Why You Don’t Believe in Free Will

This article is the first in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
Be sure to subscribe here to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

One of the big issues in discussing soteriology (how salvation works) is the question of man’s “free will”.  Let me start right out with this plea: please stop saying that people have free will!  Not because you’re a Calvinist, but because you’re a Christian and you don’t really believe in “free will”.  Let me explain why.  During the Reformation era, a group of theologians formally made this statement:

“Man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." 

This grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of a good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.”

You might be thinking, “What extreme, Calvinist theologians laid out these words denying the free will of man and his innate ability to believe in the Gospel?”  Answer: the followers of Jacob Arminius.  That’s right, these words were laid out in the third and fourth Articles of Remonstrance, which became the foundational statement for the soteriological system we call Arminianism.

So first, realize that when a Christian says that we have “free will”, not only would the Calvinist adamantly disagree, but any self-respecting Arminian would as well, and so should everyone in between (which is where my own position falls.)  The problem is the term “free”.  The dictionary defines “free” as “unfettered, unrestrained, the state of not being enslaved.”  Is that what we believe? That we are not enslaved?  Jesus said that we are slaves to sin. (Jn. 8:34) Do we really believe that our will was unaffected by the fall, such that we are able to come to God on our own?  Again, Jesus counters, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” (Jn. 6:44) In other words, man’s will is not free to choose God in its own strength.

In the history of the Christian Church, there was a man who promoted the idea that humans have free will.  His name was Pelagius and he was justly condemned as a heretic in the 5^th century.  He taught that man, in his own natural ability, has the power to attain moral perfection and choose to obey God, thus attaining salvation.  A later revision called semi-Pelagianism (also condemned as heresy in the 6^th century) stated that while man could not attain perfection without the addition of God’s grace, he was yet capable of making the first steps towards God in his own power.  The Apostle Paul takes exception to this, saying, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” (Rom. 3:10-11) No man, in his own strength, seeks for God or wills to come to Him.  Rather, God must graciously initiate and draw us to Christ, or we simply will not come. 

I remember reading Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will a number of years ago.  What struck me was the problem of terms.  I had heard many Christians defend “free will”, but as I read, I recognized that the “free will” Luther was arguing against was something most Evangelical believers would also reject.  Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear Christians today affirm that man has “free will”.  In all honesty, I’ve heard a number of pastors from my own tribe say this, though I doubt they really mean what the term implies.  As we have just defined it, we don’t actually believe in “free will”.  My guess is the majority of Christians who say they believe in “free will” don’t really believe that man can come to God on his own, or be the initiator of his own salvation.  I believe that when many Christians speak of  “free will”, they mean “real will”.  We do have a will.  It is real, but it is not free.  It is in the bondage of sin.  And, left to itself, it never chooses God.  For that we need the work of grace, the drawing of the Father upon our will to lead us to Christ.  That does not mean that the will is unimportant, but that it has no ability of its own unless God imparts it.

When the Reformed believer hears a non-Reformed believer talk about “free will”, he likely thinks we mean what’s called libertarian free will.  That is, absolute, innate freedom and power to make any possible choice, including coming to God.  It should then be no surprise that all our careless talk of “free will” makes the Reformed believer concerned that we are in serious, Pelagian-style error.  That would be a serious problem if we actually believed it!  But chances are we simply mean that we have a real will, that our will, enabled and illuminated only by the effective working of God’s grace, must respond to God’s call.  It would be helpful if we just said that, rather than tossing about the misleading term of “free will”.  While the Reformed and non-Reformed brother or sister would still likely disagree as to the exact nature of the gracious work God must do in drawing us to Himself, at least both would clearly understand that no one is promoting the heretical position of semi-Pelagianism.  We do possess a real will, but without God’s interference it will always exert itself in opposition to God.  As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”  Our wills are only “free” to act in accordance with their nature, but that nature is fallen and our will cannot choose what it ought (to come to God) without His initiative.    

So first, let’s realize that the differences between Reformed and non-Reformed brothers are probably not as great as we often make them seem by using improper terms.  Realize that when you say, “I believe in free will,” the Reformed believer hears “man is not completely fallen”.  And when the Reformed believer says, “Man does not have free will”, you probably hear something scary like fatalism where man’s will is completely unimportant or violated.  Don’t.  Because that’s not what either side means.  Stop speaking like semi-Pelagians, since that’s not really what you mean.  Even Arminius would scold you for affirming “free will”.*   

In reality, it is the unbelieving world that is essentially Pelagian.  Modern, western culture tells us that man is basically good and “you can do anything if you put your mind to it”.  I wonder if the modern church in the west hasn’t let its terms be dictated more by our culture than Scripture.  And if we have indeed begun to attribute any small part of our coming to God to our own ability, spiritual openness or insightfulness, rather than to God’s patient and relentless drawing of our hardened hearts to Himself—let us repent and return to a position where God gets all the glory, for He alone is the Author of salvation.

*Note: Some have suggested using the term "freed will" instead of "free will" to clarify this important distinction that man's will must be graciously acted upon by God to be free.  This term, while not clarifying exactly to whom and how that action of God applies, is still a significant improvement.  

The Myth of an Un-contextualized Gospel

You have never heard the un-contextualized Gospel. There is one simple reason: it doesn’t exist. Every Gospel conversation or presentation you’ve ever heard has already been contextualized. If it wasn't, you couldn’t hear it. In a bygone era of the foreign missions enterprise, before anyone came up with the term “contextualize”, people used to speak of “indigenizing” the Gospel. But that term implied that the missionary was seeking to take his own civilized, “pure” Gospel and smuggle it into the receiving culture in native garb. This was all temporary though. The missionaries’ cultural goal was to get the natives to adopt “sensible Christian values”. Of course, this generally meant white, individualistic European and American cultural values. But there was a problem that few missionaries seemed to realize at the time: the Gospel of American and European society had been just as contextualized for them as it had to be for anyone else. This idea only began to be explored in depth later in the 20th century. In reality, the way the Gospel is contextualized in our modern, Western society would look alien to first-century, Near Eastern Christians. Certainly we are not so naive as to think that ours is the first culture that has a grasp on the "pure" Gospel. No culture, including mine or yours, has a monopoly on the Good News. While I’m sure there are more, I want to give you three problems we bring about when we shirk a well-thought-out contextualization of the Gospel. 

A Cultural Superiority Complex

First, by thinking that we possess an “un-contextualized” Gospel, we artificially set ourselves on a plane that does not exist. This is most obvious in the fact that each one of us heard the Gospel in a language we understand. As soon as any particular language is used to convey the Gospel, contextualization has already begun. The claim falters literally as soon as we open our mouths. Nevertheless, it is tempting to assert that ours is an un-contextualized Gospel because it implies the superiority of our own culture. It tickles our pride to think that we have an exclusive claim to the “pure” Gospel. But despite our seeming conviction that the American Evangelical sub-culture is the closest thing to Eden (God save us!), there is no place for bigotry in the body of Christ. To assert that we have an un-contextualized Gospel is to say that the Gospel in its purest form meshes ideally with our Western, individualistic, consumerist way of life. Thankfully, that’s very unlikely.

