“Cheap Grace?” by Dr. Roy Zuck
This blog is by guest contributor, Dr. Roy Zuck. Dr. Zuck is Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary and the editor of the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra. He is the author or editor of many books including Basic Bible Interpretation, Bible Knowledge Commentary, A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament and A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Dr. Zuck is one of ABI’s endorsing theologians.
__________________________
Must a person submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? If he did not make Christ Lord of his life at the moment of salvation, is he now saved? If an unsaved person did not consciously surrender every area of his life to the control of Christ, was he genuinely saved?
Advocates of “lordship salvation” (the belief that a person must surrender every area of his or her life to Christ’s absolute control in order to be saved) contend that one cannot receive Christ as Savior from sin without also receiving Him as Lord of one’s entire life. Why do they promote this view? One reason is their concern over so many people who say they are Christians but give little or no evidence of a changed life. According to lordship adherents, those so-called Christians are not genuinely born-again—they only say they are saved. Since those professing believers were not challenged to obey Christ, to surrender all to Him, they may well be lost. Others claim omitting the requirements of commitment, obedience, and self-denial makes salvation too easy. They say it cheapens grace by de-emphasizing the cost of becoming a Christian. Therefore unless a person is a dedicated disciple of Christ, he is not a Christian at all. To become a Christian, a person must give up everything, renounce his own will and plans and give up every sin.
But is this view correct? How does it compare with what the Bible teaches about salvation?
Common Emphases
Let’s look at several truths with which those who teach lordship salvation and those who do not can agree.
1. Faith is not merely intellectual assent.
Salvation involves more than understanding certain facts and mentally acquiescing to those facts. In coming to Christ for salvation, a sinner acknowledges that as a sinner, he cannot save himself, that Christ died for him as his Substitute, and that he can have eternal life through faith in Christ. But in coming to Christ a sinner also is emotionally sensing and acknowledging his desperate need, and is volitionally turning to Christ. To “believe” means more than accepting the facts in one’s mind. It is an act of volition, an exercise of the will.
2. A person may say he is a Christian but not actually be saved.
Judas is an example of a professing but no genuine follower of Christ. He was even a “disciple” (Matt. 10:1). In other words it is not merely enough to claim to be a Christian. However, others cannot always tell if a person is saved. Even Judas for a time deceived others into thinking he was regenerate.
3. Repentance is a genuine part of salvation.
Repentance is included in believing. Faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin. Genuine faith includes repentance, and genuine repentance includes faith. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means to change one’s mind. But to change one’s mind about what? About sin, about one’s adequacy to save himself, about Christ as the only way of salvation, the only One who can make a person righteous.
Repentance is not a feeling of remorse or anguish over sin, nor an exercise in recounting past transgressions. Repentance is a turning from sin, while faith is turning to Christ. A change of outlook toward both sin and Christ, as Lewis Sperry Chafer has noted, “promotes a change in the course being pursued.”
Peter said to the Jews, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped” (Acts 3:19). Barnabas and Paul told the people of Lystra to “turn from these worthless things to the living God” (Acts 14:15). Paul reported to the Ephesians elders that he had preached to Jews and Gentiles that they “must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:21). To the Thessalonian believers Paul wrote that they had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). When a person accepts Christ as his Savior, he is simultaneously turning to God (faith) and from sin (repentance).
4. The life of a true believer is changed.
Everyone “in Christ” is a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). He has been regenerated, justified, reconciled, redeemed, and made a child of God. The Holy Spirit has baptized (placed) him into the body of Christ, indwelt him, and sealed him. Genuine believers practice righteousness (1 John 3:7, 9) and obey Christ’s commands, though, as will be discussed later, they may falter at times, some more than others. The Holy Spirit’s presence and work in a believer’s life will result in some fruit. Some evidence of a changed life will be seen at some time in his life, while no change whatever over a long period of time may well reveal a person is not saved at all (see 1 Tim. 5:24-25; 1 John 2:19).
