Category Archives: Church

WHY EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY NEEDS THE GLOBAL CHURCH

When I first started reading this book, I thought it might be a good, but not great book. In the beginning I assumed it would be rather boiler plate theology and missions. Perhaps a good survey of the salient issues. It is that for sure, but it offers so much more!

In rather short compass at 171 pages Pardue covers a lot of terrain: how culture should be understood in doing Christian theology to how we Westerners can benefit greatly from brothers and sisters around the world.

After working through this marvelous book and taking north of 100 notes in the margins, I am not surprised that it won an annual book award from Christianity Today.

Highly recommended!

 

 

THE REFORMATION AS RENEWAL, CHAPTERS 2 AND 3

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett

Chapter 2: Spiritual Assent and Mystical Dissent

Chapter 3: Faith Seeking Understanding

Due to various factors, I am going to make these summaries shorter. I hope they clarify some important matters and motivate you to go deeper into the Protestant tradition. 

I will again be adding some of my own reflections…

In chapter 2, Barrett covers various monastic orders and mystical movements of the medieval period. A few thoughts…

It is all too easy for us Protestants to discount or discard all together the best of the monastic and mystical traditions. My two short, yet good recommendations to correct this problem are:

The Rule of St. Benedict and Of the Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (William C. Creasy, ed.)

In closing out chapter 2, we must remember that the late Middle Ages was hardly a “spiritual graveyard, lifeless and full of darkness.” (Barrett, p. 69)

Chapter 3 covers one of my favorite topics: faith seeking understanding. Too many conservative Christians in the West are confused about what biblical faith is and what faith entails. Biblical faith is neither a subjective wish-fulfillment nor is it mathematical certitude. People like Augustine and Anselm invite us to appreciate that there is both struggle and increasing clarity that comes from trusting in God.

A seminal book for me, and one that I regularly recommend is: Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Newbigin makes a compelling case that many Christians view faith as almost mathematical certainty or on the other side of things, as simply a subjective choice.

If you are looking for a clear introduction to church history, I would recommend Church History in Plain Language, fifth edition, by Bruce L. Shelley.

 

 

 

THE REFORMATION AS RENEWAL, CHAPTER 1

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett

Chapter 1: The Catholicity of the Reformation

I’ve had several conversations with pastors, seminary graduates, and other Evangelicals who are not clear about main features of the Protestant Reformation. To adapt what Howard Hendricks said on numerous occasions, “If there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be fog in the pew.”

The history of the Christianity is not often taught in our American churches, so it is no wonder why many Christians would see little importance in learning about it.

If you end up reading this book, here are a few things to keep in mind:

Read the footnotes. There are important things to pick up.

Mark up your book. Physical engagement is a boon to reading well.

If you are stumped, do a Google search, or ask a learned friend. If those fail to help, feel free to reach out to me in the comment thread of the blog.

Note well: I shall be adding several things from my own study of church history to augment and/or illumine the points Barrett has made in The Reformation as Renewal.

Let’s get started!

Defining Catholic and catholic

The subtitle is worth pondering, especially the catholic part: Retrieving the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church

Make sure to pick up when I capitalize Catholic and when I put the “c” in the lower-case.

It is crucial to get a clear sense of what “catholic” means. It means general or universal. So, all true Christians, whether they are Roman Catholic (a descriptor that Barrett seeks to avoid)[1], Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, ought to be committed to the universal church.

I call myself a Christian of catholic and Protestant convictions. My use of the small c catholic causes both Protestants and Roman Catholics to be confused. Roman big c Catholic is decidedly what I am not. Protestant little c catholic is decidedly what I am. I’m sure we will talk about this again.

The Protestant Reformers Did Not See Themselves as Starting Something New

The Reformers understood that theological innovation is bad. They did not see themselves as innovators, but as faithful heirs of the church’s tradition. The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics was not simply the Bible against human tradition. This is how it has been popularly understood: Luther and others were the Bible folks while the Roman Catholic church was holding to human traditions.

Tradition is actually a good and biblical word. It means that which has been “handed or delivered over.” One esteemed historian memorably said that “Tradition is the living faith of dead while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

The Protestant Reformation addressed several matters, but it certainly included debates over who was more in line with the church’s tradition. This may come as a surprise to many/most of you. Again, more on that in the future commentaries.

