The Boy At The Beach….and How I Killed Him
How being fat and being me became the same thing
by Michael Spencer

I have a picture of myself, around 13 years old I think, standing with my mom and her brothers on the beach of a lake in Michigan. It’s a handsome photo. I’m as tall as my mom, and skinny as a rail. I remember that summer, and that beach trip like it was yesterday. I also remember that I felt like I was fat, and I didn’t want to be in a swimsuit at the beach because I felt like such an overweight spectacle.

Though I didn’t start to actually become overweight until college, I cannot recall a time I didn’t feel that I was fat. My parents weren’t fat, nor was anyone in the family. How I came to this conclusion is mysterious, but also more obvious to me than it was in the past, though the knowledge hasn’t helped.

Today I am the largest person in my family. I’ve steadily gained weight from the time I was in college, with only one major reversal. Slowly, over time, I became fat, and being more than a hundred pounds overweight today constantly asserts itself as one of the most dominating aspects of my life.

I’ve come to accept the results of this problem. I have a closet full of clothes I can’t wear. When we visit our families, there is never much doubt what will be the topic of discussion if I step out for a while. If a student gets angry at me, I know what one of the first words is going to be. My legs hurt. I don’t have a suit that I can get into anymore. Walking a mile is major effort, with my back and legs screaming for rest. In pictures, I don’t look like I picture myself in my mind. An honest look in a mirror is a difficult thing for me to do.

Being fat has become synonymous with being me, and therefore, close to the center of my existence, is a core of constant self-loathing because of my weight. I live with a cloudy awareness of having failed in something almost everyone else succeeds at, seemingly effortlessly. It permanently diminishes me in my own mind’s eye. I live in a culture that never stops talking about the problem that I am most aware of in myself, and its message is that I am a loser, both in appearance and in health. Even Christian bookstores and television tell me that I have failed. I can say there there are few minutes in my conscious existence in which some aspect of being overweight is not on my mind.

Why would I write an essay about this subject? Is this the ultimate whine from a selfish and narcissistic member of the victim class? Am I wanting advice or sympathy? No, I’m writing to try and face this part of myself, and to tell myself the truth about it. I’m trying to build a foundation for repentance. If it’s not interesting to you, I’m sorry. (“Where’s the funny stuff?”) I’ll make it up to you next essay.

My humanity, my spirituality, my relations, my work, my thinking, my life; they are all substantially influenced by my obesity. Increasingly, I have to be honest and admit that my weight is the platform from which I exclude God, hurt people, live my life and and choose my sins. Being fat has made sin easy; sins of every kind, and sins that have proven the hardest to mortify and remove from my life. My fear of dealing with my weight is a reflection of my fear of dealing with my deepest self, and who and what I am. It is a fear of the past, and I am sure it will one day become a fear of the future. I hide in my weight, and I foolish think I can hide from my weight.

My weight is, I believe, one of the primary spiritual issues in my life. It is why I sleep too much and work too little. It is why I run from opportunities to lead and make excuses about my performance. It’s why I feel ashamed but blame others. It’s why I dread dressing up in a suit and being the adult I should be at my age and station. It’s why I shy away from friendships, and project rejection on others. It’s why I am painfully selfish. It’s why I’m often grouchy, mean and overly sensitive for no reason. It’s why I’m jealous of others. It’s a source of resentment at God.

From my struggle with my weight- non-struggle might be better terminology- has come a conviction that I am a failure, and will never succeed as a worthy human being as others have. It’s the source of a perpetual belief that others do not like me. It’s the root of constant embarrassment, considerable lying and endless obsession on what is simple for other people: eating. It is the feeling that everyone I know is just a few moments away from rejecting me because of what I have become. It’s why I am not surprised I’ve never had a good pastorate, and why I didn’t finish my doctorate, why I’ve wound up in the middle of nowhere teaching and preaching to people who are forced to come but won’t drive to hear me on their own.

As I approach my 48th year, I’ve come to the place that I do not hear talk of weight as I did even just a few years ago. I am starting to see that this is me. It’s not coming off. It is not a disease or an accident. It is the self I have made of the person God created. It is me, and it’s going to be me from here on out. Because my weight has, at least for now, not brought about any serious health issues, I have not come to fear it as others do, and to take drastic steps to control it. I have friends who have resorted to stomach reduction surgery. While my weight is much less than theirs, I still struggle with feelings of resentment when I see them losing in a year what I have accumulated in more than 30. Mostly, I don’t care as much as they do, because if you told me I could lose 100 pounds through surgery, I would never say yes.
Is my body different? I can’t help but think so, but even as I say that, I am aware that it is the easiest and cheapest of excuses. Years ago I read Milo in Bloom County explain it all perfectly: “Eat less. Exercise more.” I’ve done neither. But what I’ve done is alternately plain and mysterious to me. If anything ever proves that life is the accumulation of small decisions, my weight is the evidence. While there have been episodes of conscious overeating in my life, there have been many other times when I ate more than reasonably, and it made little difference. I try not to ask God if I am different. My traditions teach me to blame myself, and so does reason and research. But emotionally, it all leaves me sad, not motivated. Just sad. Why me? I know most of the answer, and hate it.

Are my thoughts different? About food, and activity, and appearance? This is really the rock that is hard to look under. Sometime in my childhood I was ridiculed for being larger in the chest than other boys. From that teasing, and a general lack of athleticism and activity that came from having an invalid father, I began to think of myself as fat. It really was “fat in my head.” I physically saw myself as large when I was, in fact, thin.

My family was poor and usually said no to things that other boys enjoyed, like fast food and junk food. So in my adolescence and teenage years I found ways and opportunities to eat as I wanted. Food became pleasure, not nutrition. My rebellions weren’t with drugs and alcohol, but with food and freedom. When times were tough in our family, mom would cook. It was comfort. When dad was away, we went to restaurants. When dad was home. we often ate angry, and I would find ways to eat more afterward. When I was with friends, I ate more than they did to prove something about myself. I used my first jobs as opportunities to eat when, what and as much as I wanted. Of course, college and beyond gave me the freedom to eat irresponsibly, and I did.

As an adult, I found myself in a profession where I was constantly doing for others. Eating was what I did for me. It was comfort and selfishness. It was being a “man.” It was having the money to spend. I ate in secret. I ate in the car. I ate, and I got bigger. Why didn’t my vanishing closet ever stop me, and motivate me to reverse this behavior? I really don’t know.

I know all this history and some insight. A greater puzzle is why I was never able to stay physically active at the same time I was eating. As a teenager, I played basketball every day, and rode my bike all over town. But when I got a car and a job, my physical activity became rare. I tried to run, to play in leagues, but I was never good, or persistent. My the time I was married, I had an inertia and resistance to exercise that is mind boggling.

Perhaps at no point do I confront my own sinfulness as much as my own refusal to exercise. I refuse- stubbornly- to do anything active. The reason is my despair about my weight. I feel that it makes no difference. My mind and body seem to fight every effort to be more active. After 30 years of gaining weight, I am afraid of the physical stress, and I am afraid of making the effort, but not losing any weight. If I lose ten pounds, so what. It’s coming back as 12 pounds.

In my mind, there is a stronghold that fears exercise like almost nothing else. The shrinks would find that I am still back in junior high gym class, scared to death of being asked to do a chin up and climb a rope, being put down by Coach Rick Nash, who was the very image of Satan to me. Once I escaped this, I never went back, and aside from my brief interest in basketball, I can say that every kind of exercise has been sheer misery to me. Misery to be avoided.

Now I fill my life with sedentary work. I can stay at a desk or in front of a computer or with a book almost all day. I’ve become someone who isn’t active. No one challenges that. I can feel the coming pains in my back and legs, but I can’t overcome this mental and physical fear of activity. I have the time, I even have a marvelous place. But I am now more afraid of a heart attack than of my lack of exercise. I’ve dug a hole and I am afraid to get out of it, even it is inevitable that staying here will hurt or kill me. I have an occasional irregular heartbeat and I take blood pressure meds. They provide easy reasons to do nothing. But I think about what is happening to me as my muscles aren’t used and I continue to eat normal meals. It’s not encouraging.

I have friends who have dealt with weight by spiritual means. Fasting. Prayer. Bible study programs. Lots of God-talk. I picture myself taking my lunch time to do something else, like prayer or walking with a teaching tape. I picture myself replacing food with studying Greek or a good short walk around the track. But whatever rut I am living in resists these good ideas.

My physical deadness and my weight problem live peacefully together, and continue conspiring to convince me that I am all right, all the while leaving me hating myself. I could be talking about drug addiction and it wouldn’t be any less paralyzing and puzzling.

