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.

Review of Center Church by Tim Keller

I can't remember ever winning anything for free in my life.  I recently entered a drawing for a free copy of Tim Keller's Center Church at this blog.  When I showed up at my local post office to pick up a package a month or so later, I had forgotten all about it.  Then I opened the package to find this wonderful surprise inside.  I have to say, having read so far only a third of it (it is by far Keller's thickest book and I am a slow reader), I would gladly pay many times the cover price for this brilliant resource. (Btw, EVERY page in my copy is as marked up as the picture above.  The whole book should just come dipped in highlighter ink. ;)  The only stipulation for those who won the drawing was to write a review of the book during the week of Sept. 24th, hence my review being written before I am actually done with the book.

Full disclosure: I am a Keller fan...  as in he is hands down my favorite living teacher.  I've listened to literally hundreds of his sermons and used some of his materials for courses I've taught in the church I pastor in Ukraine.  For those of you who listen to Keller, you may be wondering how much of the material in this book you've heard before.  So far (I'm on chapter 10), I'd say that I've heard about 75% of the material in the book in various sermons of his, particularly the Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World course he did with Ed Clowney, the Blueprint for Spiritual Revival series, and the Redeemer conferences.  However, the way that this book synthesizes all this incredible material and fills it out makes it not redundant in the least but rather enriching and engaging.  I realize it may sound a bit presumptuous for only having read a third of the book, but in my opinion this could very well be the most important book for ministers to read outside the Bible.  Yes, it really is that good.

The introduction very succinctly lays out the explanation of the title of the book: that proper balance in ministry is necessary for fruitfulness.  The three balances are on the axes of Gospel, City and Movement.  The balance he refers to in each can be summed up in the following premises:

1) We preach neither legalism nor license, but the Gospel (which Keller rightly points out later is technically not "in between" these two options, but a completely different thing all together.)

2) We neither capitulate to culture not insulate from it, but seek to redeem what we can for the sake of the Gospel.

3) We see the church neither as organization completely nor as organism, but as being a hybrid between the two (leaning more towards organism). 

Keller compellingly weaves his own story and experience into the principles in this book.  Yet he steers away from the temptation to make his own experience the rule for ministry.  Rather he takes the idea of a "theological vision" as dictating how a ministry runs.  This is the middle ground between doctrinal foundation and ministry expression.  Keller lays this all out in the intro very precisely (would you expect any less?).  The intro alone is worth the price of the book (all of which can be read on Amazon.  Read it and convince yourself.)

The first section really gets to the theological heart behind everything else presented here.  This section brilliantly lays out what the Gospel is and what it is not.  Keller lays out the difference between the Gospel and legalism on the one hand and anti-nomianism (license to sin) on the other.  This section deals with the plot lines of Scripture and seeing Christ as the resolution to each one.  Keller lays out how the Gospel itself is not merely the key to justification but to sanctification; that we grow spiritually as we more deeply come to see the implications of the Gospel for our lives and believe it.  Additionally, Keller gets into the idea of "Gospel Renewal" (part 2 of the book.)  In this section, he draws heavily on Richard Lovelace's work, Dynamics of Spiritual Revival (definitely on my wishlist!)  This is an incredible section on the marks of true revival (similar points to his sermon series Blueprint for Spiritual Revival, but further expanded.)

The second section gets into the question of contextualization: how should the believer relate to the world and how should they present the Gospel to the world?  He lays out the Scriptural basis for this and lays out an approach for humble yet confident contextualization of the Gospel. Having been a cross-cultural missionary for over 10 years now, this section is fascinating to me and even after having a bit of experience under my belt in hashing through these ideas, I was challenged to re-assess my own contextualization of the Gospel in the culture I minister in.  The truth is that every believer needs to go through this process concerning the culture they are in.  If it is their own native culture, this process becomes all the more necessary.  This section also includes lots of practical examples. 

It would be unfair to really comment further than I have read, though I am certain the rest of the book will be as excellent as the beginning and am looking forward to the rest.  Bottom line: do yourself, the church you minister in, and the city you live in a huge favor and order this book. 

Sanctification with a pickle on top? or, Why Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich

I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between.  "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;)  The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.

It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day.  This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?)  This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.

Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty!  WWJDF?  What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that.  To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side.  The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value.  Yep, you heard me.  Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos.  Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.

Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything.  Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness.  Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods.  Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products?  Good luck.  What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about?  What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands?  What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy?  Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden.  If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes.  Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy. 

Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument.  The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians.  In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.  The issue of the day was buying meat at the market.  Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market.  What was Paul's answer?  Boycott meat?  At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)?  Nope.  He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse."  So much for "moral consumerism".  Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want.  It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against.  Eat it and thank God. 

I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value.  First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods.  If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving?  Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him?  What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal?  The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky.  It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners.  See practical reason #1).  But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.

And here we come to the next point.  The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic.  The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time.  I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism".  Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess.  But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company.  "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM!  Imagine that.  Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.

And here we get back to the Apostle.  He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love.  If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain.  If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him.  If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A.  The point of our freedom is to use it to love others.  Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter.  Why you eat it does.  And the reason in these choices should be because you love others.  If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.

El fin.  Rant, done. ;)  Comments welcome!

social justice in the church: the necessity and the danger

Recently I've been hearing (and reading) lots of people take strong stances on the question of social justice in the life of the church.  These opinions are as varied as "if you're not actively participating in programs to serve the poor and marginalized, you're a horrible Christian", to "social justice is not the calling of the church and is a distraction from the Great Commission."

