7 ways to tell if it may be a God thing...

Just read this blog and it listed seven ways you can tell if God is in something... 1. Everyone says it can’t be done… 2. You feel you aren’t qualified… 3. There aren’t enough resources available… 4. It makes no rational sense… 5. People call it (or you) stupid… 6. It would give God all the glory… 7. It honors God and is true to His Word…

Here are some questions to consider...

Here is what I will be thinking about over the next 30 days.

• What is God teaching me right now?
• How do I want to spend my time every day?
• What is the single greatest way I want to change how I spend my time everyday?
• What is the single greatest thing I don’t want to do everyday that I currently do?
• What are my greatest strengths as I understand them now?
• What are my greatest limitations as I understand them now?
• *How have my accomplishments enabled me to better leverage my strengths?
• *How have my accomplishments magnified my weaknesses?
• *How is money influencing my strategy and direction inappropriately?
• What are time-limited opportunities that I now have?
• *How am I misdirecting my best time and energy?
• *Where do my deepest frustrations come from? Why?
• What ideas am I most excited about?
• What is the single most important thing to do or decide to do right now to achieve my life vision?
• *How am I failing to give my best time and energy to my family? Why?

10 Signs Your Christianity Is Too Comfortable [ARTICLE REPRINT]

Glamping is a form of luxury camping started by wealthy British people who frequently took African safaris. Instead of roughing it in the wilderness, these aristocrats vacationed with the best of accommodations such as soft beds, fluffy pillows, and all the modern conveniences such as televisions.

This form of relaxation has made its way to the United States. In 2010, KOA Kampgrounds increased 26% in luxury lodge rentals. Glamping Hub’s Ruben Martinez says, “After a week of camping, you’re not thinking, ‘I look homeless right now.’ You’re thinking about how comfortable you are.”

I fear the mindset of glamorous camping permeates our entire society, including local churches. I fear we have become a nation of comfortable Christians. I know I personally have. "I’m OK. You’re OK." is not a healthy approach to life and is a sign of a self-leadership issue.

Much of what I am about to say is going to be a public confession of some personal sins. How do you know you have become a Comfortable Christian?
10 Signs Your Christianity Has Become Too Comfortable

1. You are not attending church with a high level of expectancy.

2. You no longer seem to be concerned about the spiritual condition of neighbors, family members, or your co-workers.

3. You haven’t had a spiritual conversation with a non-Christian in a long time.

4. The Bible seems like a history book. It’s lifeless to you.

5. Your happiness on Sunday mornings is more important than what it takes to reach the unchurched. As long as you get your parking spot, your seat, and hear the music you like, everything’s fine.

6. The plight of the poor doesn’t concern you.

7. Pictures of overseas suffering do not move you to action.

8. You do not give your financial resources sacrificially.

9. Your prayers don’t seem to be making it past the ceiling.

10. It doesn’t even dawn on you that God could do something incredibly radical in your life at any moment today. It’s not even on your radar.

Many items on that list have described me at various times in my life. Like British aristocrats on an African safari, I was lulled into a mindset of comfort over experiencing everything that was laid out right there in front of me. I had become too comfortable.

Can you relate? What can we do to get uncomfortable in our Christianity?

Barna Study of Religious Change Since 1991 Shows Significant Changes by Faith Group [ARTICLE REPRINT]

There are many ways of categorizing people’s faith these days. In a new report from the Barna Group that is part of the State of the Church – 2011 annual tracking study, George Barna examines changes in 14 religious attributes in relation to some of those religious categories as they have unfolded since 1991. The four segments studied in the latest of the six newly-issued summaries are Catholics, Protestants, born again Christians, and self-identified Christians. Barna also offered commentary on the results in a new blog posting (www.georgebarna.org)

Self-Identified Christians
Most Americans – roughly four out of five – consider themselves to be Christians. For that majority, the past two decades have been a time of substantial religious change. Just as American society itself is in a state of substantial upheaval, so are those who declare themselves to be Christian redefining the core practices and beliefs of Christianity in America. Five of the six religious behaviors tracked underwent statistically significant changes since 1991, and five of the seven belief measures also changed notably.

The five transitions in religious behaviors included the following:

Attendance at a church service in any given week has declined among self-identified Christians by nine percentage points since 1991. Now only a minority of this group – 47% - can be found in church events during a typical week.
Adults from this segment are currently eight percentage points less likely to attend Sunday school in a typical week than was true twenty years ago. Less than one out of five (18%) now attend during a typical week.
Whereas 30% of the self-identified Christians volunteered at a church during a typical week back in 1991, that figure has declined to 22% today.
Bible reading dropped slightly over the last 20 years within this segment, going from 51% to 46%. This is another marker in which a majority of this group no longer participates.
Those who embrace the label “Christian” for themselves are now ten percentage points more likely to be unchurched than was true in 1991. The 31% who fit this profile have not attended any church service during the past six months, excluding special services such as weddings or funerals.

Among the belief measures tested, the following showed significant changes since 1991:

Three of the variables tracked reflected marginal change – five percentage points. There was a five-point increase in the self-identified Christians who claimed to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ (up to 75% in 2011); a five-point drop in the proportion who contend that that “God is the all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect Creator of the universe who still rules the world today” (now down to 77%); and a similar decline among those who believe that Satan is a symbol of evil but not a living entity (now standing at 53%).
The largest change in beliefs was the ten-point decline in those who firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Only 43% of self-identified Christians now have such a strong belief in the Bible.
The percentage of self-identified Christians who meet the “born again” criteria – that is, those who contend they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and who also believe they will enter Heaven solely because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior – jumped by seven percentage points, to 48%.

This group’s views about personal responsibility to evangelize and the importance of religious faith in their life did not budge over the past twenty years.

Born Again Christians
This category is comprised of people whose beliefs characterize them as born again; it is not based on people calling themselves “born again.” This segment, which now stands at 40% of all adults in the U.S., experienced significant changes in relation to all six religious behaviors tracked by the Barna Group.

The largest shifts in behavior pertained to the 14-point decline in adult Sunday school attendance (now 26%) and the 12-point drop in volunteering at church (down to 29%).
Attendance at church services in any given week decreased by seven percentage points over the last two decades among born again Christians, falling from 66% to 59%.
The proportion of born again adults who read the Bible during a typical week, not including when they are at a church event, has decreased by nine percentage points since 1991. The weekly average now resides at 62%.
Two behavioral statistics increased since 1991, one for the worse and the other of little consequence. The unfortunate shift is the increase in the unchurched among born again adults, which has risen by five percentage points to 19%. The neutral transition is the eight-point increase in born again adults who attend a large church (600 or more people).

Only one of the seven religious beliefs measured among born agains shifted significantly in the last two decades. That was the nine-point drop in the percentage of those who firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. In 1991, three-quarters of born again adults held that view, but it has declined to two-thirds of them today (65%).

Roman Catholics in the U.S.
Roman Catholics continue to represent the largest religious denomination in the United States, at about one-fifth of the adult population. The Catholic population has experienced three statistically meaningful changes in religious behaviors and three in religious beliefs since 1991.

Catholics are now 10 percentage points less likely to attend church services than they were in 1991 (down to 49%) and 10 points less likely to volunteer at their church (down to only 9%). They are also more likely to be unchurched now than they used to be, increasing in this behavior from 20% to 29%.
The beliefs that have shifted in the minds of Catholics include an eight-point decline in those who firmly believe the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. That position has diminished among Catholics from one-third (34%) to one-quarter (26%). The other shifts were growth in the number who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today (up seven points to 60%) and an eight-point increase in the proportion of Catholics who meet the born again criteria (now up to 24%).

Changes among Protestants
Protestants are also redefining the nature of their faith, as seen in the fact that all six religious behaviors changed significantly, and five of the eight religious beliefs tracked followed suit.

The four major church-related behaviors have all suffered in the past two decades. Church attendance in a typical week has dropped by five percentage points (down to 52%); adult Sunday school attendance has declined 11 points, to 25%; volunteerism is off by 11 points (now standing at 26%); and being unchurched has risen from 17% to 24%.
The likelihood of attending a large church (600 or more people) grew by seven percentage points. Fourteen percent of Protestant adults now align with such a church. That’s double the proportion discovered in 1991, but unchanged from a decade ago.
Personal Bible reading undertaken apart from church events has dipped by seven percentage points since 1991, now down to 57%. The good news is that this represents a rebound from the 48% registered in 2001.

Perhaps surprisingly, four of the five changes in the religious beliefs of Protestants represent change for the better.

The number of Protestants who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they consider to still be important in their life today has risen by eight percentage points, to 86%.
Protestants are eight points less likely to agree that Satan is merely a symbol of evil, not a living entity, than they were in 1991. About half of them (47%) accept that characterization of Satan.
Adopting a personal responsibility for evangelism has increased slightly among Protestants, from 33% to 38% over the past 20 years.
The proportion of Protestant adults that meets the “born again” criteria has risen from 53% to 65%.
The notion that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches is less popular among Protestants today. In 1991, 61% strongly believed that notion; today, 56% hold that belief.

In addition to analyzing the research for this Update, George Barna has also posted further commentary on these findings on his blog site (www.georgebarna.com), as he has done in conjunction with the release of each of the five prior Updates on the state of the Church during the past week.

These six Updates about the faith changes in America closely follow the publication of George Barna’s latest book, Futurecast. A major release from Tyndale Publishers, this is Barna’s third decadal trends book, in the tradition of The Frog in the Kettle and Boiling Point. This latest entry describes national trends in a wide array of areas including family, lifestyles, entertainment, technology, values, attitudes, demographics, and media consumption, in addition to religious beliefs and behaviors.

Regional Shifts in Religious Beliefs and Behavior Since 1991 Revealed in New Barna Report {ARTICLE REPRINT}

One nation under God? Perhaps, but new statistics released by the Barna Group, as part of its State of the Church – 2011 report, suggest that there is great variety of religious belief and behavior found across the country. The latest in a series of six reports that track changes in America’s religious nature since 1991 reveals that some of the old religious stereotypes no longer hold water. Deeper insight into those variations is accessible through a commentary by lead researcher George Barna at his blog site, georgebarna.com.

Changes in the Northeast
Oddly, there has been limited change in Northeast in the past 20 years. The only three significant transitions have been the following:

Church volunteerism in the Northeast has dropped by 11 percentage points, from 23% in 1991 to 12% in 2011.
The proportion of unchurched adults in the Northeast climbed from 26% in 1991 to 41% in 2011.
Ironically, the likelihood of someone from the Northeast claiming to be a Christian rose by ten points during the 1991-2011 era, from 72% to 82%.

Changes in the South
Similar to the Northeast, there was not a lot of religious change in the South over the last 20 years. There were statistically significant changes identified in regard to just four of the 14 items tracked.

Adult Sunday school attendance dropped in the South by 10 percentage points, to 21%.
Attending a church of 600 people or more became somewhat more common in the southern states between 1991 and 2011, rising from 10% to 17%.
Qualifying as an unchurched person – i.e., someone who has not attended a church service during the past six months, other than a special service such as a wedding or funeral – increased from 20% to 31%.
The only belief that sustained significant change was the 10 percentage point decline in adults who strongly agreed that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. That dropped the figure to half of southerners (50%) who hold this point of view.

Changes in the Midwest
The region with the greatest degree of religious change since 1991 was definitely the Midwest. Of the 14 religious variables tracked, 10 experienced significant change. Among the six religious behaviors, five saw a serious shift take place.

The biggest behavioral change has been the large reduction in church attendance in the Midwest. Pegged at 55% in 1991, average weekly attendance at a church service now stands at 40% in the central states.
Given the drop in weekly attendance, it is not surprising to find growth in the number of unchurched adults in the Midwest. However, the magnitude is substantial: a 50% jump, from 24% in 1991 to 36% in 2011.
Adult Sunday school attendance has declined in the Midwest since 1991 by seven percentage points, from 20% to just 13%.
Church volunteerism declined by nine percentage points in the Midwest over the past two decades, dipping from 30% to 21%.
Bible reading undertaken other than when attending a church event declined by seven percentage points since 1991. The current average in a given week is for 42% of Midwestern adults to read the scriptures.

Of the eight religious beliefs studied, five experienced significant changes.

Midwestern adults are less likely to describe themselves as Christian these days than was the case in 1991. The proportion slumped from 88% to 81%.
The percentage of Midwestern adults who contend that Satan is not a living entity but is just a symbol of evil declined by seven points, from 64% to 57%.
Those who strongly believe that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches dropped from 45% to 38%.
People’s views of God changed substantially since 1991, with a 13 percentage point drop in the number of Midwestern adults who believe that “God is the all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect Creator of the universe who still rules the world today.” That view was held by two-thirds of adults in the central states (65%) in 2011.
Despite the other indicators of deterioration in people’s connection with Christianity, the only region that experienced a significant increase in the proportion of born again adults since 1991 was the Midwest. There was a 10-point increase, rising to 42% in 2011.

Changes in the West
Of the 14 religious measures followed by the Barna Group for this report, half of those showed statistically significant changes in the West since 1991. Among the six behavioral measures tracked, three saw meaningful shifts.

Church attendance among western adults dropped by 11 points, from 47% to 36% in 2011.
The proportion of unchurched adults rose from 29% to 46% in the West during the last 20 years.
Bible reading during an average week declined by nine points in the West, sliding to 34% in 2011.

The research concerning the state of the eight belief measures among people living in the West reflected significant change had taken place among half of those variables.

Adults in the West are now eight percentage points less likely to say their religious faith is very important in their life than was the case in 1991, when 57% made such a claim.
Since 1991, belief in an orthodox view of God has plummeted by 13 percentage points in the West, down to 58%.
The Bible is viewed less kindly in the West these days, as the research points to a 13 percentage point drop in those who firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches. Whereas four out of ten adults (39%) in the western states held that view in 1991, just one out of every four (26%) does today.
Fewer adults in the West now agree that Satan is just a symbol, not a living entity. There has been an eight percentage point drop in such a perspective, moving from 63% in 1991 to 55% today.

The final report in the six-part series of trend summaries regarding religious change since 1991 will be released on Thursday, August 4. At that time George Barna will again post a commentary on those findings on his blog site.

These six Updates about the faith changes in America have been released on the heels of the publication of George Barna’s latest book, Futurecast. Published by Tyndale Publishers, the heavily researched book examines national trends in a wide array of areas including family, lifestyles, entertainment, technology, values, attitudes, demographics, and media consumption, in addition to religious beliefs and behaviors.

20 Years of Surveys Show Key Differences in the Faith of America’s Men and Women [ARTICLE REPRINT\

t’s hardly news that men and women think and behave differently. But a new analysis of national tracking surveys conducted over a 20-year period by the Barna Group profiles specific differences between the genders in relation to 14 religious beliefs and behaviors of significance. The report is the third in a series of six that constitute the annual State of the Church report released by the Barna Group. This year’s report became public simultaneous to the release of the latest trends book by author and researcher George Barna, entitled Futurecast.

Women and Faith
No population group among the sixty segments examined has gone through more spiritual changes in the past two decades than women. Of the 14 religious factors studied, women have experienced statistically significant changes related to 10 of them. Of those transitions, eight represent negative movement – that is, either less engagement in common religious behaviors or a shift in belief away from biblical teachings.

Five of the six religious behaviors tracked showed significant change.

Church attendance among women sank by 11 percentage points since 1991, declining to 44%. A majority of women no longer attend church services during a typical week.
Bible reading has plummeted by 10 percentage points, declining from half of all women reading the Bible during a typical week (excluding that done during church events) to just four out of ten doing so today (40%).
Sunday school involvement is less common among women these days, down seven points from the 24% mark noted in 1991.
Women have traditionally been the backbone of volunteer activity in churches. However, there has been a nine point slide in the percentage of women helping out at a church during any given week. That drop reflects a 31% reduction in the non-paid female work force at churches.
The only religious behavior that increased among women in the last 20 years was becoming unchurched. That rose a startling 17 percentage points – among the largest drops in church attachment identified in the research.

The only religious behavior tracked among women that stayed stable was the percentage who attended a church of 600 or more people, which has remained at 16%.

Although the core beliefs of women have undergone comparatively less turbulence, five of the eight beliefs tracked registered significant change.

Women are six percentage points less likely to say their religious faith is very important to them than they were in 1991. Even so, nearly two-thirds of them (63%) hold their faith in high regard.
When it comes to views on the devil, women are five percentage points less likely to write off Satan as merely a symbol of evil. Sixty-one-percent did so in 1991, but that has been reduced to 56% now.
Perceptions of the reliability of the Bible have taken a hit, as the percentage of women who firmly believe the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches has declined by seven percentage points to 42%.
An even larger drop has occurred in the proportion of women who possess an orthodox view of God. Those who contend that God is the “the all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect Creator of the universe who still rules the world today” has slumped from 80% in 1991 to 70% today.
The percentage of women whose beliefs qualify them to be classified as born again Christians has risen significantly in the past 20 years. In 1991, 38% of woman said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that remained important in their life, and also said they believed they would go to Heaven after they died solely because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Since then, the figure has increased slightly to 44%.

Men and Faith
While men have not undergone changes on as many religious indicators as women have since 1991, men experienced statistically significant shifts in relation to six of the 14 religious factors studied. Four of those transitions were behavioral while the other two were shifts in belief.

The four behavioral changes were all negative from a church’s perspective.

Church attendance declined by six percentage points among men, The research showed that the proportion of men who had attended a church service, other than a special event such as a wedding or funeral, during the week prior to their survey interview fell from 42% to 36%.
Sunday school attendance declined by eight percentage points among men since 1991. Only one out of eight men (13%) presently attends such a meeting in a typical week.
The percentage of men who volunteer at a church during a typical week has slipped by six percentage points since 1991 to its present level of 18%.
The proportion of unchurched men has grown by nine percentage points since 1991. Today an estimated 39% of all men can be deemed unchurched – that is, having not attended a church event, other than a special service such as a wedding or funeral, in the past six months.

The two religious beliefs that witnessed significant change were having a personal responsibility to share their religious views with others who believe differently (down five points, to just 23%); and firmly believing that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches, down by ten points to only one-third of men (33%).

Among the surprises emerging from the research was the fact that despite decreases in core religious behaviors men are no less likely to read from the Bible these days than they were 20 years ago (41% in 2001, 40% in 1991). In fact, men and women are now equally likely to read the Bible during a typical week, thanks to the recent decline Bible reading among females.

There were additional changes of interest related to men and women, described along with some interpretive comments by researcher George Barna on his blog site, georgebarna.com. That site also contains his perspectives related to the State of the Church data released last week concerning the aggregate national averages on the 14 indicators, as well as differences on those measures across the generations.

On each of the next three days (August 2 - 4) Barna will release additional summaries regarding how the 14 religious factors tracked since 1991 have shifted according to people’s region, ethnicity, and religious affiliation. He will continue to provide commentary after each release on his blog site.

These Updates come shortly after the release of Barna’s newest book, Futurecast, which examines national trends in a wide array of areas including family, lifestyles, entertainment, technology, values, attitudes, demographics, and media consumption, in addition to religious beliefs and behaviors.

Are You a Responsive Person?

Here are four actions you need to take to make sure your expectations and those you deal with are calibrated.

Define how responsive you are going to be. Segment your contacts. Who is your inner circle? What about the next level out? What about acquaintances? What about complete strangers? I have a different standard for each. I don’t think I need to tell them; I just operate by these standards.

Determine how responsive others need you to be. If you acquire a new client, a boss, or a business partner, ask them to clarify their expectations. How quickly do they need you to respond? Does it need to beimmediate? within a few hours? within 24 hours? in a couple of days? Ask them to be specific. This is an implicit contract.

Express how responsive you want others to be. Take the initiative to clarify this with your direct reports, business associates, and vendors. It will result in less frustration for both of you. It also provides the necessary accountability to make progress on your various projects.

Be proactive when you can’t respond in a timely manner. If the other person has to follow-up, it’s a good sign your expectations are mismatched or you dropped the ball. Instead of waiting for them to ask again, contact them. For example, “I just wanted to acknowledge that I received your email. I am traveling this week, so it will likely be the end of the week before I can respond.”

Remember: You don’t have to provide the same level of responsiveness to everyone—nor can you. But you would be wise to clarify your expectations and then be intentional about it.

Enemies of the Heart

By Andy Stanley

High cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension-all well-known foes wreaking havoc in the human heart. But as devastating as these can be, there are four other enemies of the heart that can't be measured in a doctor's office. Big pharmaceutical has nothing to touch them and they wreak havoc on young and old alike.

They're the four primary enemies of the heart-four life-blocking agents that become lodged in the heart, poisoning our relationships, our faith, and our character. These corrosive forces gain strength from the darkness. Secrecy is their greatest ally. Left to their own, they grow in power and influence, like a lab experiment gone terribly wrong.

But as we'll discover, these forces lose their power when exposed to light. Like roaches that scatter at the flick of a switch, so these four enemies of the heart dissipate when exposed to the light of truth.

Here they are:
• Guilt
• Anger
• Greed
• Jealousy

Not the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse you expected? I assure you that practically every conflict and relational wound you've experienced can be traced back to one of these four.

Each of the four foes on this list is fueled by a single dynamic, and it's this dynamic that makes each so problematic. Understanding this dynamic is the first step to rendering each of these monsters powerless in your life.

Guilt, anger, greed, jealousy-each results in a debt-to-debtor dynamic that always causes an imbalance in any relationship. If you owe someone money, or vice versa, you know this to be the case. No matter what else is going on at the moment, the debt is always in the room with you.

As a pastor, I can't count the number of times this dynamic has played out in my office. A couple or a parent or a child has poured out their hearts with whatever the presenting issue might be. And when the story is finished, it's like a joke with no punch line. And everything in me wants to say, "I don't get it." That is, based on what you just told me, I don't know why we're here. And then after careful poking and prodding (sometimes not so careful the older I get), at last the debt is revealed: "She took this... He owes me that... God should never have taken...." And the debt that walked into the room with them is finally brought out into the open. And the dysfunctional dynamics that describe their situation all make sense. This is the power of debt.

Although the person owed generally has the upper hand in the relationship, the reverse can be true as well. If you've ever been in a situation where someone owed you money and refused to pay, you know that the person owed can feel as powerless and as put upon as a person who's in debt. It all depends upon the personalities (and the arrogance) of those involved. Either way, things aren't even. Someone has the upper hand. There's an imbalance. Unbalanced power in a dysfunctional relationship is a recipe for disaster.

If we're talking about an overdue debt, one that's unlikely to be paid anytime soon, then the tension rises. Even when everybody in the room is trying to keep a level head and talk about something else entirely, there's a negative vibe that characterizes the interaction.

We are a society that has learned-or at least thinks it has learned-to live with debt. The average household carries thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards. We "rent to own," we lease, and we buy things with no money down, no interest, and no payments for months and months. We've learned to live as if we are paid in full, all the while carrying massive amounts of debt. And while we can get away with this financially (for a while anyway), emotional and relational debt accrues interest at a staggering rate. Dysfunction and tension compound daily until the weight of the debt makes Washington, DC, look fiscally responsible.

There are only two ways to resolve this kind of tension: Either somebody has to pay up, or somebody has to cancel the debt. As long as the debt is unpaid or unforgiven, the debt governs the relationship. It becomes a filter for everything.

To look closer at the four enemies and how to combat each, read Enemies of the Heart by Andy Stanley.

Is That All?

Listen to the words of Francis Chan:

"You go to a building, someone gives you a bulletin, you sit in a chair, you sing a few songs, a guy delivers maybe a polished message, maybe not, someone sings a solo, you go home.

"Though Christians believe in an almighty and all powerful God who places His spirit in believers, the response among His people today is, 'Hi, welcome to church. Here's your bulletin. We'll get you out in an hour. Come back next week.'

"I mean, really? Is that all God intended for us?"

Is that the church we see germinating and growing throughout the New Testament book of Acts? Hear the words of Jesus: "You shall receive POWER...You shall be my witnesses..."

The Nowism of the Gospel

By Paul Tripp

Pastor, do your people have a gap in the middle of their Gospel; understanding more about salvation past and future than they do about the spent benefits of the work of Christ in the here and now? Permit me to explain.

Jason sat in front of me with the head-down, humped-shouldered posture of a confused and disappointed man. It wasn't that Jason's life had been a sad narrative of personal suffering. Sure, he'd faced some hard things, but they were the typical things that you face when you're living in a world that's been broken by sin. It wasn't that Jason was alienated and friendless. He was surrounded by a group of less than perfect, but pretty faithful companions. It wasn't that Jason was impoverished or homeless. No, he had a decent job and an adequate condo.

Jason's problem was that he was lost in the middle of his own faith. It had become harder and harder for him to connect the beauty of what he believed to the gritty and often difficult realities of his daily life. Jason's problem was that he carried a gospel around with him that had a great big hole in the middle of it.

Jason could explain to you what it meant to say that he had been "saved by grace," and he knew that he was going to spend eternity with his Savior. His problem was in the here and now. Day after day, in situation after situation and relationship after relationship, Jason didn't carry with him a vibrant and practical sense of the nowism of the grace of Jesus Christ. Yes, Jason believed in life after death, but he desperately needed to understand life before death; the kind of radical life you'll live when you understand what Christ has given you for the life he has called you to right here, right now.

Let me suggest four critical aspects of the nowism of the gospel (there are more) that Jason seemed functionally blind to.

1. Grace will decimate what you think of you, while it gives you a security of identity you've never had.

Grace will expose your sin, but it won't leave you without identity. Grace had liberated Jason, but he didn't know it or live like it. He'd not only been forgiven and empowered, but he‘d been given a brand new identity. Jason had been freed from looking inward for his identity. No longer did he have to measure his potential by his track record or the size of the problems he was facing.

His potential was as great as the grace of Christ. He'd been freed from looking outward for his identity. No longer did he have to search for identity in his relationships, possessions or achievements. Jason had been freed from looking horizontally for what he had already been given vertically.

His sense of self was no longer rooted in what he could earn or achieve, but in what he'd already been given in Christ. The problem was that he didn't know it, so he was on a constant quest for meaning and purpose, looking for identity in places that could never deliver.

2. Grace will expose your deepest sins of heart, while it covers every failure with the blood of Jesus.

No longer did Jason have to work to excuse, deny, rationalize, or minimize his sin. No longer did he have to exercise his inner lawyer when someone pointed out a wrong. Because of the cross of Jesus, Jason could admit his weakness and failure before a holy God and be utterly unafraid. And if a holy God had accepted him as he was, why would Jason fear the opinion of others?

Jesus took Jason's rejection so that he would never see the back of God's head. Grace had freed Jason from having to prove to God, himself and others, that he was righteous. Jason's hope and security was no longer in his own righteousness, but the righteousness he'd been given in Christ. The problem was that he didn't know it, so Jason careened back and forth from fear to pride, swindling himself with self-atoning excuses and defending himself to others.

3. Grace will make you face how weak you are, while it blesses you with power beyond your ability to calculate.

Grace does require you to admit how weak you are, but it doesn't leave you there. The cross not only dealt with the guilt of sin, but with the inability of sin as well. In this broken world of regular difficulty and constant temptation, Jason did feel weak and unprepared, so he lived more out of fear and avoidance than with hope and courage.

Jason had not only been granted forgiveness, he'd been filled with power; power beyond his ability to calculate. (Ephesians 3:20, 21) The problem was that Jason didn't know it, so Jason gave into things he had the power to defeat and he avoided things he had the power to conquer.

4. Grace will take control out of your hands, while it blesses you with the care of One whose plan is unshakable and perfect in every way.

Jason had some kind of distant belief in the sovereignty of God, but it was almost completely separate from his everyday experience. He lived as though he had no idea that Jesus was ruling over all things for his sake (Ephesians 1:20-23). So Jason was constantly dealing with the frustration of trying to control people and things which he'd little power to control.

He spent way too much time calculating the "what ifs" and regretting the "if onlys." He seemed as if he didn't know that his security and rest were not to be found in his ability to predict the future and control the present, but in the faithful love and expansive wisdom of his sovereign Savior, Jesus, so his living was always more anxious than restful.

You see, Jason didn't need more grace. No, he needed to understand and live in light of the grace he‘d already been given. Jason was a grace amnesiac and so he lived as if he was poor, when grace had made him exotically rich. He lived as if he was weak, when grace had made him strong. He lived as though life had no plan, when, in fact, he'd been included in the unalterable plans of the God of redeeming grace.

Jason had a big hole right in the middle of his gospel, and because of that, he didn't live out of the freedom, beauty and security of what he'd been given right here, right now. What about you? What about the people you serve?

Beginning In June 2006, Paul became the President of Paul Tripp Ministries, a non profit organization, whose mission statement is "Connecting the transforming power of Jesus Christ to everyday life." In addition to his current role as President of Paul Tripp Ministries, on January 1, 2007, Paul also became part of the pastoral staff at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA where he preached every Sunday evening and lead the Ministry to Center City through March, 2011 when he resigned due to the expanding time commitments needed at Paul Tripp Ministries. In 2009, along with Paul's responsibilities with his speaking schedule for Paul Tripp Ministries, Paul became Professor of Pastoral Life and Care at the Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas and is the Executive Director of the Center for Pastoral Life and Care in Fort Worth, Texas.

What Does Your Church Provide For The Community?

Interesting article by the Barna Group on how communities see churches and how churches see themselves... http://www.barna.org/congregations-articles/502-do-churches-contribute-to-their-communities

Here are some of the ways how Churches believe they can impact their communities and my own interpretation of the graphs they posted showing how involved churches are in these areas:

Addressing Poverty - HUGE
Cultivating Biblical Values (aka. Worship Services, Prayer) - NOT SO HUGE
Serving Youth / Family / Elderly - NOT SO HUGE
Doing Ministry (aka. Bible Study, Preach Gospel) - NOT SO HUGE
Assisting In Recovery - NOT SO HUGE
Addressing Workplace / Financial / Emotional Issues - SMALL
Serving The Community - SMALL
Being Inclusive - NOT AT ALL
Engaging Politically - NOT AT ALL

My take away is that Churches see themselves primarily as a meeting hall or an educational facility. The New Testament says the Church is the Body of Christ. How can we get back to the original intent that Jesus had for His Church?

I think we need to consider the following thoughts...
We need to return to the gospel of Grace
We need to be the carriers of God's Presence that we are
We need to know God through His Word
We need to teach people to follow Jesus versus changing culture
We need to replace social justice with the Great Commission
We need to teach the Bible as a book to be practiced, not merely a book to be studied
We need to return to a simple gospel message that is based on the power of God, not great powerpoint slides, video intro or clever titles
We need to return to a simple faith that is built on the Bible alone
We need to return to a life of prayer

When the Church becomes the Body of Christ and brings Jesus to people... two things will happen... first, we will be forced to confront and turn from our own unbelief about the reality of God's power and might in our lives and second, the world will see Jesus.

7 Habits of Highly Effective Soul Winners [ARTICLE REPRINT]

Habit 1: Soul Winners Are Prepared

They are spiritually prepared.

• They walk closely with Christ and maintain a consistent devotional life.
• They are active in their churches and are members in good standing.
• They attend worship and Sunday school and study their Bibles regularly.

They are trained.

• Soul winners have been trained in one or more gospel presentation strategies such as FAITH, Share Jesus Without Fear, GROW, or The NET.
• They serve as trainers or mentors and model soul winning before others.
• They have marked New Testaments and are able to express the central truths of the gospel in simple and understandable fashion.
• They use tracts and other printed gospel materials to enhance their presentation.

Habit 2: Soul Winners Share Christ Anytime/Anywhere

Soul winners are open to share Christ

• At the office
• In a restaurant
• On a plane
• Over the phone
• Anywhere the opportunity exists.

Habit 3: Soul Winners Are Adaptable in Their Presentation of the Gospel

Most do not rely on mechanical or canned gospel presentations. They each have developed their own particular style which:

• Becomes personal and conversational
• Uses their own language and illustrations
• Each witnessing encounter will be unique and different.

Habit 4: Soul Winners See Their Interactions with Other People as Divine Appointments

They begin each day with a sense of expectation.

• They feel a divine sense of mission.
• They see themselves as instruments of God’s grace to others.
• They seek to make the most of their encounter with others by purposely initiating and leading the conversation into the spiritual area.

Habit 5: Soul Winners Do Not Worry About the Results

Soul winners realize that they cannot save anyone. People come to Christ only through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Habit 6: Soul Winners Are Involved in Church Evangelism Programs but Are Not Limited by Them

Soul winners are active in their local churches. Most are involved in their church’s ongoing visitation and evangelism training programs. But they do not limit themselves to sharing Christ only during church-sponsored activities.

• They see every moment of every day as an evangelistic opportunity.
• Soul winners also seek to reproduce themselves in others. Most mentor or train others in evangelism programs.

Habit 7: Soul Winners Pray Consistently for Opportunities to Share Christ with Others

Soul winners pray for those with whom they have witnessed.

• They pray for those with whom they have not yet witnessed.
• They pray for divine appointments and witnessing opportunities.

A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the “Local Church” Movement [ARTICLE REPRINT]

NOTE:  I have a son who is involved in the local church.  He turned to the local church after his friends and his church rejected him following a psychotic episode.  They were accepting and embracing of him.  Here is a theological paper that Norm Geisler (Author of Living By The Book) wrote concerning the local church and a recent determination by Christian Research Institute that they are no longer considered a "cult."  It appears that Hank Hanegraaff has had a change of heart.

Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes
2009

 
The Background of the Christian Research Defense of the Local Church

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” [1] has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits (page 45). [2] Noted cult researcher Eric Pement has listed numerous examples of Christian groups that were threatened or sued by the LC, most of which CRI did not even attempt to refute in its Journal articles (45). It is a fact that the litigations of the LC drove a major countercult movement called Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) into bankruptcy. The list of other groups threatened with lawsuits include Christian Literature Crusade, Christian Herald Books, Moody Bible Institute, Salem Kirban, Eternity Magazine, InterVarsity Press, Tyndale Press, Jim Moran, and Light of Truth Ministries, Berean Apologetics Research Ministry, and Daniel Azuma (45). Most recently they sued John Ankerberg and John Weldon in reference to their Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), along with their publisher (Harvest House), for 136 million dollars. Had the suit been successful, it would have bankrupted both organizations. Pement rightly commented, “I doubt that the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses combined have issued as many lawsuits and threats of lawsuits against evangelical Christians” (45).

In the wake of this, “a long list of evangelical theologians, apologists, and leaders” (7) sent an “Open Letter” protesting the aberrant teachings of the LC (15), urging them to recant their unorthodox statements “that appear to contradict or compromise essential doctrines of the Christian faith” (15). [3] Further, they asked the LC to “disavow and cease to publish these and similar declarations” (15). In addition, they requested that the LC desist their litigious activities against evangelical groups that do not believe that their doctrines and practices measure up to the standards of evangelical beliefs and practices.

No apologies have been forthcoming by the LC, nor have they retracted the unorthodox statements. Instead, the Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with their charges against Ankerberg and Harvest House. The LC appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also failed. This was a great victory for the countercult movement and all who seek to preserve evangelical orthodoxy, as we pointed out in our article titled “The Local Church Movement and the Supreme Court of Texas: A Big Victory for the Countercult Movement”.

It is surprising to us that:
1) in spite of the final decision of the High Court against the LC, and
2) in spite of the majority view in the countercult movement against them, and
3) in spite of the failure of the LC to respond affirmatively to specific requests in the Open Letter from numerous evangelical leaders, and
4) in spite of my (Norman Geisler) personal plea to Hank Hanegraaff in my living room not to go this route, and
5) in spite of the fact that for years CRI admits to calling the LC “aberrant,” and “cultic,” if not “heretical” (49), and
6) in spite of the fact that CRI admits to being in possession of the basic material then which they now use to justify the LC-in spite of all this, CRI has launched a full-scale defense of the LC, going so far as to call them “solidly orthodox” (47) and in many ways “an exemplary group of Christians” (29)!

Evaluation of CRI’s Defense of the Local Church Movement

Not only does CRI no longer believe the LC is a cult, as they once did, but they do not even believe they are an “aberrant Christian group” (47). They now call the LC “a solidly orthodox group of believers” (47, emphasis added). Moreover, they say, members of the LC are in many ways “an exemplary group of Christians” (29). All this has come as a great surprise to the majority of countercult ministries and apologists who have studied the matter and have come to the opposite conclusion.

CRI not only now charges that the vast majority opinion in the countercult community on the LC (which goes against their minority view) is incorrect, but suggests that among LC critics, “animus drives ministry decisions” (47), seeming to imply that many who stand against LC doctrines may be motivated by animus. In light of the following evaluation, the reader can judge for him- or herself whether this conclusion is justified.
 
What CRI Admits about LC

Even what CRI admits about numerous unrecanted statements of the LC is, in our view, cause for great concern. Consider the following as examples-all listed in the Christian Research Journal (15-16). The Journal concedes that such statements in the past provided sufficient fodder for knowledgeable cult researchers-including themselves-to come to the conclusion that the LC was an aberrant, if not cultic, group. Indeed, the Journal affirms: “We were convinced some of their teachings on essential doctrines were at best contradictory, at worst heretical” (49).
 
Controversial and Contradictory Statements
 
Statement # 1
“The Son is called the Father; so he must be the Father. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?”
 
Statement # 2
“The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism... they think of the Father as one person, sending the Son, another person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another person.”
 
Statement # 3
“THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS ALSO THE SPIRIT...and the Lord Jesus who is also the eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father.”
 
Statement # 4
“The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person” (emphasis added). Note: While the three persons in the Godhead are not “separate” but rather distinct persons, nonetheless, they certainly are not “one person” as the LC declares.
 
Statement # 5
Witness Lee, the revered leader of the LC movement, stated clearly that “the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh.” This same belief is repeated and defended by Ron Kangas, Editor-in-Chief of the LC journal ( Affirmation and Critique [April, 2008. p. 6]) when he speaks of “the Triune God who passed through the process of incarnation....”

In spite of attempted explanations found elsewhere in LC literature (including the doctrine of coinherence, which we will address below), this statement flies in the face of the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation which affirm that only the Son, the Second Person of the Triune God, became incarnate. It was not of the Father, but of the Son, that Scripture affirms: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...” (Jn. 1:14). Nowhere in Scripture or the early creeds is it ever claimed or suggested that the Father or “the entire Godhead” (via coinherence) became incarnate in human flesh. This is clearly an unorthodox statement. Yet, incredibly, CRI defends LC’s orthodoxy in spite of this statement.
 
Doctrinally Careless Statements

At best, many of the LC statements are careless and lend to a modalistic understanding. CRI admits, “to be sure, Lee should have stated his concern more carefully” (20). And “the LC certainly could have and should have taken greater care to explain the nuances of their controversial teachings...” (20). But if CRI was “sure” and has “certainty” that the LC has made unrecanted statements that “should” not have been made, then why are they still defending the LC when it refuses to change these statements which most knowledgeable people in the countercult community do not believe are orthodox statements? Even cult expert and former CRI employee, Gretchen Passantino Coburn, admitted that some LC teachings are “still confusing to many, especially outsiders” (49).

One has to ask why any group would continue to maintain careless, confusing, and uncorrected statements on crucial doctrines-even when urged by some of their friends (such as Hank Hanegraaff) to change them.
 
Apparently Unorthodox Statements

Interestingly, CRI admits that many statements by the LC appear to be unorthodox. Indeed, they admit that, given the statements on God by the LC, “one could reasonably surmise that Lee was affirming modalism” (25)-that is, unless one had done the recent research that they have. However, we now have seen the results of the same research and have come to the same conclusion, namely, that if the LC has made admittedly unorthodox-sounding statements, then why does the LC continue to refuse to repudiate them? Why not reword these statements to more accurately reflect their claimed intended meaning? And why does CRI defend them without demanding that they repudiate them? CRI even goes so far as to admit that their original conclusion that the LC was unorthodox was based on a “pattern” of “hot button words associated in our minds with heresy or cultism...” (34). But one must ask why-if there is a repeated pattern of unorthodox expressions which the LC refuses to change-should one so completely exonerate them as CRI has done, affirming that they are “solidly orthodox” (47)? Even CRI is forced to admit that “strong modalistic-sounding language [is] often found” in LC writings (21).
 
Admittedly Regrettable and Harsh Statements about Other Religious Groups

Strangely, CRI’s current devotion to the LC movement includes an almost blanket acceptance of them despite the fact that CRI admits they have uses “harsh,” “loaded,” and “regrettable” terms against other religious groups, such as “Babylon,” “spiritual fornication,” and “satanic system.” It is simply insufficient to counter this by producing an admission from the LC that there are true believers in others churches (35). Even in their very statement they claim that “the local church, so defined, is the only genuine and proper expression of the one universal church...” (35).

Not only does the LC believe they are the only proper and genuine local expression of the universal church, but they are unrepentant about making libelous statements about the rest of Christendom. In their Appeal to the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider their case, the LC ironically included an appendix containing Chapter Three from a book by Witness Lee titled, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy in which he engages in a slanderous attack on “all of Christianity,” “all Christians,” “today’s Christendom” “all Christianity,” and “today’s Catholic Church.” He calls organized Christianity “deformed and degraded,” containing “false teachers,” who are “in their apostasy.” The Roman Church is infested with “Satan’s evil spirits” and “full of all kinds of evils. Evil persons, evil practices, and evil things are lodging there.” It is an “adulterous woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things).” It is “the Mother of the Prostitutes” and an “apostate church.” Again, it is “full of idolatry,” “against God’s economy,” and “saturated with demonic and satanic things.” If ever there were grounds for religious libel, this would be it. Yet LC objects strongly and litigiously when someone else calls them a “cult.” This is a classic example of the kettle calling the pot black!

The language of this attack on the rest of Christendom is not only “regrettable” and “harsh,” as even CR admits, it is lamentable and inexcusable. In view of this, it is inconceivable that CRI can conclude of the LC that “it is therefore, once again, both unreasonable and unrealistic to call on them to renounce these statements by their late leader” (37) and to claim that they are “an exemplary group of Christians” (29). If LC members are in agreement with Lee’s statements above, how can this be said to be “solidly orthodox” and “exemplary”?
 
Apparently or Actually Contradictory Statements

CRI offers what they admit are apparently contradictory statements of the LC in an attempt to exonerate them from heresy. [4] One such statement is that “although the Father and Son are one, between them there is still a distinction of I and the Father” (17). At best, however, this would show that the LC has made contradictory statements about God. It is noteworthy that the LC still refuses to repudiate their statements that the Father and Son are really the same (cited above). Merely appealing to the doctrine of coinherence does not alleviate our concerns (see below). As well, they refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity.

After they cited me (Norm) in an article in their journal, I gave them an opportunity to clearly distinguish their view as orthodox and they refused (see Appendix below). So, despite the claim that they are open to dialog, and even after citing me in their journal, they were not open to any scholarly exchange with me.

Likewise, the LC’s alleged repudiation of patripassionism (the heresy that the Father suffered on the cross-17) is unconvincing since they also claim (and CRI apparently supports) the view, based on the doctrine of coinherence, that both the Father and the Son are involved in each other’s activities. They say, “no person of the Trinity goes anywhere or does anything apart from the presence and involvement of the other two persons” (23, emphasis added). If this were true, then the Father would have been involved in the suffering of Christ on the cross, which even they admit is the heresy of patripassionism. God was certainly present in His omnipresence, but God the Father is not God the Son, and the Father certainly was not involved in the experience of Christ’s suffering on the cross. CRI claims that “what is distinctly the Son’s actions...is likewise the Father’s operation.” They cite with approval the statement that “there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed...to either of the other...” (22). But, again, this confuses the different roles and actions of different members of the Godhead. For example, the Father did not die for our sins, nor does the Father eternally proceed from the Father, as the Son does from the Father.

There is a big difference between claiming that each member of the Trinity dwells in the others and claiming, as the LC does, that each member is the other. For the LC affirms that “the Son is called the Father; so he must be the Father. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?” (Statement # 1 above, emphasis added). Clearly, this is not an orthodox way to express the Trinity.

What is more, the LC affirms that there is only one “Person” in the Trinity (Statement # 4 above), while at the same time claiming there are “three distinct” persons in the Trinity. So, at best, LC has both orthodox and unorthodox statements about the Trinity-which involves a contradiction. Hence, they are duty-bound to renounce the unorthodox elements of their theology.

Now, if CRI believes that the LC has made unrecanted statements that are controversial, careless, apparently contradictory, and which are unorthodox expressions as such, then how and why do they claim: “I believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to exonerate the LC from the charges of heresy, aberration, duplicity, and self-contradiction as regards the Trinity” (23)? This incredible conclusion does not match the evidence that even they admit.
 
A Response to the CRI Arguments for the LC

Many arguments are used by CRI to defend LC. Two of the more substantive arguments are:
1) LC critics have taken the unorthodox sounding statements of LC out of context. If they understood the context, they would not pronounce them unorthodox.
2) These statements are explainable in the light of the orthodox doctrine of coinherence in the Trinity, and the distinction between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity.

We will examine these arguments below. First, however, we will briefly address some of the supportive arguments CRI offers in defense of LC.
 
The Fear of Potential Persecution

The president of CRI, Hank Hanegraaff, argued in his Amicus brief to the High Court that calling the Local Church a cult will bring persecution on it and other Christian groups in religiously intolerant societies. He claimed that the word cult “can have dramatic and dangerous ramifications. This could be particularly harmful to any group, such as the Local Church, with large constituencies in religiously intolerant societies” (8.7/06 “Brief of Amicus Curiae Hank Hanegraaff,” p. 2).

The Court rightly saw no merit in this pragmatic argument and for good reason. While we personally abhor all forms of religious persecution, and are not insensitive to the plight of those who do suffer such persecution, the fact remains that truth and legality are not determined by what its possible social misuse may be. Further, in view of the libelous things the LC has uttered against the rest of Christendom (mentioned above), by this same argument, the Local Church has endangered all other Christian groups and denominations in China, who are now vulnerable to persecution by the Chinese government for the same reason. So, it is surprising that the otherwise thoughtful Gretchen Passantino Coburn is supporting such a poor argument-an argument that even her own brother, a sophisticated theologian, Cal Beisner, has had to rebuff her on.
 
The Approval of Fuller Seminary


It is noted by CRI that Fuller Seminary, after an alleged thorough examination of the doctrines of the LC, has pronounced (in a letter on behalf of the Local Church of January 5, 2006) that “the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.” But given Fuller’s own well-documented deviation from orthodoxy on the doctrine of Scripture, this is hardly a compliment. After several years of examination of one of its professors, Paul Jewett-who had said (in his book, Man as Male and Female) that the apostle Paul was wrong in what he affirmed as true (in 1 Cor. 11)-the seminary concluded that he was orthodox and retained him on their faculty. But if “whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms” is so (as B.B. Warfield and the ICBI “Chicago Statement” affirm), then their professor Paul Jewett denied inerrancy. It is not a surprise, then, that Fuller removed inerrancy from its founding doctrinal statement. Fuller Seminary is scarcely known as a bastion of orthodoxy, and neither is it known for its sophisticated discernment on cults and aberrant religions. One would be more likely to listen if seminaries such as Dallas, Denver, Grace, Masters, Trinity, or Westminster had exonerated the LC movement. The truth is that the one class of Christians that is most accustomed to doing this kind of analysis-the countercult movement-has spoken out loudly against the LC movement.
 
The Argument from More Research

One argument used by CRI is that their conclusions in favor of the LC should be believed because they have done better and more research on the topic (50). First of all, as we all know, more does not necessarily mean better. So, we can concentrate on what really matters. Gretchen Passantino Coburn claims she has done more research on this topic than most others and that she has been doing it for a longer time (50). However, it is clear that truth does not always reside with the persons who have read more or studied longer. Rather, it rests with those who can reason best from the evidence.

Further, there is really no new evidence available since CRI did its first research and found the LC to be aberrant, if not heretical. Even Passantino speaks of “reexamining” the evidence rather than discovering really new evidence. True, she speaks of looking at a “wide body of material” (50), but there was really nothing new. It was just more of the same basic facts they had known before. Elliot Miller speaks of it as “reassess-”ing (7), but confessed that they knew back then the kind of passages that are now being used to justify LC (16). So, why CRI’s sudden reversal? It is not really new evidence. Is it that they now think that contradictory statements can both be true? Apparently not. It is because they were prompted for some unknown reason to “reassess” and “reexamine” the same basic evidence and come to the opposite conclusion that the LC was really orthodox all along. In response, we recall Elliot Miller’s statement about the CRI staff raising the possibility that their leader Walter Martin softened his view toward the LC as a result of being “taken in” by Witness Lee after he met with him (11). One could ask whether Walter Martin would not now believe his successors at CRI have been “taken in” by the current LC leaders.

Further, as to the implied claim of truth-by-longevity-of-study argument, Gretchen Passantino claims she has “30 years in professional countercult apologetics” (letter in support of the LC, 8/18/06). If that has any weight, then my (Norm) view would have twice the weight since I have been doing apologetics for nearly 60 years now! Further, I have carefully examined CRI’s new recent reversal on the LC, and I am still convinced that they are unorthodox in many of their statements about God.
 
The Doctrine of Coinherence in God

CRI attempts to exonerate the LC from heresy on the Trinity by invoking the doctrine of coinherence in God. They claim that this means that it is legitimate to speak of one Person of the Trinity as being the other Person because there is an “interpenetration [of] one another” (22). However, this, in our view, is a serious misunderstanding of coinherence.

One evangelical theologian from Dallas Theological Seminary recently observed that “for much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, as for an increasing number of scholars in the West, the unity of the Trinity is to be found in perichoresis, the inner habitation (or coinherence) of each divine person in the other. That is, each member of the Godhead in some sense indwells the other, without diminishing the full personhood of each. The essential unity of the Godhead, then, is found both in their intrinsic equality of divine characteristics and also in the intensely personal unity that comes from mutual indwelling” (Scott Horrell, “The Self-Giving Triune God,” www.bible.org). However, we can observe that those who hold to this particular understanding of coinherence are careful to retain the distinction between the three persons. Yes, the three Persons have unity, but they forever remain actually distinct. In this view, to say that the three Persons mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that the three Persons ARE each other. That is, to say that the Father and the Son mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that “the Son is the Father.” The latter is modalistic language.

One does well to recognize that, more foundationally, each of the three distinct Persons of the Trinity coinhere in the same divine essence. In this view, what they share in common is not their distinct personhoods-though they are indeed “intensely personal” with each other-but their common nature.

However one understands the doctrine of coinherence, it is illegitimate to conclude that the doctrine allows for referring to one Person in the Trinity as being another. That is, it is unorthodox to say “the Son is the Father” or “the Son is also the Holy Spirit.”
 
Appealing to “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6

Appealing to Isaiah 9:6, in our view, does not provide the scriptural support for this idea that the LC apparently hopes for (“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”). First, when used of the First Person of the Trinity, the term “Father” is a distinctly New Testament term. That fact alone ought to clue the reader in that the term “eternal Father” in the Old Testament is being used in a different, unique sense of the Second Person of the Trinity (Isaiah 9:6). Moreover, in the New Testament, we must not forget that the Father is considered by Jesus as someone other than Himself over 200 times in the New Testament. And over 50 times in the New Testament the Father and Son are seen to be distinct within the same verse (see, for example, Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:4; Gal. 1:2-3; Phil. 2:10-11; 1 John 2:1; and 2 John 3). These facts set interpretive parameters regarding our understanding of Isaiah 9:6.

Based on the original Hebrew, the phrase “eternal Father” is better rendered into English, “Father of eternity.” In reference to Jesus this phrase can mean one of several things:
Jesus is Eternal. Some believe the phrase is here used here in accordance with the Hebrew mindset that says that he who possesses a thing is called the father of it. For example, the father of knowledge means intelligent, and the father of glory means glorious. According to this common usage, the meaning of Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6 is “eternal.” Christ as the “Father of eternity” is an eternal being. In keeping with this, the ancient Targums-simplified paraphrases of the Old Testament Scriptures utilized by the ancient Jews-rendered Isaiah 9:6, “His name has been called from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.” A strong case can therefore be made that the term simply indicates the eternality of the divine Messiah, not that the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is the Father (the First Person of the Trinity).
 
Jesus Gives Us Eternal Life. A second viable view is that the first part of verse six makes reference to the incarnation of Jesus. The part of the verse that lists the names by which He is called expresses His relationship to His people. He is to us the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace. In this sense of the word “Father,” Jesus is a provider of eternal life for His people. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light (2 Tim. 1:10). Again, however, the verse does not give justification for saying that the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is the Father (the First Person of the Trinity).
 
Appealing to “The Lord is the Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:17

Nor is there any real support for saying the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is also the Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) from 2 Corinthians 3:17 (“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”). Many expositors view this verse as saying that the Holy Spirit is “Lord” not in the sense of being Jesus but in the sense of being Yahweh (the Lord God) (cf. v. 16, which cites Exod. 34:34). One must observe that just earlier in 2 Corinthians 3 (vs. 3-6) the apostle Paul clearly distinguishes between Jesus and the Holy Spirit (see vs. 3-6). More broadly, the whole of Scripture indicates that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is said to be another comforter (John 14:16; cf. 1 John 2:1). Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7). The Holy Spirit seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13-14). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22). Even if one holds to the doctrine of coinherence (affirming that the Son and the Holy Spirit mutually indwell each other), they are still distinct, and this doctrine should not be taken to mean it is acceptable to say that the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is also the Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity), which is an unorthodox and modalistic way of expressing it.
 
Appealing to “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” in John 14:10

Support for the doctrine of coinherence is often sought in John 14:10, where Jesus states: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” Based on this verse, it is argued that because Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus that it is acceptable to say that “the Son is the Father.” If that is true, then when Jesus says in John 14:20, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you,” can I thus say that “I am Jesus Christ” since I am “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” me (compare with John 17:21)? Obviously not.

Please do not misunderstand what we are saying. We grant that there is an intimate personal unity among the Persons of the Trinity. However, we also believe that it involves a leap in logic to say that simply because the Father is “in” the Son and the Son is “in” the Father (John 14:10) that it is therefore acceptable to say that “the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is the Father (the First Person of the Trinity),” which is a modalistic way of expressing it.

It should be emphasized that Jesus in the New Testament never says the Son is the Father or that the Father is the Son, which is what the LC holds. Remember, the LC affirms (see Statement # 1 above) that “the Son is called the Father; so he must be the Father. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?” (emphasis added). Notice that the LC claims that the Son “really” is the Father and vice versa; he is not simply “called” the Father.

To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless.
 
The Distinction between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

CRI also cites a distinction between “the activities of the three persons in the economic Trinity and the coinherence of the three persons in the essential Trinity” (16).

Witness Lee is quoted as affirming that in eternity, “we may say that the Triune God has three persons but only one essence; the persons should not be confused and the essence should not be divided” (16). But Lee elsewhere contradicts this by saying, “Actually, to use the designation ‘three persons’ to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory because ‘three Persons’ really means three persons.... Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism.... We dare not say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three persons, nor do we dare say that they are not, because this is truly a mystery” (21). In response, we would point out that we dare not make statements that are contradictory. Nor, should we use unorthodox language that is modalistic. Even CRI admits that the LC uses “strong modalistic-sounding language” (21).

CRI admits that they knew from the beginning that the LC made contradictory statements about the Trinity (7). This is why CRI originally considered the LC “aberrant” rather than a “cult,” because the LC “add[ed] to those confessions of orthodoxy further affirmations that contradict, compromise, or undermine them” (16).

For some strange reason, CRI now argues that these once admitted contradictory statements are now not contradictory. What prompted the change of mind? Do these reputable cult apologists (such as Elliot Miller and Gretchen Passantino) now believe that the statements “God is only one Person” and “God is three distinct Persons” is now not a contradiction? In brief, strangely, the answer is Yes. How so? Because, we are told, the LC makes a distinction between the “essential Trinity” and the “economic Trinity.” The “essential” Trinity is the Trinity in itself from all eternity. The “economic” Trinity is the Trinity in operation in creation. In the “essential Trinity” there are three distinct Persons, but in the “economic” (operational) Trinity there is no difference between them. They are so co-mingled with each other in their activities that one member of the Trinity can be called the other. The Father is the Son; the Son is the Father, and so on.

In response, two points must be made. First, to clarify, there are not of course really two Trinities but only one. If there were two, then this would be a serious heresy of denying that there is only one God. Thus, at best, the distinction between an “essential” and “operational” Trinity is not an ontological (real) distinction since, in reality, there is only one Trinity. Thus, the “operational Trinity” is, at best, only a way of speaking about the one and only essential Trinity’s activities, not His essential Being. But even here when one member of the Trinity acts in the world, He is still distinct from the other members, even if they are co-acting with Him. For example, when co-authors such as ourselves mingle our minds and act together by co-authoring the same thoughts and words in the same book, we are still in this action two different persons. And no such co-action justifies anyone calling Ron “Norm,” or calling Norm “Ron.” We are two really distinct persons with different names.[5]

Ultimately, the problems for the LC view here (and CRI apologists) are that: 1) in the “essential Trinity” they either a) have a traditional modalistic heresy of not affirming three really distinct Persons in God, or else b) they have a contradiction (wherein God is both one Person and not one person but three distinct persons), and 2) in the “economical Trinity” they have a heresy, constituting a new sub-category of modalism-what we might call operational modalism. In either case, it should be rejected as not orthodox.

With this in mind, we can see that the distinction between “economic” and “operational” Trinities does not eliminate the contradiction and does not preserve orthodoxy. Distinctions in God (like “economic” and “essential”) have been made by the LC where there are no such real differences in Him. This is not to say that there is no difference between God and His actions; there is. It is simply to say that there is no difference in the nature of God prior to His actions, during His actions, and after His actions. God does not lose His true identity of one nature and three distinct persons when He is acting in this world any more than we lose our distinct identities when we engage in the actions of co-authoring an article or a book.

However, Witness Lee used a traditional modalistic analogy for the Trinity when he spoke of God being one person in “three appearances.” He said, “ If you could visit him [the man in his illustration] at his home in the early hours of the day, you would see that He is a father or a husband. After breakfast, he may go to the university to be a professor. Then at the hospital in the afternoon, you may see him in a white uniform as a doctor. Why is he these three kinds of persons?.... [In God] There are three Persons, but only one name).... [Likewise] The father in the home, the professor in the university, and the doctor in the hospital are also three persons with one name” (Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church, Living Stream Ministry, 1970, p. 8, inserts added for clarification). Such language is clearly modalistic, for one and only one person is performing three different roles, which Lee calls “three persons.” But these “three persons” are not really three distinctly different persons, as in the orthodox view of the Trinity. Rather, it is only one Person who performs three different roles. There is hardly a better illustration of modalism than this.

Further, a case can be made that the LC holds to a progressive form of modalism in which the one God expresses Himself in three stages or successive steps. Witness Lee affirmed: “ In the heavens, where man cannot see, God the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit” (Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, Living Stream Ministry, n.d., pp. 8-9). Lee also wrote, “Our God is the Triune God, and He has been processed so that He can be dispensed into us.... When a watermelon has become processed into juice, it can easily be taken into us to become our very element. God the Father has been processed through God the Son, and now He is God the Spirit.... Likewise, we can drink the Spirit, who is the ultimate consummation of the processed Triune God. Our God today is the ‘juice God’... Because God has been processed, He is drinkable” (Witness Lee, The History of the Church and Local Churches, p. 10). Lee wrote, “ In eternity past God existed alone.... At a certain point in history, this creating God, the Creator of all, became man.... After His crucifixion, Christ was buried in a tomb.... After three days, Christ arose from the dead in His resurrection. Through the resurrection and in the resurrection He became the life-giving Spirit [the Holy Spirit]... Because God, after completing the work of creation, passed through incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and descension, we may speak of Him as the processed God” (“What is the Process of God’s Economy?” The Hearing of Faith: Living Stream Ministry Radio Newsletter, Number 34, Feb. 2001, p. 2, insert added for clarification). So, “ the Father who listens to the praying is the Son who prays; and the Son who prays is also the Father who listens to the prayer” (Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, p. 27).

In fact, Lee did not hesitate to distinguish his view from the orthodox view of the Trinity, calling the orthodox view “the traditional teaching concerning the Trinity ... Now we believe that the Son is the Father and also that the Lord is the Spirit” ( Witness Lee, Young People’s Training, Living Stream Ministry, 1989, p. 110). Lee adds, “ I realize that this offends the theology of Christianity, but I have some verses from the pure Word as the ground to say this” (Witness Lee, The Wonderful Christ, Living Stream Ministry, 1989, pp. 23-24). Then he cites Isaiah 9:6 and John 14 (which were discussed above).

In seeming contradiction, Lee also states: “But we still believe the other side of the Triune God-that all Three of the Godhead exist at the same time, and among Them there is real coinherence for eternity.” He adds, “Although we cannot reconcile these two aspects of the Trinity, we absolutely believe them both” (Witness Lee, Young People’s Training, Living Stream Ministry, 1989, p. 110). Here again, what Lee calls a “mystery” he does not really distinguish from a logical contradiction.

Ron Kangas, Editor-in-Chief of the LC journal, expresses the same basic view, claiming that the Members of the Godhead are “distinct” and yet only one. He declared that “essentially, God is one, but economically He is three...” ( Affirmation and Critique, vol. x111, No 1, April 2008, p. 5).

Further, Kangas goes on to claim that, although God in eternity (in his essential state) is unchangeable, nonetheless, God in time (in his economical mode) does change. God changes successively from Father (in the OT) to the Son (in the Incarnation) to the Holy Spirit (after the resurrection). This Kangas calls the “processed God- the Triune God who passed through the process of incarnation...” (ibid., p. 6). Of this process God undergoes, Kangas uses words like “changed,” “became,” and “entered upon a new stage existence” (ibid., p. 10). Yet somehow God in His essential nature remains unchanged through all this. Realizing the apparent contradiction here, Kangas here too appeals to Lee’s mysterious doctrine of the “Twofoldness of Truth.”
 
The Use of “Twofoldness of Truth” in Defense of LC

CRI apologists attempt to justify Witness Lee and the LC by defending the belief in “twofold truth.” They ask, “What about Lee’s declarations that the Son is the Father and the Spirit?” (21)? And what about the LC claim that God cannot change in His essential nature, but that He did change in the incarnation? Are these not contradictory? Despite the fact that they admit that they have “advised the LC against making such declarations” (21), they insist that “when he [Witness Lee] affirmed that the Trinity is one person he was not engaging in boldfaced self-contradiction” (21).

In response, let us be clear: There are no degrees of contradiction. Either something is logically contradictory or it is not. Non-boldfaced contradictions are still contradictions. Nor can it be excused, as CRI attempts to do so, on “Western” (21) and “Aristotelian” (49) type thinking. Aristotle did not invent logic, nor is the law of non-contradiction limited to Western minds. Eastern minds can’t avoid the laws of logic either. Once one gives up on the law of non-contradiction, there is no basis for intelligible affirmations or denials, orthodox or unorthodox. It is simply not possible for God to be both only one Person and also three Persons at the same time and in the same sense. But Lee does not distinguish any different sense in which God is both only one Person and three Persons in the ontological Trinity. Nor do LC leaders distinguish any real difference between claiming God is three Persons and yet only one Person in His essential Being.
 
The Use of Cornelius Van Til

The use of Cornelius Van Til to justify contradictions in LC thinking about God is questionable for several reasons. First, Van Til never denied the early Christian creeds which define God as having three distinct Persons in one essence. What he did was to say that in some sense God can be also designated as a Person, as well as defined as three distinct Persons. To give Van Til the benefit of the doubt, either his insistence on God as a Person should be taken to refer to the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being, or else we must understand that the term “Person” does not mean exactly the same thing when speaking of God as one as it does when speaking of God as three. If not, then Van Til would either be involved in a contradiction (namely, affirming that God is only one Person and also three Persons at the same time and in the same sense) or else it would be heretical. If Van Til is orthodox here, then he should not be used to support the unorthodox LC position. If he is unorthodox, then using one unorthodox view to support another unorthodox view is not a good way to defend orthodoxy.
 
The Use of Theologian Augustus Strong

CRI appeals to the noted Baptist theologian, Augustus Strong, in support of the LC view. But even the citation they use does not justify the LC belief that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and that the name Father can be used of the Son and vice versa. For Strong rightly says that “there is intercommunication of persons and an immanence of one person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed...to either of the other....” (22, emphasis added). But he does not say that one person is the other; he merely says that one person is in the other. This is indwelling, not identity. God is in believers, but God and believers are not identical. In fact, Strong flatly affirms that “ as respects their personalities, [they] are distinct subsistences” (22). This gives no support to the modalistic-sounding view of the LC now being approved by CRI.

 

Concluding Comments

CRI rejects the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of calling the LC a cult both in a theological sense and in a social sense. In truth, the Supreme Court decision was a great victory for all orthodox, conservative, and evangelical Christians. For, as we pointed out in our amicus brief to the court (with which the court agreed), this would be a violation of free speech since it would deny us the freedom to define the limits of our own orthodox beliefs by distinguishing them from unorthodox beliefs. The LC rightly but reluctantly had to acknowledge that “it is nothing more than an expression of religious opinion that the Local Church is a ‘cult’ in a theological sense. It is a type of religious opinion that is undisputedly protected by the Establishment Clause...” (p. 9, emphasis added).

As for their residual charge that Ankerberg and Harvest House had libelously labeled the LC a cult in a sociological sense, the court rejected this as well, as indeed it should have. For nowhere did they make false or libelous charges against the LC.

Indeed, the best CRI can produce in support of their contention is that Ankerberg made “imprecise” statements that could possibly be construed as including the LC and that “imprecise allegations can still result in character assassination and should therefore be considered defamatory” (43). However, on this ground, most theologians and Christian writers I know (to say nothing of many hymn writers) should all be put in jail!

One final comment should be made about CRI’s justification of LC lawsuits. Despite the fact that they agree that the LC multimillion dollar lawsuit against Ankerberg was a “mistake” (44), they went on to justify LC lawsuits, claiming, “LC always took legal action as a last resort when the parties absolutely refused to meet with them as Christian brothers.” Despite factual evidence provided by Ankerberg and Harvest House to the contrary (which convinced the High Courts), one is hard-pressed to justify these kinds of lawsuits on biblical grounds. First Corinthians 6 is clear on these kinds of disputes among Christians. Matthew 18 sets the pattern to follow, and in it the last recourse is to take it to “the church,” (v. 17), not to secular courts. In 1 Corinthians 6, the bottom line is: “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong?” (v. 7). Further, CRI attempts in vain to show moral (or biblical) equivalence between this kind of theological and moral issue and other friendly and/or financial suits a corporation may take to get its rightful financial due.
The LC’s attempt to justify their lawsuits have a hollow sound, by claiming that “we did not do so lightly or without cause” (46), adding unconvincingly that they were “forced [to] file lawsuits in the United States when no other avenue was open to us” (46). In truth, no one forced the LC to do it. They did it of their own free will.

CRI’s use of Paul appealing to Caesar (46) in his own defense against false charges that involved his life is a desperate attempt to justify the biblically unjustifiable. There has always been another alternative that the LC refused to take, namely, to stop suing and threatening to sue other Christians, to admit and revise its false statements about the Triune God of Scripture, and to apologize for their harsh statements about Christian organizations, such as, “spiritual fornication” and “satanic.”

Meanwhile, CRI needs to reexamine its own near-blanket justification of such an aberrant and unrepentant organization as “solidly orthodox” (47) and are in many ways “an exemplary group of Christians” (29). Indeed, their whole effort is more of a self-justification than a self-confession. We am still left with the mystery of explaining how my friends and otherwise good countercult researchers (like Elliot Miller and Gretchen Passantino Colburn) could be persuaded to use their considerable talents to over-defend a group which they once believed-and most countercult scholars still do believe-is unorthodox. Further, one is greatly disappointed that one of the foremost countercult groups in the country could sacrifice its once high credibility in their nearly unqualified justification of this aberrant and cultic group.

 

Appendix

 

The following letter was sent to Mr. Kangas, Editor-in chief of the LC Journal. He used my name (Norm) in his article “The Economy of God: the Triune God in His Operation” in the LC Journal called, Affirmation and Critique: A Journal of Christian Thought. So, I assumed (wrongly) that he was open to dialogue. Had he answered my questions, he could have clarified LC views. Not answering them leaves a shadow over their position. He included a “Statement of Faith” next to the article which affirmed that “...we believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate.” Noticing, among other things, his refusal to use the orthodox statement on the Trinity which speaks of there distinct “Persons,” I wrote him the following letter to which I never got a reply.

June 1, 2008
Editor-in-Chief Ron Kangas
Affirmation and Critique
Living Stream Ministry

Dear Mr. Kangas:
Thank you for the copy of your Journal. Since you mentioned me in your article, I thought I would take this opportunity to ask for some clarification of your views.

First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your “Statement of Faith,” then why did you leave out the word “person” of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said “three [persons] being distinct” and “we confess the third [person] of the Trinity.” If it is not a triunity of persons in one essence, then what are the “three”? You rightly claim they are not “three separate gods.” Yet you deny they are merely three “modes” of one person. Then, what (or who) are the three?

Second, you speak of an “essential Trinity.” But again, who (or what) are the three in this essential tri-unity. The Word “Trinity” means, as you recognize, three in one. But if the one is the essence, then who (or what) are the three? There can’t be three essences in one essence.

Third, you claim your view is not “modalism,” but you never clearly affirm there are three distinct persons in the Trinity in distinction from modalism. If there is only one person, then this is modalism. And if there are three distinct persons in the one essence of the Godhead (which you do not affirm), then this is the orthodox view of the Trinity.

Fourth, what do you mean by “twofoldness” of truth. Can logical opposites both be true? You seem to say that Christ was both divine and human in one nature. For example, you affirm he is both “infinite God and a finite man.” You say that “God is infinite, and man is finite, yet in Christ the two became one.” This is not the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which never affirms that God (the infinite) became man (the finite).Rather, it asserts that the second person of the Godhead became man. Certainly, the Father and the Spirit did not become human. Only the Son became human. That is, he (who was the second person of the Godhead from all eternity) assumed another distinctly different nature and thus was both God and man united in one person (but not in one nature).

Fifth, what do you mean when you say that Christ’s resurrection body is both a glorified body of “flesh and bones” and yet at the same time “the Spirit of reality.” How can it be both material and not material (im-material) at the same time?

Sixth, how would you distinguish your view from the heresy called monophysitism which co-mingled the two natures of Christ? How can he be both finite and not-finite (in-finite) at the same time in the same sense?

Seventh, how would you distinguish your view from the Yin-Yang of Taoism where ultimate reality is beyond distinctions like true or false and opposites can both be one? You view of “coinherence” and “mingling” sounds very much like a denial that the Law of Non-contradiction applies to God. Do you believe that our statements about God must be non-contradictory in order to be true?

Eighth, you say God is “immutable” and yet is in process, calling Him the “processed God.” This too sounds like a contradiction where the unchangeable actually changes. How can this be?

      Sincerely awaiting your reply,

Norman L. Geisler

---

[1] Our use of the word “cult” in this document is not intended to be taken as an inflammatory or pejorative term. Defined theologically, a cult is “a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible” (Alan Gomes, Unmasking the Cults [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], p. 7).

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all page numbers are from the Christian Research Journal (No. 32, Number 6).

[3] The term “aberrant” literally means “departing from an accepted standard.” In the context of this document, a doctrine is said to be aberrant if it undermines or is in significant tension with the orthodox beliefs of the historic Christian faith as based in the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.

[4] Our use of the word “heresy” (or “heretical”) in this document is not intended to be taken as an inflammatory or pejorative term. Based on biblical usage, the word heresy refers to a divisive teaching or practice that is contrary to the historic Christian Faith as based on the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds. It involves a teaching or practice which compels true Christians to divide themselves from those who hold it.

[5] Of course, like most analogies, this is not a perfect one since, as human beings, we are not only distinct persons, but we are also separate beings from each other. Our point is that co-acting does not blur the distinction between persons.