My current dilemma comes on the heels of one of the two successful weight loss programs I’ve ever done. Without exercise, I changed my diet and lost 60 pounds and 10 inches over 14 months. It was easy. As many high-protein dieters will find out, too easy, and very easy to gain back. I’ve gained back almost all the weight I lost, but the cynicism and despair are greater than ever. I felt great, and everything changed in my attitude about weight- or so I thought. I thought I was truly on a new road and that God had decided to give me the strength to change my body and my life.

At the same time I lost weight, I went through one of the worst times of my life and proved my capacity for sin to be far beyond anything I’d ever considered. I was convinced at the time that my weight loss contributed to that sin; that my ego needed the check of being overweight in order to not engage in the worst kinds of rebellions and disobedience. My problem, of course, was not my weight, but my heart. My heart took the good gift of weight loss and used it for evil. Then I saw the gaining of weight, the loss of clothes and suits that I loved wear, the constant reminders of how uncomfortable I feel- I saw them all as just punishments from God.

Such is my thinking. Another manifestation of my sin. I have turned my weight into the curse of a God that I know from the Gospel to be gracious and compassionate. My loathing of myself overlooks my own depravity and makes a capricious God my adversary and punisher.

My obesity is not without its good results. I empathize with large kids. I know what they are going through. But I am desperate that my own children not follow in my path, yet I feel powerless to do anything for them when I have failed to change myself. My wife loves me with a marvelous, Christlike love. She has encouraged me and helped at every point. She’s never nagged or seemed embarrassed. I know that she must have prayed for me a thousand times, but she always treats me as if I am handsome. She is always glad to see me. Only God knows how much my weight has been part of my mistreatment of her.

My friends and family have been kind as well. I know they are concerned. It’s been a gift to be so aware of what is wrong with me, and yet to be treated so well, so normally. This is a real picture of grace. I know they all want me to lose, but have no idea what to do to help me.

I am beginning to accept that this is me. This is who I have become. It is who God has allowed me to become. It doesn’t mean I cannot be happy or love or be useful. It is far from being the kind of terrible burden that many people carry in life. If being fat is my worst problem, I can be grateful.

But I want to be the person God created me to be, and I know God did not create me to glorify him in my body by living as I do. Every time I stand in front of a congregation, my appearance says I have sinned. I have been gluttonous, and lazy. I’ve taken too much, more than I needed, and I’ve done very little about repenting of it. Even as people ask me if I want the second helping- something we do all the time for those we love- I am aware that I have hurt my witness and my ministry by taking advantage of God’s generosity and the love of others. I’ve taken a great gift- my body and its appetite for food- and sinned against God and those good gifts.

I need to find peace. Moderation. I need to stop finding solace in food and in lies about food. I need to believe the actions of repentance and good stewardship are God-glorifying. I need to stop thinking of what I eat more than of those around me who need me, and of what God has for me to do in this world.

I can’t help but wonder whatever became of that thin boy on the beach. Why did I destroy him? I’ll never get him back, and I can accept that. But the nagging questions remain. I grieve for what was lost.

About a year ago, I started having a recurring dream. I have it several nights a week now. It is so real, I sometimes awake and think it is true. It’s not.

In the dream, I am running. Running through the streets like I did when I was 15. Running in the gym early in the morning. I can feel my legs moving and feel myself drawing deep breaths. I feel good. I enjoy it.

Of course, I can’t run like this. I can’t run at all. My legs and back hurt, my breath grows short. The boy who could run is gone. And the man who killed him is what is left.

Left with the love of God, and all these questions. I am who I am. Jesus died for me knowing that I would be this person. Can that be enough for me in the years to come? Can it ever take root deep enough in me to resurrect some relative of that young man in the photo? I do not know. I can only wonder.

An Appetite for Fanaticism
Is there something wrong with saying “You’ve gone too far”?
by Michael Spencer

It occurred to me this week, while observing a group of religious fanatics putting on a public demonstration of embarrassing, excessive religious behavior, that I would be considered way out of line if I told the fanatics to cut it out and calm down. Such is the equation of fanaticism with the genuine work of God, that I would be proving to my peers that I was totally insensitive to the Holy Spirit if I questioned the behavior of fanatics in any way.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fanatic as a person motivated by an extreme, unreasoning, enthusiasm for a cause. The original latin root had religious connotations referring to orgiastic temple rites and ceremonies. Today, the word “fanatic” is used generously in everything from sports to hobbies to religion. Americans are, generally, quite tolerant of fanatics, whether they be grown men dressed as Jedi Knights or football fans colored and tatooed like some kind of visitor from the islands of New Guinea. Unvarnished, undiluted enthusiasm is considered a good thing, even if it borders on the excessive.

The exception to this seems to be the secular view of religion. Your average Joe or Joanne doesn’t want to work next to a religious fanatic, have their kid’s team coached by a fanatic or be visited by fanatics selling literature. A whole array of laws have now come into existence to warn the religious fanatic to build his church elsewhere and keep his religion invisible. So one may tattoo a team logo on his forehead, but John 3:16 tacked on a cubicle may result in reeducation camp. Even churches are discovering that their once-welcome presence in the community is now interpreted as an invasion of drooling pedophiles.

On the other hand- and of more interest to me in this article- is the inability of the Christian community to come to terms with fanaticism in its own ranks, and to agree that it is 1) probably not the work of the Holy Spirit and 2) ought to be discouraged- firmly and frequently.

This has been a perennial problem in Christian history, but I do not have the space to document that claim. I will make a view historical observations. For one thing, Americans have always shown a temperament for fanaticism. From the two great awakenings to Azusa Street to the Toronto Blessing, religious enthusiasm has frequently broken out into behavior that needed…uh…explanation. One will find that other cultures- such as the British- may have burned at the stake from time to time, but the kinds of historical appetite for fanaticism we enjoy on our side of the pond have been rare to unknown.

Further, American Christian history is full of the defense of the fanatical impulse. One will find that in virtually every historical outbreak of fanaticism, no matter how manipulated or bizarre it may have been, there will be someone defending it as the work of the Holy Spirit. From Jonathan Edwards to the editors of Christianity Today, there have always been those who made reasoned defenses of unreasonable behavior. The Biblical evaluation of such defenses is the purview of the reader, but I am struck by the fact that so many are clearly uncomfortable saying “Barking like a dog or stumbling around drunk are unspiritual, fanatical, bad behaviors and we ought to have nothing to do with them.”

Instead, there is a tendency to be influenced by what I call the Pentecostal mindset towards the excessive or the strange. The Pentecostal mindset, exemplified most clearly in the early years of the Pentecostal movement, says that when bizarre and fanatical behavior occurs in the context of Christian experience, one ought to consider, even be willing to err on the side of, the possibility that such behavior is the work of the Holy Spirit. The Vineyard movement is the most sophisticated practitioner of this approach, and only the frightening excesses of the Toronto movement caused the Vineyard to put on the brakes, and even then at the cost of many Vineyard congregations who preferred to give the shaking, drunken, laughing, barkers the benefit of the doubt.

The scriptural support for this approach is meager. It consists of the following: 1) the description of some Old Testament characters acting fanatically under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 2) The notation in Acts that, when filled with the Spirit, some concluded the disciples were drunk. 3) The description of worship in Corinth, which sounds rather busy. Beyond that, you have the word of observers of such behavior that, in the end, it was really mostly God. If you sense I am not impressed, you are right. That the Bible makes a case for the Pentecostal mindset towards fanaticism seems to me to be a claim built upon certain presuppositions that should be routed.

What are those presuppositions? Anything done zealously is the work of the Spirit. The louder,the better. The more attention-getting, the more likely God is in it. Whatever is different from a typical Sunday morning in a well-behaved church is certainly God at work. If the fanatic gives God the credit or the blame, then God was at work. This is all, of course, patent nonsense.

As plainly weak as the case for generously overlooking fanaticism is, it is the rare Christian who will tell his or her friend or family member or pastor that they are over the edge. Perhaps it is a case of “What right do I have to judge?” And the answer should be, the perfect right all Biblically reasoning people have to call the unreasonable ridiculous and wrong.

For example, one frequent mild case of fanaticism I experience is the person who tells me that “God has told me to sing this song in church.” I will admit that I rarely challenge this claim, since it does little harm to tolerate it, but what if I did? (And really I should.) What if I said that there is no reason for me to believe God is telling them what to sing, that God instructed them specifically that I should give them an place in public worship to do so or that I should subject the congregation to the claim that God is whispering secret messages into the ear of some people but not others.

I would be perfectly right to say that if she would like to sing, just ask me, and keep the fanatical ploy out of it. There is nothing more spiritual about saying “I am only singing this Ray Boltz tune because God appeared to me like Moses and told me sing it.” This is an attempt to parade one’s spiritual experience, it is probably a lie, and it can’t be verified. Just ask, do it for the glory of God and sit down.

