Opinion Piece
First, let me introduce myself. I am a missionary to a Restricted Access Nation in Asia. I spent three years living in this foreign nation before returning home to seek more training. I am currently (2022) finishing up the last few meetings left before I am finished raising the support I need to return to this Restricted Access Nation as a church-planting missionary. However, as a missionary, I have experienced missions both from the perspective of an Independent Fundamental Baptist and as a Non-denominational missionary. One of my supporters, Will Hess from The Church Split, reached out and asked me to share my thoughts on missions from my perspective. I will not attempt to criticize or evaluate denominational missions due to my inexperience in that field. However, I will attempt to explain my experiences in the IFB and eventually as a non-denominational missionary. I will explain my philosophies as a missionary, which I believe to be Biblical. I will explain the problems that I see with missions in our modern environment. Finally, I will explain my burden for missions, and I will attempt to persuade you of the importance of missions. However, before I begin that series, let me explain how I entered the field of missions.
My Introduction to Missions
Despite that wonderful buildup, I didn’t want to be a missionary when I first expressed interest in vocational ministry. I didn’t want to be a missionary at all. I expressly told the Lord, “God, I will serve in any way that you want, except missions.” As a child in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, we had missionaries at our church every year. We were constantly exposed to missionaries. However, as an un-churched kid who grew up in a non-Christian home, I thought that missionaries and their children were strange. It seemed that missions seemed to beckon to the weirdest, most peculiar group of people that I had ever met. This was not necessarily due to their decision to serve as missionaries, but since all the families that I seemed to meet were people that I wouldn’t be caught dead with in real life. Since I wasn’t weird, I ascertained that God must have called me to either a pastoral or an evangelistic role of service. Furthermore, I didn’t like the idea of serving the Lord in a foreign field or having to travel for years to raise financial support, only to have to travel to the United States to beg for more money every 4 years. Since I didn’t have the personality of what I deemed to be proper for an evangelist (more on that in future posts), I decided that I would be a pastor. I am certainly glad that God changed my mind.
While I attended an IFB seminary in Southern California, I initially believed that God was calling me to missions. I had been attending multiple missionary prayer groups, in which we prayed for different missionaries around the world. I am not sure at the time if I was caught in an emotional moment, but I realize now that it is increasingly difficult to listen to stories of people who uprooted their entire life for the cause of Christ and stay content to be a pastor. When the missions conference rolled around, I decided that I was bound to be a missionary. However, I specifically told the Lord, “God, I will serve the Lord wherever you want, but I don’t want to go to this Restricted Access Nation.” During this mission conference, I met multiple missionaries in this specific field, and I felt that God was burdening me with unreached people groups. Thankfully, a wise roommate told me that this specific nation had over a billion people and would be filled with unreached people. I relented and committed to praying to determine if this was God’s will for my life.
Let’s pause for a moment and comment on the idea of “God’s will.” Often this phrase is misused and incredibly misunderstood. Somehow, people believe that God always promised to give people a very specific and very literal calling for their exact life purpose, often during their teenage or pre-teen years. This is usually prompted by some sort of emotional appeal during an altar call of a revival service. Oddly enough, I have only heard this phrase for those going into vocational ministry in this context. Otherwise, God’s will is a vague phrase used to determine your spouse, your house, your car, or explain away anything that doesn’t make sense. Instead, I believe that the following rubric can help determine God’s will for your life:
- Is there a desire (1 Timothy 3:1; Proverbs 18:1; Psalms 37:4)?
- Have you prayed about it?
- Have you sought godly counsel (Proverbs 12:15. 11:14, 15:22)?
- What does the Bible say? (i.e., is there anything in the Bible that forbids this decision or your qualification?)
Moving on. A year later, God opened the door for my wife and me to serve in this Restricted Access Nation. We served in an Underground church under a veteran missionary, teaching English and working with the youth group. After our first year, the veteran missionary was kicked out of the country, and my wife and I remained for two more years, serving in that underground church under a national pastor. It was during these three years that God began to make it clear that this is where our calling was, and we came back to the United States, where we served in our former sending church for two years before we began deputation (the process of raising financial support). Although I could speak for hours concerning the call to missions, I will openly admit that this looks different for everyone. Everyone who is a missionary was called differently, at a different stage, and to a different place. There is no right way to do this part, but there may be more beneficial ways of clarifying God’s call. For further clarification, this entire process occurred during our years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, and our experiences are drawn from this crowd. I appreciated this entire process, and as I look back, I can see that God was doing amazing things.