5. True believers will sin; no one is perfect this side of heaven.
Some advocates of lordship salvation, however, speak as if perpetual spiritual progress is inevitable, as if obedience is flawless and continual. Other lordship proponents, however, recognize that when a Christian sins, the Holy Spirit seeks to make him sensitive to his need for confession of sin and for restored fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:9).
Problems in lordship salvation
Several problems, however, exist in the “lordship” approach to the gospel.
1. Lordship salvation may dilute the idea of salvation as a free gift.
If I offer my wife a gift and then tell her it will cost her something to get it, it is no longer a gift. Salvation is a gift from God. But if someone says a person must commit, surrender, obey, forsake all, or deny self in order to receive that gift and be saved, that implies that salvation is not a gift after all.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “If you knew the gift of God . . . you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (John 4:10). Romans 5:15 speaks of “the gift that came by [God’s] grace.” According to Romans 6:23, “The gift of God is eternal life.” Salvation by God’s “surpassing grace” is “his indescribable gift” (2 Cor. 9:14-15).
2. Lordship salvation may confuse consecration with conversion.
The lordship view does not clarify the distinction between sanctification and justification, or between discipleship and sonship. It mixes the condition with the consequences. It confuses becoming a Christian with being a Christian.
True, a person who is justified by God’s grace is sanctified positionally, set apart to God at the moment of salvation. But that is when the Holy Spirit begins His work of ongoing sanctification, not finishes it. One follows the other. Discipleship starts at rebirth and should continue on after it.
Regeneration pertains to one’s relationship to Christ as Savior from sin. Sanctification, on the other hand, pertains to one’s relationship to Christ as his Lord and Master. In the new birth a person is made a new creation in Christ; in sanctification he grows in that relationship.
3. Lordship teaching seems to add works to salvation.
Though advocates of this teaching deny their view leads to adding works to salvation, the view itself does not give that impression. If a person must do something to be saved, he is adding to salvation. Repeatedly the Bible clearly states that salvation comes only by receiving it by faith. Jesus said to a woman, “Your faith has saved you” (Luke 7:50). He did not say, “Your faith and your commitment have saved you.”
A person can become a child of God only by believing, as John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 20:31; acts 16:31 and other verses make abundantly clear. Faith, not faith and surrender or obedience, is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:5). Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved, through faith”—not through faith plus surrender (Eph. 2:8). Faith in Christ as Savior is the only way of salvation. To add to faith, to add to receiving God’s gift of eternal life is to alter the gospel.
4. Lordship salvation can cause some genuine believers to lack assurance of salvation.
Those who promote lordship salvation suggest there is no middle ground. Either a person is a genuine believer and is living a life of unreserved obedience, or he cannot be sure he is saved. As one writer put it, “To know assurance you have to see a pattern of holiness . . . . Therefore, if you are not denying ungodliness, you cannot be certain you are really saved.”
But what of a person who has been genuinely born again but is still struggling with some sin in his or her life? According to the lordship doctrine, his salvation is questionable. As a result he doubts his salvation. He asks himself, “Did I really accept Christ as my Savior?” I thought I did, but this struggle with sin now makes me wonder. Must I be saved again to be sure of my salvation?
Losing one’s salvation is not what lordship salvation proponents believe, yet ironically their system causes some genuine believers to doubt their salvation and wonder if they need to be saved again. And again! This obviously contradicts the biblical teaching of a believer’s security in Christ (see John 3:16; 5:24; 6:37; 10:28-29; Rom. 8:29-30).
5. Lordship salvation raises the question of how much commitment is enough.
How much must a person’s life change in order for him to be saved? How can he know at the moment of salvation if he is giving up everything? Must a person sell all his possessions and give them to the poor (Matt. 19:21) to be saved? Must a person hate his parents (Luke 14:26) in order to be saved? Must a person be perfect as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48)? Must he relinquish all anger, jealousy, lust, pride, selfishness, bitterness, swearing, worry, hatred? Has anyone ever done these things? If not, is anyone genuinely saved? And how can someone do any of these things if he is still unregenerate, has no spiritual life, and has no receptivity to spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)?
