C3: Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll stepped up after lunch and talked about the Gospel teaching from I Cor. 15:1-4.
- “It’s all about Jesus.”
- Two enemies of the Gospel are idolatry and religion.
- We don’t see restaurants, sports, television, entertainment as idolatry, but sometimes they are. Many times they are.
- “If you don’t break the first two commandments, you won’t break the other commandments.”
- Everyone worships. The atheists just worship their mind. We have a propensity to worship created things rather than God.
- Non-Christians are very spiritual. They worship. They just break the first two commandments.
- We worship good things and they become our god things. The stuff we love can enslave us. There’s only one God, and he alone is to be worshiped.
- Where do you run for cover? What makes you happiest? How do you articulate who you are? Who’s approval are you seeking? What comfort do you treasure the most?
- Sometimes we get angry at the real God because he doesn’t serve our false god.
- The Bible has nothing kind to say about religion. Religion doesn’t understand the Gospel.
- Religion says, “If you obey, God will love you.” The Gospel says, “Because God loves you, you can obey.”
- Religion is about what I do. The Gospel is about what Jesus has done. “It is finished.”
- Religion is about what we get from God. The Gospel is about getting God.
- Religion sees hardship has punishment. The Gospel recognizes there can be good fruit out of hardship and suffering. It’s called sanctification. “Jesus was made perfect through his suffering.”
- Religion is about me. The Gospel is about Jesus.
- Religion leads to a life of continual uncertainty. The Gospel provides assurance. Certainty. We can approach the thrown of grace.
- Religion ends up in two places which are both wicked. It ends in pride or despair. The Gospel ends in confidence. It’s humble.
- Jesus went to the cross and died. And with it died idolatry and religion.
- Is Jesus Christ your only God? Is your life lived to worship him alone?
OK, first time I’ve heard Mark speak. The guy is brilliant–scary brilliant. I was very impressed.
Hi Tony,
G’day from Australia! I’ve been reading your blog (and your ex-peeps from GCC) for a few months now…
Glad you are getting fed by these high quality guys.
Religion says, “If you obey, God will love you.” The Gospel says, “Because God loves you, you can obey.”
Brillant.
Enjoy the rest of your meals!
Steve
I’m not sure if this comment will make the cut or not but I really feel strongly about this. I would like to start by saying that I have nothing against Mark Driscoll or his church. In fact I am really excited at what God has been doing through his ministry. By your post however it sounds like Mark was speaking hyped, not to mention incorrect, sound bites. Although I have already touched on this topic in greater detail in a post called Redefine “Religion” With Your Life, please allow me to explain myself briefly here.
It has been popular for some time to speak about a relationship vs. religion. What Mark has done is revive and reinvent an old and erred sound bite into Gospel vs. religion. He does this with false statements like, “The Bible has nothing kind to say about religion.” This statement is wrong in many ways. One it suggests that all religion is the same even though the Bible speaks of self-made religion, pure and undefiled religion, superstitious religion and God honored active religion. Secondly the Bible doesn’t have much to say about religion at all. I also believe that speaking of religion so carelessly diminishes passages like James 1:27.
In this passage we are given a clear picture of the religion that God calls all of us to, to care for care for widows and orphans. It is this same religion that was the standard by which Jesus separated the sheep and the goats. I hope that I am religious enough to be counted a sheep. Besides since when did caring for the widow, the orphan, the poor, the sick and imprisoned ever take on the majority of characteristics that Mark describes. This religion is not to gain God’s favor but because of it. It is about what I do with what He has done. It’s not about getting from God but giving from God. It doesn’t see hardship as punishment but a part of the life of a disciple. It’s not about me but about everyone but me.
I love Mark and what God is doing through him; this is just my opinions on the topic that he chose to speak on. I also submit to the fact that I wasn’t present for the talk and therefore may not be getting the fullness of what he meant. Tony, I will understand if you feel this comment is to long or inappropriate for this thread although I will be a little sad that I wrote this for nothing.
James, few things….
> I think we need to be careful about how we talk about other people and their teaching on blogs. Mt. 18 applies on the Internet just like it does in the real world.
> I believe Mark referenced James 1:27 and would agree with your statement. That wasn’t the focus of his message. In other words, I guess you had to be there.