The Protestant Reformers did not see themselves at odds with the ancient or even medieval church. They were trying to highlight areas of doctrine, especially issues related to salvation and the papacy, that they believed the Roman Catholic church had departed from with both the Bible and Christian tradition.

Protestants are not Just Protestors!

It is crucial to define the word “Protestant” as it is widely misunderstood. Take some time to digest the following quote. It relates to Barrett’s footnote 21 on page 7.

Patristic scholar (=early church fathers) D.H. Williams offers much clarity on an issue riddled with loads of confusion:

The term “Protestant” is commonly used with a negative connotation. Everyone knows that Protestants are those who “protest” and dissent from Roman Catholicism. While historic Protestantism did indeed register a series of objections to Roman Catholic dogma and practice, such a definition is nonetheless unfortunate and even imbalanced for the reason that the Reformation was at heart an affirmation, a vigorous protestation of positive principles. A Protestant was, as the primary meaning of the Latin verb protestare indicates, one who seeks “to bear witness,” or “to declare openly.” Historically, Protestants are those who have sought to affirm certain tenets of their faith which bear witness to the apostolic message. John Wesley’s letter to a Roman Catholic acquaintance on 18 July 1749 offers a prime example of this when he defined “a true Protestant” in accordance with a series of doctrinal professions, each beginning with the ancient words, “I believe.” Wesley obviously felt it was more important to describe what Protestantism stood for rather than what it stood against. Not once did he tell his reader what Protestants rejected and opposed.[2]

Remember it well. We Protestants are not just “protestors.” We have many glorious truths to proclaim!

Are Protestants Responsible for the Secular Idea of the Individual?

As Barrett describes, there are Roman Catholic scholars who argue that the Protestant Reformation ushered in rabid individualism and chaos. As some Roman Catholics argue, you can draw a straight line from Martin Luther to the “my truth” of our relativistic age. As the argument goes, since everyone can be their own priest or pope, you are going to get lots of confusion in the Protestant tradition.

I am sure you have had a Catholic friend raise concerns over the thousands of Protestant denominations. It’s too bad that there is no one in the Protestant camp like the Pope who can be a theological umpire. All kinds of people are calling balls and strikes. Barrett’s lengthy response to this false claim is very well done. For sake of space, I will not summarize it, but Barrett’s reasoning is comprehensive and convincing.

I do have a few brief comments of my own about this common criticism of Protestantism.

First, some Roman Catholics focus the blame of rabid individualism on ideas alone. Those who advocate for Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), another very misunderstood notion, are to blame. More on the confusion about sola Scriptura in a future post.

Even if the idea of sola Scriptura was somewhat responsible for the rabid individualism among many of us Protestants,[3] it is not the only culprit. Carl Trueman highlights how those who emphasize ideas tend to forget how much material culture like cars have influenced the individualism of modern America.[4]

Second, it is true that the thousands of denominations raise concerns that should grieve us all. However, the Roman Catholic claim to offer a safe haven for theology and Christian living is mythical. Anyone who has studied Roman Catholic theology or even interacted with many Roman Catholic believers discovers that there is much diversity.

No, the Roman Catholic does not have official denominations, but there are de facto denominations. For example, Richard Rohr gets to stay in the Roman Catholic church even though he holds various heretical teachings that are contrary to the official teaching of the Catholic Catechism. Other Roman Catholics have no problem being at odds with papal encyclicals and other teaching on things like abortion. There are several public figures who don’t agree with the church on many matters, yet they still are welcome to worship as genuine members of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Roman Catholics are alarmed by these things, but the chaos continues. One Roman Catholic scholar who teaches seminary students preparing for the priesthood told me how troubled he is by this hypocrisy. He believes that only 15% of those attending mass are true Catholics.

The Gospel

Whether when teaching in Poland or here in the United States, I have met many Roman Catholics who love Jesus and place their faith entirely in Him. I also know so-called Evangelicals who are unclear about the gospel. Confusion about the gospel is not solely a Roman Catholic problem!

Some ideas that will be new to many of you are introduced in this first chapter. Those will be discussed in much more depth in later chapters, so I will hold off on my commentary until then.

[1] In footnote 91 Barrett mentions why he tries to steer clear of using the name Roman Catholic. He has good reasons for doing so, but I am sticking with it to avoid the confusion that might come from saying Catholic big C versus catholic small c.

[2] D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 173-74.

