. The brand behind this hi-control religion is THE relationship. The relationship is THE experience.

In most religions, the collective or hive is the emphasis because community is important. But in hi-control evangelical religious spaces, the marketing of the relationship is completely about the individual. And part of that marketing is when preachers or pastors say things like, "God loves you and has a plan for your life." Satements like that are a kind of individualized marketing model that gets more people in the church doors. The sales pitch contains the message that the creator of the universe cares about you as an individual as you. It's THE relationship, THE experience, completely individual. That's how the "relationship with god" fits with a lot of consumer capitalism in American society.

One more thing I want to touch on is that discussing a "relationship with god" is considered an affirmative and very freeing way for Christians in evangelical spaces to show their individual value to God. There is a dark side to this and that dark side is one of the many reasons I'm no longer a Christian. First, a relationship with god or Jesus is NOT as freeing from the trappings of traditional religion as it might seem. Religious authorities such as pastors or modern apostles or evangelists who go out on the stree and use this language, still push potential converts or even believers themselves to attend church, for the importance of proper belief, for devoting time, money, and talents to supporting the church, and to living a Christian life and so on. It's sad that for all the talk of an immediate, direct relationship with God that does away with the formalities of religion, this kind of Christianity is still deeply steeped in ritual, institutions, and mediating authorities. So is it really a relationship and not religion? Because believers still need to read the Bible a certain way, they still need to go to church, they still need to participate in rituals blah blah blah.

Second, a relationship with Jesus or god expresses and reinforces a religious orientation that is exclusive, not inclusive. That sounds like a damn cult to me. If Christianity is about my individual salvation, and if salvation is about what happens to my soul after I die, then salvation really doesn't have a lot to do with this world besides stuff related to the church. In a sense, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with concerns that aren't about me as an individual such as economic inequality or global warming or racial injustice. Most likely, and I'm not taking this back as a Filipino by the way, the folks that express this kind of idea are probably white, which means they're probably not impacted by racial injustice the way, let's say, a lot of black or Spanish people in churches are. Most likely, they are not going to see certain marginalized groups as really important or central parts of being a Christian. Churches did not always think this way while I was growing up. As a kid, my evangelical Christian family volunteered in the inner city at food banks or places like Union Gospel Mission. We loved and connected with neighbors and shared things with them even though they weren't Christians and we didn't evangelise or try to convert them. My own mother, even as conservative as she is, is willing to listen to and be friends with struggling people in the LGBTQ+ community even if she has challeges empathising with their lifestyle and beliefs.

Third one is that believers in hi-control religion can use being in a "relationship with god or Jesus" for manipulation and gaslighting. This is why hi-control evangelical churches who think about this stuff are dangerous. The kinds of churches that preach this understanding of Christianity are often the churches that accept higher hierarchical, and almost always patriarchal conceptions of authority. They are institutions led by individuals who are often dismissive or critical of mental health providers and the significance of mental health. This is also why in many of these churches, especially pentecostal ones, they always pray for people to be PHYSICALLY healed while every other kind of "mental healing" is about demon-possession or demonic torment. They're going to be opposed to people going to non-religious counseling or having meds to help regulate different things in their bodies and so forth. They're going to do things like telling you you should pray more while constantly doubling down on being critical of mental health care. What broke the camel's back when it came to Christian ignorance of mental illness or intellectual disability was their view of autism and me as an autistic person. Christians in these spaces believe that autism is either demon-possession that prevents individual salvation (and therefore it needs to be prayed away), or that autism is a lie and that I can overcome it simply by giving it all toward this "relationship" so I can experience miracles, which I'm still waiting for, if any Christians from my past are reading this.

Lastly, we need to remember that churches as volunteer organizations lean on the sense of mission that those who are there have the sense that they are called to be there, that they're fulfilling what god wants by being there. Churches feed on that appeal and use it to motivate people to give huge chunks of money and time.

All of these dimensions produce conditions for abuse and damaging institutional and interpersonal relationships. Some believers in hi-control religion raise concerns indicating that they can't take time for self-care or that they gave as much time as they could and they need to rest or work more hours at a job that pays because rent or groceries are too expensive. And worse, there are so many stories about churches who preach about a "relationship with god or Jesus" that talk about experiences involving coercion, abuse, or trauma that come from the hierarchical structure. And most of the culprits are men holding up the patriarchy of the institution. People can say "not all men" all they want, but enough men are complicit that this had to be said.

If church members bring these "negative" or "critical" issues to the table, many discussions result in people in authority saying that it's because the person doesn't have a right relationship with god. And they will really punch down when someone critiques the person who's been "called by God to lead in this church." I've experienced this kind of thing and in similar situations, the individuals' personal relationship with God can become leveraged and used against them. The concern becomes the complainer's responsibility, becomes "it's their fault" that they feel guilty, traumatized, or it's the complainer's or abused believer's fault that a pastor or other church leader has "abused" their position of authority in some way.

It's pretty sad how there are so many unspoken dimensions to the language that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. The primary thing to remember here is that when hi-control religion claims that a connection with a deity is more important than the actions and some toxic beliefs in that religion, that means the most powerful and privileged people within those environments can get away with a lot of deeds that hurt most people in these churches. While I do believe to some degree that we need guidelines rather than rules, rituals, or a moral book to look to in order to be a good person, I think that any community that is all about relationships (god or human) require one thing: accountability without loopholes; not just for the people attending but for those running a church as well.