Some advocates of lordship salvation respond by say a person coming to Christ must be willing to relinquish these things. But is that not an entirely different matter? Willingness to do something is not the same thing as actually doing it, and does not answer the question, “How much commitment is necessary?” If Lordship proponents do not mean a person must surrender everything to be saved, then why do they say all must be surrendered?
6. Lordship salvation limits the meaning of the word “disciple.”
To most Lordship advocates a disciple already means one who is totally committed to the Lord. But this view that “believers” and “disciples” are always synonyms overlooks the fact that in Scripture the word “disciples” is used of (1) curiosity seekers who later left Jesus and obviously were not genuinely saved (John 6:66); (2) true followers of Christ (Acts 11:26); (3) and the Twelve—including Judas (Matt. 10:1). In the lordship salvation view, a person who is not a disciple of the Lord (in the sense of being a fully committed Christian) is not saved. Obviously this can bring confusion and doubt.
True, in becoming a Christian, a person enters into a discipleship relationship, in which he is now under a new authority, a new Head—the Lord. He becomes a disciple, but then grows in that discipleship as he walks with the Lord.
7. Room for spiritual growth and for spiritual regression in the Christian life is not allowed for—or at least is de-emphasized—in lordship salvation.
If one commits everything to Christ to be saved, where is there room for growth and development in the Christian life, as the Bible clearly encourages? And what happens if a believer falls into sin?
The lordship gospel does not make much allowance for carnality. Not that carnality is condoned or should go unchallenged. But it is seen in the Bible. To say that every true believer consistently obeys the Lord overlooks examples of many believers in the Bible who lapsed into sin. Peter denied the Lord but did not lose his salvation. Lot was called a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7) though much of his conduct was not admirable. When Abraham lied, or Job challenged God, or Moses disobeyed, or David committed adultery and murder, were they unbelievers? Obviously not. Did they lose their salvation? Again, the answer is no. But they did lose their fellowship with the Lord and needed, as David wrote, to have the joy of their salvation restored (Ps. 51:12). Confession was necessary (1 John 1:9).
Carnal Christians—Christians living in sin—look like the unsaved (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Therefore we cannot always tell whether a person living in sin is a Christian or not. Only God knows the heart. Paul addressed members of the Corinthian church as believers (1 Cor. 1:2) and “brothers” (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:1; 3:1; 12:1; 15:1, 58), yet they were guilty of gross misconduct. Did that mean they were unsaved? No. Paul did not deny their salvation; instead he admonished them to deal with their sin as believers.
All Christians struggle with temptation and sin. But the Bible urges us not to succumb and instead to make use of the spiritual resources provided by God’s Word, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and prayer.
What about verses that seem to support lordship salvation? Some vers of the Bible refer to unbelievers coming to Christ in obedience. Are these referring to commitment to a life of obedience? No—they are challenging unbelievers to obey by turning to Christ in faith (see Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 5:9).
When Jesus told the Samaritan woman to call her husband (John 4:16), He was not telling her to deal with her sin of adultery before she could be saved. He was pointing out the fact of her sin and showing her the He is the Messiah, as proved by his knowledge of her situation without being told (vv. 17-19).
What about Matthew 7:16, 20, which tells us that “by their fruit you will recognize them”? While it is true that believers will bear at least some fruit in their lives, it will not be evident to the same degree in all believers all the time. At some given moment, if a Christian is in sin his life may seem to others to be no different from the unregenerate. But in Matthew 7:16, 20 Jesus was speaking of those who had total lack of fruit. His hearers called Him, “Lord” but were evildoers (vv.21-23). They had never turned to Him in faith and repentance.
A free gift, received by faith
Salvation then is a gift, to be received by faith or trust in Christ, apart from any additional requirements or demands. A sinner becomes a child of God by faith in Christ as his Savior. Then as a believer his is to grow in Christ, to develop as a disciple, to make Christ Lord or Master of all areas of his life.
Assurance of salvation is based on the Word of God (John5:24; 10:28-29; 1John 5:9-13), not on good works. One’s good works, however, can demonstrate to others that he is saved. Lordship salvation proponents say the way to deal with the problem of professing Christians—people who say they are saved but whose lives don’t match their lips—is to inquire whether they submitted to the lordship of Christ at the time of their alleged salvation. However, a better answer is to challenge true believers who are seemingly not committed to become His disciples, to grow in their walk with the Lord, and to obey Him as their Master. That is the ongoing challenge of the Christian life.
Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics
I am writing from Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, in the middle of the second annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.
One of the first charges leveled against dispensationlists and dispensationalism is that this system of theology lacks all academic credibility and depth. It is further often charged that dispensationalism and particularly its eschatological aspects, such as the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Millennium are not found in the Bible and cannot be supported by responsible exegesis.
If there is anything that one can learn from being here at this conference, it is that these charges as simple, flat dismissals of dispensationalism are quite misguided and often based primarily upon caricatures and straw-man argumentation and even ad homimem arguments. The presentations and followup discussions have demonstrated a level of scholarship, along with a commitment to Christ and His Word, that is truly unassailable. One might come to different conclusions concerning certain passages, as do Covenant theologians, Promise theologians and Progressive Dispensationalists, but it certainly cannot be on the basis of academic weakness, lack of biblical integrity or problems of personal character and commitment.
My purpose in writing this is not to get into the very technical exegetical discussions of this conference, but rather to be an encouragement to those who do hold to a dispensational view of Scripture and God’s program in history, yet who also find themselves under pressure and even under fire from others who do not share these views. I can assure you that this view of Scripture is thoroughly faithful to the Word of God and a very consistent way of handling all of the relevant biblical passages. And I would go further to say that dispensationalism is the result of the most consistent handling of the whole counsel of God.
In the coming weeks and months, we will be posting blogs and articles here on the ABI website, that will deal with many of these issues in what we hope will be a very understandable and very practical way.
A number of ministries have sprung up over the last few years to deal with the issues facing believers in the church today – especially those issues related to a departure from long held to historical, conservative evangelical views. However, one of the unique characteristics of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity is that we seek to address these issues from a distinctly dispensational theological perspective, which we believe is the result of a consistent application of a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture. We believe that this approach will most effectively provide information and biblical tools to help believers both evaluate and respond to the many voices and pressures of the day that are coming from those who do not truly share our own commitment to Christ and the Word of God in general.
(To be fair, I do recognize there are other believers of integrity who disagree with dispensationalism who also share a commitment to a biblical hermeneutic – though I would disagree with aspects of their hermeneutic and particularly its application. So, my conclusions should not be construed as a personal attack on those brothers and sisters in any away.)
More later…
Dave James
ABI Ministry Coordinator
Worldviews: Born-Again and Unbiblical? – Part I
Several days ago, I posted a blog with questions / topics proposed by an ABI Facegroup member. This post deals with one of those topics – “worldview.”
_________________________________
It would be natural to expect that Christians would have most of their values, morals, ethics – their overall philosophy of life – to be informed and shaped by principles found in the Bible. However, apparently such an assumption would be inaccurate based on the the results of a survey published by the Barna Group on March 6, 2009.
The survey reports that only 9% of all Americans hold a biblical worldview – which is perhaps higher than one would expect (depending on the definition of “biblical worldview”). However, the alarming (if not completely surprising) statistic is that less than 20% of self-identified born-again Christians hold a biblical worldview.
What is meant by “worldview?”
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online) defines it with the German word “weltanshauung” – and weltanshauung is then defined in this dictionary as:
a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint
Another online dictionary gives the definition in two senses:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
The Barna report, cited above, notes the following concerning “biblical worldview” as used in the survey:
For the purposes of the survey, a “biblical worldview” was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.
From a biblical perspective, this isn’t a particularly demanding set of criteria and reflects a basic philosophy of life that anyone should theoretically embrace if they choose to be identified as “Christian” in any meaningful way. And because this definition of “biblical worldview” is so basic, the fact that many who identified themselves as born-again Christians rejected any of the above criteria is significant.