Yet this underlying assumption of cultural superiority is why some Christians get fidgety when the topic of contextualization crops up. There is an unspoken belief that changing the cultural forms in which the Gospel is presented will automatically lessen or “defile” its purity. Perhaps what we are really afraid of is letting go of the privileged status we’ve given our own preferred cultural forms. We may even be willing to don the trappings of another sub-culture for a short time for the sake of getting our message out, but we are unlikely to admit that these forms are as valid as our own. Fear of contextualization is often just a thin veil for a cultural superiority complex. 

A Shallow View of the Gospel

Secondly, in refusing the endeavor of Gospel contextualization, we rob ourselves of a deeper, more well-rounded understanding of the Gospel. Lesslie Newbigin was a British missionary who lived in the 20th century and served in India for some 40 plus years.  He writes in The Open Secret of a mutual benefit for the missionary and the receiving culture. He warned that we must not see our project of contextualizing the Gospel as merely uni-directional. The missionary himself must allow the unique worldview of the receiving culture to critique his own culturally myopic view of the Gospel. The interaction between the cultures of messenger and listener must, of course, be rooted in the Word of God. We all have a tendency to read the Bible through our own cultural lens. After all, we have no other with which to view it. Sometimes a person from another culture will read the same text we do, but come to a somewhat different conclusion on its meaning or implications. This forces both missionary and “native” to continually return to the Word and re-examine their understanding. Could it be that some aspect of what the missionary had hitherto believed is actually a by-product of his own culture's bias, rather than rooted in the Word of God itself? The interchange of contextualization refines and deepens our understanding; the messenger and the receiver both grow together in the Gospel.

As an American missionary who has been on the foreign field for over a third of my life, I can attest to this reality. Only in stepping outside of our own cultural comfort zones can we come to see the flaws inherent within it. The same is true of the American Christian sub-culture. Too many Christians have begun to view the Gospel through the narrow lens of the American-Evangelical sub-culture. What we fail to realize is that ours is also a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. It's simply tuned to the cultural values of middle-class, Western individualism and consumerism. In taking on the daunting, humbling project of contextualizing the Gospel to others, we also open up the possibility of having our own misperceptions corrected. Contextualization done well and humbly leads to a richer insight into the Gospel for both messenger and receiver.

Incarnation Implications

Lastly, when we refuse to embrace the call to contextualize the Gospel, we are rejecting something in the essence of the Gospel itself. It only takes a cursory reading of the book of Acts to see that the early church took contextualization seriously from the beginning. Those parts of the church which refused the project out of a cultural superiority complex quickly cut themselves off from the power and movement of the Holy Spirit. The Judaizers were a prime example of this.

But there is more. By spurning contextualization not only do we ignore the example of the early church; we contradict the nature of the Gospel. There is no greater “contextualization” than the incarnation of Christ. When God came in the flesh, He showed that there was almost no limit to His willingness to contextualize the Gospel so that we might understand. Jesus was not an ethereal philosophy but a flesh-and-blood man who brought the salvation of God into the cultural context of first-century Israel. His message was was spoken in Aramaic, often couched in agrarian parables sensitively honed to the context of His audience.  

Early in its history, the church rejected a heresy called “docetism”. This heresy taught that Jesus didn’t really become a man. He merely had the outward appearance of a man, but certainly would never soil His perfect “heavenly culture” with the trappings of human flesh. This heresy was roundly condemned at the council of Nicea. All true Christians today readily acknowledge that God Himself unabashedly took on real flesh, conforming Himself to our cultural forms. But the ironic part is that we are often not willing to similarly humble ourselves. We only grudgingly stoop to contextualize the Gospel to others who are culturally different from us—if we do so at all—though the cost for us is much less than it was for Jesus. While we cling to the doctrine of the incarnation, we deny its implications. Christ took on our cultural forms to bring the Gospel to people who would then continue the project of contextualization to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Great Commission itself implies the challenge of astutely, winsomely, humbly contextualizing the Gospel. In the end, the call for Christians to embrace the project of Gospel contextualization is merely a call to follow the example of Jesus. “Everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” (Lk. 6:40)

I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: An Eschatological Co-op

This article is the final part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture. Be sure to check out part 1 and part 2 if you missed them.

One of the more gracious articles written on Left Behind's coattails over the last few days had this golden nugget in it: “We need to go out of our way, as Christians, to make sure we don’t explicitly or implicitly demonize the views of other believers on doctrines that are secondary to the faith.” The warning was written to those who believe in a pre-trib rapture and we would do well to heed it. Of course, it applies equally to those who disagree with the pre-trib position. But in this final article in the series, I want to encourage us to go beyond simply not demonizing other positions. I believe we ought to learn to appreciate them—to learn from one another in a sort of eschatological co-op.

Our views on eschatology ultimately come down to how we interpret various passages of Scripture. Again, we ought to each do the hard exegetical work necessary to arrive at the position we believe best lines up with scriptural evidence. We also ought to have enough humility to not only acknowledge problem passages, but also to learn from one another. I personally have friends who represent every eschatological flavor under the sun. Despite our disagreements, our conversations and gracious debates have been of great benefit to me.  Each eschatological position has its potential weak points as well as strengths. We need to learn to see both.

What We Can Learn

Disregarding questions of textual interpretation for a moment, let's focus on the emphases and strengths of each position to see what we can learn from one another. 

Classic premillennialism (post-trib) offers an emphasis on courage and patience through suffering. Of course, Christians are called to the fellowship of Christ's sufferings in general. But there is a particular boldness in the eschatology that invites Christians to suffer under the severe trials described in the book of Revelation—and says that Christ is worth it. While one might not agree on the chronology, we can certainly learn from their readiness to suffer with Christ. This strength is something often missing from the western church. 

I believe amillennialism's greatest strength is in promoting a healthy balance in our relation to the world. This position sees both the millennium and tribulation period as figuratively taking place over the whole course of church history. Nowadays, one often hears in churches of God’s kingdom being both “already” and “not yet”. It is no coincidence that this understanding was largely pioneered by an amillennial theologian, Geerhardus Vos. Again, we may not agree with their interpretations of various passages. But we should emulate amillenialism's balanced approach towards the church’s existence in the world—falling into neither isolating pessimism, nor naive optimism.

