I sat down with a young lady a couple of weeks ago and had a conversation. This was a conversation about faith—her faith. Better put, this was a conversation about a faith that once was and is no more. She was a very interesting and bright lady—inquisitive, well-read, and suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.

Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this betrayal, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever.

One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic pulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. You may have noticed this. I have over a dozen books giving  autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving. I get emails, phone calls, and visits from the same.

No, it is not a neurotic pulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ.

Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.

The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.

First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.

Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure

Step One: Doubt

Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. Continue Reading »

There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.

Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Even though the full document of the Evangelical Manifesto appeared last Wednesday, I have not had a chance to read it until now. And I must say, it’s far more impressive (and longer!) than I expected. It answers the objections that many raised to the notion that to believe in a Christ who is above politics is to believe in the real Jesus and is to be a real Christian. I was fascinated by those who signed this document—folks on the far left politically and those on the far right.

I do have some problems with the Evangelical Manifesto, however. But the problems are not intellectual, nor political, nor ideological. Rather, they are problems with me. There is a strong call to community repentance here, and it begins with the framers of this document. There is a recognition that all of us who go by the name ‘Evangelical’ are in need of repentance. I felt convicted over many things. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

CNN and AP broke the news on Friday, May 3, about a statement by evangelical leaders that is scheduled for release on Wednesday, May 7. Here’s a portion of the story:

Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The declaration encourages Christians to uphold traditional marriage, as in this Massachusetts protest.

The statement, called “An Evangelical Manifesto,” condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

From what I gather, it’s especially focusing on the relation of evangelicals to political concerns. More than 80 evangelical leaders have signed it. Like everyone else, I’m waiting for the full announcement on Wednesday, but from the way the AP story reads, it looks as though the alignment of evangelicalism with conservative politics will be strongly challenged. From where I sit, evangelicals need to emphasize high ethical values in relation not only to abortion but also in relation to civil rights, justice, the environment, fiscal responsibility, etc. One of the things that I’ve found fascinating is that liberal theologians often accent social justice and are troubled by the politically-conservative evangelical one-size-fits-all morality (i.e., focusing just on the abortion issue). I’m not sure why social justice should be the provenance of only liberals. Same with the environment. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Have you noticed it? Do you feel small? Do you feel inadequate to have opinions anymore? Do you feel a heavy hand upon your head? Do you feel demeaned, disenfranchised, demoted?

That is what it is beginning to feel like to be an Evangelical.

There is a new elitism that is sweeping Christianity. Oh, it does not go by any such name. In fact, it claims to be anti-elite. Its characteristics are those which discount opinions with too many raised hands. It promotes evangelical vertigo, western fatigue, and uncertain hope. It goes by many names: emergent, post-colonialism, post-conservative, post-modern, post-fundamental, post-Christian, and the like. It promotes all things “re-.” Re-imagine, re-construct, re-think, re-form, re-(ahem) claim. It is theology 2.0. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have been in some recent conversations with people and have come to find out something very interesting. We cannot use the “L” word any more. LIBERAL. It is “not helpful.”

That really stinks. I thought it was a helpful term. I used it quit often. Why am I always the last person to find out that we cannot use certain terms? Someone needs to start a website with an RSS feed and an email subscription to inform people when terms are no longer helpful.

Who made this decision anyway?

The term “Liberal” has meaning. It has meaning that goes beyond 21st century polemics bent toward the vitalization of the Christian faith. It has meaning that goes beyond the 20th century polemic against modernists who challenged the historicity of the Scripture.

Liberal is both an adjective and a noun that can be used in any context—politics, religion, history, sociology, science, or cooking. It is a rich word. It is a good word. No one can claim its death any more than someone can claim the death of “super,” “great,” “fast,” “brown” or any other random adjective you can think of. The funeral for the “L” word is a bit premature.

In Christianity “liberal” still has meaning. So does “Liberal” (capital L). Neither are going to go away. No matter how much people say that it is a meaningless word, it still has meaning. Bury the word and it will resurface. Sure, maybe its resurrection will not consist of the exact same matter, but it will have the same DNA. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is the Roman Catholic Church unorthodox?  

From the perspective of a Protestant understanding of “orthodoxy,” relations to other traditions can vary. Protestants can be found who believe that any deviation from the developments and articulations found in the Reformation, particularly with regard to justification by faith alone, amounts to abandoning the Gospel completely.