> I’m rereading the Bible from cover to cover. And, I’m amazed at how often Jesus confronted the religious leaders. So, honestly, I think your suggestion that “the Bible doesn’t have much to say about religion at all” is a pretty big overstatement.
OK, that’s my 3 cents. I’ll leave you response up for others to comment on who were in attendance at yesterday’s sessions.
You’re right, I would not normally do this. Comments this long should normally be posted on your own blog, but I’m in a good mood today so we’ll let it slide this time. :-)
tony
Correction taken. I am terrible at making a gentle point when I write and I do apologize. I agree that Jesus confronted “self-made” religious leaders to call them to pure religion but definitely the wrong implication on my part (I sometimes choose words very poorly but I am getting better). I guess my concern is the definition we choose for religion. If we offer a narrow or limited definition than yes the Bible is against it but the Bible doesn’t offer only a narrow concept of religion but a broad and many times challenging one. Religion on its own is not good or bad without a qualifier.
Thanks for reading, responding and correcting me on my comment. The last thing I wanted to do was come off like a pompous jerk that had it out for someone. Mark is a great guy who God is using and I didn’t mean it to come off personal or even waste anyone’s time discussing semantics. I am sorry that it actually came off exactly that way.
James
Me and my big mouth
I recently posted a comment on Tony Morgans
post concerning Mark Driscolls talk at the C3 conference yesterday. After reading it I realize that there was something that I could have made a little clearer. This point is in defense of Mark&…
James,
I believe the argument you’ve given about the “semantics” between “relationship vs. religion” hype is extremely inappropriate & unnecessary! In other words…I believe you are way off base (wrong)! Why?
1) Pastors MUST preach in a way “the people” can understand. Somewhere along the way “the people” thought church, God, etc. was about following a list of rules (religion) and needed to be shown the heart of it (relationship).
2) If you read James 1:26-27 I think it actually compares “relationship verses religion.” It may reuse the word religion, but same point. Check out some different translations with your “fav” verse there.
3) Jesus criticized the religious leaders because they did many things, but didn’t have a relationship with God. Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, etc. ALL have religion, but not a relationship. Jesus’ point is valid and applicable today…its a heart matter!
4) Its not about “defining” religion. There is no edification in that. The only reason we should “define” religion better so we can say “we are right” when we argue “for it.” Sound similar to the Pharisees.
Well, I’d like to start off by saying thanks to Tony for allowing this discussion on his blog. It has the potential to become very heated, and I respect him for that. James did apologize, and admit that his point didn’t come across as planned. Be that as it may, I’d like to offer my take on the points brought up in the previous comment by Pudge.
1) Pastor’s must indeed preach in a way that the people understand. Even a message that is focused on guests and their understanding of God and the Bible is based upon some set of doctrine. If you are preaching on Sunday morning, for instance, and you claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven, or that he is indeed God in the flesh, that is based on a doctrine, or belief system. Dictionary.com defines religion this way:
a. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
b. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Despite our attempts to escape it, religion is an integral part of the Christian faith. In fact, you cannot have a common faith without having a “religion”. Sure we don’t flaunt the word “religion” around with our guests unless we have the time to really explain what we are saying, because they have a pre-defined view of the word.
2) The NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT and even the Message translate the Greek words Threskos and Threskeia used in the infamous James 1:26-27 as “Religious” or “Religion”. Threskeia (Religion) is used four times in the New Testament, once in Acts, once in Colossians, and twice in James. In Acts, Paul uses the word to describe the beliefs and practices of a Pharisee. In Colossians 2:18, he uses the word to describe “worshipping” false things. Indeed, the word translated “Religious” (Threskos) means to worship, or tremble before God.
3) I agree that Jesus confronted the religious leaders of his day about their lack of true faith and commitment to God. But I fail to see how that is a bash against the idea of “religion”. Jesus told the Pharisees that they shouldn’t have forgotten the “weighter” matters of the law: mercy, justice, love, etc., but he also told them that they shouldn’t have left their devotion to God. Was he against the way in which they interpreted the law? Sure. But he wasn’t against having an interpretation of the law, which is what he presents to us in the two great commandments. These are the basis of the Christian “religion”. As for ALL those people not having a relationship…I’m going to assume I misunderstand you.