Our World Is Blown Apart
As I mentioned, it was during this deputation process that our world began to change. In the last 2.5 years, we have traveled to hundreds of churches and seen so many things. We have been to churches that were different shades of IFB than what I grew up in. We have encountered beliefs that are different than ours. We have even visited churches outside of our denominational affiliation, including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. Throughout these experiences, we have learned a lot. We have hurt a lot. We have grown a lot. We made new friends, and we lost old friends. We experienced some of the best moments and some of the hardest moments of our lives. We lost half of our support overnight, and we lost our sending church. Our friends rejected us, and our supporters left us. Even after that, we experienced the same issues outside of the IFB as everyone was constantly fighting with everyone, and our support and family were the collateral. We have also grown spiritually and doctrinally, and God has reshaped some of our views on missions. It is through some of these experiences that I want to take a few blog posts and explain what I have learned. I may not change the way that the world sees missions, but hopefully, I can encourage a church or a missionary to challenge the way that they think. If we can fix the problems of missions from this side of the field, we might further enhance our ability to reach the world.
Over the next few posts, I intend to cover the following topics:
- Deputation (troubles and philosophies)
- Unity behind the Gospel
- Theology and the missionary
- Missionary Autonomy
- Furlough and support troubles
- Apathy and missions
After these brief posts, I hope that you will have at least a better appreciation of the experiences that missionaries go through to reach foreign nations with the Gospel. Until next
You Might also like
-
Idolatry of Ideology: The 2020 Witch Trials
Lately our current culture has been weighing deeply on my mind. I’ve thought on it, prayed about it, and tried to speak to it. However, the division that is occurring is mind numbing and I really haven’t seen anything like it. I am partially angry, partially sad, and even partially amused.
The writing was on the wall for decades that this was the direction we’ve been heading, as many people simply shouted at each other across party lines rather than taking sustainable action which would create viable results. Instead, we manufactured band-aids and pandering ideals. We so desperately need to remember whom we are to serve: God and each other. After all, we are created in the image of God and yet so many of us want to try to fix this world by attacking the symptoms rather than the cause: sin.
However, what I have found increasingly disturbing is how Christians have become conformed to this world. They think, speak, and advocate just as the world does. I’ve seen Christians excusing miserable behavior in the name of faux justice by saying that rioting, vandalism of property, and silencing swaths of people because what they say makes us uncomfortable is justified due to (real or imagined) systemic racism. It’s so much easier to slap a label on them and walk away, but in reality, this only serves to bring further havoc to our social environment. So, let’s talk about this. Let’s talk about what’s happening.
Racism. The new unpardonable sin. Not only is it unpardonable, but it has also become the new Salem Witch Trials: Suspect someone of racism? They’re guilty and cannot be proven innocent. We throw these “witches” into the metaphorical water and watch until they float and reveal their racism, or they drown under all the character attacks of accused racism. Either way, it’s a lose-lose. The angry mob says that certain behaviors or ideas are sure signs of the evil that is hidden deep down, so they set up a rigged trial and be sure that nothing is left in its wake. It’s almost become a new cult or religion where a singular view is considered doctrine, and all opposers are damnable heretics. Worse yet, Christians are being sucked into this worldly view alongside the world. Instead of being resistant and “testing all things,” (1 Thess. 5:21) we buy whatever popular narrative is trending at the time. We don’t just bite it- we swallow it- hook, line, and sinker.
I’m amazed at my own personal treatment, not including everyone else’s, during these times. In the last two weeks, I’ve been called a ‘supremacist’ and ‘racist’ by many. Someone even said “Will has bought into white supremacist Christianity.” So of course, I looked at my Korean wife and we both laughed. However, part of me was also angry and disturbed that this rhetoric has become the norm and is used so flippantly. I can’t help but think, how have we gotten to the point where we can’t even speak to one another for a moment without such labels being so irresponsibly thrown around?
As I reflect, I can’t help but find irony in how history always repeats itself and responds in pendulum swings. Years ago, blacks were considered property, dogs, less than human who didn’t deserve any real opinion or view, and now the new race that’s popular to hate is white people. By telling whites to apologize for their privilege, or at least admit they have it is how we’re expected to help heal the world. Should that fail to effect the desired change, the next best step is to beat your neighbor with a crowbar and burn down a local mom and pop shop. How someone uttering such words or the ensuing actions helps the world, I’ll never understand, but nevertheless this is what is being demanded.