The question is this: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

If a denial of sola fide produces a different Gospel in an absolute sense, then it is, by definition, unorthodox in the most severe way. However, if it deviates from the Gospel causing a distortion of the Gospel, but not a destruction of the Gospel, can it be said to be unorthodox to the degree that the Catholic church is a heretical institution? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

My view of what I call “progressive orthodoxy” allows for maturation and development in our understanding of orthodoxy. Here is the definition I gave in the last blog:

Progressive Orthodoxy: The belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Progressive orthodoxy, like paleo-orthodoxy, seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This “maturing” does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery.

Here is how it looks so far:

The question are many at this point. Here are some of them:

• How does this “maturing” process take place? This is not an easy question to answer for every tradition will claim that their maturation is the correct one.
• Once a doctrine as “matured” does this mean that it’s mature form is the “new” orthodoxy?
• What if someone rejects the maturation in favor of its immatured form? Are they still “orthodox” in an immature sense?
• What if some person, tradition, or institution favors a form that has matured slightly differently? Are they “unorthodox”?

Let me give you some examples: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Christians have different presuppositions that they bring to their theology. This does not make it right or wrong, but we must understand that the unexamined presupposition is not worth having. Our view of history is no different. It is a presupposition that we bring when asking the question What does it means to be “orthodox”? (see part 1 in this series here).

There are really six primary views that I find represented in the church today. I am going to try to explain these views using both established and original terminology. I have tried to stay away from certain terms such as “neo-orthodox” and “emerging orthodox” so as not to skew perspectives and stack the deck against them.

1. aOrthodoxy. Belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy as a set of “right beliefs” or, at the very least, Christianity should not be defined by our beliefs except in a very minimalistic way. This view of orthodoxy takes a very pessimistic view of the Church’s need and ability to define truth, believing that orthopraxy (”right practice”) is the only thing that should be in focus. This pessimistic approach is influenced by the belief that defining the “boundaries” of Christianity according to beliefs has brought nothing but shame and divisiveness to Christianity. This is illustrated most in the bloodshed of the inquisition, Crusades, and wars among Christians. To be labeled “orthodox” or “unorthodox” to the aOrthodox is an arrogant power play that is oppressive to the cause of Christ. Orthodoxy, therefore, is a contextualized subjective “moving target” that cannot be defined.

Primary Adherents:

Emergent Church (to be distinguished as a subset of the Emerging Church)

Strengths:

• Sees the importance of orthopraxy.
• Understands the difficulty of defining Christian orthodoxy.

Weaknesses:

• Christianity loses any distinction.
• Follows a self-defeating premise by establishing a new minimalistic orthodoxy of its own.
• Unjustifiably follows a “guilt by association” premise. Just because others killed in the name of orthodoxy does not mean that those who seek to define orthodoxy will do the same. In fact, most have not. Continue Reading »

  If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I am thouroughly orthodox. No, not Eastern with a capital “O”, but orthodox meaning that I believe all the right things. Well . . . at least I think I am. But, really, it depends on how one defines “orthodox.” What does it mean to be orthodox?

It would seem that this is the question that is taking center stage in the current theological landscape. I have heard romurs that some prominite leaders in the emerging church are going to be writing on this issue, challenging the traditional thought concerning what it means to be “orthodox”—even more than they have already done. Some in the Emergent church, such as Tony Jones and Brian McLaren, are saying that there may not be such a thing as “orthodox.” Others, like Andrew Jones, seem to suggest that orthodoxy simply should be thought of as ”right worship” rather than right teaching. Some of our more fundamentalistic brothers and sisters believe that orthodox means you agree with everything in their particular tradition or denomination. Some Christians even say that “orthodoxy” is a representation of a dynamic confession that has developed throughout church history. Well . . . ahem . . . that would be me.

With this in mind, I want to start a short series on this subject. I am going to try to argue that there is such a thing as orthodoxy and it means first and formost ”right teaching” or “right belief.” I am also going to propose that orthodoxy is a dynamic representation of truth as it has been revealed and understood throughout history.

Here is the almost completed chart that I will use to serve as a visual aid. We will break it down and add to it throughout this series.

Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is a question that I received from one of our readers here on Parchment and Pen. It is a good question that cannot be answered easily.