4) I disagree that there is no edification in “defining” religion. In fact, when we explain to people that it is about a relationship and not a religion, we are defining what “pure” religion is and flows from. We cannot have a relationship with Christ without the basis of “religion”. Without “religion”, or a common set of beliefs, there is no resurrection, no God in the flesh, no healing, no forgiveness, no atonement. All of these are “teachings”, “doctrines” and the basis of the Christian “religion”. We have to be careful not to disconnect ourselves from our past. All of the ideas and definitions we have of Christ were born out of difficult discussions and arguments about “religion” in the early church. Let’s not forget that many gave their lives to lay a proper “theological” foundation upon which to build our relationship.
Again, we are trying to fight for the word “religion.” Yet we seem to agree that people need Jesus!
All this talk about “doctrine” and “theological foundation” for the word “religion” is pointless. Why are we even having this conversation? The lost people don’t care…they just don’t want to hurt anymore and know why Jesus is any different from Buddha or Muhammad (and the list goes on).
That’s my point! They don’t care if their is a “religion.” They hear and see many of those everyday and it doesn’t fill the hole inside them. They need something deeper, something different, something personal, something other than religion (as in how they see religion, not how its defined).
Likewise, if the believers in our church feel the need to “fight” for the word “religion” instead of simply spreading the love of Christ, they have missed the point. We haven’t equipped them to reach the lost with love! We have equipped them to go out and have “theological debates” (which turn the lost & confused people off to Jesus entirely).
Fighting about what the word “religion” is or isn’t about won’t edify (benefit) the church. If our churches are indeed like Ed Young says, “The church should be comfortable for the unchurched and uncomfortable for believers.”
The Centrality of the Gospel by Tim Keller offers some great deffinitions that I believe Mark would agree with.
Well, I am hesitant to post a reply, but here goes.
In my post, I was not speaking of unpacking all of our “religious” ideas to visitors or the unchurched. I am simply speaking of the fact that it is necessary for there to be a belief system underlying the love they receive on Sunday Morning (and hopefully all throughout the week). If there is not, then I might as well join a community or service-based club. We need to get to a place were we can genuinely love people, and explain to them the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
If we leave out the basics of faith, the Christian “religion”, how is the love of Christ any different than that of Mohommad, Buddha or the Dahli Lama? The fact that Christ died and rose again is a “theologial” truth. Now, I’m not saying that we couch it in exactly the same terminology, but these truths have to be conveyed. These truths are what make up the Gospel.
I agree wholeheartedly that throughout the ages the church has shown people an incorrect view of God. They have been using His word to murder, rape and pillage. Both physically and spiritually. In our zeal for showing people God’s heart, let’s not forget to show them that there are basic truths in this harsh world.
If the argument is simply over the use of the word “religion”, then it’s hardly one worth having. As Shakespeare would say: “What’s in a name?” “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Thanks for the healthy debate.
Or, we could settle it all with a game of Halo2…
Well, Tony, now I feel like I should apologize for opening this can of worms. I really only meant to make an observation on Mark’s use of the word “religion” not his actual practice of it. I guess it just goes to show that words are powerful and we must all be careful how we use them.
Pudge, I’m sorry I stirred you up so much but I would like to point out that this discussion is taking place on a post about a church conference and not among the unchurched and therefore is an appropriate topic here. I would never suggest it be any other way. Besides, I did say I was sorry for my aggressive approach.
On a personal note, religion got in the way of me knowing Jesus for about 10 years. I was following a religious, moral path all the way to Hell. Through that filter, it’s hard for me to argue with anything Mark shared yesterday.
tony
Thanks Tony, that’s a great point. I wish I would have just said that in the first place. We all define words through filters of past experiences. You felt like religion kept you from Jesus and I feel like religion demonstrated the love of Christ to my family when we were in great need. Some people in our communities filter Jesus the same way. They say he was just a teacher, just a prophet or just some fairytale. But our religion, which is a direct result of our relationship, says He is God in the flesh and compels us to live like it. Understanding filters is important. It would have served me well to remember that before my initial comment.