[3] Again, I would argue that sola Scriptura properly understood was not responsible for rabid individualism. Rather, it is the distorted version of sola Scriptura that far too many of us Protestants hold that is the real culprit.

[4] Carl Trueman, “Taylor’s Complex, Incomplete Narrative,” in Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor,” ed. Collin Hansen (Deerfield, IL: The Gospel Coalition, 2017), 19-20.

TIMOTHY KELLER: HIS SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL FORMATION

I have read eight books by Tim Keller. None have been duds, but I certainly have my favorites.

Opportunities to interview Keller have come on two occasions. The first was on his book about suffering. That interview can be found here: 

Tim Keller on Suffering

The other was an exchange of emails about preaching. That exchange was published here: 

Tim Keller Answers: How Much Prep Time for a Sermon?

And now we have a terrific book on the formative influences that made Tim Keller who he is. Here then are a few observations from Collin’s Hanson’s wonderfully conceived book:

*Many times, God uses the most unlikely people. Keller’s awkwardness socially would not have made one think he was destined to the ministry we now know him for. By the way, Keller got a C in his seminary preaching class, not an encouraging sign that he would amount to much as a preacher.

*Mentors are hugely influential. Keller had several, but Edmund Clowney was one of the most formative. Clowney’s kindness, learning, and commitment to Keller reminds me of the role Ambrose played for Augustine.

*Keller’s ability to synthesize material, commitment to listen well to others, free people up to use their own gifts, but most of all, his humility, are things God has honored.

*There is no Tim Keller as we know him today without Kathy Keller. If you have a spouse who is a partner in ministry (I am graced by God to say that I do), then thank God for that blessing. If you are single and looking for a spouse, be diligent to find someone who shares the vision God has laid on your heart.

*If I were asked to list a couple of specifics that make a minister used of God, I would list true piety, humility, ability to keep loyal friends over the long haul, and courage. For the latter, Keller had a powerful model in a pastor who preceded him. He is a long-forgotten name, but you will be inspired by getting to know William E. Hill Jr. I’m glad Collin regularly brought in obscure figures who had a big impact on Keller.

*I mentioned above that I have read eight books by Keller. Making Sense of God is probably my favorite. I am glad that Collin gave some attention on the need to write such a book. My review of Making Sense of God is here: 

Tim Keller’s Newest

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN AUSSIE WHO KNOWS AMERICA BETTER THAN MOST AMERICANS

This is the third book I’ve read by this author. All have been terrific.

Sayers has a real knack for putting things in a fresh perspective. He effectively uses history and global trends to illumine the topic at hand. In this book, it is how the church can wisely address living between eras, what Sayers describes as a “gray zone.”

There are many invaluable insights to be sure in this book, but many times I found myself launching in a direction that the author probably did not intend, but I nonetheless found fruitful.

Highly recommended!

CHURCH SIZE: TOO BIG TO SUCCEED?

From my newsletter, “Moore’s Musings”:

For the first time I am taking a departure from the regular format for “Moore’s Musings.” In light of my previous comments about “megachurches,” I wanted to list some of my other convictions about church size.

Instead of sending this out two weeks after the previous “Moore Musings” I took an additional two weeks to gather my thoughts. Preaching regularly at a wonderful church outside of Austin also limited my time a bit in working on this edition.

I would not characterize my thoughts here as tentative, but perhaps provisional is an apt word to use. Tentative is too weak, but provisional underscores that my thoughts are still open to further reflection and correction.

I learn much from those who disagree with me, especially those who are gracious in doing so! By all means offer your pushback, thoughts, or questions. You can contact me either by email or post your comments on my blog at www.twocities.org. Your comments via email may be included in future blasts, but I won’t give your name unless you approve.

Away we go…

I have been thinking about the size of churches for many years. Since I have ministered in small, medium, and big churches, it seemed time to make my views more public. I believe the topic merits more attention than it gets. I should add that the recent scandals in several megachurches, as awful as they have been, didn’t influence my thinking below.

Here then are a series of miscellaneous and compressed thoughts on church size:

*I no longer believe the size of larger churches (somewhat arbitrarily set as 300 or more regular attenders) is neutral.

It is common to hear the argument that the size of a church is neutral. Size is likened to a baseball bat. As the logic goes, it is stated that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a baseball bat. Yes, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but manufacturers like Louisville Slugger didn’t have that kind of slugging in mind when they made their bats.

