If you’ve been in the evangelical world, especially the broader Reformed world, long enough, you’ve likely heard Christians in these circles cast suspicion on the idea of “religion.” It’s not uncommon to hear distinctions between “religion and the Gospel” or “religion and Jesus.” For many, the word “religion” conjures up images of cold ceremonies or impersonal rituals divorced from meaningful devotion. But before accepting that framing, the term itself needs to be defined. The Merriam-Webster definition states that religion is “an organized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.”[1] Understood this way, religion is not the enemy of sincere faith, but the form sincere faith takes when it is lived and embodied. While the sentiment behind this suspicion about “religion” is often well-meaning and sincere, I hope to show in this article that the dichotomy itself is misguided and that setting aside the institutional dimensions of true religion ultimately diminishes Christian worship and discipleship.
1. “Religion,” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.
Many Christians oppose “religion” due to a perceived sense of legalism or addition to the Gospel. Perhaps they witnessed friends growing up going to church, taking communion, and getting baptized, only to act as pagans the rest of the week. “Of course I’m a Christian; I go to church every week,” they say. This type of religious expression, divorced from affection, is a legitimate problem. They are right to note it. But is labeling this lack of affection as “religion” an appropriate response? Many seem to think so. For example, in a 2007 article at The Gospel Coalition, Erik Raymond quotes Mark Driscoll saying,
Religion says, if I obey, God will love me. Gospel says, because God loves me, I can obey.
Religion claims that sanctification justifies me. Gospel claims that justification enables sanctification.
Religion is about me. Gospel is about Jesus.
Religion ends in pride or despair. Gospel ends in humble joy.…[2]
2. Erik Raymond, “Religion vs. Gospel,” The Gospel Coalition, June 10, 2007.
Of course, There are certainly problems with claiming that sanctification justifies us, and it’s right to avoid pride. Moreover, it’s right to acknowledge that the Gospel is about Christ. But claiming that religion ends in pride or despair is a great misunderstanding of what religion is, especially given that one of the few times the Bible mentions the word “religion”, it’s done so in a positive sense for the benefit of others (James 1:27).
This is the sentiment of the twentieth and twenty-first-century evangelical culture, one in which one is skeptical of traditions and institutions or any reference to duty, and where one is inclined to reduce Christianity to a moment of conversion or a mere relationship with Jesus. But this framing would not be recognized by the early church, the Reformers, or the early American Protestant tradition. Moreover, the loss of “religion” has actually contributed to a loss of ordered worship and the moral formation of Christians within the life of the church. The term “religion” is worth retrieving to re-emphasize a positive understanding of religion.
For these reasons, the popular opposition between “religion” and “the gospel” cannot bear the weight placed upon it. What follows are five ways in which this dichotomy fails to account for the nature of Christian faith, worship, and formation within the life of the church.
Why the Religion–Gospel Dichotomy Fails
1) When Legalism Becomes the Measure of All Form
The first issue about the dichotomy between Religion and Gospel is the conflation of legalism with religion. The framing is motivated by a desire to emphasize that the ceremonial aspects of the church’s liturgy are not what make one “Christian.” Relying too much on the more traditional and ritualistic aspects of the church may, according to them, drift into a reliance on outward performance rather than faith in Christ. This concern, however, mistakes the abuse of form for the purpose of form itself and treats obedience shaped by worship as though it were opposed to grace. I’ll go into this later, but a better distinction is between true religion and false religion.
An issue with this mindset is that one could be paralyzed in constantly evaluating if a religious ceremony they’re engaging in is in danger of legalism. One could engage in self-reflection at the communion table every Sunday or regularly confess sin, yet the mindset that is suspicious of religion turns self-examination into a constant background noise that really never lets up. This mindset takes good practices that are meant to form our faith and calls them into question or approaches them defensively. It says: “That’s great, you’re going to church—but remember that going to church doesn’t save you!” This type of suspicion not only reduces Christianity to questions of salvation alone, but it also weakens the church’s place in the ordinary work God uses in sanctification, or the the process of growing in holiness. Of course, there is some truth to the suspicion, but the point is a matter of emphasis.