Postmillennialism sees the establishment of Christ’s “millennial” kingdom as oсcuring through the church prior to His return. Hence, they believe the return of Christ is after (post-) the millennium. Postmillennialism's hopefulness for the power of God’s work in the world through the church is inspiring. One may disagree with their statements about the consummation of God’s kingdom work through the church. Yet their vision to see God’s kingdom manifest in every sphere of life is certainly one of the strong points of this position. We would do well to learn from this holistic approach to the church’s kingdom work in the world.    

It would only be fair along side these other views to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the pre-trib position as well. One strength is the emphasis on God’s mercy and faithfulness in delivering His church from wrath. Another is the sense of urgency and expectancy that an immanent return conjures in our hearts. Besides this, the pre-trib position has a clear and strong understanding of the fallenness of the world and sets the church forth as a counterculture. Of course, there are potential weak points. If we apply the truth in a selfish way, it can lead to isolationism from the world, or an overly pessimistic expectation regarding God’s work in the world.

I personally hold to the teaching of a pre-trib rapture, believing that it best explains various, sometimes difficult, biblical texts. You may or may not agree. And yet, we all ought to remain humble towards those with differing eschatological views. Humility also means we will remain teachable and allow other views to challenge and correct us. We tend to major in our own strengths and neglect our weakness. An approach that is willing to appreciate and learn from other eschatological positions will lead to greater maturity of faith for all of us. Let's remember that reflecting Christ's character of humility and grace to one another is more important than the timing of when we meet Him. After all, they will know we are His disciples not by our eschatology, but by the love we have for one another.

I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: What the Rapture is Not About

This article is the second part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture.  Be sure to check out part 1 if you missed it.

Many of the Left Behind follow-up articles that have come out over the last few days seem to have a few recurring themes: the rapture is a narrow, American position; it’s all about escapism; it promotes a prosperity-theology-esque avoidance of suffering; it doesn’t care about the rest of the world but just wants a ticket out, etc.  You may have noticed that none of these arguments are based on Scripture.  And yet, they are important to deal with as commonly met objections to the teaching.  Sure, there may be some “Christians” out there who fit these very un-Christian descriptions.  But many of those who hold a pre-trib rapture stance (myself included) completely reject these ideas.  In this article, I'll deal with some of these criticisms and take a look at what the rapture is not about, before briefly concluding with what it is about.

Arguments from Geography and History

Some of the arguments being leveled against the pre-trib rapture have to do with the history of the teaching.

For example, some have called the rapture an “American idea” and seek to discredit it on that basis.  First, the argument is not exactly accurate.  American theologian C.I. Scofield is credited with popularizing the teaching of a pre-trib rapture through his Scofield Reference Bible. However, John Darby, an Irish clergyman, is generally accepted as the first modern propagator of a clearly pre-trib rapture teaching.

But even if the argument was accurate, it's a hollow argument.  It's like saying that justification by grace alone or the priesthood of all believers are “German ideas” (via Luther) and thereby discredited.  The nationality of the first major propagators of any given teaching has no bearing on its validity.  One article I read recently in the wake of the Left Behind movie inferred that almost no one outside America holds a pre-trib view and would find such a position absurd.  As a missionary who has lived in the former Soviet Union for over a decade, I can tell you this is simply not true.  Sure, there is a wide range of eschatological beliefs among Christians here, just as there is in America.  But there are plenty who hold to a pre-trib view, and certainly even more who wouldn't “laugh” at the idea, even if they might disagree.  So, whatever very limited international experience the (ironically) American writers of these articles are speaking from, I guarantee it's not a representative sampling of the worldwide church. 

In a similar vein is the historical argument.  Those who criticize the rapture often like to point to the late date of it’s widespread acceptance—as if age is inherently a proof of scriptural accuracy. Yes, it is true that the teaching was only popularized in the 19th century.  However, one might just as easily point to the relatively late widespread acceptance of the whole “justified by faith” idea.  After all, where was this teaching during the first 1500 years of the church?  As Protestants, we would likely argue that it was clearly taught in the NT.  We would also underscore that it was taught by a few individuals at various points in church history, but later on was basically forgotten.  After all, isn’t that why we needed a reformation?  But the same basic arguments could be made for a pre-trib rapture.  Understand, I am not claiming that the idea of a pre-trib rapture is anywhere near as biblically explicit or as important as the idea of justification by faith alone.  It’s not.  My point is simply that “age does not a doctrine make.”

Ad Hominem Arguments

The second class of arguments being used against a pre-trib rapture in some recent articles are ad hominem arguments—attacks against the character of those holding the teaching rather than scriptural arguments against its content.

First, let’s deal with this whole “the rapture is all about getting out of suffering” argument.  If some have drawn the false impression from works like Left Behind that believing in Christ means getting out of suffering, they are in for a rude awakening.  Jesus Himself promised His followers, “In the world you will have tribulation”—not “might”, but “will”.  To follow Jesus at all means to “take up your cross and deny yourself.”  Even more blatant are Paul’s words: “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”  None of that sounds like a fast track to the easy life.  Movies like Left Behind, especially because they are taken out of a full scriptural context, may leave the impression that receiving Jesus leads to an easy life.  But most Christians who are serious about their faith do not hold any such delusions—whether they are pre-trib or not.

Another rapture article I read inferred that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture must have a heart calloused toward the world.  This is close to libel.  I’ll concede that some “Christians” who generally buy into a Jesus-wants-you-to-drive-a-Lexus-and-win-the-state-football-championship theology may look at the rapture as the ultimate ticket to easy street.  However, I don’t honestly know of a single pre-tribulationist who even vaguely sees the rapture as a cosmic “so long, suckers!” to the unbelieving world as we fly up to meet Jesus. 

In my experience, the perceived nearness of God’s judgment upon the unbelieving world generally makes believers more zealous about calling people to repent and receive God’s mercy.  Sure, sometimes that zeal may lead to misguided use of scare-tactics, but the same is true for Christians of any eschatological stripe.  After all, hell is a real threat regardless of when the rapture occurs.  My guess is that the only people gloating over unbelievers being “left behind” are people made of straw.  In other words, there are no such Christians.  They are figments of the rapture-bashers’ imagination.  Or, if they do exist somewhere, their gloating against non-Christians shows that they themselves will also be among those “left behind”.  That is, they do not actually know Christ nor share His compassion for the lost.

A final argument I need to address is the argument from “weirdness”.  I’m referring to the argument sometimes used against a pre-trib rapture position that it is supposedly far too outlandish or “goofy” to be scriptural.  Granted, movies like Left Behind don't help the whole “goofy” stigma.  But “it’s weird” doesn't pass for a valid theological argument.  We serve a God who became a baby, walked on water, spit in people’s eyes to heal them, talked with demons, and rose from the dead.  “Weirdness” is not an argument we get to use.  

What the Rapture Is Really About

I’ve already hinted at it, but let me say it very clearly: the pre-trib rapture is about the grace of God.  Accusing those who believe in a pre-trib rapture of not caring about the lost or seeking an easy escape is missing the whole point. 