Obviously (and thankfully), one does not have to be a theologian to enter into a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ. However, there is a problem if we consider ourselves to be born-again, yet do not have a biblical worldview.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul’s discussion of the wisdom of God versus human wisdom, is essentially one of competing worldviews. In this context he writes:
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corintians 2:14, NKJV)
In other words, for some, spiritual truth is beyond their grasp – which would obviously make it impossible to have a thoroughly biblical worldview.
Prior to this, Paul writes:
For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. (1 Corinthians 2:11-12, NKJV)
Paul seems to directly connect the possession of a biblical worldview with possessing the Spirit of God. And only those who are born again are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore this passage raises a couple of important questions that all must consider, including professing Christians:
1) If we do not have a biblical worldview does this have any potential implications concerning our spiritual condition?
And the corollary:
2) If we consider ourselves to be born-again Christians do we actually have a biblical worldview?
In considering these questions, we should probably also recognize that a genuine test for a biblical worldview should be rather more comprehensive and stringent than that used by Barna. On the one hand, this raises the bar in evaluating one’s personal worldview. On the other hand this potentially reduces even further the percentage of those who could be considered to hold a biblical worldview.
How could someone consider himself to be a born-again Christian and yet not have a biblical worldview? And are there philosophical and / or theological trends within American Christianity that allow or even create such a situation?
We will consider these and other questions in the next post on the subject of “Biblical Worldviews.”
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
Important Questions from a Reader
Today, I received an email from an ABI Facebook Group member with some questions and issues that this person would like for us to consider as topics to be addressed on the ABI website and/or blog. I have also encountered these myself in a variety of contexts including ministry situations, articles and books, blogs and forums, conversations and just during personal reflection. I have summarized the main issues below and plan to write on many or most of them in over the next few weeks (or have guest writers contribute, as well.)
So, stay tuned.
(As always, please feel free to comment on the blogs – and also send me your own questions, as well.)
———————————–
Reformed theology: We are seeing this become an increasingly divisive issue within and between churches. Some churches now no longer want to have gospel invitations and didn’t like it that invitations were included in some of the teaching material they had been using. They had concluded that a person could not understand and properly respond to a gospel message the first time they hear it. This also seems to be related to the “Lordship salvation” / “easy believism” debate. (My comments: These also sometimes have implications for other issues that are worth discussing such as dispensational versus Covenant theology, Calvinism versus Arminianism, predestination versus free-will, eternal security versus conditional security, among others.)
The Emergent Church: I get asked about this a lot by many people, including pastors. But I’m also asked this by a lot of lay people and regardless of their role in the church – I would love to be able to refer people to a good, concise article that explains things clearly. On the other hand, I am amazed at how many others don’t even know that this and other major issues are having a profound impact on the church as a whole today.
Worldview: What does “worldview” mean in general – and what does it mean to have a biblical worldview? I have been in at least one rather tense conversation with someone who was struggling to understand that not every believer necessarily has a biblical worldview. Along this line of thought, I was recently involved in one discussion in which the actual “Christian-ness” of a parent’s worldview came into question by on of their teen children – because they appeared to be sort out the idea that there are possibly various degrees of Christianity.
Doctrine: A major issue I frequently encounter is the question, “why does doctrine matter?” For many, the bottom line is that “God is love” and we should all work together on that basis alone. We are seeing a wide variety of beliefs, many contradictory – which cause problems for both those who try to minimize the differences as well as those that are struggling to define core beliefs that essential separation issues. As one example, a few years ago when asked about what his church held to doctrinally the pastor responded, “Well – we are really on the cutting edge of theology here . . . ” We had a lot of discussion about just what that meant – and it just wasn’t very clear. The edge of theology (that lacks clear biblical basis) is not where we want to be nor where we would want our children being trained!
The “homechurch/family integrated church” movement: This thinking is promoted heavily by Vision Forum among others. (Also, the long-term effect / effectiveness of small-groups needs to be examined for results – long-term and short-term.)
Old Earth/Young Earth Creationism: This a big topic causing a lot of discussion a homeschool forum, with some suggestion that perhaps Young Earth Creationism is actually a tool of Satan to divide the church.