Even stranger is how white people are told, “You can’t understand your privilege because your privilege blinds you.” So, I can’t see or understand something that I can’t see or understand? So, I’m just supposed to blindly accept that white privilege is a concept based upon some person, white or black, telling me it is one? In fact, many of those telling me such things are white college age adults, who are almost ashamed of their own pigmentation – which is equally puzzling. While many of my black friends are saying that they don’t see this either. Which begs the question: whose commands am I to blindly follow? What it really comes down to is whether someone feels you have committed such a crime, regardless whether or not you have, especially if they are a person of color.
Voddie Baucham calls this “ethnic gnosticism,” which is “the phenomenon of people believing that somehow because of one’s ethnicity that one is able to know when something or someone is racist.” This happens all the time. It’s a form of identity politics. “You can’t speak on ___ because you’re a _____” Telling people that they have authority over a topic because they happen to fall under some sort of skin deep adjective is absurd. It’s another form of racism/sexism: treating someone differently and silencing them based on their immutable characteristics. In fact, if you have to keep bringing up someone’s race to delegitimize their position – they’re not the racist. If you have to keep referencing someone’s immutable characteristics so that way you don’t have to listen to them? They are not the one committing the sin.
Furthermore, demanding that one people group repent of their ancestors’ sins, apologize, and bow down to a different group is equally immoral and condescending. Let me be clear: to apologize for something you never did is immoral; to blame people who have never committed such atrocities or crimes is evil. In addition, demanding such an apology doesn’t generate a sincere apology- it’s pandering, which is an insult to both parties. This isn’t to downplay the sins of the past. However, empty words and hollow talk fix nothing, and pandering sentiments merely fall upon on self-gratified ears.
On top of that we had people, not so long ago, advocate for a de-segregated society. We had heroes like Rosa Parks take a stand and say, “I’m human too, and my rights are the same as everyone else’s.” She didn’t need the front of the bus. She merely knew that it was her human right to be treated as an equal. So many rightfully fought for a de-segregated society. Now, we have places like Williams College that are offering “affinity housing,” which is a nice way to say “segregated dorms.” We have now come almost full circle where those fighting for equality are advocating for segregation. Instead of progress, we have discovered regression. This is the natural consequence of intersectionality. This is the natural outflow when all you see is someone’s skin color, gender, sexuality, etc.
If you buy into this philosophy of intersectionality, where different groups have different levels of oppression, then you have been deceived by an idolatry of ideology; one that promises equality but delivers inequality. Let me explain: intersectionality says that at the top of the social ladder are straight white males and depending upon race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc., you are on different tiers. In believing this, you are buying into a dangerous philosophy that in the end will not create equality, but rather segregation, because in an effort to make everyone equal, you’ve only succeeded in dividing people further. Additionally, if you advocate for special treatment or recognition because of the color of your skin, your gender, or your sexuality, then you’re not advocating for equality. Instead, you’re supporting superiority. It becomes increasingly immoral when people want (and are given) constant special treatment for their immutable characteristics.
Don’t believe me? Think of all the posts, shows, and blogs talking about white people. There’s literally a show on Netflix called “Dear White People…” Now, with all those things in mind, insert any other ethnicity in there and the world would’ve lost its mind. Why? Because according to intersectionality, we white people are free game since we at the ‘top’ of this invisible social ladder. This is one of the many reasons I wholeheartedly reject this twenty-first century doctrine. It only serves to create further inequality.
This isn’t to say we should live in a “color blind” world either. That world is extremely boring and un-colorful. It’s great to recognize our God given differences. It creates appreciation for different cultures and people groups. My wife is beautifully Korean and I am pasty white. To acknowledge this isn’t immoral. We shouldn’t strive to silence black, Latino, island, Indian, Asian, white, etc. Instead, appreciate them. I don’t wish to be color blind, I strive to love the colorful. To respect that with one another we create God’s world. Instead of judging someone’s experience, understanding, or morals based on their skin color, I wish we could have a world that truly judged one another on our actions, our morals, and our values. I often say that “the issue isn’t race, it’s culture and values.” We need to return to where these values come from: God.