     You mentioned in this blog the conversation you had with a Pastor regarding the blessing of same sex marriages.  This is an issue that the denomination (Episcopal) that I attend is struggling with.  We had a Parish discussion about this last year with about 25-30 out of 200 active members voicing their opinion. Myself and a few others were in the minority against blessing these relationships. I came to this conclusion after researching all the known biblical passages regarding this issue, which I plainly read as viewing homosexual activity as sin. Therefore this is not behavior we should be celebrating.  I also read several scholarly papers for and against and was not persuaded by the arguments for.

    I guess my question for you or anyone else who wants to comment is at what point has one crossed the line in terms of throwing out orthodox teaching.  I’ve followed your discussion on the emerging Church with the charts in terms of essential beliefs for salvation, essential beliefs for orthodoxy.  How many orthodox beliefs/doctrines can you abandon and still call yourself a Christian? 

The reader was not asking for an actual number. It cannot be answered with a number. One cannot say everyone gets to abandon five traditional Christian beliefs, but once they throw overboard that sixth one, they also throw overboard their right to be called “Christian.” It has more to do with the types of beliefs they are abandoning.

There are a lot of beliefs being abandoned today as people question “established” traditional Christianity.

Here are some big ones: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Up to now, I’ve been sharing what I think the Orthodox Church has to offer the non-Orthodox community. Now it’s time to turn the tables. My evangelical passions prompt me to suggest that the time has come for us Orthodox to rediscover the evangelical character of our own faith on its own terms – not on the model of popular evangelicalism. (See my chapter “The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church” in Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. James Stamoolis (Zondervan, 2004)). Because of our maximalist vision of theology, our evangelical identity looks and acts very differently than yours. Still, I would like to suggest that the Great Tradition of our Great Church cuts both ways—- we ourselves are judged by it! Even if the gospel is formally in the life of the Orthodox Church, as we believe, that does not mean our people have understood and appropriated its message. “Catholicity” (i.e. “the whole and adequate” expression of the faith) must be discerned and applied if the Church is to be spiritually viable in today’s world. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I found this on another blog. It was a response to a post concerning defining “orthodoxy.” I found it interesting.  Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Scholars define the “Great Tradition” as the theological consensus of the majority of believers during the first five hundred or thousand years of Christian history (the dates vary among theologians). It encompasses the Church’s universally agreed upon creeds, councils, fathers, worship and spirituality. Some of the key characteristics include the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition,the works of St. Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), the spiritual writings by monks such as St. Anthony of Egypt, and biblical commentaries and pastoral works. Over the past two decades, mainline and evangelical scholars have been rediscovering the creative relevance of the Christian East, with their insistence on the authority of the first 500 years of Christian teaching and practice. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There are three main bodies of Christians in the world today: Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I myself am personally grateful for evangelicals who helped me come to faith in Christ when I was 17 years old (I’m 53 now!). I don’t know where I’d be today if they didn’t love me enough to reach out to me, even though I was “religious” at the time. I’ve learned a lot over the years from Evangelicals and continue to do so. Still, it is my conviction that there was and is a continuous and consistent tradition of apostolic faith passed down through the centuries, and that the Orthodox Church most faithfully embodies it – at least on a formal level. I’d like to share just two examples that illustrate how the Orthodox Church has maintained its unbroken succession with Christian antiquity, and reveal why it is particular attractive to an increasing number of Christians. Today I’ll speak of Scripture; next blog, I focus on the role of history. The third blog to come, however, will put the Orthodox Church under the microscope of an evangelical critique. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Over the next few days Bradley Nassif is going to be blogging with us. As many of you know, Dr. Nassif is an Eastern Orthodoxy theologian and Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University . We had him on Converse with Scholars the other day. He contributed to the book Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (a book I highly suggest). His podcast Simply Orthodox can be found here.

Being a committed Evangelical who deeply believes in my own tradition, I am not leaning toward Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet I have come to appreciate the Orthodox faith, primarily through the writings of Nassif and Clendenin. I could have written posts on understanding Eastern Orthodoxy myself, but why not try to understand the faith by one who is part of the faith?

As you will see Nassif is an Orthodox theologian who is deeply committed to the Gospel. He has been involved in Orthodox-Evangelical relations for some time. There may be some questions so please feel free to ask, but I am not sure how much time he will have to respond. Please be very respectful of our guest here on Parchment and Pen, even if you disagree at points.

This is a great opportunity and I am very thankful that Nassif has agreed.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!