Biblically rearing children: Many methods and philosophies are being promoted concerning appropriate education of one’s children. This extends from more moderate mainstream views on responsible schooling – with often more heat than light generated in some discussions. Some are happy to put their children in school because the parents feel it is a comfort to put her children in school knowing that there were people in the government whose job it was to know what was best for her children and to take that burden from her. Others fall to the other extreme – perhaps something in the vein of the “quiverful movement,” Bill Gothard teaching and philosophy and even whether or not youth groups are biblical.
Depending on the context, some of these have turned into real emotional “hot-button” issues.
——————————————
Thank you for taking time to ask about these. We will try to address them in a fair and balanced way. Some might require multiple posts and I may call upon guest writers with greater expertise to write on some of them. Whatever the case, I encourage others to write to me as well – and we will try to address your hottest topics. info@biblicalintegrity.org
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
Church – For People Who *Do* Like Church
(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
The following are examples of some slogans that are currently in use by churches in America (as reported on www.poetpatriot.com):
“Real church…Real People”
“The Church of Tomorrow…Today!”
“Equipping People for Life”
“The Small Church with a Big Dream”
“The Fortified City”
“A Church Where Miracles Happen”
However, there is one slogan in particular that has gained broad usage in recent years: “A Church for People Who Don’t Like Church”
Although I understand what is meant and why it is used, something about this slogan just doesn’t seem quite right.
Several important issues come to mind:
* Christ said that he was going to build his church (Matthew 16:18)
* Believers as a group make up the church as the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23)
* Believers as individuals make up local churches (cf. the greetings and references throughout Paul’s letters)
* Believers are instructed to consistently gather together for mutual encouragement (Hebrews 10:25) – which seems to be a reference to church meetings
* Most of the New Testament letters were written to functioning, organized local churches
* The instructions in Revelation 1-3 were specifically to churches in preparation for the revelation of Christ to the world and the coming judgment
* Everything related to the spiritual life of believers in the New Testament is in the context of the local church
* In the New Testament, it is assumed that believers need and desire to be together; to function as a loving community gathered together in the name of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the body – which is the church
* Unbelievers receive virtually no mention in the letters to the churches except when they pose problems for individual believers or disrupt the normal life of the church through things like false teaching or improper behavior
* The structure, function and responsibilities of the local church is always defined in relation to believers, and in this regard unbelievers are inconsequential to the life of the church (it’s not that they are unimportant for they most certainly are extremely important – to God and to believers, they are just not part of the church).
From these, we learn very important truths about the way a healthy, biblical church should function. We learn prescriptively (through commands) and descriptively (through examples) what churches should be like – what is important, what should be emphasized, how and why things should be done.
First, we learn that church is not something to be disparaged, nor minimized in any sense. It is central to the life of the believer as it facilitates one’s relationship with Christ and with other believers. But this slogan feels a bit like a “bait and switch” – which does disparage church (at least as it has traditionally been understood) – but then offers church in its place. It is an unfortunate word play.
Second, we find that church is for believers, rather than unbelievers or even a mixed group. In fact, more than being just for believers, church is comprised of believers exclusively. Without believers, although there can be a gathering of people – even for religious reasons, it does not constitute a biblical church. Church is by and for believers alone. There is nothing in the New Testament that remotely indicates that the meetings of believers, i.e., local churches, are to be formed or function for the sake of unbelievers or to make them relevant to unbelievers. In fact, a biblical local church, by definition, will not be relevant to unbelievers, because deep spiritual truth is beyond the grasp of someone who has not been born again (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Conversely, to whatever degree a meeting is inherently attractive, understandable, relevant, etc. to unbelievers, to that degree it will cease to be a church meeting. This doesn’t mean that we look for ways to be unattractive, incomprehensible and irrelevant. But it is the work of the Spirit of God in the heart of an unbeliever that makes spiritual truth seem relevant to him or her. No amount of repackaging can accomplish this. And because of this, the contents of the package are usually what is changed. (This doesn’t mean that there can’t be meetings, conferences, seminars, etc. for the sake of reaching out to unbelievers – but that is a different function).