Of course, some of you are already shocked at the rudeness of this, and have concluded, like me, that tolerating this is the greater good. You suppose that when the youth groups come to the altar rubbing and hugging all over one another, I should bless God for their love in the Spirit. You suppose that when a group of church members begins telling others not to vaccinate, pay taxes or use contraceptives because God directly told them so, I should say nothing. When the pastor says that God told him we are to sell, move and build, we ought to do exactly that. You suppose that person who quits their job to watch TBN full time may be hearing from God and who am I to judge?

And it may be, in every case, that the zealot is right and I am wrong. But tolerating fanaticism has turned American Christianity on its head. Rather than being a religion of the Word, it is a religion of experience. Instead of being objective, it has become hopelessly subjective. Instead of being a collective, corporate participation in a Biblical community, it has become an individual, radical, quest to “chase God.” Instead of being comprehensible, it has become esoteric and mysterious.

In modern Christianity, fanatics have a clear runway to positions of leadership and influence. And virtually no one wants to dampen our appetite for fanaticism, no matter how much scripture and reason indicate a better way. Perhaps we are so sensitive to the secular persecution of our religion, that we are reluctant to criticize anything within our own fold. Our reluctance could prove costly, as fanatics tend to rise above correction, and to only be deterred when the damage has been done.

Here’s a closing thought. Jesus was perfectly filled with the Holy Spirit, and he seemed to be a really normal guy. Not normal as in sinful, selfish and foolish, but normal as in not a fanatic. He didn’t fit into the world system, that’s for sure. But it wasn’t because he was a wacko or a zealot. He was impassioned with the Spirit of God, and he shows us what a real God-filled person is like. God-centered, sacrificial, love-motivated living without the distractions of fanaticism.

A Slow Drive Over The Edge
An analysis of fanaticism among evangelical Christians
by Michael Spencer

NOTE: Several weeks ago, I published an essay on IM on the subject of religious fanaticism. Since that time, I’ve continued to think about the subject and find more relevant–and troubling–points that need to be mentioned. If you didn’t read the previous essay, “An Appetite For Fanaticism,” you should probably read it first, as I am picking up my own thoughts from there.

• • •

“It is a fundamental principle with us that to renounce reason is to renounce religion, that religion and reason go hand in hand, that all irrational religion is false religion.” -John Wesley

“A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.” -Finley Peter Dunne

“Defined in psychological terms, a fanatic is a man who consciously overcompensates a secret doubt.” -Aldous Huxley

“The glory of the English Church is, that it has taken the VIA MEDIA…” -John Henry Newman

I blame Jonathan Edwards.

It was Jonathan Edwards who first entangled evangelicalism with fanaticism and invested subsequent generations with doubts about what fanaticism really was. The First Great Awakening occurred during Edward’s ministry in Northampton, Massachusetts. That “revival” saw physical and spiritual excesses of many kinds, and many Christians suspicious of those excesses began to criticize the awakening as a work of the devil. Edwards, already a respected pastor and writer, defended the revivals in print and in person. Look at the fruit, not the occasional excesses, Edwards counseled. A genuine work of the Holy Spirit does not bypass our frail and often selfish humanity. Satan may counterfeit, but God is surely at work. His defense was valid and Biblical, and I believe it.

Yet, even as Edwards was opening the door to a broader definition of legitimate religious experience than straight-laced Calvinists were used to, he was also sowing into evangelicalism a seed of doubt about religious fanaticism; a seed of doubt that has been exploited by fanatics ever since. You see, even when people are rolling on the floor and barking, even when they are abandoning moderation and normality, even when they are harmfully strict and narrowly manipulative, even when they are clearly and dangerously fanatical- it STILL could be of God.

Surely you have heard the confident reasoning of those in whom Edward’s seed of doubt has bloomed into a full flower. Don’t judge the enthusiastic. Don’t criticize the “Lord’s Anointed.” Don’t quench the Spirit. Don’t let a spirit of religion take control of a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit. You never know what God will use. Why, didn’t God speak through Balaam’s donkey? If it even reaches one person, no matter how silly or fanatical or offensive it is, it is of God. If you don’t join in, you are resisting a move of God. You need to lay aside your mind and listen to your heart. God is always on the move. People are being helped. Are you coming along or are you going to be left behind? (So to speak.)

This is the legacy of Jonathan Edwards, though I think he would be horrified at the results and how his name and legacy have been used to justify things that would have caused you to be arrested and placed in stocks at Northampton. Now it is the problem of contemporary evangelicals, who, like drug addicts, have acquired a taste for fanaticism and can hardly bring themselves to give up the stuff. While my previous article examined evangelical fascination with fanaticism, this essay will seek to analyze the fanaticism that fascinates us.

Metaphors Run Amuck

My first observation is that religious fanaticism is a likely consequence of any religion that emphasizes human effort, human response and/or human evidence at the expense of divine grace. Christianity is a worldview about God and what he has done for us in Christ. Despite both a healthy and an unhealthy (in my opinion) dose of mysticism in Christian theology over the centuries, the enduring message of the Gospel is the actions of God on our behalf, outside of us, credited to us and given to us from a motive of God’s grace alone.

At the same time, human response is also an integral part of the Gospel, but if faith is not taught and proclaimed in clear, Biblical terms, Christianity quickly joins all other religions in becoming a demonstration of what we do, how much of God we can get, how far we can go, how much we can give up, how much God says to us, and so on. One need only look at modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity to see that there is no sane limit to what will be approved under the label of God at work in a person or a person “yielding” to God.

So, for example, in I Corinthians, Paul uses the metaphor of a runner as a picture of his response to the grace of God. It is used elsewhere in the New Testament as well, and is an apt and appropriate metaphor for the life of faith. Yet, once the idea of running a race is out of the bag, the competition has begun. Who will outrun whom? Who runs the fastest, or with the greatest visible effort? Who has the best training or the best shoes or the best coach? Who suffers the most? Who has the best stories? We are, to put it simply, off to the races.

Fanaticism flourishes in this atmosphere of competitive human response to God and its underlying theology that God is into everything done in the “race” by any sincere runner. Even those who run unethically or excessively or completely off the track will still say they are in the race and that God is the reason for what they do. And most of us will stand there, infected with the doubts of Edwards, and think, “Who am I to say they are wrong?”

What The Lord Would Do If He Had All The Facts

My second observation is that fanaticism has the recurrent tendency to go well beyond anything in scripture, and to act confidently about those things on which God has been silent. The modus operandi here is almost always the same: God is revealing things to some people and not others. This is a problem.

I am extremely concerned that the evangelical fascination with private revelation has brought us across a bridge into territory where fanaticism is everywhere. It is a basic premise of Reformation and Biblical Christianity that all things necessary for salvation and the Christian life are contained in Holy Scripture and are universally available. Private revelations, while being an allowable part of Christian experience, cannot contain essential matters. For example, if Luther had claimed that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was a private revelation from God and not a doctrine plainly taught in Holy Scripture, he would have been standing in thin air and not on solid ground.

Today, evangelicals are awash in private revelations. The phrase “God spoke to me” is almost a requirement for authenticity. Well-meaning evangelical anecdotalists like Henry Blackaby have made the personal revelation from God into the equivalent of air-conditioning and indoor plumbing. Only the seriously deprived don’t have them.

This is not just a matter of God’s revealing dates of the rapture or that people falling over drunk in church are really full of God. Take for example, the typical church building program. How many times will the pastor use “special” revelations to justify the move, the outlay of money and the construction? “God has given us a vision of a new facility to reach the community.” This is harmless, unless the matter of revelation is important enough to guard from private manipulators. If you want to see where this goes, just Google search Benny Hinn.

From this tendency to approve personal revelations, fanatics draw the support of millions of evangelicals. And now we are discovering that the private pipeline from God and the God-approved ideas of the fanatic are less and less distinct. Once we know the “direction” God is going and who are the “anointed” prophets, then appeal to scripture is much less necessary. Just this morning I received a letter admonishing me not to criticize TBN on the warning, “touch not the Lord’s anointed, or his prophets.” Here was a good person, not just saying he agreed with some of the TBN gang, but that Paul and Jan are “the Lord’s anointed,” a special class whose ideas, whims and revelations are to be taken as God’s unquestionable work in our world. Prophets like Kim Clement and Mark Chirona have contempt for those of us who believe God is finished speaking as he did in scripture, and many less exciting ministers are right with them. The new credential of the pastor/prophet is to “hear God’s voice.” This is an error far more serious than Openness Theology, for it reduces the Bible to something south of the Mormon view of scripture and elevates human prophets to the status of the current divine mouthpiece.