See, only with God can we truly claim racism is immoral. Think about it, if we are just evolved monkeys, the result of a cosmic accident, useless accidental pieces of meat orbiting around a ball of gas, to live and die with no meaning – then what’s wrong with racism? Wouldn’t this be our Darwinian instincts to be tribal and care for our “own kind?” Who’s to tell the baboon that his prejudice against the chimpanzee is wrong? This is just nature taking its course. The fittest fighting for the top of their respective ladders. Only if we accept that God created us in His own image, that God has a moral law, and to despise another person is to despise a fellow image of God can we find true unity, because only in Him is our true identity.
Furthermore, we have people defending and even advocating for the destruction of property which has resulted in dozens of innocent deaths. Some killed in riots, another killed by being crushed under a statue, others losing their livelihoods – who committed no crimes. This shows that when we handle issues wrongfully, it only causes more death and more pain. If you advocate for such things – you too are part of the problem. As a civilized society, we must remain civilized. Let’s talk, have discussions, share ideas, and give solutions to these problems. Violence, destruction, and death is an option that will not get us anywhere. Destruction only begets destruction.
Then there are those who keep shouting bumper stickers, “BLACK LIVES MATTER!” or “ALL LIVES MATTER!” Yes, yes, yes. We know. We agree. Black lives are part of all and all are part of black lives. They are part of each other so no reason to shout them. Now you may ask, “Do you agree with the BLM movement?” My answer is simple: I disagree institutionally but agree morally. The institution stands for things that I am directly opposed to (abortion, intersectionality, neo-marxist theory, etc.) but the moral that black lives matter? Absolutely they do.
This isn’t to say racism doesn’t exist. It most certainly does. But when we start labeling everything we don’t like as “racist,” then we actually hurt the cause against real racism. It merely becomes a buzzword that leads to The Boy Who Cried Wolf. We are so quick to hand this out like candy on Halloween that its very impact has lost its savor.
On top of all this, we infer motive all the time. For people who say “judge not,” we sure like to judge someone’s motive. If someone advocates against violence in the black community they’re labeled as a “stupid SJW commie libtard” and if you speak on deeper issues like the fatherless rates in the black community, drug use, violent crime or any other thing you’re an “unforgivable KKK white supremacist racist hack.” In reality, we’re all advocating and speaking to issues that exist and want to speak to these issues. Instead of speaking, we label and attack, leaving the issues unaddressed and making the trench that divides even deeper.
So instead of dealing with the cultural issues that have a deep impact on minority groups, we spit in each other’s faces so we can feel a little bit more virtuous. When we should be talking about how to keep drugs out of the inner cities, how to encourage two parent households, how to prevent the disproportionate black abortions, how to get men to step up as men, have properly trained people in the police force, and proper accountability measures set for such situations – instead we just scream insults at each other or vandalize a city square. This not only leaves crucial issues unaddressed, but hurts the masses.
People speak of having compassion and empathy, yet don’t even have enough empathy to listen to differing perspectives. What really happens is that we have empathy for that which we care about and hatred toward anyone else’s view that varies from our own. In the end, we have selfish bias masquerading as compassion. People love their labels because it saves them from addressing complex topics and helps them feel self-righteous. Unfortunately, it actually does nothing for those in actual pain right now. Recently, I was even called a white supremacist racist for merely disagreeing with vandalism. Of course, I pointed out the obvious refutation to this: my wife is literally Korean.
Then the laughably pathetic thing happened. I was told she was my token card to deny racism, and that secretly she was terrified to tell me that I was a miserable racist for fear of me domineering over her with my whiteness. I was angry for a moment, because this was not just disrespectful to me, but to my loving wife. So, I merely pointed out the obvious: “So because we disagree on this point, you accuse me of being a racist, I show you very obvious evidence that I’m not a racist, and now you twist even that to say I’m racist? Yet, if I agreed with you on this issue, you’d say that my interracial marriage was brave and beautiful and against the social constructs. So in the end, I am whatever you choose to perceive me to be no matter what the facts are to the matter.” This is the nature of the conversation nowadays. We want to label and twist whatever people say to shut them down. Intellectual honesty, decency, and respect be damned – we have a narrative we demand be followed. It’s either you agree with the status quo of our perceived beliefs, or you’re a leftist shill or a racist (depending who you’re talking to.) You’re either for us, or you’re against us.
People, ideas have consequences, and what you’re seeing happen right before your eyes is when bad ideas are allowed to blossom and set their roots. Consequences happen. The lack of morals on a number of various fronts has caused unspeakable pain and evils in this world. It’s time we wake up and see things as they ought to be. It’s time we recognize one another as humans. Brothers and sisters. Children of God. Image bearers of the Creator. It’s time we laid down pitchforks and torches. It’s time to stop following mobs and the next big thing. The world is manipulating us to keep us divided. Black lives most certainly matter, powers need to be kept in check, but the answer isn’t attacking and hating one another. This only creates more disdain in our world.
I greatly disagree with many people. I’m a pastor after all – we don’t do what we do to win popularity contests. However, I will always do my best to respect and love one another, because behind every sentence spoken is another person whom God shaped in the womb. People whom He loved and put in the world. In the end, if you want real change, you must see things through a framework that isn’t about race/gender/sexuality, but rather right versus wrong. Moral vs immoral. Righteousness vs. unrighteousness. Godly vs. ungodly. The only way you can find a clear picture of this is through surrendering to the creator of the universe: God.
Let me encourage you to stop insulting and attacking one another, and instead speak to one another. Listen, love, and even correct one another if needed. The philosophies today are washing away the masses and only leave destruction in their wake. Choose a better way. A higher way. A transcendent way. Put your faith in Jesus Christ, approach things as He did. With grace and truth.
Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
-
Victimhood is Anti-Gospel
Introduction
Last year I wrote an article about the “2020 Witch Trials” and the issues that came from it. Today I want to lean into that theme a little bit more and get to the spiritual and intellectual underpinnings of what allowed the 2020 dumpster fire to even take place. The same infection we saw rear its ugly head in 2020 has been festering for years and has even seeped into our churches. If anyone is familiar with our work at The Church Split, we seek to promote unity in diversity but still being unapologetically Christian and Biblical in all things – and this means we sometimes must challenge the status quo and sacrifice some sacred cows. This also means we risk offending an ever-polarizing culture, but this does not mean we ought to lose boldness in the biblical truths of the faith. So let’s talk about the cancer that is Victimhood Culture and how it is entirely antithetical to the gospel message.
It is also important to note that my entire family has experienced trauma, abuse, and hurt. My brother tells his own story here, my sister discusses hers here, my father shares his here, and I share a little bit of it in a sermon of like-name here. Know that this is not coming from someone who has no idea what he is talking about – quite the opposite. I know all too well the dangers of Victim Culture and how it entices. In fact, during the most miserable years of my own life I bought into the narrative. I behaved however I wanted to and justified it with, “well they don’t know what I’ve been through.” It was not until later I realized that I was using my victimhood to justify not taking responsibility for my actions – which was ironic since most of the pain in my life was due to others not taking responsibility for their own actions.
With that being said, I am also aware that we have all experienced different levels of pain and suffering. Some far worse than others. This article is not intended to minimize those experiences, but rather to maximize the saving power of God. To put our suffering within proper framing. Because to be honest, I grow tired of the Victimhood Culture. It has allowed for even more pain and hurt to take place and has split families, churches, and is currently tearing our own country in half. There is only one true response to it: The Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Let’s define our terms: What is Victim Culture?
The concept can be allusive and difficult to define. I think Victim Culture is best exemplified by the “micro-aggression” and “safe space” subculture we see cropping up around America. Where people have to tread carefully or reap the consequences. This is not to say that victims and Victimhood Culture are one in the same. They most certainly are not. Victims and non-victims alike associate with Victim Culture and the same could be said about those who do not associate with such.
Victimhood Culture tends to take victims, affirm their victimhood, and then continue to keep them as victims. Perpetuating an obsession with their trauma to the point where the victim is unable to move on. It does not allow victims to become victors, instead it keeps them down in an oppression only held back by the confines of their own minds. It makes people believe a lie that they have been destroyed by an unfair world, and now the world must either suffer for it, or that the world owes them for the evil suffered upon them.
Which is interesting because it takes victimhood and gives it power. Those who are now victims can get away with not taking responsibility in their own life. They don’t have to apply themselves to work because “if only others understood what I’ve been through.” Or “I don’t treat my family perfectly but I’m not half as bad as my father was.” Or “I might lose it from time to time, but after everything I’ve experienced, what do people expect?” – and thus the seeds of Victimhood Culture are planted. It encourages people to not be emotionally, ethically, or morally accountable to others because of misdeeds experienced by others. Which is ironically its own form of abuse.
It is this very Victimhood Culture that gives permission for riots, burnings, attacks, and hate crimes. Because why? Apparently one unjust or questionable action means the entire world must suffer for it. Therefore, we punish the masses for the actions of the individual. When confronted, naturally people deflect to the hurts and sufferings they have experienced and demand that others pay the price for their own misdeeds. If nothing else, they request not to be lectured or corrected in their behavior due to the immorality they have personally suffered.
This mentality is in complete juxtaposition to the gospel of Christ.
What is the Gospel?
Romans 10:8-13:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The gospel is for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord. The Gospel is the promise of God unto salvation. It is the redemptive work of Christ. This gospel is for all people and without partiality.
What the gospel does though is it gives us a hope and a morality. It tells us we are sinners and under condemnation, but God is good and paid a ransom for our sins (morality.) This shows that God prefers mercy over wrath. It reveals through God’s law that there is a right and a wrong, that there is a righteous judge, and also a merciful Father. The Gospel also tells us that we are valuable enough for Christ to die. It gives us a yearning of a Healer and someone who can make all things new (hope.) Therefore, the Gospel is able to show us what is right and what is wrong and gives us an eternal hope for something greater than ourselves.
However, Victimhood Culture speaks directly against this. It preaches that the only person who deserves condemnation is the abuser. That their sin is far worse and unredeemable than your own (a skewed morality.) It also teaches that victims are damaged goods. Broken. Unable to pull yourself up from the ashes of brokenness (no hope, just self-pity.) Which begs the question: how is one to ever get past their PTSD, hurt, and suffering with such a message? In addition, it also teaches that the abuser is beyond salvation, redemption, or repentance. That they deserve to rot in hell, and they belong in prison for the rest of their life, and perhaps, even the death penalty (no hope, just condemnation) Which raises the next question: how is one to ever want to change the depravity of their behavior with such an awful message? The gospel speaks directly against this and gives hope to all parties. After all, what is the point of counseling if not for mending? What is the general point of prison and AA if not for reform? What is the point of the gospel if not for healing?
(Now, I am not excusing abusers, of course abuse is horrific and not to be excused. I am also not saying one should not pursue justice.)
In Scripture, it is clear that we ought not to blame others
Genesis 3:11-12:
He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
Everyone is familiar with this story. The moment Adam is confronted about their sin, he blames Eve and attempts to excuse himself from any and all responsibility. Was it true that Eve gave it to him? Yes. But could Adam had done otherwise? Yes. Let me encourage you not to fall into the tempting trap of blaming someone else for an action that was within your own control whether you were a victim or not. (Adam, certainly wasn’t a victim here, but I hope you get the analogy.)
The Gospel is truly counter-intuitive because it goes against our nature to be vengeful and hateful to those who have hurt us. It’s easier to say, “I hate you and never want to see you again!” rather than “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” It is much harder to look a repentant abuser in the eyes and say, “I forgive you and I love you as a creation of God” than it is to say, “I hate everything that you are.” In the end, it will always be easier to hate your enemies than to love them:
Matthew 5:43-48:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Gospel teaches us that though the scars remain, we can move on. That God is big enough and that God’s grace is sufficient. I want to make note, “forgive and forget” is not in Scripture. To say such a mantra is to be both foolish and naïve. However, this does not mean you ought to be bitter either. Forgiveness takes place when we let go of the debt someone owes us, but reconciliation (to bring back together) is only made possible through the act of repentance. Thus, Christians should always forgive, but reconciliation might not ever take place because many times – people are not repentant. We tend to be stubborn, prideful, and arrogant. Especially when we buy into an entitled narrative that allows us to hurt others around us. Why is it you think that many abusers have been abused? They bought the same narrative and used the evil done to them to excuse doing evil to others.
Dangers of Victim Culture
Whether people want to admit it or not, there are real dangers to this phenomenon we see permeating in our culture which I suspect is a pendulum swing from people not taking victims seriously at all for many years. Regardless, extremes tend to land people in ditches on either side of the road. One of the many dangers it creates is the danger of never moving on. Having people relive and dwell on their trauma or oppression rather than looking ahead to hope. Moreover, it also gives people power over others. Recently someone said to me, “I’m at least glad that the power dynamics have flipped.” – but this should never be the goal. If you are seeking power in your victimhood, you are seeking the very thing the abusers were – power and unquestionable authority. The goal should never be power, but truth, righteousness, and goodness.
Nowadays, we have made being a victim a status of which to achieve. This is what allows for false accusations and spoofs like what happened with Jussie Smollett which makes a mockery of true oppression. In fact, while working in youth groups, I continually hear about every single possible disorder the young person thinks they have. Why? Because we have made being a victim not just something to be proud of, but something to be desired. What we are allowing in our churches and our culture at large allows for people to continually make up new ways of which they are oppressed, which only adds to the intersectionality mess that we have today.
“When victimhood becomes currency, expect there to be counterfeits.”
Michael Knowles2 Corinthians 6:11-13:
We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry,but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open.You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.
Notice how Paul expects there to be afflictions, suffering, and oppression. What’s funny is this passage seems to indicate that the Corinthians were playing the victim, and due to Paul’s rebuke, they seemed to believe he was restricting them. When in fact, Paul points out that it is their own affections that are restricting them, and make no mistake, pride can blind the abused as much as it can blind the abuser.
Bible vs. Victim Culture
Make no mistake, we have created a new class of people in our culture: the unquestionable victims. As someone who has experienced abuse myself, I find this train of thought to be deeply troubling. Firstly, we Christians are not to show partiality (James 2:1-7) to any group of people. Secondly, it demands that people like me are treated differently. As though we are weak, feeble, and unable to carry on and rise above our experiences. It’s both unhealthy to victims, and extremely condescending.
We also know that Jesus says, that if we do not forgive one another, He will not forgive us. We are also told that if someone is overtaken in a fault, we ought to seek to restore them, not instantly cast them out (Gal. 6:1-5) but notice that it is the spiritual. The elder. Those who are less likely to be pulled into temptation. But remember, if the person is repentant, we ought to forgive them. Again, this does not mean justice is never pursued – we also have a responsibility as good citizens in submission to the authorities of the land.
Luke 17:3-4
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
This is wildly unpopular today, and especially within the victim culture where we tell people they are entitled to their bitterness, but the Gospel promises that restoration is possible, and that people truly can change.
It is also important that we recognize in life that suffering is to be expected. This doesn’t excuse needless suffering by the hands of others, but it is something to be expected. However, through the power of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, after all the suffering Paul endured – he said this:
2 Corinthians 4:7-10:
But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
This is an affirmation of the power of the Gospel.
Philippians 1:12-14:
I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
This is an affirmation that our suffering can be used to display the Gospel.
Philippians 3:13-14:
Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
This is a reminder that we ought to put our past behind us and strain forward to what lies ahead. Paul is clearly indicating that this is not easy, but our goal must be Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:17:
and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
If we suffer in Christ, then we shall be glorified with Him. This is a reminder that our suffering is temporal, but the Gospel is eternal.
Romans 5:3-5:
Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Many people have asked me in my life if I would change the suffering I have endured. I have given much thought about the various levels of trauma I’ve experienced and can say today, with utter confidence, that I would not change a thing. My life has often felt like a 30-year uphill fight with abuse, oppression, and trauma behind every turn. It is those very things that produced endurance in my spirit, character in my heart, and a hope in Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 5:10:
And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
Let me say with absolute surety that the only hope of truly overcoming one’s suffering is to look to the suffering of Christ. It is only through a relationship with God, having faith and trust in Him, will you see your heart mend. He is the true and loving Father, He is the one who created you, and He is the one who loved you enough to sacrifice His own Son to pay a ransom for you. In fact, it is by the scars of Christ that your scars are healed.
Christians, I implore you to not fall prey to the enticing seduction of the victim culture today. No number of reparations, public apologies, medications, or affirmations will fully heal our broken souls – it is only through the gospel of Jesus Christ can one’s heart be truly whole.
How to Overcome Victimhood Mentality
You must first recognize its benefits. Yes, I said benefits. Because in victimhood mentality you get to avoid responsibility by blaming your life’s position on someone else’s actions. Instead of saying “I have no control on how I got here, but I can control where I go from here.” Victimhood culture says, “you have no control on how you got here, and you have nowhere to go.” It also gives you attention and validation, rather than exhortation and rebuke that we so often need to build ourselves up. The other benefit it gives you is risk avoidance. You don’t have to worry about failure if you never try. Thus, you get to avoid the risk of failure and continue to blame it on your oppressor. Which sadly means we are allowing the abusers to defeat us. I cannot speak for you reader, but I prefer to be a victor, not a victim. I refuse to be defined by my pain, but rather to be defined by Jesus Christ – as an image bearer of God.