Consider a wedding ceremony as an example and the way Protestant Americans ritualistically rehearse vows, exchange rings, order the event with words and gestures, wear special attire, and typically follow an entire liturgical order of events. We don’t view these traditions and rituals with suspicion. There are no long-form videos talking about how the exchanging of rings does not make one “married.” We don’t go out of our way to chastise the procession, or remind the new husband and wife that their first dance isn’t what really makes them husband and wife. We simply recognize these ceremonial processions as meaningful, God-honoring traditions that give structure and significance to a sacred moment. We distinguish between what establishes the covenant, what expresses it, and what sustains it. How much more meaningful, then, are the ceremonial practices associated with the church, like baptism or the Lord’s Supper?
It is, of course, worth noting that far more is happening with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper than merely symbolism; they signify and seal real spiritual realities. The comparison to a wedding is not meant to flatten that distinction but to show that ordered, repeated practices are not treated as threats to sincerity when covenant and permanence matter. Indeed, Christ himself fulfilled the ceremonial practices found in the Torah and then instituted the sacraments for the church. Christ fulfilled the law and established true religion with her weekly, ceremonial practices. As Protestants, we don’t believe in abolishing external obedience. Rather, they are ordered around him.
2) Scripture’s Own Distinction: Living Religion and Dead Religion
It’s noteworthy that the one instance in which all major Bible translations use the word “religion” is to distinguish between dead religion and true religion.[3] James, the half-brother of Jesus, says, “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:26–27). Here James chastises the person who thinks he’s religious, but who also deceives his own heart. Notice James assumes that being “religious” is a positive characteristic. It would be similar to comparing a man who calls himself a loving father, but neglects his family. Being a loving father is good, but what use is calling oneself a loving father when his life does not match up to the qualification of such? In the same way, James is assuming that being “religious” is a good thing. So the issue James addresses is dead (or useless) religion.
3. Some translations also employ the term elsewhere. The KJV and NKJV use religion in passages like Galatians 1:13–14 (“the Jews’ religion”) and Colossians 2:18 (“religion of angels”), whereas most modern translations use the term Judaism or worship instead.
James goes on in verse 27 to define what true religion is. He doesn’t strip it of form or obligation, but locates it in a life ordered toward mercy and devotion. This devotion is made visible through care for the vulnerable and a rejection of worldly corruption. If you’ve heard the suspicion toward “religion” from modern evangelicals over the last twenty years, you’d expect James to instead divert to the common distinction between religion and Jesus. Instead, James speaks positively of true religion and orders it.
James condemns false religion, not religion itself. This is an important point because those critical of “religion” are right to criticize hypocrisy and self-righteousness. But they wrongly associate it with religion itself. A better alternative is to speak of religion as true religion vs false religion, or living religion vs dead religion. Christ, therefore, rebuked the Pharisees not for being religious, but for their hypocrisy and external-only faith devoid of genuine devotion and mercy. He rebuked them for their dead religion.
3) Jesus and the Shape of True Religion
One common claim made by those who frame religion in this way is that Jesus came to abolish religion. However, as we’ve already seen, Jesus orders religion to its proper end while also criticizing the dead religion of his opponents. But even more so, Jesus established the order and visible structure of true religion. He established the church, appointed officers for governance (Eph. 4:11–12), and commanded believers to gather for worship (Heb. 10:25), to be baptized (Matt. 28:19), to partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–26), and to live under the formative discipline of the church (Matt. 18:15–17). Note that these are all external visible practices that feature faithful obedience. The Christian life is not exclusively an inward transformation, but involves real, external practices for Christians. Even if it’s not their intention, those who make the religion/Gospel dichotomy are undermining many of the real practices intended for our good.
Many of the common phrases you hear that undermine the institutional aspects of the church are misplaced. Phrases like “Faith isn’t about what you do; it’s about what Jesus did,” or “following Jesus is not about rules”, or “God wants your heart, not your attendance” are all misleading. There may be kernels of truth in them, but when detached from the church’s ordered life, they function less as clarifications of grace and more as a justification for neglecting the forms Christ himself appointed. Rejecting religion often means rejecting Christ’s own design
When people say they reject religion, but follow Jesus, it’s similar to those who say they’re religious, but not spiritual. Often, what you see is people who claim that they just follow Jesus but reject the Ecclesiastical authority he established. It often becomes a Christianity of personal preference, where love becomes undefined, sin often becomes relative, and “following your heart” replaces Scripture as the ultimate authority.
It’s also important to note that Jesus Himself lived within the religious life of Israel. He attended synagogue worship regularly (Luke 4:16), observed appointed feasts including Passover (Luke 2:41), affirmed the goodness of the law (Matt. 5:17), honored the Sabbath even while correcting its misuse (Matt. 12:1–12), paid the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27), and instructed healed lepers to present themselves to the priests as the law required (Matt 8:4). Again, Jesus certainly criticized the Pharisees for their self-righteousness, but he did not reject the ceremonial aspects of religion.
4) Lack of Historical Precedent
Outside of the theological and biblical cases, it’s worth noting the lack of historical precedent of rejecting religion as a concept. Our Protestant forefathers had no problem with utilizing the word “religion” in a positive sense. The Reformers did not seek to free Christianity from religion and spoke openly of true religion. The Westminster divines structured entire confessions around religious worship, duties, and discipline. Later Reformed theologians continued to speak of religion as the outward and inward ordering of one’s life according to God’s will. Likewise, our Protestant Founding Fathers in America enshrined “free exercise of religion” and often spoke of promoting true religion.
By contrast, the modern tendency to distance Jesus from religion is shaped less by inherited theological language from the early church and the Protestant tradition, but more by revivalism, pragmatism, and therapeutic sensibilities. The distinction is a departure from how the church has long understood devotion and worship.
5) What Is Lost When Religion Is Set Aside
One significant consequence of maintaining this framing is the loss of spiritual nourishment through the means by which God has ordained for His church. Many evangelicals are satisfied with attending church every now and then, participating in their own private spiritual devotions, while not realizing they are depriving themselves of the ordinary means through which God intends to strengthen faith and sustain spiritual life within the gathered body of his people. Many churches that have adopted this mindset rely less so on what is stereotypically considered “religious”—liturgy, theologically rich songs, and even public readings of the Bible—in favor of less “religious” practices. Baptism is reduced to a mere commitment, worship songs are overly sentimental, and sermons become TED talks to avoid “religion.” The irony is that in an effort to frame the issue as “Jesus versus Religion,” many have simply replaced Him with the individual self.
Take the Lord’s Supper, for example. Communion was once universally understood as a regular act of spiritual nourishment within the corporate gathering. Now the institution has been reduced to the occasional add-on, observed monthly or even less. In yet another instance of irony, downplaying communion in fear of being ritualistic or religious has lessened the gravitas of the table itself. In an effort to protect communion from being another religious ceremony, many evangelicals have taken away the weight of the ordinance entirely, approaching casually without reverence. This subtly trains the church and its people to look elsewhere for spiritual vitality, even though Christ himself promised to meet his people in this act. When the Supper is distanced from the center of worship, the church forfeits a weekly reminder that faith is sustained not by inward resolve alone, but by Christ’s real, spiritual presence given for the strengthening of his people.
This is why a better way is to distinguish between true religion and false religion instead of rejecting it entirely. This approach preserves the church’s confidence in Christ’s appointed means while guarding against hypocrisy.
Conclusion
When man’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices are dedicated toward God, it’s misguided to reject religion as something Christ came to abolish. Certainly, Christ’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices were ordered toward the Father’s. In this way, Christ is actually the most religious man to ever walk the earth. Should we not imitate our Lord? Christ orders religion properly to its good ends. When someone uses “religion” as a pejorative or makes the dichotomy between Christ and religion, they typically have good intentions. A desire to preserve the Gospel from corruption is well-intended. But in guarding against corruption, they often discard the very forms Christ instituted to preserve, shape, and sustain the life of faith within His church.
The real choice we have is not between religion and Christ, but true religion vs false religion. Christ confronted false religion because it had the appearance of devotion without its substance. Christ, then, restores true religion to its proper place. The danger of rejecting religion as a category erodes the church’s confidence in Christ’s appointed means, leaving a faith shaped by personal instinct rather than the order of life given to His people. This erosion creates a life detached from the physical communion of the saints and marked by constant inward introspection. But most of all, it robs the saints of the real joys of the ordinary means Christ has given us for devotion and spiritual nourishment.
Don’t let cultural anti-institutionalism rob you of the fullness of what God designed.