Fanatics need to be told that their personal revelations are delusions and the gymnastics of a selfish and vain imagination. Whether they are saying that God has called them into Gospel music or told them to run naked in the park, fanatics don’t deserve our patient approval. They should be put out of the household of faith. It is demeaning to the Bible to listen to them act as if God is speaking to them as he did to Moses or Paul. No wonder scripture is held in such contempt today by most churches. Men and women have become their own Bibles. Everyone is on the isle of Patmos, waiting for one more vision and voice.

When Too Much Is Never Enough

My third observation is that fanaticism frequently appears to be an overcompensation for Christian fears and doubts. I first came upon this idea in an article about Islamist terrorists. The writer, a long-time resident of Pakistan, suggested that there was a certain kind of Muslim who had begun to doubt tradition and especially doubt whether Allah was really all he had been led to believe, and Jihad was a sort of fanatical overcompensation for these doubts and fears. They were attempting to submerge their doubts and fears of modernity in fanatical acts of terror. In this theory, Bin Laden and company are not so much true believers as those who are seeking to kill their doubts and fears by playing God.

This sort of amateur psychology has limits, but I do not think it is arguable that fanatics operate out of an overcompensation system driven by their fears. Christian fundamentalism demonstrates this characteristic all the time, and out of this motive comes some of the reluctance to label fanaticism as dangerous, and the equal tendency to excuse fanatical behavior as somehow warranted, excusable and harmless.

Much of the fanaticism that disturbs me is directed towards young people. To identify specific instances from my own context would be too controversial, but examples abound. Take the Harry Potter phenomenon. Evangelicals have generously contributed to the book-burning, witch-hunt mentality that abounds about these books. I cannot believe that evangelicals have abided this sort of fanaticism out of the material in the books; content that is no worse than the tales of Arthur or Narnia. I believe it is an overcompensation for the fear of the occult, an abiding fear in evangelicals who have seem to have not read the New Testament’s description of the victory of Jesus on our behalf. Yet this is not considered fanaticism among many American Christians, who would burn a copy of Harry Potter at Friday night youth group without much hesitancy. (I say this as one who was convinced to bury his Led Zepplin albums.)

Evangelicals are fanatical about the end of the world, overcompensating for their doubts and fears about current events and their meanings. I am part of a branch of evangelicalism that seems to think advanced forms of celibacy for young adults are scripturally prescribed, even to the point of bragging that “my wife and I never held hands till we were married.” Is this overcompensation for the sexual revolution? Wheaton College just said it was OK to have dances. What kind of fanaticism ever convinced us there was something wrong with a dance in the first place? Yet I grew up hearing dozens of sermons against such cultural trivialities, all decorated with rhetoric that sounded as if God really cared about such things. Spiritual warfare easily moves into fanaticism, but I will spare you how I know that.

Can we just say a few things here? Why do we have to have so much external Christianity in our lives? Why do churches act as if every day needs a church activity? Why does all our music have to be Christian? Why do Christian t-shirts appear to remind us that we have to “be a witness” in everything? Why do we need Christian animation for kids and Christian books for teens and Christian movies and Christian novels and a smothering, mediocre Christian product for everything? It’s because we can’t spot or admit fanaticism in ourselves. We can spot it when our kid hangs Eminem on every wall and dyes his hair and talks in rap lyrics, but we can’t spot it in ourselves. We can spot it in our neighbor’s devotion to NASCAR or our boss’s insistence that everyone come to the company picnic or be docked, but we can’t spot it in ourselves. But it is there nonetheless.

The Mind Is A Wonderful Thing To Waste

My fourth observation refers to the words of John Wesley at the beginning of this essay. Fanaticism abandons the legitimate role of reason in Christianity, and makes Christianity a dangerously irrational, and emotionally driven, faith.

Edwards would have been floored to hear his spiritual descendents denounce the mind as the instrument of the devil, but a war on reason in religion has been declared, and fanaticism is increasingly unchallenged because no one will think it through.

Take the recent criticisms of Charismatic excesses (such as the Pensacola Revival) by men like Hank Hannegraff. Respondents universally say that the attitude of the critics is hostile and biased. This may be so. Hannegraff does seem to have an ax to grind. But, really what does that matter when his criticism is substantial and reasonable? (Which it certainly is.) The objection is that Hannegraff cannot understand these workings of the Holy Spirit if he approaches it simply through reason, and not through entering into the Spirit’s work. This is fanatical nonsense.

Why not? In fact, why wouldn’t the rational evaluation of an atheist hold out the possibility of a truthful evaluation? “Well,” someone will say, “because the natural man cannot understand the things of God. They are spiritually discerned.” Right enough when we are talking about spiritual things, and surely there is room for misunderstanding. But abuse, lies and manipulation may be more obvious to the reasoned observer than to the spiritual one. Sadly, in instances when Christians have become abusive, it has usually been the reasoned, “unspiritual man” who has written the story and told the truth. The mind is God’s creative gift, and it works in accordance with all He does. Despising the mind is neither spiritual nor Biblical. The admission that our minds are fallen and need renewal does not mean our minds cannot understand right and wrong, true and false, and must be abandoned for feelings and leadings.

Christian fanatics tell their followers to skip the rational and go to the spiritual. Decode that and it means believe what you are told and do what we tell you to do. And when your brain kicks in, it’s the devil. Using the devil as the scapegoat for any reasoned objection, question, or caution is among the most offensive things fanatics do. Yet evangelical leaders continue their retreat from reason, with only a few voices calling for the brakes.

Education is less and less a requirement for ministry, and an increasing number of ministers are told that education in theology, languages or philosophy is really useless in a pragmatic and entrepreneurial culture. Many Christians never read, and what they do read often attacks rational religion and hawks the irrational. Charismatics, Pentecostals and Protestant gnostics no longer explain or exposit. Instead, they reveal and announce what they have discovered through mystical means. Most appalling of all, Christians don’t think. They feel, and as such, they are becoming as barbaric and contradictory as the rest of the culture. Even more foolish than those who are fools without God, in many instances.

In my own ministry, I have been repeatedly criticized for my education, and told plainly that I have a lack of sensitivity to the Spirit because I am “intelligent.” When I present reasoned objections or analysis, many of my Christian co-workers roll their eyes, and reject what I have to say out of hand because it isn’t “spiritual” enough. The many critiques you read on Internet Monk are often greeted with letters and responses from my fellow Christians that fault me for being out of touch with the Spirit. Unbelievers do idolize the mind above God, but God does not despise the mind in conveying truth. He revealed Himself as Word, and that is rational in every way, even though ultimately, incomprehensible.

Fanatics love such an environment. It allows them to operate unhindered from simple logic and consequences. Ignorance has consequences, and fanaticism is both the cause and the consequence of it.

God Told Me To Tell You What To Do

My fifth, and mercifully final, observation about fanaticism is about the eventual manipulation of people that fanaticism allows. Fanatics are bothered that you don’t know about the dangers of meat, so they preach at you till you become a vegetarian. Fanatics can’t stand the fact that you haven’t read the latest health fad and adjusted your life entirely. Fanatics want you to know the conspiracy theories that the media is covering up. They are people, as Winston Churchill said, who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.”

Grace is a wonderful thing for many reasons, but perhaps nowhere as wonderful as in its proclamation that I do not have to save or change you to be a Christian. I am accepted in Jesus, just as I am, and though Christians have a variety of motives for their interactions with their fellow human beings, forcible change of others is not one of God’s requirements for any Christian. In other words, nothing should be further from us than the desire to manipulate or force others to behave as we choose.

I have about a thousand pages of a very bad novel lying around my office. The thing appeals to me because I have a character who occasionally says some very wise things, things I wish I’d said. Here’s one: “I’m not interested in Christianity as the quest to convert people. I’m interested in Christianity the way I am interested in bread and water. The very essentials of life. Do away with food or air for a while and watch how interesting they suddenly become.” That’s my understanding of grace. My witness to you is how vital Christ is to me. If changing or manipulating you becomes vital to my Christian life, I have moved from grace to fear and it is not Christianity.

Now I realize all of us who have callings that involve children or employees or students know we have a right to require behavior from them, and that some kind of motivation, even some mild manipulation or coercion, may come into the picture. But this is not the true nature of God’s message to us as human beings. If, as a father, I require my son to be at the family dinner table every night, I cannot leave the impression that enforcing such a requirement is the total truth about me–or God. Hopefully, I will communicate that love and respect for the family will bring him to the table to enjoy the family and to be part of it. God freely invites us to His table. That is the bottom line of my interactions with others for whom I am responsible.