As for the idea of social justice being a distraction from the church's true calling, this just doesn't seem like a serious argument to me, or one with any biblical foundation anyway.  It really only requires taking a look at perhaps the one Christian who fulfilled the Great Commission like no other: the Apostle Paul.  When Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the other Apostles about how God had been working salvation among the Gentiles through him, fulfilling the Great Commission in an unprecedented way, their reply was that they "perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:9-10)  Far from being a distraction from the Great Commission, the early church and Paul himself looked on issues of social justice as inseparable from the Great Commission.  Their encouragement to Paul is not "make sure you don't let anything distract you from that, Paul", but rather that social justice MUST be part of the Great Commission.  Can anyone really read the epistle of James or 1st John and doubt the importance of social justice in the life of the believer?  I'm not going to attempt a full, theological justification of the necessity of social justice ministry in the church in this blog post.  If anyone is in need of convincing, I'd simply recommend reading Generous Justice, by Tim Keller.

However, I do believe there is a potential danger in the recent awakening to social justice.  That danger is not in the recognition of the need for justice, nor in our call to pursue it, but rather in the motives and goals we hold behind the pursuit.  It is no coincidence that the majority of the noise surrounding the church's call to social justice is coming from developed countries where there is a justice system in tact.  In the rare (read "western") corners of the world where justice is the accepted standard of society, there is a subtle temptation to import the value of justice from society at large into the church, without examining its form and source. 

If the ardor behind our pursuit of justice is the expectation of establishing a just system rather than out of love of our neighbor and to manifest the nature of the coming kingdom, we will burn out and not really be fulfilling the biblical call to social justice.  In other words, there is a danger of seeing ourselves as the fountainhead of justice rather than waiting expectantly for the returning Judge.  Western society, where this renewed call to social justice in the church is strongest, generally supports the value of justice for the individual (compared with the rest of the world anyway).  But has the growing cause of justice in secular society been born from spiritual insight into the character of God?  Is it not more likely the result of abandoning any belief in ultimate, eternal justice and hence there arises our need to create our own justice here and now?  And therein is the danger: that as the church pursues justice she will do so in a way no differently from society at large.  She will merely mimic the secular pursuit of justice.  The danger is that our pursuit of justice ceases to be a manifestation of love to our neighbor and a sign of the coming kingdom of Christ, and rather flows from a desire to control our circumstances, to mitigate our own suffering in the world, and from a lack of real belief in the ultimate justice of the Judge of the living and dead.  The truth is that our pursuit of justice can flow just as much from a lack of faith in the coming justice of God as it can from our obedience to the Judge and in conformation to His character.

The church is called to social justice, but we must understand why and from what motive.  The church is called to transformation into Christ's image and to love our neighbor, therefore social justice is not an optional activity for the Christian.  See, we can hardly pretend to be loving our neighbor if we are indifferent to his suffering (though many do).  This is the whole point of John's rhetorical question in his first epistle: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 Jn. 3:17)  John goes on to make the point that anyone who doesn't love his brother but says he loves God is a liar.  Therefore, it's true that if we neglect questions of social justice and shut up our hearts from others' suffering, we ARE horrible Christians.  But we must be sure that the motives behind our pursuit of justice are namely these: that we pursue social justice out of love for our neighbor, because God loves him or her and calls us to be conformed to His image.  We do so not in expectation that we as the church will be capable of creating perfect conditions where justice flourishes.  In fact, our attempts may not actually change the structures of justice at all.  Another way of saying this is that we pursue social justice as a manifestation of love, as a reflection of the kingdom of God in which Jesus will establish complete and ultimate justice.  We must not forget that we, as believers in Christ, though being the firstfruits of the inaugurated kingdom of God, are not currently in the fully realized version of that kingdom.  Neither is it through our efforts that this realization will come about, but through the return of the King to establish His kingdom. 

I have lived the last 10 years of my life in a country that lacks a just society (at least compared with North America or Western Europe).  Sons of millionaries and members of parliament rape and pillage (literally) whatever and whoever they want and are rarely called to account for it.  Workers in factories labor in conditions that would be considered animal cruelty in the west.  The honest are few and far between and usually suffer for their integrity.  Even rarer are those who would step up to defend the helpless for fear that they would be the ones to bear the blame (and history has often justified this fear.)  Corruption among those who are supposed to uphold justice is so pervasive that people openly joke about it. (One of those "we laugh so we don't cry" kind of things.) The government is interested primarily in stuffing its own pockets rather than caring for the welfare of its citizens.  And it is in that context that I am called to seek justice for my neighbors as a manifestation of love.  What must be the goal?  If the calling is the creation of a just society by my efforts (or even those of the church at large), there is cause for despair.  But if the calling is to come along side the victims, the oppressed, the marginalized and take their suffering as my own and to work to the extent of my ability to serve their tangible needs as a reflection of the coming kingdom where this will be realized, that pursuit of justice can be a true act of love regardless of the outcome.  Sometimes this pursuit yields results (my clout as one of only 2 Americans in the city does tend to improve the attitudes of the government employees I've had to deal with in seeking to serve others, and I am grateful for God's providence in that), but mostly not.  The danger of the pursuit of social justice as a goal in itself becomes very clear, very quickly.  In the framework of corruption and abuse of power, "justice" as an end in itself may never be achieved.  However, justice as a manifestation of compassion, empathy and love will not be diminished or frustrated by its practical results.  We must see that coming along side to take the suffering of the oppressed and marginalized on ourselves is already a victory as it manifests the love of the God who came to bear our suffering, regardless of if temporal justice is served or not.

thoughts?