I think size not only can but does present unnecessary obstacles that make being a body of believers much more challenging. How can a large group of people fulfill all the “one another” commands of Scripture when it is easy to be anonymous?

I have adapted the typical baseball bat analogy to highlight my concerns about big churches. Imagine having a huge baseball bat. Many are impressed by the massive bat. It effortlessly crushes homers. The person wielding the bat is very nice. Many on the field are in awe of the bat and the batters that are privileged to use it. Bats that big would change the complexion of the game we know as baseball. It would no longer be baseball as we have come to understand and love the game. So yes, I question whether thousands gathered together in the same place are still really “doing church.”

*I am keenly aware that small churches can have big problems, while big churches may have smaller problems. I have observed both. This undeniable reality doesn’t affect my concerns about big churches. Read on to see why.

*Small churches can have autocratic leaders who do much damage. Big churches can and do have autocratic leaders, but small churches may feel more vulnerable to tolerating a dictatorial leader since more qualified pastors are unlikely to be attracted to ministry in a small church. I have wondered aloud on different occasions why pastors generally (I know a few exceptions) feel “called by God” to move to a bigger church.

*Because of their size, and even more so if the church is not part of a denomination, smaller churches can get isolated and so make themselves more vulnerable to ungodly influences and unbiblical fads.

*I do have concerns about house churches, many times an overreaction to bigger churches. I have been very involved in both big and small churches, but never participated in a house church. My concerns about house churches mainly revolve around the problems of autonomy and their vulnerability to self-appointed leaders who are not qualified to lead. I have heard a few horror stories. I know there are some healthy examples of house churches, but I think their independence presents obstacles to the best kind of spiritual growth.

*With small churches you don’t have the structural issues that impede being known. A small church is not magically healthy simply because it’s small, but at least you don’t have to fight the structural challenges that come with bigness.

*Small churches don’t have structural impediments to reflecting the family ethos mentioned in the Bible. Like the previous point, small churches don’t automatically do this just because they are small. They must have godly leaders who are committed to functioning as a family. In some healthy small churches, I have seen all ages mixing in an organic way. I have never seen it done very well in bigger churches. In bigger churches you find specialty ministries that sequester the old from the young and vice versa. It’s why you have the sixty-plus old folks in Sunday school classes with names like the “Sunset” class.

*Speaking of specialties, Johns Hopkins University was the first research university in America. Many separate departments with their own specializations. Many good things have come from specialization. With respect to Johns Hopkins, their early adoption of more rigorous research methods in medicine thanks to the inspiration of European scholars, yielded many benefits.

Specialization, for good and for ill, has affected all areas of life including the church. It is why we put modifiers in front of pastor: senior, executive, associate, adult education, discipleship, evangelism, youth, and more. These areas of specialization dull us to the indispensable character qualities all pastors should have. C.S. Lewis wrote how modifiers can kill important words:

As long as gentleman has a clear meaning, it is enough to say that So-and-so is a gentleman. When we begin saying that he is a “real gentleman” or “a true gentleman” or “a gentleman in the truest sense” we may be sure that the word has not long to live…[1]

*Individualism is a big problem in our culture and in the church. Mature Christian growth does not come from being individualistic. Where is it easier to hide and be the person you want to be: a big church where you can be anonymous or a small one where your presence or lack thereof is noticeable?

*Big churches usually have a hodgepodge of unrelated ministries. A church I served in for five years had an annual “ministry fair.” About seventy distinct ministries of the church were offered as possible avenues for growth. We in leadership pretty much left it up to everyone to figure out where they should get involved. That kind of chaos with multiple choices does not produce mature Christians.

*I Peter 5 assumes the leadership knows the congregation and the congregation knows the leadership. At the big church I was at in the 1990s, the elders realized the body largely did not trust them. What to do? They decided to be greeters for a few weeks so people could get to know them. I kid you not. The relationships between the elders and the body did not improve.

Even if the elders are qualified men, how is it possible for them to know and be known by thousands?

*In the pastoral epistles, Paul assumes that one who is engaged in pastoral ministry is an elder. The interesting thing is that it is difficult to find “Bible-believing” churches where every pastor is an elder. I have scoured hundreds of church web sites. When all the pastors and elders are listed, it is almost never the case that all pastors are elders. Why is this if Paul assumes that all pastors are elders? I already knew the answer but decided to ask a few biblical scholars and pastors. The answer: the elders are typically afraid that the pastors will wield too much influence on the body. Fear of a voting bloc is the way some put it. And yes, it seems bigger churches are more prone to this fear.