So I would plead with evangelicals to raise their voices against the fanaticism that manipulates our fellow human beings in any way. No matter how polite or subtle or well dressed the manipulator. No how how spiritual or well-meaning their spiel. If he does not respect the freedom of God and the freedom of his fellow human being, he is a manipulator using God as an excuse to make people do what he wants. That is fanaticism of the worst kind.

I am bone weary of evangelicalism that uses lies and sales tactics in evangelism. I am tired of listening to pastors and ministers extort money by fanatical means. I am frightened by the kinds of manipulations used to draw young people into evangelism and missions. I am angered that so many evangelicals are ready to impose their will on the culture with the bogus justification that this is a “Christian nation.” I am disgusted at the tricks and tortures evangelical leaders and gurus require of their true believers. Manipulation is ugly, and it is the bitter fruit of unchecked and unrestrained fanaticism. We should be done with it.

Bonhoeffer’s Unfinished Idea

As a young Christian, I read a lot Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and loved his Letters and Papers From Prison. In some of Bonhoeffer’s writings, he talked about a tantalizing idea: religionless Christianity. I will not quote Bonhoeffer, because what he says about the subject was never clear enough for anyone to do much more than speculate about what he meant. The idea was dropped in a few letters, and never explained adequately before his martyrdom.

I have often thought about Bonhoeffer’s phrase and its possibilities. It is akin to something I heard in fundamentalism. “Christianity isn’t a religion. It’s a relationship.” Bonhoeffer would have probably agreed, but he seemed to not be thinking of evangelicalism’s “personal Savior,” but was talking about how Christianity was lived out in the world. Coming from his Lutheran mindset, he may have envisioned a form of Christianity that freely moved in the secular world without the trappings or practices of external religious tradition; a kind of Christianity that partook of the gracious good news of the Gospel so much that all of our lives became worship and our worship became our lives in a world where we loved, labored, studied and served alongside other men and women–without asking them to be religious at all.

Religion, in this instance, is the external shell that surrounds the core. Gospel and Grace, surrounded by religion. Bonhoeffer was, perhaps, saying let the shell fall away. It isn’t needed. The Good News is utterly true and needs no sustaining from religious behavior, structures or institutions. Bonhoeffer may have been thinking that it is religion–and its inevitable connection to the weaknesses, ignorance and flaws of human beings–that stands in the way of the Gospel. And surely he would have thought of fanaticism as one of those aspects of religion that served no purpose except to distract from the reality of the Christ-empowered life.

Was Bonhoeffer, among other things, trying to conceive of a Christianity free from the distraction and curse of fanaticism? At the beginning of this essay is a quote from the pre-Roman Catholic John Henry Newman saying that the “glory” of the English church was the “Via Media,” the “middle way” between Rome and the excesses of Protestantism. Whether Anglicanism achieved this or not is a matter of debate, but surely evangelicalism needs to purposely steer its ship to a contemporary “Via Media.” A middle path between the errors of dead Protestant scholasticism and the excesses of fanaticism. At present, evangelicals are traveling under winds that are carrying them away from the rocks of dead rationalism and towards the reefs of fanaticism. Avoiding the rocks and the reefs will take a strong and steady hand determined to find that elusive middle way.

Dear Rev. Falwell
by Michael Spencer

“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.”

• Dr. Jerry Falwell on the 700 Club. (Dr. Falwell later apologized for these comments.)

May I call you Jerry? Ok, I’ll stick with Dr. Falwell, cause I hate that Reverend thing. I have to admit, though, that it seems I know you so well that I should be able to call you Jerry. You’ve been part of my life, my church, my Christian family for more than two decades now. You’re a hero in the circles I grew up in. Most of my friends love you, and I have a lot of good things to say about you myself. While your brand of fundamentalism and political action isn’t my cup of tea, I appreciate and respect your convictions and your accomplishments. If you want to give my kids scholarships to Liberty, I’ll send them right on over.

I love to see you on the Larry King Show. There aren’t many Christians that can be as straightforward and pleasant as you in the presence of those who disagree with the Christian worldview. Even Larry King himself, that old agnostic, has really taken to you. You always have a smile, and you’re very smart and well spoken. I’ve seen you deflate a lot of attacks with kindness and humor, and then score a dead on hit with the truth we both believe. And I’m still cheering for you, even though you really dropped the ball big time with your recent comments on who is to blame for the terrorist disaster in America.

Your comments on the 700 Club have gotten a lot of attention. They are provocative, and I can appreciate a good provocative comment. I stir up my audiences from time to time as well. So I can also appreciate that feeling of having gotten a bit too emotionally involved with a topic and saying something I regret. I appreciate your apology, and I think it has been well received. (Someone noted that it was oddly ironic that your comments had much of the same tone as those Muslims threatened by the depravity of Western culture. It is true that when we become angry, we often sound more like our adversaries than we realize.)

First, let’s talk about where we agree. I agree that God is a moral God, a holy God whose eyes are too pure to behold evil, a God who punishes the sin that offends him. I agree with you that our country is full of grievous public and private sins that daily test God’s patience with us. I agree that sexual sin, exploitation, violence, idolatry and murder raise a stench in the nostrils of a jut and righteous creator. So far, we’re on the same page.

I further agree with you that events such as the terrorist attacks indicate that God’s constant mercy and patience are daily seasoned with judgment. God does, at times, remove his hand and allow judgment to run its course in the consequences of our own evil on this planet. I’m not sure exactly how you feel about this, but I believe God allows a measure of judgment in order to awaken us to our true condition. I believe God does this with human evil and with natural evil, with things large and small, with events that make the news and with events that do not. I believe such disciplining and awakening acts of judgment are common, and not rare as many Americans seem to think. The fact is, our country has been shown a great deal of mercy.

It was the American preacher Jonathan Edwards who said that the human condition under the judgment of God is truly precarious, whether we realize it or not. Edwards used the vivid illustration of a person suspended over the abyss by a single strand of a spider’s web, and that strand is the mercy of God. While this does not sit well with the Oprah-style spirituality of our culture, it is good Bible. We all know the words of Jesus in Luke 13, when a contemporary tragedy was interpreted as special punishment on truly “bad” people: “If you do not repent, you will all likewise perish.” I agree, and I hope you do as well.

Where I disagree with you is in your assignment of blame for these events to particular groups within our society; groups that particularly offend you and have opposed your ministry. In your comments, you said that abortionists, homosexuals, the ACLU and feminists bore special responsibility for God withdrawing his hand of protection over our country. I’ve been surprised at the number of Christians who have agreed with you. My disagreement with you is a disagreement over scripture, particularly with the argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 regarding the wrath of God. Shall we look at it together?

It appears to me that Paul’s conclusion that “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,” is what we have been discussing so far in this letter. The reason for this is plainly stated as the actions of all persons and not any one group. It is all people who have “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him…” It is all people who have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–.” It is all people who have “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.” It is to all people that Jesus is speaking when he says in Mark 7, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, “greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.'” It appears to me that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is seeking to deliver us from any notion that it is only the “other guy” whose sin brings judgment, and is plainly saying that all of us- every one of us- brings a potential judgment as fitting as Sodom and Gomorrah.

In fact, isn’t it interesting that to Jesus, the highest evidence of human sinfulness is the universal rejection of himself, not homosexuality or abortion. “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.” To those who had witnessed his miracles and not believed, Jesus said “…it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.” Paul is quite explicit about what brings the judgment of God: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.”

I have to say, Dr. Falwell, that I do not find the scriptures putting the homosexual or the abortionist or the ACLU or the feminist on the hook more than less notorious sinners like me. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God was was in a completely right position to exterminate the entire experiment right there. What God did to the world in Genesis 6- a worldwide judgment- was the appropriate response to the very first sin and to every sin thereafter, be it gossip or terrorism. As David said, we sin against God, and that is deserving of hell 100% of the time.

Of course, Romans 1 explicitly says that homosexuality provides evidence of human depravity. Paul says the distortions of idolatry and homosexuality are convincing examples of what happens when sin darkens the human heart and God gives us over to a depraved and corrupted mind and practice. Though this behavior is clearly a distortion of our basic created humanity, it does not mean that the non-homosexual sinner has provoked God’s judgment less. It merely means that homosexuality provides a clear evidence of the overall problem of human falleneness.

There is no more basic Christian truth that Romans 3:23: “All have sinned and and fall short of the glory of God.” And of course, Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death…” These truths apply to every person and they do not apply more to those sinners who offend our sensibilities or disturb our political opinions. I am fearful of what has happened when we designate some persons as the provokers of God’s wrath, and imply that the rest of us have not provoked that wrath. How do I say my sin is less than what supposedly brought this terrible attack, when it was my sin that nailed Jesus to the cross? Surely there is no more awful result of sin than that.