Pre-tribulationists believe that the seven-year tribulation period described in the book of Revelation is a literal time period.  We also believe that it’s a time when God pours out His wrath on the world. (Rev. 6:16-17)  1 Thes. 5:9 says, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  We believe that we will not be recipients of God's wrath during the tribulation period because we are delivered from it by the Gospel of grace.  Granted, other eschatological systems may have other ways of explaining how the church is protected from the wrath of God in the “tribulation”. (If they don’t, they've got much more serious problems than the timing of the rapture.)  But the rapture is not about escapism—not any more than all believers being eternally rescued from the wrath of God is a question of "escapism".  The fact that other Christians believe God will rescue them from His wrath at all puts us in the same boat.  Therefore, our differences with those of other eschatological persuasions are ones of timing and method, not of essence.  We ought to all be willing to approach the question from this common ground and drop the arguments that are not rooted in Scripture.  They only serve to alienate us from one another and do nothing to biblically support any position.

In the next and final part of this series, I'll take a look how we can learn to appreciate one another's varying eschatological positions and grow in our faith through humble dialog.

I Can’t Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: A Level Playing Field

It seems like the latest film re-incarnation of Tim LaHaye’s Christian novel series Left Behind has brought the pre-tribulation-rapture-critics out of the woodwork.  Let me say this up front: I can’t stand Left Behind.  Granted, I have not seen the latest re-hash—nor do I plan to.  But while Nicholas Cage may be mildly more talented than Kirk Cameron (probably), I really doubt that a new cast, larger budget or improved special effects will help much.  If you are one of those Christians who just loves the books or movies, sorry.  Schmaltz is not my thing.

But my biggest qualm is that this latest rendering of very poor Christian “art” has turned the idea of the rapture into the latest blogosphere punching bag.  This is known as a straw man argument—taking a weak or even caricatured presentation of a position and knocking it down triumphantly.  Discrediting the idea of a pre-tribulational (pre-trib from here on) rapture on the basis of the Left Behind movie would be tantamount to saying that we ought to reject a post-tribulation rapture position because there are plenty of people that believe we need to go through it to accomplish our full purification.  It would be like bashing postmillennialism because there are a handful of prosperity gospel teachers out there who espouse it, or picking at amillennialism because it's the eschatology of those who worship Mary and accomplish salvation by the addition of their own works.  This is, of course, all just a bunch of mudslinging which does nothing to really ground any of these teachings in Scripture.  Neither does it prove the nobility of anyone’s eschatological cause.  On the contrary, it just makes us look petty and certainly does not reflect a spirit of Christian love and unity.

Rather than trying to exhaustively prove a pre-trib rapture position, I want to look at a few of the issues surrounding the recent discussion of this doctrine and hopefully encourage a more positive dialog on eschatological (end-times) questions.  In this first post, I'll be laying out why we should approach the various viewpoints on a level playing field.  In part two of this series, I'll deal with some of the recent criticisms of the teaching of the rapture and what the doctrine is really about.  And in the third and final post, we'll look at how we can actually benefit from one another's differing eschatological viewpoints in humble dialog.

Let’s Be Honest

I’ll be the first to admit that there are biblical problem passages for the pre-trib rapture view.  But there are problem passages for all the other eschatological views as well. 

For example, the post-tribulation rapture view (or so-called “classic premillennialism”) has to deal with the issue of “not knowing the day or the hour” of Christ’s return.  This position tends to take Revelation more literally than some other views.  It generally affirms belief in a literal, seven-year tribulation period.  However, if there is a literal seven-year tribulation period, one cannot help but conclude that counting down the thoroughly quantified 1260 days/42 months/3.5 years of Revelation (the second half of the seven-year tribulation period) would lead one to know the exact day of Christ’s return. 

The amillennial position does not escape problems either.  Passages in Isaiah foretell of a time after Messiah’s return where death and other remnants of the curse are nevertheless present on earth. These are a challenge for the most creative of amillennial interpreters to explain.  If, as they affirm, the second advent of Christ is the beginning of the eternal kingdom and total restoration of creation with no intermediate millennial period, then these passages seem to imply that there are a few things Christ doesn’t fix. 

Postmillennialism also has some scriptural challenges. (I’m not including the full preterist version in this discussion, which, based on the criteria of The Apostles’ and Nicean Creeds, is probably worthy of the label “heresy”.)  Not least among these challenges is the biblical picture of the return of Christ putting an end to the tide of wickedness and destruction, destroying armies of those who are in rebellion against God.  Certainly such passages do not bode well for a position that speaks of a golden age of ever-increasing Christian faith, morality, and societal improvement on the earth prior to Christ’s return. 

So when posts about the problem passages for a pre-trib view give the impression that there are no similar problems for other views, it just seems disingenuous.  My goal in these brief points is not to lay out an exhaustive defense of the pre-trib rapture position over against other commonly held eschatological views.  Neither is it to attack any of the aforementioned positions.  It is merely to say that we all have passages that are difficult to deal with.  While we ought not shy away from working through these texts and challenging one another to dig deeper, there is no justification for pretending like any position is as biblically airtight as the existence of God or that all other positions are laughable.

Next time I'll lay out some of the points of criticism being mentioned recently against a pre-trib rapture and look at what the teaching is really about.

Vapor

Tonight I was sorting through old pictures on my laptop in an attempt to free up some disk space.  In the process, I re-encountered some bits and pieces of life I had captured in photos.  What I thought was going to be a menial, organizational task of rearranging and consolidating files and folders turned out to be something quite different.  I was caught off guard by what ended up being a deeply emotional and contemplative experience. 

As I scanned through the pictures, I often laughed out loud (quietly since it's late and everyone else in my house is asleep) at the unfettered zaniness of my kids and the pure joy in their smiles caught on camera.  I was nearly in disbelief as I compared pictures of my daughter where she barely came up to my wife's waist from what seems like not so long ago and from this year where she is practically at her shoulder's height.  I looked through pictures of our family, and the church which has become our family, with deep gratitude and hopefulness.  Seeing a sort of slideshow of where God has brought us and knowing I deserve none of it renews my amazement at the graciousness my Father.  As I looked at pictures of young kids from the church who are now teenagers and will soon be adults, I thought about the seeds we are sowing for the future of these young people and the legacy we will leave. 

And to be honest, all these snapshots of life also broke my heart.  It broke not at the remembrance of any particular person whom I will no longer see in this world, though there were those pictures.  But it broke at seeing in an instant the brevity of life, how quickly it all rushes by...  I cannot comprehend how those without the hope of eternity cope with this overwhelming reality, unless their tactic is simply do their best to forget or pretend it isn't there.  James writes, "For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away."  How profoundly, tragically true. 