*Larger churches tend to fast track membership. The large numbers seem to demand it. We had four weeks at the big church I served. I told the elders that an unprincipled Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness could become a member at our church. This certainly could happen at any size church, but when you have large numbers wanting to be members you feel the pressure to fast track the process.

Much more could be said, but this is already too long. If you have read this far, please receive my thanks, and do consider offering a comment or question.

Moore’s Musings is free, but tax-deductible gifts to Two Cities Ministries are most appreciated.

By Paypal at www.twocities.org

By check made out to Two Cities Ministries and mailed to:

Dave Moore

3721 Rocky Ford Dr.

Austin, Texas

78749

 

[1] From C.S. Lewis’s essay, “The Death of Words,” As quoted on www.cslewis.com/language-and-the-meaning-of-words.

MOTHER OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM

I already knew a fair bit about Henrietta Mears prior to reading this book. My familiarity was due to the stories Dr. Bill Bright used to share about Mears. Bright along with Billy Graham and a coterie of other notables, fell under the spell of Mears.

Dr. Bright highlighted various things about Mears but sadly failed to emphasize her desire to offer rigorous education to Christians. Mears believed it was scandalous that schools offered detailed instruction while the Christian education in many churches was haphazard and superficial.

J.I. Packer used to regularly say that the glaring need of the church was for catechesis or Christian education. I very much agree with Packer here and Mears modelled what this would look like.

Not only were thousands involved in the various Sunday school ministries of First Presbyterian, Hollywood, but Mears provided depth, ministry to the whole person, and engagement in all sorts of ministries.

This is a well-written and compelling account of Henrietta Mears’s approach to Christian education in the local church. We desperately need to listen to her today!

BULLIES AND SAINTS

I have read many books on history and the history of the church. Church history was also my minor or cognate field of study in seminary.

There is much to like about John Dickson’s Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History. Sometimes instead of a regular review, I like to offer five things I appreciated about a book. Here goes with Bullies and Saints:

*Dickson is balanced in laying out the good, bad, and downright ugly or evil. He does not fall prey to either the cynic on one hand or the hagiographer on the other hand.

*There is a responsible engagement with the best scholarship, yet the book remains accessible.

*Dickson is a lucid writer who knows how to find the telling anecdote or illustration.

*Unlike some Christians, Dickson does not go back to the past to find talking points he already agrees with. He allows the strangeness of the past to speak to him and by way of extension, us.

*It is the kind of book that a Christian could comfortably give to a thoughtful non-Christian. I think many non-Christians would be pleasantly surprised by Dickson’s fair-mindedness.

FED UP WITH CHRISTIANITY? REMEMBERING WHAT MATTERS

These days we find a growing number of people deconstructing their Christian faith, while others say they no longer believe or have deconverted. The former lops off things that are deemed excess baggage to the true faith, while the latter is a full-fledged leaving of the Christian faith. We could debate whether those deconstructing are also deconverting, but that is not the purpose of this piece. Rather, my desire is to call us to remember what we seem to have forgotten. We Christians need to make a few things mainstays of our faith lest we keep losing our way.

I have my own frustrations with the American church, but I prefer to remain within the historic Christian faith among a community of thoughtful friends. Loyal and wise friends are indispensable to a healthy walk with God.

I often jest that I am a serial doubter, but it is hardly a joke. Doubts about certain teachings of the Christian faith have nagged me for four decades. My first book on the Christian understanding of hell was borne out of a personal struggle. Though I wrote that book nearly thirty years ago, my struggle with hell persists. I assume it and other questions will continue to plague me until the day I die. I take encouragement from Christian, the lead character in The Pilgrim’s Progress. Not only did Christian get waylaid by Doubting Castle, but at the end of his life this true believer’s last steps were fraught with terror. Christian and his friend Hopeful are crossing the final river before entering the Celestial City (=heaven). Christian is struggling with all kinds of doubt about whether he will make it across the river. Ironically, Christian is confident Hopeful is going to make it safely to the other side because Hopeful always had a sure and steady faith. Things are different for Christian. He is convinced that he will drown. Hopeful seeks to encourage Christian by saying that the river’s bottom can be “felt and that it is firm.” That is not immediately apparent to Christian, but he finally finds the river is indeed “shallow and solid.” With indescribable joy, but quite different experiences, the two friends arrive safely on the shores of heaven.