So perhaps we disagree, but I salute your candor and your fighting spirit. I know you are the first to preach the Gospel to anyone and that even your foes have found you a gracious and loving adversary. Whatever you believe on these matters, I know you will be found in the front ranks of those rebuilding America’s vision with the Gospel message and the love of God.

If It Looks Like an Evangelical Skunk…
(Or Why You Can Leave Me Behind Too)
by Michael Spencer

I think Jan Crouch’s hair is the darnest thing since the Tower of Babel. I think Benny Hinn is sincere, but probably unstable. I think T.D. Jakes is preaching gnosticism. TBN in general convinces me television is utterly incompatible with Christianity. Most Contemporary Christian music makes me wish I was wandering in the Antarctic wastes. A tour through the Christian fiction section of my local Christian bookseller reveals enough mediocrity to fill a small country. Christian radio, for the most part, makes NPR look downright intelligent. Evangelical cinema is bad- just plain bad. The best Christian movie ever made- Chariots of Fire- was produced by a Muslim.

Yep, those are my opinions, and as my dad used to say, all of them and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. These are my evangelical brethren, and in general, I think their product stinks. I know billions of evangelicals love this stuff, and always will. Evangelicals will soon be building amusement parks, world-wide satellite systems, movie studios and publishing conglomerates. But if the past is a predictor of the future, we’ll just be swimming in an ocean of tacky.

All of this is my way of voting with Mr. Eric Rigney on the proposition that Christians are not obligated to approve of all that comes sprouting forth from the evangelical subculture compost heap. I agree with Eric totally that we have an obligation, in the name of the integrity of truth, to call a skunk a skunk, even if he is carrying a Bible and singing “As the Deer.”

I would not be as severe as Eric on the Left Behind phenomenon, because I have not read the books. Nor do I plan to. Since they propagate the “rapture” theory, I consider them to be carriers of considerable false teaching and the amusing apocalyptic sub-plots don’t interest me. Evangelicalism embraced rapturism and its bizarre discovery of two returns of Christ just over a century ago. I prefer the classical and Biblical Christian consensus of the previous 1800 years that Christ will only return once. I know the rapture theory makes for a neat scary movie, but we’re talking about what the Bible really teaches, not what makes for a great special effects scene.

I also agree with Eric that Christian propaganda is the use of fractional portions of truth, surrounded by distortion, for the purposes of persuasion. It seems to me that Christians should be the last people on earth to resort to partial truths, caricatures and misrepresentations to win arguments. We believe that our worldview has the advantage of matching reality. So why do I need to resort to the tactics of liberals to make my points? When the truth is told, from all sides and all perspectives, the Christian worldview will be the sturdiest and most realistic.

That means that our ventures into the cultural arena must stand up under scrutiny and comparison. This is where evangelicals wimp out. We have created a Christian cultural ghetto with our own standards of art, writing, quality and truthfulness. The larger world isn’t signing up for that party, and we are diminished by playing the game this way. The use of propaganda is simply a way of talking to ourselves rather than listening to the real world.

I would not join Eric in automatically calling highly biased publications propaganda. Bias is allowed in a lively partisan discussion of issues. That is not the same as misrepresentation and distortion. So if I make every pro-choicer into a slobbering baby killer I am putting out propaganda. If I strongly state the pro-life case and refrain from misrepresenting those who disagree with me, the power of truth will prevail. I think partisan pamphleteering is not the same is promoting propaganda. That’s what I hope this web site is all about.

I agree with Eric that Chick tracts are reprehensible propaganda. And that the public needs protection from Michael Bolton. I would also like an explanation for why so many preachers have weird hair.

I would want to add one point beyond Eric’s article. I think Christians should freely express their criticisms of the mediocrity and distortion that emerges from the evangelical ghetto, and not be the least ashamed to do so. If we critique ourselves, that only speaks more to our confidence in the truth. It also shows (surprise) humility to acknowledge none of us are beyond criticism. It is a general observation of mine that Christians are woefully afraid of engaging in criticism of their own sub-culture as if that meant they were criticizing Jesus. Believe me, Jesus did not come up with all that Y2K nonsense. Or the script for the Omega Code.

Universalism, Lynchburg Style
A Falwellian Theologian’s valiant struggle to not fall over the cliff
by Michael Spencer

Christ died for the sins of everyone. Right? Seems simple enough. When I was journeying towards Calvinism, I’ll admit the biggest bump in the road came when I discovered what that “L” in the TULIP was all about. Arthur Pink seemed like a nut case to talk about a “limited atonement.” How could anyone get something so plain that wrong?

Nothing sounds less Southern Baptist than “limited atonement.” We were the ones singing “Whosoever will may come” and “Come every soul by sin oppressed. There’s mercy with the Lord.” We lived by “God so loved the world.” If someone had come up with the idea that Christ died for some, but not all, we would have thought it beyond bizarre, if not criminal.

Scripture seems clear on this one: 1 Timothy 2:3 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

This isn’t the only place that an “all” or an “every” seems to nail the notion of “limited” atonement to the wall. But did we really need to argue scripture? What kind of Gospel is for some people, but not others? How can we tell kids to sing “Jesus loves me” if Jesus might not have died for their sins? How can you offer a Gospel invitation based on such theology? Won’t limited atonement be the death of missions and evangelism? This could get out of hand!

Such is the alarm being sounded today against limited atonement by Elmer Towns, well-known Baptist writer and a dean at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and Seminary. In what is becoming a surprisingly persistent squabble among Southern Baptist conservatives, Towns expressed shock that Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, is an open Calvinist who embraces all five points of Calvinistic soteriology and encourages others to do so. He was particularly bothered that Mohler embraced a view of the atonement that does not say Christ died for each and every person, but only for the elect.

(Your dyed-in-the-wool, Lottie Moon supporting, three-services-a-week, Cooperative Program-loving average Southern Baptist would find both Liberty University and the current Calvinistic version of Southern Seminary to be mongrel dogs. The rise of former independent Baptist pastors, churches and schools to prominent Southern Baptist leadership and especially to the role of resident SBC theologians is at least as strange as the resurgence of Calvinism in a thoroughly revivalistic denomination.)

Towns’ exact quote is fascinating, for it shows to what extent Baptists have moved towards embracing the universalism that has haunted evangelical history in the past. The first Great Awakening should have left New England a bastion of orthodox Calvinism. Instead, within a few generations, Unitarians and Universalists commanded large congregations and influential educational institutions. The rejection of Calvinism didn’t stop with a shift to Arminianism, though. The whole cart slipped over the cliff into an outright abandonment of the Trinity and the Reformation Gospel, a loss from which New England has never recovered.

Here’s the quote: “Jesus died for all. No man goes to hell for his sin — people go to hell for unbelief … they have not believed in Jesus Christ,” Towns says. “Therefore, the atonement covers the sin of every person — but that’s not universalism. We must give them the message, they must believe.” If the subtlety of the difference between sin and unbelief escapes you, then come along for the ride.

Let me say some general things about “limited atonement.” First, the name is not Biblical and most of us prefer not to use it. “Effective atonement” or “definite redemption” is preferred by many of us, because we would agree that this is not about “limiting” the work of Jesus in any way. The phrase leads the hearer to believe there is an “unlimited” atonement that is being rejected in order to subscribe to a “limited” atonement.

Secondly, there are many in the Calvinistic camp who do not accept this point in its narrowly formulated form. Professor Bruce Ware, an outspoken Calvinist and associate dean of theology at the seminary in question, does not subscribe to “limited” atonement. The exact nuances of this rejection vary. Most, such as this writer, would say the atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. There is no limitation on the saving value of the atonement, as if it were worth 100 million souls and no more. Such mathematical notions of the atonement are not helpful. The infinite value of the substitutionary life and death of Jesus is never to be limited.

Third, no matter how they conceive of the value of the atonement, Calvinists acknowledge the actual salvation that was accomplished by Jesus was intended for the elect and is efficiently applied to the elect. These are those who are regenerated, come to Christ, have faith, persevere and are saved. Typical of this language are these verses from Hebrews 10:12-14 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Notice that the “all” is limited to those who “are being sanctified,” a specific group corresponding to Romans 8:28-30 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Almost immediately after this statement of “limitation” of the application of God’s saving work, you read the following: Romans 8:32-33 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?

“Us all” is not “all” in the sense that Towns and others are insisting. In fact, there are extremely clear statements of the limitation of the atonement itself, such as Hebrews 9:28 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Or Revelation 5:9 9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, Please notice that in both passages, the work of Christ is limited in its intention to a particular group.