To be fair, the slogan in question reflects a legitimate and well-intentioned attempt to address various problems which include things such as stagnating or decreasing church attendance, ministering to believers who are immersed in a culture that is quickly moving away from Christian principles as the foundation for society, reaching the lost for Christ in the face of a deepening disinterest in all things Christian and a disdain for anything that smacks of promoting moral absolutes.
However, in the process of dealing with these things, the focus and purpose of the church has largely shifted away from being a place of encouragement and ongoing spiritual growth for believers. Instead, the mission of the church is shifting toward to creating a place and an atmosphere that is appealing and non-threatening to primarily the “unchurched” (the lost) and the “dechurched” (the disgruntled). In other words, the new “church” that is emerging is being specifically crafted to be a place for people who don’t like church. This necessarily means that over time worldly philosophies and methodologies will ultimately overwhelm biblical ways of thinking and doing things.
But if believers are called to be separate, to come out from the world, to not be conformed to the world, to be in the world but not of the world, to avoid sinful or even questionable practices – then sooner or later, believers will be driven away from these “church” meetings as churches emerge and evolve into these new forms. Unbelievers may be seeking something, but no matter how it may appear they are not seeking God nor his righteousness (Romans 3:10-11). I fear that many have been deceived into making wholesale changes for the sake of unbelievers, while at the same time driving out untold scores of genuine believers who would dare to resist some of the more radical changes.
Consequently, the new “church” is no longer for people who do like church. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t always be seeking ways to be culturally relevant. But being culturally relevant does not mean to constantly chase the latest trends and philosophies and bring them into the church so people can comfortably relate. To be culturally relevant is to be wise and insightful concerning how to apply biblical principles in such a way to affect change in the lives of believers when they are tempted to conform to ungodly cultural norms.
Unfortunately, biblical exposition tends to be one of the first things that begins changing in the remaking of church so that it is more attractive to those who don’t like church. Expositional messages based on sound exegesis tend to give way to superficially-biblical topical messages dealing with the “felt-needs” of a primary target audience that is either unchurched or dechurched. On the one hand, this group cannot grasp spiritually deep truths and on the other, they are generally easily offended by terms like “sin,” “wrath,” “judgment,” “hell,” etc. Of course, unbelievers are welcome to come into a believers’ meeting, but they will never become a part of the fellowship unless they clearly hear the gospel and the Word of God taught authoritatively and unapologetically.
When the centrality of the Word of God is diminished or even eliminated, then church is no longer for those who do like church. And believers should like church. This isn’t about those who are simply against any kind of change for any reason. This isn’t about self-centeredness. This isn’t about fear of stepping outside of one’s comfort zone. This isn’t about a total lack of concern for a lost world.
However, the sad fact is that often those believers (who are often among the most mature) who do resist this emergence into a new kind of church and new kind of Christianity are regularly criticized and vilified – and many are even told that it would probably be better if they found another church.
Rather, it is about keeping church for born-again believers, because the church is born-again believers – and only born-again believers. It is about making sure that the church is always for people who do like church.
There are innumerable legitimate and creative ways for believers to be salt and light in the world – and reach the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Believers can and should go out into the world, not isolate themselves from it in some kind of monasticism. But we don’t reach the lost by transforming church meetings to model worldly thought and behavior. If we do, then there is nothing left to where believers can go for fellowship and to gain the strength, encouragement, knowledge and wisdom they need to be a wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves in a dangerous world of which our mortal enemy is its prince.
The biblical picture is of shepherding in such a way that none of the flock (who love being near the shepherd) are lost in the process of adding to the size of the flock. Unfortunately, much of what passes for modern church-growth methods amounts to little more than sending large parts of the flock over a cliff, just so they can be replaced by a new larger flock – that really doesn’t know any better.
May we never be part of remaking the church in such a way that those who used to like church, no longer do.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
The Shack: “But it’s just fiction…”
(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
Even though I just posted a review of The Shack on the ABI website by Glenn Kreider, I wanted to take a few moments to further discuss an issue that I have both read and heard in a sort of defense of the book – the “fact” that The Shack is fiction.
Although The Shack was self-published by a then-unknown author, it ended up on Amazon.com, reached “critical mass” through word-of-mouth – and the rest is history.