To put it crudely, just because you are a true Christian does not mean that you will die with a smile on your face. Heaven is yours, but you just may go through one final trial to get there. Not easy words to hear, but true ones. Anyone who has been around for the last days of a Christian’s life knows that there can be intense suffering both physically and sometimes even spiritually.

I believe in eternal security, but that does not necessarily mean that one’s pilgrimage here on earth will be free of struggles, fears, or even doubts. I am encouraged that my God promises to hold me regardless of the doubts that at times assail my sanity and stability.

Again, my motivation in writing this piece is not to describe the dynamics per se of deconstruction and deconversion. Plenty of ink has already been spilled in that regard, and even if you have not read about these things, you probably have a family member or friend who is a poignant testimony to this growing trend. My purpose in writing is to remind us of some things that are not getting the attention they deserve.

In keeping with the theme of sanity and stability, it is good to remember that there is a difference between Christianity and what Christians will say the Christian faith entails. This is especially acute since many “Bible-believing” Christians (as all the polling data shows) have minimal engagement with the Bible. Biblical illiteracy among those who tout their high view of Scripture is something I have witnessed in several places over nearly four decades of ministry. It is stunning when self-professed Christians mix a toxic brew of ignorance and arrogance. They may not know much, but some of these folks still demand that you listen to them. I am old enough to know I need not listen to such nonsense.

Here then are four areas that I believe we Christians must remember to take seriously. The erosion of all four is found broadly in places that name the name of Christ. All four of the following areas offer a powerful prophylactic against the temptation to deconstruct and/or deconvert. All four of these are also indispensable for the rest of us!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CHRISTIAN EDUCATION?

In a podcast interview for my most recent book (Stuck in the Present: How History Frees and Forms Christians), the host asked if I was finding it easier these days to persuade Christians about the importance of learning. The host thought my need to persuade others might not be as great these days because all the present challenges both in and out of the church are so obvious and alarming. Perhaps I was seeing greater eagerness to learn about the Christian faith. Sadly, I responded that my need to persuade Christians to learn is as great as ever. Instead of the present challenges making Christians more eager to learn, I am finding that many are content to stay in their safe silos where one can supposedly be protected from the complex challenges of our day. The promise of pseudo safety trumps the embarrassment of being superficial. Fear trumps the risk of learning. And true learning is risky because you will find out how much you don’t know. When our youngest son taught philosophy, he told me that his number one priority was to convince his students how little they knew. Such exposure is embarrassing, so it is easier to hunker down in echo chambers where learning is limited.

I have asked different Christian groups whether anyone can give me the biblical texts that describe the proper boundaries of “faith, hope, and love.” In other words, what are the Bible verses that describe the difference between biblical faith and presumption, hope and wish-fulfillment, love, and a secular version of therapeutic well-being. Other than my wife, I have found most admit that they can’t do it. If the biblical boundaries of “faith, hope, and love” are not clearly understood, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know how pervasive the ignorance must be on other important Christian teachings.

The late J.I. Packer “mourned the eclipse” of Christian education (he used the word catechesis). Packer believed that its low priority was a main contributor to “the deepest root of immaturity that is so widespread in evangelical circles…” I agree. I believe our downplaying its importance makes people vulnerable to leaving the Christian faith for poor, but understandable reasons.

There are several factors that may lead to deconversion, but there is one that has not sobered enough Christian parents. I’ve seen it up close in a Christian school context, in parachurch ministry, and in pastoral work. It is a surefire recipe for disheartening your children about the Christian faith. They may still walk with God, but parents can make things more difficult for their children by failing to address an all-too-common problem.

It is not uncommon to find parents who desperately desire their children to be grounded in the Christian faith, but they themselves are apathetic. Years ago, while I was teaching at a Christian school, two high school seniors complained about their parent’s lackluster approach in following Jesus. One asked, “Mr. Moore, my father wants me to love Jesus first and foremost, but he is consumed with his brand-new BMW. What should I do?” The other said, “When I come home my mom makes it clear that I need to get studying Latin, but she is reading Glamour magazine.”

By the grace of God, children may still walk with God despite their parents’ hypocrisy. On the other side of things, I know parents who continue to grow in the “grace and knowledge of the Lord” despite having spiritually wayward children. These parents inspire me.

The late Dallas Willard used to say that he had a tough time finding churches who were committed to building disciples or apprentices of Jesus. People of all ages need to be formed in a more serious and comprehensive ministry of Christian education. Most of the Sunday school classes I have observed don’t come close to doing the job. Neither do the small groups I have observed. The research on small groups by the eminent sociologist, Robert Wuthnow, confirms my own observations. Focused attention must be given to equipping Christians to be lifelong disciples or learners. Church leaders need to provide an atmosphere where this sort of expectation is the normative path for all Christians. It must be an environment where everyone has the freedom to pose their most difficult or troubling questions. This assumes that churches have qualified leaders in both training and temperament.

I recently saw a quote being retweeted by those who heartily agreed with it. The quote came from a pastor I hold in esteem. He said, “The vast majority of Christians are educated past their level of obedience. If you would just do what you already knew, your life would change.” This pastor (and those who retweeted his quote) believes the answer to the spiritual doldrums is to stop putting such an emphasis on learning. What is needed is to get off one’s spiritual duff and go do something with what one already “knows.”

It’s a popular sentiment that I have heard a number of times before, but it misses some critical truths. For one, most American Christians don’t really have a good understanding of their faith. Again, the polling data shows this and my own varied experience over nearly forty years of teaching confirms it. In addition, the Bible makes clear that true knowledge of God leads to love. Finally, we should promote obedience but obedience that honors God is fueled by a maturing knowledge of God. The best love for God (and for human beings) is borne out of a deep understanding of who it is we are loving.

Consider the rigorous preparation of an NFL football player or of someone in the military who is headed to the front lines of battle. Why should we Christians settle for so much less in our own preparation?

MANY CHRISTIANS ARE NOT DESPERATE

I have read several books that seek to motivate Christians to read the Bible. What I believe is the biggest impediment to being an avid reader/student of the Bible has never been mentioned in any of these books. I am waiting to see it. It is this: if you are not putting yourself in situations where you need the resources of God or else you are keenly aware you will sink, you are not going to be an active learner of the Christian faith. You may be in that small percent that likes to learn for learning’s sake, but true Christian learning is meant to be lived and shared. Let me give one example.

If you share your faith on a regular basis, you will come across non-Christians wanting to know all kinds of things like why we Christians only honor the books that are in our Bibles. Why are these books so special? Didn’t powerful bishops in the fourth century use their power to ramrod the books of the Bible they wanted for inclusion in the canon? I have found few Christians able to give an answer to this question. Why is this? It’s quite simple and it is not because you must be a scholar to have a satisfactory answer. Rather, there is no urgent need to know this sort of thing if you steer clear of talking about Jesus with non-Christians. The engagement I find most common among Christians who do read their Bibles is to gain personal inspiration for the decidedly private faith that they are interested in living.

Christians have admitted to me that they avoid ministry opportunities to bear witness due to fear that they will not have a good answer to a non-Christian’s question. Nobody likes to be stumped, especially over a subject where good answers can be found.

I have various areas of disagreement with Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ), but I am indebted to how this ministry instilled the importance of putting yourself in places outside your “circle of confidence.” Early on, I was talking to people from different religions and cults. It motivated me to find better answers which then served as a catalyst to go out witness again. I was desperate to find better answers. Again, too many claiming the name of Christ aren’t desperate for better answers because they are not putting themselves in situations where they must bear testimony to why they believe what they believe.

I have some ideas for how churches could create a greater sense of desperation, but space limits me. Suffice it to say, pastors and church leaders would find it time well spent to brainstorm ideas for helping those under their care have more of a sense of desperation. They must first assess how desperate they are themselves.

Imagine if those tempted to deconstruct or deconvert saw an abundance of Christians seeking to live supernaturally. Imagine if those tempted to deconstruct or deconvert observed many Christians saying no to American consumerism and individualism. Instead, these Christians were eager to trust God in faith-stretching endeavors all while displaying an attractive joy and confidence in the truth. I believe it would make those tempted to deconstruct or deconvert reconsider what they might lose by doing so.

