The Pneuma Review » real

Real Christianity is Growing in the USA

William De Arteaga — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:22:41 +0000

Is Christianity dying in America? In this review essay by historian William De Arteaga, he points out that the statistics about the church shrinking are not what most have made of it.

Glen T. Stanton, “New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger,” The Federalist (January 22, 2018)

The above cited article is a summary article, and below is original research that encompasses many studies on the topic. Both are very encouraging, especially in view of the bad news we Christians have been hearing about the eventual demise of the Church in America, or at least its marginalization as has happened in Western Europe. New and careful analysis shows, for instance, that in the US the percentage of persons attending church services once a week has increased every decade since the Nation’s founding. Yes, that‘s right, many a patriot soldier of 1775 was also an agnostic or deist. Thank God there was a leaven of Christians.

The percentage of Christians who go to church often has been steady for decades.

The losses in Church attendance and the rise of the category of “nones,” those not affiliated with any church, is not necessarily bad news for readers of PneumaReview.com. That is, those losses are almost entirely due to decline in mainline churches where belief in the Bible is weak and liberal theology strong.

The article below shows, in great detail and with graphs, that the percentage of Christians who go to church often, has been steady for decades. The losses are from nominal believers who no longer feel social pressure to remain in church or be identified as Christian.

Landon Schnabel and Sean Bock, “The Persistent and Exceptional Intensity of American Religion: A Response to Recent Research,” Sociological Science 4 (2017), pages 686-700.

Here is the abstract from that article:

Recent research argues that the United States is secularizing, that this religious change is consistent with the secularization thesis, and that American religion is not exceptional. But we show that rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion—strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism—is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States. We also show that in comparable countries, intense religion is on the decline or already at very low levels. Therefore, the intensity of American religion is actually becoming more exceptional over time. We conclude that intense religion in the United States is persistent and exceptional in ways that do not fit the secularization thesis.

God is setting the stage for another Great Awakening in America.

Let me personalize this. I recall from my childhood in the 1950’s that all of my Catholic relatives would have said “yes,” if they were asked if they were Christians. But in reality they were only nominal Catholics who attended church on holidays and weddings (and their own funerals). As a Hispanic in New York, part of their specific identity was to be called “Catholic.” This is the type of person who is now leaving the churches in droves, and it is not a bad thing. It avoids statistical confusion, the persons who stay in churches now are mostly really disciples of the Lord, and the “nominals” are now “nones” and clearly outside of the Church. With this situation there is less problem of so-called sheep stealing. For instance, one of my uncles became an Evangelical in the early 1960’s and that was a scandal to my other Catholic aunts and uncles, many of whom did not go to Church, but as part of the Hispanic middle class considered Evangelicalism low-class, emotional, and cultic.

Duane Litfin: The Real Theological Issue Between Christians and Muslims

Tony Richie — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:42:53 +0000

Duane Litfin, “The Real Theological Issue Between Christians and Muslims: It’s not about a different God, but a different Jesus” Christianity Today (August 9, 2016).

To begin, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have previously written on the question of the identification and relation of the Triune God and Allah being considered by Duane Litfin. (http://pneumareview.com/do-all-abrahams-children-worship-abrahams-god/.) In that article I essentially argue that the true and living God is not contained or controlled by any religion (Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49). Why should it be considered inconceivable that God is infinitely greater than any religion’s perception and presentation of divine reality and identity? Yet I am a Christian. I unreservedly confess my faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as Lord and Savior (John 14:6; Romans 10:9). For me, the question is not to which religion does God belong but who among us belongs to God and in what way. According to the Bible, in some sense all creation and every creature belongs to the Creator God (Psalm 24:1; 1 Corinthians 10:26). However, according to John’s Gospel the Church belongs to Christ as the bride belongs to the groom (3:29). Christians belong to God as those who have heard God’s word in Christ (8:47). And Christians belong to Christ as the Father’s gift to him; therefore, Christ gives the Spirit to them to make known the otherwise unfathomable depths of divine mysteries (16:15). In my estimation, Christians can (and should) consistently affirm that God isn’t the exclusive property of any particular religion and also that God is definitively and decisively made known only in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jerusalem, seen from the roof terrace of the Austrian Hospice of the Holy Family in the Muslim Quarter of old Jerusalem, looking towards the south. In the foreground is the silver dome of the Armenian Catholic chapel, “Our Lady of the Spasm,” the fourth station of the Via Dolorosa. In the background, left side, the golden Dome of the Rock.
Image: Justin McIntosh / Wikimedia Commons.

The scandal of Jesus cannot be avoided.

Second, I approach the present conversation from a context informed by the work of Amos Yong and Miroslav Volf. Yong is a Pentecostal theologian and Volf has a Pentecostal background. The thought of Yong and Volf on this matter can be seen together in Yong’s review of Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response (http://pneumareview.com/miroslav-volf-allah/). Volf dedicated this book to his father, a Pentecostal pastor who taught him that Christians and Muslims worship the same God—a position Volf eventually came to recognize as exceptional. Volf himself also affirms that positive assessment, while noting that only Christians know God as the Father of Jesus and as Trinity, and then explores the political, social, and ethical implications of that claim. Yong appreciatively notes the theological and philosophical sophistication and subtlety of Volf’s work. However, he suggests that likely neither Christians nor Muslims will be satisfied with the outcome, and that the scandal of Jesus cannot be avoided. (Interestingly, Yong has himself sometimes been charged, although not entirely fairly, in my opinion, with attempting to belay debate on the controversial issue of Christ’s identity.) What Yong finds most mentionable about Volf’s treatment is Volf’s decision to avoid soteriological issues, or, in other words, the question of salvation. (Again, and interestingly, Yong has repeatedly complained that classic theology of religions categories tend to over focus on soteriology!) In the end Yong praises Allah: A Christian Response, and proposes that it could have immense significance for Pentecostals.

Stephen Hill: Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?

Trevor Martindale — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:58:12 +0000

Stephen W. Hill, “Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?: The truth about apostles, authority and the kingdom of God” Ministry Today (Jan 2009), p. 68-72.

This rather brief article is an attempt by Stephen Hill to question the pre-eminence given to apostles in churches today. Hill begins this task by recalling for the reader a story of, what he views as dishonorable, introductory comments of a leading apostle standing as the main speaker at a recent apostolic conference. He uses this as a platform to question the contemporary understanding not only of the role of the ‘Apostle’ but also the role of all church leaders. What proceeds is a passionate argument whereby Hill insists that the abuse of apostolic authority is an issue that is at the center of a widespread misunderstanding of true leadership in God’s kingdom. The argument concludes with a proposal of a solution to this problem to be found by adopting a church structure of ‘functional ministry’ whereby there is no hierarchical leadership in place but instead each believer takes on the mutual responsibility of serving ‘one another’. This review will present the strengths and weaknesses of the key elements of Hill’s reasoning and briefly suggest how such elements could open further areas for discussion regarding church leadership.

An obvious strength of Hill’s argument is his willingness to address problematic areas of ethical leadership—an issue that seems to be of growing concern in the church today. Arguing for a re-ordering of the understanding of true leadership within God’s kingdom, Hill asserts that leadership authority should be given by invitation. Likewise, leadership should always be exercised by example in order to ensure that leaders sustain a heart of servanthood. Hill states his reason for this model is that God always desires obedience through “free conviction rather than any form of coercion” (p.69).

However, instead of developing his ideas regarding ethical leadership within the church, Hill quickly divides his focus between discussing how leaders are meant to lead and what a leader should be in the first place. Evidence for this distraction can be seen from the outset in the tone of his writing. Also, while Hill’s criticisms of an unnamed apostle and an unnamed apostolic body seem to implicate ‘apostles’ in general, we would do well to remind ourselves that this correlation is not necessarily the case.

In equating the concepts of apostleship and kingship, Hill makes the mistake of using one aspect of inappropriate leadership as justification for questioning the position of apostles, and all leaders in general, and their overall place in God’s kingdom. The resulting anachronistic ‘mixing’ of the terms and definitions for kingship and apostleship (it is not immediately obvious how these terms relate to each other to form a leadership model) leaves the reader searching for their relevance to the practicality of church leadership. Hill argues that apostleship should not be based on an Old Testament model of kingship because true theocracy is based on the authority of the priest and prophet. In other words, kingly authority is essentially a “benevolent dictatorship” that controls by coercion and oppression whereas the authority of the prophetic and priestly office is supposedly inspired by the Spirit of God. But this does not entirely agree with biblical evidence. In the Old Testament, priests had the responsibility of teaching God’s law (Lev 10:11, Mal 2:6-7), yet in the book of Hosea we find a situation where the more the priests increased, the more sin increased among the community. As a result, God blamed the priests for the people’s lack of faithfulness (Hosea 4:7). Likewise, even though kingship is an example of an ungodly use of leadership authority (as argued by Hill) we find that David’s main purpose as Israel’s king was to shepherd God’s people (Psalms 78:70-72). If the importance of this notion of kingship in the establishment of God’s Kingdom was ever in doubt, one may find that the Davidic covenant (established in 2 Samuel 7) is of utmost importance in the prophetic foretelling of the coming of the Messiah as the ultimate fulfillment of a King who will be the ultimate Shepherd over His people. Furthermore, while Hill seems to disproportionately favor a New Testament perspective over an Old Testament one in determining the proper characteristics of godly leadership (p.71-72), he would do well to note that a number of dishonorable characteristics can be found among the leadership of the early church, which proves His argument to be inconsistent (Acts 15:36-41; Galatians 2:11-14; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Philemon 1:14, 17-21). Hill’s logic, therefore, is scripturally imbalanced.

Will the Real Paul Please Stand Up?

Tony Richie — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:13:51 +0000

A review essay by pastor, scholar Tony Richie about the new perspective on Paul.

Simon Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?: ‘New perspective’ scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith” Christianity Today (August 2007), pages 22-28.

Simon Gathercole is a NT scholar and former Senior Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. In 2007, he joined the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. Gathercole received his MA at Cambridge, and then completed a MATH and PhD under James Dunn, a renowned NT scholar himself, at the University of Durham. While Dunn is a founding proponent of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” Gathercole opposes it. Drawn from his dissertation, his book Where is Boasting? (2002), is a critique of NPP. In this succinct CT article, with a title probably playing on NPP advocate Tom Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said (1997), Gathercole capably sums up the major issues at stake in the debate, and circumspectly presents his own view. He is appreciative of elements of NPP but ultimately rejects its fundamental thesis. Though at times technical (for those of us who are not NT scholars), as it touches on some of the most complex and important ideas in the NT and in Christian doctrine, especially the nature of justification and faith, this discussion will interest scholars and clergy alike, along with well-informed laity. I recommend it to readers of The Pneuma Review as an exceptional introduction/overview on a complex topic. It is probably not, however, fit fodder for the theologically faint of heart.

The CT editors do a good job of prefacing Gathercole’s article with some explanatory information that will help readers new to the discussion follow along. However, Gathercole himself is adept enough at putting NPP into perspective in the body of the article. One of the main aims of the editorial input is its framing of the debate in terms not confined to Reformed Christianity. Yet, as shown later this may be a debatable point itself. At its deepest level, this is a debate about the question: what is “truly biblical?” The author points out that NPP is not a new topic, but has been around for nearly 30 years (he does not mention antecedents around as early as 1900). It essentially argues that elements of the Protestant Reformation approach were “either wrong or ill-directed.” These concerns controversially include the doctrine of justification. Some Evangelicals, notably James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright, think NPP is “a key to unlocking Paul’s original intent.” Gathercole stresses that NPP is not really about Paul’s overall teaching; it is more narrowly about his doctrine of justification, in particular on justification by faith. It explicitly examines Paul’s understanding of works versus works of the law.

Gathercole argues that what the Bible says about justification is of paramount importance.

In sum, the old perspective argues that Paul understands “works of the law” to include all human acts of righteousness while the new one identifies these as specific acts identifying first century Jews as participants in the covenant of Judaism. Accordingly, NPP argues that first century Jews did not attempt to enter covenant relationship or accumulate merit before God based on their righteous obedience to the law, that is to earn salvation, but rather only attempted to identify and distinguish themselves, through such specific laws as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and food laws, as elite members of the covenant community. The upshot of NPP is that it identifies the problem with which Paul deals in his doctrine of justification by faith as more an attitude of exclusivism than legalism. Paul, therefore, is trying to argue a position of inclusiveness in relation to Gentile status before God in the covenant community of faith. Accordingly, NPP suggests that more than anything Paul is arguing that Gentiles as well as Jews can share in salvation apart from obedience to specific identifying features of the Jewish law. Gathercole reminds that NPP arose out of the work of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), with his concern over inferior caricatures of Judaism. Sanders argued that an unbiased reading of pre-Christian and rabbinical Judaism shows that they had a strong doctrine of grace. Their problem was not self-righteousness. Rather, their doctrine of election essentially found its basis in grace. Therefore, the law demonstrated their fidelity to a covenant based on grace. Problems arose, from Paul’s perspective, when this evolved into covenantal elitism in the sense of religious nationalism. Therefore, Paul rejects this exclusion of the Gentiles rooted in the works of the law and replaces it with his inclusive doctrine of justification by faith.