To put things into perspective concerning the incredible popularity of this book, consider the following statistics for all book sales in 2008 (from Publisher’s Weekly):
#1 - A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle: 5,298,355 copies sold
#2 – The Shack by Wm. Paul Young: 4,432,439 copies sold
Sales of The Shack remain strong this year, with the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association continuing to list the book at #1 this month (up from #3 last month) (I assume this is August over July).
I just checked on Amazon.com and there are currently 3630 reviews of the book. A few months ago, I read through many of the reviews and by far the majority were not just positive – but ranged from “glowing” to “gushing.” The following quote by Scott on January 30, 2008 probably captures the sense of the “best of the best” reviews:
This is probably the most profound and best book I have ever read in my entire life. It has brought me totally back to God. I have never felt better. I totally identified with Mack and the Great Sadness which has been in my life also.
However, despite incredibly strong sales and broad popularity, it has not been received well by many theologians. There has been extensive and sometimes scathing criticism of the theology in the book. And yet for all the negative critiques and many warnings that The Shack has poor theology and is even heretical, there are many more who defend the book on the basis of its effect on them personally. Many attempt to deflect any and all criticism of the book on the basis of it merely being fiction. But this begs the question: Just what was it about The Shack that affected them so deeply at both an emotional and spiritual level? The answer will always be something along the lines of: “It is the presentation of God in a new, insightful, convicting and comforting way.”
What, then, would be the short version of that answer? It is the theology – it is the teaching about God.
So, then how should we classify this novel?
Is it theological fiction?
Or is it fictional theology?
If it is fictional theology, then it is theology that has no biblical basis. That would make it heresy by definition. So, one can’t claim that it is fictional theology and still defend it as a basis for personal spiritual growth, comfort and encouragement.
But what about theological fiction?
If it is theological fiction, then wouldn’t it have something of a parallel in the genre of historical fiction? How does historical fiction work? In general, it uses (and must use) true historical events as a framework for the book. For example, no historical novel could ever put the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1950. If it did, then such a book would be relegated to “fictional history” – and no one would take it seriously from an historical perspective.
However, many people do take The Shack very seriously. And those who do take it seriously now view God differently than they did before. In other words, their theology has changed. But their new theology is not found in the Bible. And not only is this new theology not biblical, it actually contradicts the theology of the Bible. Therefore, any emotional or spiritual impact that The Shack might have is based on something other than the truth – which in other words, is a lie. Quite obviously, believers cannot base their spiritual growth on a lie. If they try to do so, something might happen, but it can’t be called “spiritual growth.”
Beyond this, Glenn Kreider points out in his review that Mr. Young actually admits that the essence of the book is rooted in his own personal experience. He claims to have had conversations with God. In The Shack we don’t simply find monologues by the main character, Mack – but rather dialogues between Mack and God. In some way, this is what Mr. Young is claiming happened to him.
And not only that, but Mr. Young’s purpose for writing the book was to provide some sort of documentation of these conversations with God to his children. In other words, from his perspective he is writing about real events. Real events are the framework – making it theological fiction. This means that Mr. Young’s intention is not to simply write fiction – but to convey what he believes to be real events and very true theology – with fiction only serving as a vehicle. The Shack is essentially a documentary.
Some have suggested that The Shack is the Pilgrim’s Progress of this generation. But make no mistake, John Bunyon’s very clear intent was to convey theology – and he simply used fiction (in this case an allegory) as a vehicle.
In the same way, The Shack is first and foremost a theology book. It is a theology book just as much as is Ryrie’s Basic Theology or those written by Chafer or Grudem or Berkhoff or Geisler.
I continue to hear stories of The Shack being used as a basis for Sunday School lessons and Bible studies. It continues to be recommended among friends, in blogs and in book reviews. But do we really want to be responsible for teaching or recommending something that contains false teaching about God to others? Do we want to attribute our own personal spiritual growth to heretical views of God?
If you haven’t done so, I encourage you to take some time to read the review on the ABI website – and do a search for other articles that discuss the many heretical views set forth in The Shack.
It’s not just fiction.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity