Evangelical Reformation

The January issue of Christianity Today reports that according to the findings of George Barna about one third of Americans are unchurched. Perhaps a more surprising statistic is that about 35% of the unchurched, approximately 23 million of them, claim to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important to them. Therefore, these unchurched people are not nominal Christians, those born into a Christian culture and family but who have conveyed no personal interest in their faith. Rather, they see themselves as committed believers, and it seems that at some level they may be.

At first blush it may appear that these findings are somewhat paradoxical. How can a person be committed to Christ and yet not respond to the teaching of Scripture regarding meeting with His people? Perhaps some might conclude that these people are just being dishonest. Their claim to a commitment to Christ is not genuine.

However, a better explanation is found in an understanding of the Christ to whom they have committed themselves. Evangelicals across the past several decades have been introducing people to a Christ who supports them in their insistence on living life on their own terms. That is the Christ they heard about when the gospel was presented to them. That gospel did not include repentance, turning from their lordship of their own lives, but merely involved receiving forgiveness of sin and eternal life as a free gift. This no strings attached message provides no connection with church attendance.

As believers (or at least as those who have responded to this message) they have been assured that this no-commitment relationship represents a true understanding of Christianity. They have been taught that their relationship with Jesus is not affected by their performance. He accepts them unconditionally. This being the case, for practical purposes whether or not they go to church is their option. Even if the Bible indicates that they should go to church, whether or not they do has no impact on their relationship with Christ. He accepts them regardless of whether they go to church or not, and they can likewise accept themselves regardless of their “performance.”

This Christianity-on-my-terms is reflected in many areas other than church attendance. Perhaps one of the most blatant manifestations of this attitude is found in unmarried couples who are living together who view themselves as being committed to Christ. Those who think that such couples are rare are not in touch with contemporary evangelical Christianity. Though most of my interactions are with rather conservative evangelical groups and organizations, I frequently run into this phenomenon.

I find the responses when I confront those involved in this lifestyle especially interesting. Perhaps the most common response is, “How dare you judge me.” Another typical response is total perplexity: “I can’t imagine what you are talking about.”

There is a need for an evangelical reformation that brings people to recognize that belief in Christ includes recognition of His lordship and submission to His authority. Only then will the evangelical church enjoy the spiritual vitality necessary to be salt and light in our culture.

You gotta love this one. A uniquely refreshing piece of contemporary evangelical literature.

One night I had a wondrous dream,
One set of footprints there were seen,
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.

But then some stranger prints appeared,
And I asked the Lord, “What have we here?
Those prints are large and round and neat,
“But Lord, they are too big for feet.”

“My child,” he said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you alone.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and made me wait.”

“You disobeyed, you would not grow,
The walk of faith, you would not know,
So I got tired, I got fed up,
And there I dropped you on your butt.”

“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must fight, and one must climb,
When one must rise and take a stand,
Or leave their butt prints in the sand.”

I don’t know who wrote “Butt Prints in the Sand.” If you do, please e-mail me and let me know.

I love it because in the midst of all of the syrupy stuff about God being there for me regardless of how I live, that is, the unbiblical “performance doesn’t matter” rhetoric of contemporary evangelical culture, here we find a biblical treatment of our relationship with God. No, our waywardness does not produce a loss of salvation (though in some cases it should cause us to ask if we ever were saved—see 1 Cor 6:9ff), it does result in breech of fellowship and chastening.

We need an evangelical reformation that warns us against indifferent and rebellious attitudes and actions in our spiritual lives. We need to know that God does not take kindly to this kind of disrespect, that if we don’t repent and clean up our act we might find our butt print in the sand.

Character is like a muscle. It develops with use. When an individual facing adversity rises above it, he will be a little stronger for the next test. Each time he disciplines himself to make the hard but right choice, he develops more character.

Most of the more popular approaches to psychological therapy view a person as a victim incapable of overcoming his problems. In response, they provide him with a way of resolving his problems other than exercising the discipline required to overcome them. This in turn prevents the individual from building character.

For example, if a person has an anger problem the Freudian approach assumes that he is incapable of overcoming it through the exercise of discipline. Therefore the therapist teaches him to deal with it through mechanisms such as ventilation, identifying the incident in the past that is believed to be the source of the anger, and then expressing hostility toward the offending person. Doing so requires no character.

Yes, numerous psychologists would tell us about how hard it is for the individual to go back and face all of that again and what character is requires to express anger as he relives the situation. The fact is that psychologists are always asking us to believe things that are counterintuitive—that the king is really wearing clothes. The reality is that it feels good to blow our stacks at those who have injured us. It does not require character to do so. It requires character not to do so. Encouraging the individual to ventilate rather than to control his anger weakens rather than strengthens character.

The psychologist would insist that not expressing anger is just “stuffing it,” and that all that pent-up hostility is the source of all kinds of pathologies. This is only true if the person dwells on the injury done. He must move on in his thinking, a discipline that also requires and builds character. Concluding that the individual is incapable of controlling his thoughts, of not dwelling on past offense, removes another opportunity to build character.

The Rogerian approach to therapy also absolves the individual of his need to exercise discipline. Rather than confronting wrong done by the individual, the Rogerian therapist is taught to accept him unconditionally. Therefore, the therapist, rather than challenging the individual to deal with his problems, assures him that he is okay regardless of what he has done. If the individual is okay as he is, he is never required to exercise the discipline to change, and therefore he is deprived of the opportunity to develop character.

Evangelicals have bought heavily into both of these approaches to counseling, especially the Rogerian model. Therefore, many in the evangelical community suffer from the same lack of character that is prevalent in secular society. A part of the needed Evangelical Reformation is rejection of the victim mentality and the corresponding call to individual responsibility. This will encourage the development of character necessity to live godly lives.