But the beautiful thing is that this fleeting vapor will not be the end for those who have hope in Christ.  All the things we wished we could've started but now it's too late, all the things we dreamed of accomplishing but never found time for, all the things we worked on and gave our lives to but never got to finish... will not be lost.  Instead, all the hollow, hopeless vanity that makes your heart sink as you wonder what happened to the years and stare in the mirror at a person who you know can't be you, will be cast off like a winter coat on the first warm day of spring.  The relentless march of time and decay and death will be turned backward.  The One who conquered the grave will lift us up to an everlasting hope.  The vapor that is life will congeal into something solid and vibrant and enduring, which can be threatened no more.  This is resurrection.  This is the promise of grace. 

JRR Tolkien wrote a short story about a painter named Niggle who began a painting of a tree during his life, but because of distraction and lack of time and other duties was never able to complete it.  In fact, he only ever completed one leaf to his satisfaction.  The time for Niggle's journey comes upon him, though he is not ready and unprepared and regrets not ever having finished that painting his heart truly longed to create.  But at the end of his journey, he discovers he has been brought to the country of his tree.  There it stands, real, perfect and complete, yet only one of a whole forest.  Niggle realizes that his vision of the tree before his journey was just the beginning and he can live in and continue in the fullness of the dream which he had captured but a leaf of during his life.  That tree of life and hope is waiting for us because the Eternal One tasted vanity and death on the Tree of Calvary.  Our vapor will be turned to life because His life was made a vapor.

An Open Letter to George Bryson

Dear George,

You don’t know me even though I have received many emails from you over the last months.  I am a Calvary Chapel pastor whose email I assume you got off the CCA website.  I have thought and prayed many times about responding to some of your email articles.  There has honestly been so much you have written, I find it perplexing to know where to start.  Perhaps I should start with why I have chosen to answer at all.  I believe that you love the Lord and care very deeply for the Calvary Chapel movement.  Though I have not been a part of the movement as long as you have, I also care deeply for it.  That is, after all, why I am a Calvary Chapel pastor.  In writing this response, I do not harbor illusions that you will fully agree with everything I have to say.  Neither do I believe it necessary that you do so.  What I do hope to do, if only slightly, is change the tone of the conversation that you have been having (via your articles) to a more congenial one; one that reflects the fact that we are all brothers who love the Lord and love the Calvary Chapel movement.  I pray that, by the grace of God, you would be open to consider what I have to say.  And though most of the other CC pastors I’ve spoken with on these questions would agree with the stances laid out here, I do not claim to speak for any other pastors or group other than myself.  I will break this article in to various sections and try to keep them brief so as not to create a book. ;)

Why an open letter?

Since you have been sending emails, I suppose the first question is: why answer with an open letter?  First, you have not only sent emails but also published many of your articles on your website, calvarychapeltheology.com, though with no ability to leave comments.  The unfortunate thing about this method is that you have effectively made any kind of dialogue impossible, except at the personal level for those who chose to respond to your emails.  That means that, as a collective group of pastors, we all are left to the impressions of what “the majority” think which you lay out in your emails, without actually hearing from the majority.  (I can only assume that you are sending these emails to all CC pastors, though I have heard from some that they have not received your emails.  But this is likely just because they are getting caught by spam filters.)  By writing an open letter, I hope to encourage a dialogue rather than each side ranting in isolation from the other.  One thing I am sure of is that unless we are willing to respectfully and graciously talk about these important issues in an open and frank manner, the only thing that can come of this is more division.  Each side sitting in their respective bunker, lobbing verbal grenades at the other, will not make for a healthier, more vibrant CC.  Most importantly, there is nothing that glorifies Christ in that kind of approach.

Common ground

I hope you will not think me overly “ecumenical” for trying to point out the common ground that we share, before dealing with differences of opinion.   First let me say, there are a number of points that you have made in your articles that I heartily agree with.  For starters, you made a point about the difference in viewpoints among CC pastors not being a question of age.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Perhaps some CC pastors have bought into the myth that the difference being discussed is purely a generational one.  I agree with you that it is not.  I have met both more seasoned CC pastors whom you would disagree with (more on that later), as well as younger pastors who would lean more towards the ideas presented in your articles. 

Another point you have brought up is that CC is at a crossroads.  I think we can all agree on that.  Though pastor Chuck, by God’s grace, is still with us, none of us (including him, I'm sure) are under the delusion that this can last indefinitely.  As is always the case whenever the leader whom God has used to birth a movement goes to inherit his eternal reward, CC, too, will be entering and indeed has begun already to enter into a phase of transition leading up to and reaching this bittersweet event. (Bitter for us who will miss pastor Chuck.  Sweet for him as he goes to be in the presence of the Lord.)

A final point I will mention with which I am in agreement is the point you have stressed that each CC is an independent, locally-governed expression of the body of Christ.  CC and pastor Chuck have always affirmed this and that CC is not a denomination.  Though in a movement of our size there are certain aspects that, for practical reasons, may resemble a denomination, each church is indeed independent.  I believe this point to have important ramifications for some of the questions you have brought up and I will return to it later.

More similar than dissimilar

Surely there are many other points that I could mention that we would be in agreement on.  In fact, the large majority of points we would agree on.  After all, we are both part of not merely the universal body of Christ but the specific branch of that known as CC.  One would hope that this fact alone would be enough to dissuade you from speaking about other, fellow-CC pastors in the adversarial tone that you have taken in some of your emails (though not in all.)  To be fair, some of the quotes that you gave from those who you see as representing the “other side” were also less than loving and certainly did not reflect a spirit of humility or seeking to disagree as brothers, rather than as enemy combatants.  My plea to you as well as to those on the other side would be to tone down the rhetoric.  We are brothers in Christ.  Moreover, we are pastors within the same movement of churches.  We can and must dialogue openly about the important issues and changes that we are beginning to face if we hope to face them in a way that will strengthen us as a movement rather than tear us apart.  Those who claim to uphold an inclusive spirit would do well to live in that spirit toward not only those who agree with them, otherwise there is not much meaning to it.

On this note we come to the issues you’ve been focusing on.  You have specifically criticized CC pastors who are seeking to find some kind of common ground with other pastors and leaders from Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition, etc.  Here’s the question that I believe we need to ask ourselves: do we have more in common with these brothers than we do dissimilar? 

Now, to deal with it right away, these groups are not ashamed about their identity as Reformed Christians (though they do claim to be “broadly Reformed”… more on that later.)  You mentioned in one article that some CC pastor(s) said to you that Acts 29 and Mark Driscoll are not Reformed.  I can only believe that this pastor had very little knowledge of who Driscoll is and what he teaches (or what “Reformed” means. ;)  Driscoll is, by his own words, unabashedly Reformed, though not holding to the extreme expressions/teachings of that position. 

Allow me to return to my previous question via a bit of a personal illustration.  I pastor a CC in Ukraine.  As one who has served for years in Russia, I'm sure you can appreciate the cultural context in which I serve.  It will not surprise you to hear that the majority of people surrounding me are Eastern Orthodox.  Without getting into a lot of unnecessary detail for the uninitiated, let’s just say that this is a religion of heavy legalism.  People are saved, if they are saved at all (there is never any guarantee), by doing good works, keeping rituals, etc.  It is a synergistic view of salvation, and a semi-pelagian view of human nature.  The sad part is that this is nearly true of most of the “Evangelical” churches here.  Though people are told that God will forgive their sins if they repent, they are very quickly shut off from the fount of grace and told that if they wish to keep their salvation, they must work for it.  The majority of Christians live in constant fear that they might lose their salvation at any turn.  They live under self-condemnation and have all but abandoned the good news of the Gospel of grace.  They are clinging on with the faintest remnant of hope in some kind of mercy, if not having abandoned said hope all together.  And if they are confident in it, all the worse, because this confidence is often based on their own devotion and activity, rather than the work of Christ.  This is really regardless of what expression or denomination within Evangelicalism these believers are part of. 

But besides the CC’s and a few other non-denominational churches here, there is generally one exception to this rule of legalism: Reformed churches.  Though their understanding of the exact manner in which a believer first comes to trust in grace does differ from the understanding in CC (more on that later), the Reformed churches seem to be some of the only churches besides CC in my country where believers are not neck-deep in legalism and thinking that they may lose their salvation at any turn.  They are different from CC in some important ways, and yet there seems to be present a confidence in God’s grace as the sole foundation of our salvation which we share with them.  There is a clear renunciation of our works as even a partial basis for either obtaining justification or continuing in it. 

So to answer the question, do we have more things similar or dissimilar with our brothers and sisters of the Reformed persuasion, I have to come down on the side of saying that we have overwhelmingly more that’s in common than what separates us, and that what we have in common is that which is most important: the grace of God.  And if that is the case, should we not seek at least some form of dialogue, goodwill and even cooperation and partnership with these brothers and sisters?  An attempt to separate ourselves from all who do not agree with us in every stance would turn us into a sect. 

“Ecumenism”: an Evangelical’s four-letter word

You have adopted the term in many of your email articles saying that there are those within CC who support an “ecumenical position”.  It may be that you chose this word as a sort of shorthand to describe an attempt to find greater common ground with Evangelical Christians outside of CC, but that is certainly not the picture this word conjures in the minds of many Evangelicals.  Like many things in the western church, at some point this question was polarized into two camps: fundamentalists and liberal theologians/ecumenicals.  The word “ecumenical” for many conjures up overtones of universalism, the World Council of Churches and throwing doctrine out the window.  Therefore, perhaps your use of the word was unintentionally provocatory, but it was provocatory nonetheless.  Moreover, it was likely the wrong word. 

Ecumenism is rigidly defined as the movement to unite all Christians into one church.  I would be willing to bet that there is not a single CC pastor out there who thinks that EVERY person who calls themselves a Christian ought to just ignore our differences and all meld into one big, vague, Christian-esque conglomeration.  You, I'm sure, realize that no pastor in CC is proposing such a thing. 

It would be much more helpful for us in this conversation rather than firing off polarizing terms like “ecumenical” or “fundamentalist” to realize that the reality is not two, exclusive camps, but rather a whole spectrum of positions, ranging from the most extreme forms of isolationism on the one end to the most amorphous universalism on the other.  The first extreme is well represented by the Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II.  It was taught that, outside her structures, no one even knew Christ or could have salvation.  On the other extreme are the universalists and the rigid definition of ecumenism that say  that all should just be part of one and doctrine doesn’t matter.  CC has never held either of these positions and I would like to believe that there is not a single CC pastor who would affirm either of these positions today.  So the proper question is not “are we ecumenical”.  The very fact that we recognize the reality of born-again believers who are part of other denominations and movements than our own already puts us further along the “ecumenical” scale than was common in much of church history. 

In fact, in the beginning of CC’s doctrinal statement, there is a line about how “we are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only to their overemphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.”  You have claimed to represent a position you label as “stay the course”, claiming to represent some “original” set of CC values.  The truth is that one of the greatest values in CC and what pastor Chuck always taught was a spirit of graciousness and cooperation towards other Christian groups outside our own.  It would therefore seem that you, George, are actually attempting to “change the course” by proposing a much less gracious, more isolated and more divisive stance towards other Christians groups, particularly Reformed ones, than we were all taught in CC through pastor Chuck and others.  Now, you might think it beneficial for CC to go in that direction (I disagree), but please at least be honest enough not to call it “keeping the course” when it is nothing of the sort.

Judging the thoughts and intents of the heart

It’s a familiar phrase that describes the Word of God in Heb. 4.  The problem comes when men put themselves in a role that belongs to God.  In your articles you have, in my opinion, tragically attempted to do this to your brothers.  You have asserted and implied motives to a number of CC pastors of attempting to purposefully split the movement, of trying to “sneak in” Reformed soteriology, etc.  The simple fact of the matter is, George, that you are not capable of seeing the intentions of peoples’ hearts.  Again, I do not believe that you are doing this as a consciously false accusation against anyone (though some of those pastors you imply accusations against have said that your accusations are baseless, which does make them false.)  I do not want to attempt to judge your motives, but I am willing to assume the best of you and consider that you are doing it out of a true concern for CC, even if it’s a mistaken concern.  Nevertheless, you have taken it upon yourself to judge the intentions of the hearts of some of CC’s finest leaders and pastors. 

Not only in CC, but you have essentially accused some of the leaders of the Reformed camp of trying to creep in and subvert CC.  Again, you not only have no evidence for this kind of accusation of the inner intentions of other leaders, which you cannot possibly know, but you also have no right biblically to put yourself a position which belongs to God.  I will not repeat your mistake in accusing you of any motives which I cannot possibly know.  However, I would say that, whatever your motives, the action itself is wrong.  While a healthy debate over actions, policy, etc. could be useful, your approach of assuming others’ motives and then accusing them over the very motives you, for all we know, made up or misconstrued, is dishonest and unloving.  Strangely, in a couple of your email articles you have proceeded to accuse leaders both in CC and outside of rather malicious intentions and then tried to justify it with “well, if it’s not true, let him/them write me and say so.”  So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh?  I would urge you to cease this kind of approach for your own sake, since what you are doing is called libel and could realistically expose you to law suits (though I'm pretty sure none of the men you are directing this libel at would stoop to that level).  But more importantly, there is nothing virtuous or Christ-like about it.

Straw men

In some of your articles you have attempted to argue against “Reformed theology” as a whole.  However, you have often taken the most extreme forms of Reformed theology and tried to imply that all Reformed people must believe this.  The truth is that there is a good deal of variety even on soteriological questions among “Reformed” believers (or those who would label themselves as such.)  Ascribing to someone an extreme doctrinal position they do not hold, only to then take it apart is not only bad form in debate (straw men), but it is dishonest. 

There is also some confusion in this approach since you’ve stated that anything less than an extreme position is not true “Reformed” theology.  Here’s my question, George: if these people are not “true Calvinists”, then why do you still have a problem with the idea of cooperation with them? 

You have stated that all 5 of the points of TULIP stand together as a whole and cannot be separated.  But CC itself is proof that this is not true.  In his book, Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God, Chuck Smith lays out that we, as CC, agree with some of the points of TULIP but not others (more on this later.)  So obviously it IS possible to hold some and not others.  Perhaps you intended to imply that the 5 points are a logical set.  One might then even argue that doctrines such as double predestination (reprobation) or supralapsarianism are part and parcel to the logical set, as you seem to imply in one of your articles quoting an author who holds these positions. 

The question though is, are they a biblical set?  I would argue no.  However, I would also argue that the points of Arminianism are not a biblical set.  The truth is that any believer ought to always seek to hold a biblical set of beliefs rather than a logical set.  Taking any one teaching of the Bible and drawing it out ad absurdum will result in errors.  Most Reformed believers would not agree with the extreme theological positions you have implied that all Reformed people must hold.  Rather, they would state at some point that we come to the end of our understanding and we hold certain truths together, though we can’t explain or reconcile them to the end.  Those in CC do the same (or at least ought to), though we might draw that line at a slightly different place.  However, your attempts to argue against the Reformed camp by creating a straw man, presenting the most extreme versions and then proceeding to attack the Reformed community as a whole based on that are misrepresentative at best and dishonest and insulting at worst.

Calvary Chapel soteriology

This brings us to the soteriological questions themselves.  This will actually be a short section in my response, because someone has already written it for me: Chuck Smith.  CC has already had an answer to the soteriological question for some time.  In fact, in the days of CCOF, Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God was one of the required reading books and agreement with its stance was implied in becoming affiliated with CC.  CC has always disagreed with 2 of the 5 points of Calvinism.  But that also means that we AGREE with 3 of 5 (though, granted, the 5^th point on preservation of the saints is not answered unambiguously in the book and different CC pastors have different opinions on that question.) 

What concerns me is that you seem to be attacking ALL the points of Calvinism, which by default would make you an Arminian.  I'm curious, George, do you consider yourself such?  However, Chuck has clearly written in that book against Arminian soteriology as well, so if that is what you are advocating, then it is you, George, who is seeking to “change the course.”  There was a very well thought-out explanation of CC soteriology posted on calvarychapel.com a while back called “Soteriology in the Middle”.  These posts were lucid explanations in harmony with Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God.  (On a historical note, I'd add that in the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, we’re overlooking the Lutheran soteriological position stated in the Formula of Concord.  Those interested to investigate its chapter on election will find it strikingly similar to CC’s position.)

Now, I would agree with you that anyone who is a 5-point Calvinist and a CC pastor (if there are any such pastors) would most likely be better suited to join a network that is clearly Reformed.  They will be more comfortable in such a network.  The same thing goes for any who consider themselves Arminian.  They ought to find a network that clearly supports that position.  You should walk in what you believe God has called you to.  I would add, however, that though we don’t need to pretend to be exactly the same as these groups (on either side) we ought to be willing to partner together to whatever extent the Lord reveals to any given local CC with all those who love the Gospel of grace.  And here we come to the next point…

Making denominations

I have stated that I agree with you that CC is not a denomination, nor was it ever intended to be.  I believe almost every CC pastor would agree with this.  Of course, being the sizeable movement we are, some organizational structures similar to a denomination are necessary, or it all just becomes chaotic.  However, I am honestly confused by your affirmation of the independence of each, local CC and your seeming attempt to create a denominational charter statement and have pastors sign up.  CC ALREADY HAS a common statement of faith.  What it seems that you are doing, George, is trying to create a new one to your own liking. 

Obviously there are some common doctrinal beliefs that make one a CC.  However, it seems that you are attempting to go beyond doctrine by dictating very particular practices for partnerships in ministry and policy concerning the personal life of a pastor.  The CC statement of faith speaks of a gracious and cooperative attitude towards other Christian groups.  You seem to want to codify a position of isolation from them and non-cooperation.  Besides the obvious problem of this being a divisive, un-Christ-like position, it also seems to assume some denominational structure where someone from on high is telling local CC churches whom they can and cannot cooperate with. 

Similarly, you have suggested a no alcohol policy for all CC senior pastors.  I do not wish to enter into the arguments of such a position here, though I assume every CC pastor would acknowledge that the Bible nowhere states that mere consumption of alcohol is sin.  My only point in bringing that out is that, since it is not a question the Bible clearly forbids, this kind of policy ought to be decided by each individual pastor/elders at the local level, unless you are actually advocating that CC become a denomination and dictate such policies.  So, when you state in some of your articles that you are against the idea of CC becoming a denomination, I would like to believe you, but the approach to policy that you are taking seems to suggest the opposite.

Chuck’s approval

With every one of your articles, you have mentioned that you give it to pastor Chuck to “approve”.  However, the way you are presenting this is not likely what is meant.  Knowing Chuck’s gracious attitude, I can imagine him saying something like, “George, if you feel like you should send this, go for it.”  That, however, is far from an “approval” or agreement with your articles.  In fact, I happen to know that pastor Chuck has said to another staff pastor at CCCM, “George Bryson does not speak for me.”  The way you have positioned yourself in your email articles, however, is as the sole, faithful representative of pastor Chuck.  This seems like misrepresentation at best and dishonesty at worst. 

My greater concern is that pastor Chuck may have had the real issues facing CC misrepresented to him by you.  We’ve all received a couple letters now from pastor Chuck.  While the exact message of these letters may be debated, the one thing that is clear from these letters is that pastor Chuck doesn’t want to see division, so my plea to you, George, is to do your part to stop causing it.  I hope you believe me when I say that I do believe that you love CC and want the best for it.  I feel like many of the questions you’ve brought up have been presented in your email articles in a way that was unnecessarily divisive and sometimes misrepresentative.  I do hope that you’ll take into consideration the points I’ve brought up.  I’ve tried to be respectful in my tone in this article towards you as an older brother in the Lord and fellow minister, however if I have managed to be offensive in some way, please know that was not my intent and I would ask your forgiveness for that.  My prayer is that as a movement we can learn to move forward in a spirit of love and graciousness towards one another as we work through these issues.  I do welcome feedback to this open letter from you, George, as well as from any one else (especially CC pastors) who would like to take part.  My only request is that, despite your opinion on these questions, everyone would keep their tone respectful and try to approach any discussion in a spirit that would honor Christ and our unity as brothers.