MAKE CHRISTIANITY BEAUTIFUL AGAIN

Another thing I jest about, but it too is deadly serious, is that if I had to believe everything I hear on Christian radio, I would have to bail on the faith. Fortunately, I do not have to believe these things. Fortunate too that there remains some great music and lyrics on Christian radio, but buyer beware!

Other examples of “Christian art” too easily fall under the category of kitsch. Whether fiction, art, or music, too much is sentimental, superficial, and sloppy.

In the areas of biblical studies and theology, we have lots of competent people doing excellent work. I am grateful for these faithful Christians. Our large library bears testimony to the value my wife and I place on such scholarship. In general, I would give high marks to these scholars and the rest of us “conservative” Protestants when it comes to describing and defending the Christian faith. However, I would not give us high marks on how well we Christians demonstrate the beauty of biblical truth.

My favorite writers of the past, people like Augustine, Pascal, Bunyan, Chesterton, Lewis, and Edwards, appreciated both the truth and beauty of God. We need to learn from them. Showcasing the beauty of the Christian faith along with its truthfulness would make people less tempted to deconstruct or deconvert.

Along with the need for more robust learning/discipleship and being in touch with our desperate need to grow, beauty provides a gracious power that addresses needs that we are not always aware we have. All three of these things are critical, but none have any lasting value if we fail to remember that Jesus is central to everything.

WHERE DID JESUS GO? LOVING FADS, LOSING JESUS

A few years back I went to the graduation ceremony for those who completed a rigorous drug rehabilitation program. The testimonies of the graduates were stunning tributes to a great and gracious God. When the ceremony was over, I asked the founder a few questions about the program. He said people did not have to be Christians to participate. They did need to commit to be in a small group where members slowly read and discussed the gospels. What he next told me is one of the best things I have ever heard about Jesus. He said, “They are not always convinced that Jesus is who he claimed to be, but they want him to be.” Seeing how Jesus treated people with dignity and respect was compelling for these addicts. The beautiful compassion of Jesus captivated them.

In Tim Larson’s fascinating book, Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England, he mentions various Christians (including pastors living in the Victorian era) who deconverted from the Christian faith. Several did so due to the attacks on the Bible by the “higher critics.” That part of the story has already been told by A.N. Wilson in his influential book, God’s Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilization. What had not been well known is that a number of these deconverts came back to the Christian faith due to a fresh engagement with the Bible. They found that the Bible has a thicker, more realistic view on reality than the views promulgated by the skeptics. Several reconverted after finding the Christian faith described life more accurately than the descriptions of the most ferocious critics.

It is far past the time for American Christians to settle for a faith that could easily be gathered from a collection of pithy quotes on bumper stickers. Jesus and the faith that centers on him is true, compelling, worth giving our life for, and beautiful.

If you pay careful attention to the conversations of American Christians, you may start to wonder what happened to Jesus. Jesus supposedly undergirds and empowers all that we do, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to what most of us talk about. He is assumed to be central to everything, but our conversations seem to be animated by ministry strategy and leadership principles along with a host of other things. Things like ministry strategy and leadership principles have their place, but if we are not “growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus” we are in deep waters. We might end up being unlike Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress. We may be drowning, and we may be unaware of the danger.

A few months back, my own pastor preached a terrific sermon from Colossians. Peter made it crystal clear that Jesus is central to everything. He winsomely teased out some important implications that flow from this reality. Preaching that reminds us of the central place of Jesus is always critical. I’m afraid that it is not common these days. Alan Jacobs said pastors could legitimately warn their congregations every week about the dangers of technology. In the same vein, pastors should regularly make it clear that Jesus is central to everything. If the person, work, and yes, beauty of Jesus are not clearly brought before the body of Christ on a regular basis, we should not wonder why so many wander (I Cor. 14:8).

As Rev. 2:4 tells us, we need to remember from where we have fallen and “go back and do the things we once did.” Repentance that leads to remembering what really matters is the answer for all of us, whether we be the person who is deconstructing our faith or the larger amount of us who still sit dutifully in church pews but are increasingly not sure why we remain.

David George Moore is the author of the recently released Stuck in the Present: How History Frees and Forms Christians. Stuck in the Present: How History Frees and Forms Christians: David George Moore, Carl Trueman: 9781684264605: Amazon.com: Books

I am grateful to David Campbell who read an earlier version of this post. Several of David’s suggestions made it a better piece. Any errors in judgment and/or style are mine alone.