What this means for most Calvinists is not some nefarious plot to reduce the atonement to including only the current subscription list of Tabletalk magazine, but a glorious affirmation that the atonement actually saves- that it does all the saving work necessary- for all those God predestined from eternity past. The scriptures do not celebrate a potential salvation that awaits our faith and obedience to be complete. The scriptures celebrate that “It is finished (or accomplished)!” One of my favorite acknowledgements of this is Revelation 7:9-10 9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” Some Limited Atonement!

A point I like to make in a discussion on this matter is the one Spurgeon made many times. The Calvinist “limits” the atonement in intention and design. The Arminian limits the atonement in its effectiveness. In other word, the Arminian says God designed an atonement that potentially saves no one. It was theoretically possible that Christ would have lived, died and been raised and no one be actually saved. Spurgeon suggested that this “limitation” of the work of Christ is certainly more distressing than what Calvinists affirm. I totally agree, and have never met an Arminian who could dispute this point. In fact, some openly embrace this as a measurement of the risk God took in becoming our Savior.

The really dazzling aspect of Towns’ criticism is his assertion that all the sins of all people have been paid for by Christ, and the only reason anyone is eternally condemned is unbelief. This is so close to Universalism that one can understand why a renegade charismatic like Bishop Carlton Pearson has taken the ball and ran right over the cliff into outright glory hallelujah Universalism. Pearson says that Christ has forgiven everyone for all their sins, they won’t be condemned now or ever and we simply need to tell them the news before they hear it at death. (This is remarkably similar to one of my favorite near Universalists, Robert Capon.) This kind of evangelical universalism can’t be avoided if Towns assertion is true. Which, of course, it is not.

I assume that Towns is basing his strange near universalism on John 3:18 8 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. I don’t know if Towns is unaware of other scriptures known by any youth department Sunday School teacher, but it seems he has forgotten them.

We are all dead in sin. We are all rebels against God. We are all under the judgment of God. We are God’s enemies. Our deeds and hearts are evil and we can do nothing savingly good. And this situation does not change because Christ died for sinners. The idea that our only problem is unbelief is about the most optimistic view of human nature I can think of. We are DEAD in trespasses and sins, not just in unbelief. What would Towns say is going on in Revelation 20:12. What was written in those books?

Revelation 20:12-15 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Or this passage, which seems at first to back up Towns, but on reflection says just the opposite. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Is the only problem here unbelief? Is unbelief the ONLY reason these people are condemned? Is the judgment of God coming on these people for their sins or for their unbelief only? Westminister VI :VI says “Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.”

Towns’ view of salvation means that the only sin that will be accounted for on the day of judgment is unbelief. But this is not what scripture teaches. Again, Westminister XXXIII:1 summarizes the day of judgment as when “all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.”

Where does Towns odd and sloppy theology come from? From the pleadings of revivalistic public invitationalism and pragmatic, “get ’em down front” manipulations from the pulpit. Preachers in Town’s tradition are used to talking with sinners not from the perspective of our guilt before God’s Law and the necessity of a mediator, but as if the sinner is in charge, needing only to be convinced to open the door and let Jesus in. Towns’ critique of Mohler is not a theological one, but entirely practical and sub-cultural. It is endorsing a “close-the-sale” line. He wants to tell the sinner that the only thing that stands in the way is unbelief. Christ took care of all sin for all people. Now all that is left is for the sinner to remove the real problem- unbelief.

In other words, the real saving act is my act of belief, an act that makes up for my unbelief. My slate is clean except for one sin, and I can remove that by believing. Doesn’t exactly sound like the Gospel, does it? If it sounds like self salvation to you, you’re not alone.

Education and The Painful Failure of Circular Reasoning
by Michael Spencer

That feeling you have of going in an endless and meaningless circle? It’s the pain of circular logic. The fact is your mechanic IS the problem with your car. Whatever is keeping the thing from running, your mechanic is now invested in not seeing and repairing the problem. He must find other things to fix or else face up to the utter incompetence he’s been offering you for high prices. If you grasp this, you will go to another mechanic, who will look at this mess, shake his head, and repair the problem permanently for $50.

This little tirade is inspired by an article in my hometown paper diagnosing the reasons black students score 10-15 points lower on state achievement tests and are otherwise doing poorly when compared to white children. The entire article is worth reading, but take in this gem of liberal circular reasoning. “Experts believe the achievement gap has lingered in Kentucky for several reasons, namely institutional racism, poverty and a lack of diversity in curriculum and teaching staff.” For those of you not yet able to translate liberal analysis into plain speech, the experts are saying “The solution is more money for us. More money for affirmative-action hired teachers, more money for multi-cultural curriculum and more government money all around.”

In other words, we know what the problem is; we just don’t have the money to tackle it. It’s your fault, America, for not funding public education. This is a lie; and a nasty one. A lie meant to siphon tax-payer dollars away from working families and pour it down the most predictable waste-hole of money anyone knows of: public education’s own solutions to the problems it has created. Give us more money to keep doing what we’ve been doing wrong and we will come back in five years and ask for more money for the same reasons. How do they continue to get by with this? By hiding behind the disadvantaged and minority children this system victimizes.

The solutions for the current education dilemma are not difficult to find. Finding people courageous enough to speak the truth is a different matter. The solution is to put money into the hands of parents (preferably through tax credits) and allow them to choose the school their child attends. (Note: Like chefs that refuse to eat at their own restaurant, public school teachers and their liberal supporters send their children to private schools in high numbers.)

The solution is cutting the wacky and useless multi-cultural curriculum and teaching reading, math, science and writing with high standards and high expectations. (In America’s universities, 60% of math and science classes are now taught by internationals.) The solution is tough discipline, not tying a teacher’s hands. The solution is high standards instead of dumbing down the material. The solution is minimum grades for participation is sports and activities. The solution is paying teachers more only they succeed, not out of some schlock appeal to the salaries of athletes. The solution is accountability, graduation tests, and teachers who are there to teach as a personal mission. The solution is to treat the public school establishment as a failure and wrench the public education mission of this nation out of the hands of the teacher’s unions and their failed leadership.

The education establishment opposes the practical implementation of every one of these solutions. They want quota hired teachers, dumbed down curriculum, diversity training and cultural sensitivity. They want warehouse schools for lower performing students and no teacher accountability. They want money, money and more money. And they want nothing that empowers parents to choose or puts schools in competition with one another. In other words, the public school establishment has become addicted to the failure of their schools, and they will never have the courage to volunteer the truth.

A word about black students and their lagging behind their white counterparts. I am a classroom teacher in Kentucky with a larger than average black student population. I also have white students and a large number of international students. The difference between the three groups has nothing to do with color of my skin or the ebonics content of the textbook. The difference is the cultural value placed on education and the family’s enforcement of that cultural value.

International students live in mortal fear of humiliating their families. They work hard to succeed in order to say I made my family proud. Some of these families treat their children in ways we would call neglectful and even cruel, but it doesn’t matter. The cultural value of honoring your family’s efforts in sending you to school is intact and highly effective. When an international student gets lazy and does poorly, his/her peers say he has gone “American.”

I have a student from Kenya who has done poorly in my class. His sister and brother are in a university elsewhere in the state. They came to see me and politely asked what was the problem. I told them their brother was lazy. They asked what assignments were not completed and wrote them down. They spent the rest of the day with the brother. That young man now runs- not walks- to get my assignments and turns all of them in “A” quality and on time. I would like to have a tape of the talk that occurred between those siblings, but I think we all get the point. The look on his face is eloquent testimony to his decision to honor his family rather than appear “cool” to his American friends.

Among American students, one need only look at this same issue. If a family has succeeded in communicating the importance of education, the student will succeed, even if his/her skills are limited. They will work hard and produce. Of course, American students are presented with a very negative views of education in their youth culture. Being successful in school is not the image every student has of high school. Instead it is parties, dates, money and popularity. The family’s ability to overcome this is a major element of success. As a parent, I know it is hard work and a full time job.

All this explains the dilemma of African-American students. Their illegitimacy rate is almost 83%. The number of intact families is small. The destructive effects of African-American youth culture, seen in media, music and celebrities, are incredible. Success in school is portrayed as selling out to the white system. Athletics and entertainment are portrayed as the true realms of success. Criminal activity and sexual irresponsibility are glorified. Role models like Conde Rice and Clarence Thomas are ignored because they are conservatives. Dependency and victimization are highly imbedded ways of thinking and responding. It would be hard to overcome all this if Black families were healthy and intact. The truth is sobering: Fifty years of liberal Democrat social policies have destroyed the Black family. What African-Americans demonstrate in public schools are the the result of this situation.