My final request is to pastor Chuck himself: We have been blessed that God has placed you as the leader of this movement.  As a movement, we are in need of clarity at this point, due to much confusion that has been engendered.  Please speak clearly and boldly on these questions and do not allow them to be swept along by the wave of division. 

I will end with a quote from pastor Chuck himself at the end of Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God that, in light of the current debate, seems nearly prophetic:

“To say what God says in the Bible - no more and no less - is not always easy, comfortable, or completely understandable. But Scripture tells us that the wisdom from above will be loving and kind toward all, seeking the unity of the believers, not trying to find ways to divide and separate from one another. May God help us all to love each other, to be kind, tenderhearted, forgiving one another as Jesus Christ has forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32)! In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO!

Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching.

Seek those things that produce the loving nature of Jesus in our lives. I would rather have the wrong facts and a right attitude, than right facts and a wrong attitude. God can change my understanding of the facts in a moment, but it often takes a lifetime to effect changes of attitude.”

In Jesus,

Benjamin Morrison

Pastor of CC Svitlovodsk, Ukraine

Why I'm Glad the Church Is Shrinking

 

I had not actually planned to write a post on this.  I assumed that someone, or rather plenty of someones, would be offering up their thoughts on the silver lining of this statistical cloud.  I was surprised to find that in most of the commentaries and articles I read no one was doing this, but that most of what I was hearing was lamenting or coping strategies.  In case you missed the report, the official number of Protestant Christians in America has dipped below 50% of the population for the first time "ever" (by which I take it to mean since the European settlers ran all the Native American pagans out. ;)  The general reaction to this news from most Christians seems to be a mix of despair, self-castigation for not doing a better job, warnings of impending doom, and calls to redouble our efforts at discipleship.  Though this loss of majority privilege might certainly provoke some Christians to examine ourselves and how we are answering the call of the Great Commission to make disciples (something we should've been doing without statistical provocation), I believe it is no reason to despair, but, if anything, to be glad.

First we need to understand what this statistical shift signifies.  Is what we are seeing a mass exodus of true believers from the church?  A large-scale apostasy?  I'd wager not.  The fact is, the statistics show that 48% of America still self-identifies as Protestant.  If that number doesn't seem outright laughable, you have a poor definition of what Protestant means.  Nowhere near even that many are.  It used to be (and for quite a few Americans still is) that to be born in the USA is to be a Protestant.   There was a time when you couldn't get a bank loan without membership at a church, or at the very least a synagogue.  (Did we really think that policy was bound to make sincere and deep Christians?)  Wikipedia defines a Protestant as a member in "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth."  Do we really think that even close to 48% of the population of the country believe these things (with exception to the point about the pope ;)?  It would be wonderful, but such is not the case.

So what's happening is NOT a decline of real, Protestant believers, but a purging of nominal Christians.  This statistical decline depicts not the death of the church, but rather of Christendom: a society-wide structure based on some generic Christian values in which everyone considers themselves Christian by default, simply because they were born into the system.  But the reality is there are no default Christians!  You don't get to call yourself a Protestant just because you were born in America and hold some vaguely Christians understandings, the same way you don't get to call yourself a fish just because you were born in the bathtub and like to swim on vacation.  The issue is that in America, the default religion is Protestantism, the same way that in Italy it's Catholicism (88%) or in Ukraine it's Eastern Orthodoxy (around 70%).  But the truth is that in none of these countries does even a fraction of the population actually and sincerely believe in the teachings of its particular default religion.  That is, they are nominal - believers in name only.  So what is responsible for this trend in America?

One commentary on the new statistics from the linked article lays it out this way:

"'Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,' said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. 'In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be.'"  

In other words, now that you don't need to be a member of a church to get a bank loan, the people who were in the church only for superficial reasons linked with Christendom are leaving.  Nominal Christians no longer have to keep up the pretense because the belief that to be a decent American means you must go to church on Sunday has all but disappeared.  What that inevitably means is that, while the numbers of people who call themselves Protestant may be declining, the number of real believers is not.  In fact, there are at least two reasons why this trend is positive.

First, this presents an exciting opportunity to share the Gospel.  There is practically no one harder to share the Gospel with than someone who thinks they already know it but doesn't; with someone who thinks they are already a Christian but they aren't.  At least when someone says they are not a Christian or believe in "nothing in particular", there is a possibility of an honest dialogue.  But it is often much harder to tell someone who thinks he's a Christian that he needs to become a Christian.  I would personally much rather have a conversation with someone who recognizes Christianity and the Gospel as something they don't currently believe and is willing to debate it with me than try to convince someone who is simply putting on the Christian show that they are not actually a Christian.  History bears out this sharp and honest distinction as beneficial.  It was the prostitutes and thieving tax collectors who came to Jesus, not the Pharisees who thought they were already good to go.  It was, ultimately and generally speaking, the Gentiles of places like Corinth that were more open to Paul's message than the population of Jerusalem (though there were certainly not a few of the Jewish people who came to faith as well.)  Even in our own days, the growth rate of the Evangelical church is highest in countries that are NOT part of the Christendom structure.  Of course, the residual problem in America is that many of even those who no longer affiliate with the Protestant church think they know what the Gospel is.  Therefore, the exodus of nominal Christians from the church is not a panacea to this problem, but at least they aren't lying to themselves anymore about believing it, and that's a step in the right direction. 

The second reason we should be glad for this change is that, ultimately, this trend will beautify the church.  If those who are not serious about faith in Christ, those who were Protestant in name only or were so out of a vague sense of patriotic affiliation leave the church, that means that the people who stay will be more and more those who truly love Jesus and want to worship Him with their lives.  Granted, there will still be plenty of nominal Christians in the church unless some kind of serious persecution begins, but nevertheless, the trend of the church being pruned of dead branches will ultimately lead to a greater vibrancy, attractiveness to those outside, and therefore fruitfulness.  Pruning might be painful, but it is a reason for hope, not for despair.  It is a condition of life, not a mark of death.  It seems to me the reason that many Christians begin to panic over these statistics is that we, in a stereotypical super-size mentality, often confuse quantity with quality and think that bigger numbers must necessarily mean the church is better off when this is very contradictory to the biblical picture.  In fact, the stated preference of God in Scripture is that people who come in vain would do better to stop pretending and just not come (Mal. 1:10 and Rev. 3:15-16 come to mind.) 

So though the pruning process might not be fun, might entail some real pain for churches and truly require us to adapt in order to be witnesses in a "post-Christian" society, the truth is that society was never "Christian" in the first place, only "Christianized" and that this change is ultimately not something to fear or cause despair, but to applaud, because ultimately it just means that people are finally getting honest with themselves and others and that's something we should all be able to agree is a good thing.