Why I Hate Religion

This is great stuff from Driscoll. Even if you have seen it before it is worth rewatching to remind us of who we are and tend to gravitate towards.

(video link)

Here is the list that he went through…

Religion says, if I obey, God will love me. Gospel says, because God loves me, I can obey.

Religion has good people & bad people. Gospel has only repentant and unrepentant people.

Religion values a birth family. Gospel values a new birth.

Religion depends on what I do. Gospel depends on what Jesus has done.

Religion claims that sanctification justifies me. Gospel claims that justification enables sanctification.

Religion has the goal to get from God. Gospel has the goal to get God.

Religion sees hardships as punishment for sin. Gospel sees hardship as sanctified affliction.

Religion is about me. Gospel is about Jesus.

Religion believes appearing as a good person is the key. Gospel believes that being honest is the key.

Religion has an uncertainty of standing before God. Gospel has certainty based upon Jesus’ work.

Religion sees Jesus as the means. Gospel sees Jesus as the end.

Religion ends in pride or despair. Gospel ends in humble joy.

Possibly Related posts:

1. Religion vs. Gospel
2. Why I Can Relate to Lazy International Missionaries (and hate it)
3. The Cure for Cold Religion
4. Q & A Friday :: What is the difference between Justification and Sanctification?
5. The “Just-as-if-I’d” definition of Justification

10 Responses to “Why I Hate Religion”

1. Why I Hate Religion says:

   February 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm

   [...] A New Pair of Eyes wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptReligion says, if I obey, God will love me. Gospel says, because God loves me, I can obey. Religion has good people & bad people. Gospel has only repentant and unrepentant people. Religion values a birth family. … [...]
2. Carla Brown says:

   February 4, 2008 at 4:27 pm

   Erik, is Mark Driscoll considered a part of the emergent church movement? Or “emerging” church? Is there a difference?
3. Erik says:

   February 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm

   Right on Raymond, vital message. Thanks for the post.
4. Anja L says:

   February 5, 2008 at 3:55 am

   This is excellent! Next week I have to hand in a short essay (only 300 words) on how religious my life is for a course in Chinese religions (not at a christian university). I knew I wanted to write something about that I don’t like the word ‘religion’ and that I have faith instead, but I was not sure yet how exactly to do that. This will really help me. Just what I needed .
5. erik says:

   February 5, 2008 at 11:10 am

   Carla,

   In my review of Driscoll’s book I included the following, it speaks to your question…

   “In his narrative Driscoll explains, from first hand experience, some of the gestational development of the now prominent Emergent Church. Driscoll himself was involved, and in fact a leader in, a movement in the mid-90’s to mobilize missionaries to their culture, impacting them with the gospel of Christ. As this movement expanded and gained traction Driscoll had to separate himself from it:

   “I had to distance myself, however, from one of the many streams in the emerging church because of the theological differences. Since the late 1990’s this stream has become known as Emergent. The Emergent Church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.” (p. 21)

   So here Driscoll is distinquishing between Emerging and Emergent…himself clinging to the prevailing positives of the Emerging movement (missional, theological, active) while distancing himself from the atheolgoical wing of the movement (Emergent).

   In many ways this book appears to be a living apologetic of the Emerging movement while distinguishing Driscoll as one of its most outspoken and able leaders.”

   Here is the full review:

   http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=240
6. erik says:

   February 5, 2008 at 11:13 am

   Anja, remember ‘religion’ is not necessarily bad (cf. James 1.27) however, this is a religion that is valid because it does, not just says, and furthermore the ‘doing’ is sourced in and defined by what Christ has done not some ill conceived personal merit (works righteousness). Which is what Driscoll is hammering.
7. Anja L says:

   February 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

   Erik, thank you for your explanation.
8. ashley b says:

   February 6, 2008 at 9:02 pm

   Great, great stuff. And without the famous Driscoll expletives!

   Thanks erik!
9. Mike Anderson says:

   February 9, 2008 at 1:49 am

   This list is a spin on Tim Keller’s talk at Gordon Conwell called Preaching to the heart. It is a great resource.

   http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/store/product_info.php?products_id=253
10. Ben says:

    October 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    I don’t think Driscoll’s equation of the term “religion” with “self-righteousness” is helpful at all (see erik’s post above and his reference to James 1:27).

    But what Driscoll’s condemnation of self-righteousness and legalism is right on. I just think it’s wrong to use the word “religon” in that way because it confuses people.