Which brings me to the conclusion. How can the educational establishment continue its course when the solutions are well known and the cost to young people is so high? How can school systems dominated by this liberal mentality justify their opposition to solutions that work? These are people who are willing for others to suffer that they might prosper. It is cruel. It is wrong. It must end.

Stalking The DVD Antichrist
It’s the end of worship as we know it…and we feel fine.
by Michael Spencer

I spotted the Antichrist today. He looked back at me from an ad in a flyer from a major Christian retailer, which shall go unnamed, though I don’t know why I care about the name. I mean, it was Lifeway, which used to be Baptist Book Store, but it changed its name to sell more stuff to people who weren’t Baptist, which is a good thing, I suppose, though, ultimately, it’s a market driven decision, which gets around to why the Antichrist was comfortably looking back at me from that ad. But I digress.

The Antichrist was disguised as a DVD. DVDs are hot right now. I have a bunch of them myself, so I guess I am part of the problem, except I don’t buy Christian DVDs. I buy war movies, mostly. With a few westerns, and movies everyone else in the family hates, but I like. “Navy Seals” is a good example. Anyway, this DVD was a “worship” DVD. Instead of just being music, this was the whole show, music and video, live and anointed by the Holy Spirit, who I suppose was left out of the credits. Except this DVD was the Antichrist. How do I know? Because of the title. Bannered across the page was the following unmistakable fingerprint of the Antichrist: “The TOTAL Worship Experience.”

See, I told you. The Antichrist.

I guess you had to be there. Or you have to believe, like I do, that Jesus was actually telling the truth when he said, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mathew 18:20) In others words, there is something unique about the gathered church. Paul had it in mind when he told the Corinthians to “come together” as a church. (I Corinthians 11:17-18) And when he said they were to exercise discipline when they were “assembled” in the name of the Lord Jesus. (I Corinthians 5:4) It’s the reason the writer to the Hebrews said, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

The Antichrist is selling the TOTAL worship experience without the church. Just me and my DVD, gettin’ into Jesus with my killer home theater. No bad seats. No crying kids. Nobody around but me and my sweetie and a bowl of chips. And I can watch it as often as I want. It’s made to order, which is, of course, the problem.

Ever read this in the Psalms: “Praise the LORD! I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart, in the company of the upright, in the congregation.”? (Psalm 111:1) It’s a fairly common part of Israel’s worship book. You might recall that God made it fairly clear in the Old Covenant that gathering for worship, as opposed to having a home tabernacle in the back yard, was mandatory. Home tabernacles- known as high places- were generally frowned upon.

That’s not to say that Israelites didn’t pray and worship in all kinds of places and circumstances, but the place of the gathered congregation in the worship of Israel is unmistakable. While Jesus was a rebel, he also actually demonstrates what a good Jew he is by going to Jerusalem for worship and going to synagogue for worship. The gathered congregation is an undeniable part of his life. Jesus wasn’t Buddha.

Assembling together is part of the Christian experience of the disciples, the teaching of the apostles, and, of course, the witness of the early church. We tend to overlook the fact that, given so many Christian truths that universalize Old Testament particulars- like the Sabbath, the temple, the Holy of Holies, the sacrifices, etc.- it can be a bit surprising that the regularly meeting, local, gathered congregation was such a central part of Christianity. Can’t a Christian make the argument that God is no more present at church than he is in the car on the way to the soccer game? Can’t Christians say that every day is the Lord’s Day? Jesus is our great high priest and he is everywhere? Isn’t my time with God alone just as holy as any time spent in church?

As true as some of these things are- and they are true- they are also a very one-sided presentation of the New Testament witness. The gathered church is everywhere in the Bible. In its calling to discipline, in its commission to equip, worship and teach, in its officers and ministers, in the ordinances and commands that can only be carried out in the church. The book of Acts is a history of the gathered church. The epistles are witnesses to the life, problems and experiences of the gathered churches. Revelation is a letter to seven local, gathered congregations.

Christianity is a faith of individuals who gather into communities of belief and covenantal, confessional faith. This isn’t a seminar. It’s not group therapy. It’s not a conglomeration of consumers shopping at the same outlet. It’s an intentional community. A place where people come together because God said so. A place where “brother” and “sister” mean something real. A gathering that calls us out of individuality into the Body of Christ. Get off your butt. Get out of the house. Show up somewhere.

The audacity to advertise the “TOTAL worship experience” by way of DVD is so brazenly anti-Christian that I have no problem calling it the Antichrist. On sale for $22.95, and packaged to look for all the world like one would have to be a fool to question whether this was not the best development in Christianity since the Jabez Rosary.

The diabolical possibilities are endless. No carping preachers. No off key soloists or amateurishly performed special music. No senior adults taking up the seats. No crying babies. No youth group misbehavior. No annoying building programs. No one raising their hands in the front row. No bad seats or bad breath. No thermostat problems. No old boyfriends. No family members. No clammy handshakes. No scary tongue-speaking. No long invitations. No repetitive liturgy. No un-pretty people. No being labeled a “visitor.” No..no…no…..no… A person could get used to this.

It’s the spiritual equivalent of cloning. We’ll give the Christian the ability to order up whatever kind of worship experience he wants with no need to go anywhere, join anything, or believe anything. We simply select the characteristics we want and create the product. Complete with a menu of choices that will please any denominational background. “Press here for Michael W. Smith’s commentary on the song. Press here for prophecies included. Press here for “Behind the TOTAL Worship Experience” interviews with worship leaders. Press here for songs in French, English, Spanish or Tongues. Press here to order more TOTAL Worship videos.”

Of course, I’m just being my usual extreme self. Nothing like this will ever REALLY happen.

I owe a lot to Mike Yaconelli. Somewhere along the way, that lovable curmudgeon convinced me that the church, as divine as it is, is- on the human level- a zoo of pathetic and utterly ridiculous people behaving badly and seldom doing anything right. This saved me from the heart attack I was working on trying to change every church I belonged to. I finally gave up and just embraced the unkempt, slovenly mess as the bride of Christ. Things have been a lot easier ever since. I don’t want the TOTAL Worship Experience. I am having too much fun at the zoo. I’m in here with all the other animals! (Toss me a peanut.)

I have observed in my ministry that about half the serious Christians I know are either out of church or shopping around. I wish I could say this was because of their strong desire for a vital, Biblically centered church experience and there just are no options around anywhere. The fact is that the reasons are pretty much all the same. They’re shopping and not buying. Or just not shopping at all.

American evangelical Christians are consumerized to the point that the TOTAL Worship Experience and every other version of the individualized, non-gathered church has a ready-made audience. The mantra of millions of American Evangelicals is “I can’t find a church that I like.” Well- respectfully- so what? Find one that you don’t like. Where in scripture is the permission form for any one of us to make out a list of our own preferences for a church, and then to sit it out till we find one that fits? (For those of us who have taken up residence in the zoo, the requisite speech that goes along with this position is one of life’s most irritating moments. Don’t get me started.)

Listen. My list of church preferences is so narrow that I could justifiably sit home every Sunday on five matters of essential principle. I don’t want to hear about the God of Arminianism. I don’t believe there is any Biblical warrant for the public invitation. I have no appetite for legalism. Congregational church government makes me ill. I loathe the saccharin content of most hymnody this side of Isaac Watts. The list goes on. But I’m convinced that God has no real appreciation for this collection of potential excuses, and therefore, I have spent most of my life standing and singing twenty verses of “The Savior Is Waiting” after a sermon on “Ten Things God Can’t Do If You Don’t Pray Just Like This.”

Should Lifeway ever discover that there was money to be made selling me DVDs of Alistair Begg, Al Martin and Timothy Keller, I would be surely tested. The TOTAL Reformed Worship Experience. For $42.95. I’d be a goner.

I’ve chosen to show up on Sunday for my children’s sake, and for appearance sake and a dozen other reasons running from good to phobic. But I hope, at the core of my Christianity, I recognize that the gathered church is a constant reminder of just what a wild and extravagantly ridiculous idea grace really is. That this collection of characters is destined for glory, worship around the throne and judging angels….it’s hilarious. The Bible never makes any pretense that the church will look like much to the world. Hats off to the churches that have made church cool, hip, trendy and the place to be. (Hint: It CAN’T last. So enjoy it while you can. We are TOO PATHETIC.)

As we’ve said for years, be careful about looking for the perfect church. When you find and join it, you’ll ruin everything.

So I leave you well warned, intrepid reader. The Antichrist is out there. With the perfect church packaged in a DVD. Waiting to show you one Spirit-filled good time right there in your own family room. If you’ve already taken the bait, there’s still time to break the thing and run, not walk, to the terrible little church on the corner, where church as Jesus meant it to be is still going on. Remember this: There will be no DVDs in heaven, but those pathetic and quirky saints will shine beyond a million suns.