Relationship without religion drifts into vagueness; religion without relationship calcifies into formalism. But when the two are joined together under the Lordship of Christ, they form the vibrant, structured, covenantal worship the church was always meant to have.

Somewhere along the way, the modern evangelical church decided “religion” was a bad word. It became a theological four-letter word, lumped in with “legalism,” “ritualism,” and “the 8 a.m. organ service where no one smiles.” In its place, we were given the much warmer, cozier, Hallmark-ready term: relationship.

When I say “modern evangelical”, I mean less historically rooted types of Christians. I myself am a “modern evangelical”, technically speaking, but so is “Pastor” Karen at the gay-affirming UMC down the road. The issue is the term has been so watered down, that it’s virtually useless anymore.

This is not unique to the term evangelical, by the way, as trad-Caths (traditional Catholics) have to deal with Pope Francis and Nancy Pelosi.

But nonetheless, when I use it as a critique here, I am referring to less historically rooted expressions of Protestant Christian faith, like are found behind the wall of fog on the stage of many mega-churches today.

Now, there is nothing wrong with speaking about the believer’s relationship to God through Christ. But in the popular evangelical mouth, “relationship” hasn’t just been a friendly synonym—it’s become a deliberate replacement for “religion.” And that’s a problem. Because in ditching the term, we’ve ditched the substance behind it.

Historically, “religion” was not a Pharisee’s dirty word—it was a Christian’s badge of honor. Our fathers in the faith thanked God for it. One old prayer from The Valley of Vision begins:

“We bless thee for the souls thou hast created,
for the holy Scriptures their instruction,
for laws of life and light,
for a revelation of thyself in the gospel,
for the institutions of religion…”

We celebrate the tome produced by our brother John Calvin: ‘The Institutes of the Christian Religion’, but reject the very title today, as well as much of the rich theological doctrines contained within.

Calvin actually defines what religion is in the Institutes:

“Here indeed is pure and real religion: faith so joined with an earnest fear of God that this fear also embraces willing reverence, and carries with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed in the law.”
— Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.2 (Battles/McNeill edition, p. 43)

The Second London Baptist Confession explains “how to religion” very clearly:

“Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to him alone⁴—not to angels, saints, or any other creatures.⁵  Since the fall, worship is not to be given without a mediator⁶ nor through any mediation other than of Christ alone.⁷” (22.2)

“The elements of religious worship of God include reading the Scriptures,¹⁶ preaching and hearing the Word of God,¹⁷ teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord,¹⁸ as well as the administration of baptism¹⁹ and the Lord’s supper.²⁰  They must be performed out of obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear. Also, purposeful acts of humbling^awith fasting²¹ and times of  thanksgiving should be observed on special occasions in a holy and religious manner.²²” (22.5)

That’s Christian religion. That’s religious worship—God’s way, in God’s Word, to God alone.

To say that these men did not have a fruitful relationship with Christ because they recognized and appreciated formal Christian religion would be quite the accusation.

Read More