This means you must be secure in your identity in Christ and be okay with not identifying yourself as a victim. The more you identify as a victim, the more you will remain one. However, the more you identify as a Child of God the more you will experience a spiritual resurrection, and as Christ forgave us, you will rise above and forgive others. Your hurt will finally meet the healer.
So, take responsibility for what you can. You cannot control the evils that have happened to you, but you sure can control where you go from here. I encourage you to forgive and let go of your past hurts, agree with God with what sin is, seek to correct your own sin, and then choose to strain toward the mark of Christ.
“Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world. You see, we are like blocks of stone out of which the Sculptor carves the forms of men. The blows of his chisel, which hurt us so much are what make us perfect.”
C.S. Lewis -
Simply Unforgivable
By Chris Stockman
Prior to declaring war on some other apologists of my generation, I contended that one consequence of God being timeless is that he cannot forgive anyone. That is, if one affirms classical theism (divine timelessness, immutability, and impassibility) then they ought to also believe that God cannot forgive them.[1] These, however, are only three of the classical distinctives. The fourth plank of classical theism, which is often taken to be the foundational doctrine to the whole system, is the doctrine of divine simplicity.
One may wonder why I have separated simplicity from the other classical doctrines in these articles. First and foremost, was length considerations. The previous article was long enough even without looking at simplicity. But, second, is the intended audience. I was not writing that article for the trained philosopher or theologian, but rather the average churchgoer who has heard certain claims about God casually thrown out from the pulpit and has uncritically accepted them. The average person has heard God is timeless and unchanging very often. By contrast, I would wager that 90% or more of Christians have not even heard of simplicity, much less know what it actually is. This is interesting, since certain advocates of simplicity treat it as a test of orthodoxy.[2] I find this use of simplicity puzzling, since I cannot think of a single other doctrine that is as abstract and far removed from being relevant to the Christian life. Thus, I was initially going to leave simplicity out of the discussion entirely. But, as the first article was coming together, I realized a well-rounded discussion should include it.
So what is divine simplicity (DS hereafter)? As with the other classical doctrines, this is not always easy to nail down. Not every classical theist is forthcoming with a succinct definition of their claims, and I do not think that every thinker throughout church history that has claimed belief in DS has believed the same thing.[3] Some use simplicity to say merely that God does not have physical parts. Others, however, make the more controversial claim that God does not have metaphysical parts.[4] And just about everything passes for a metaphysical part in the classical schema.
DS is well construed as a set of claims:
- “The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is identical with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes is ontologically identical in him with every other one of his attributes.”[5]
- There are no distinct realities in God.[6]
- God has no attributes.[7] (So, are all of God’s attributes identical with each other, and so he has one attribute, or does he have no attributes?)
- God has no potential at all, but is purely actual.[8]
A decent summary is: God has no attributes, is his own existence, and cannot possibly be other than he is, since rejecting any of these would require that he have metaphysical parts, which would just be the worst.[9]
If you are sitting there wondering what the heck any of that is supposed to mean, you are in good company. I cannot make heads or tails of the idea that God is existence, and I suspect that is precisely the point. Those who are committed to saying that God has no attributes, is passion-less, is time-less, etc. are avoiding making any positive claims about God, saying instead only what he is not. The affirmation of DS is therefore a mainstay in the apophatic tradition.[10] If apophatic theology is the only appropriate theology, then, as CS Lewis said “we worship we know not what.” Classical theists apply this to the nth-degree. There are advocates of this view that have stated to me “God does not exist”, in the interest of upholding the idea that God is existence. Now, if your view of God forces you to say that he does not exist, I take that as a good sign that you are deeply confused about God. I do not know why so many Christians find it desirable to give worship and entrust their lives to someone that they do not actually know a thing about. In Acts 17, Paul aimed to make known the previously unknown God. He noticed the altar in Athens to an “unknown god” and saw his opportunity to proclaim the Most High. He did not keep God shrouded in unapproachable mystery as the DS advocate forces themselves to. By the apophaticist’s metric, the Apostle Paul was a horrible theologian.
Anyway, as with timelessness, this doctrine has some unfortunate implications. One of them is what’s called “modal collapse”;[11] basically, DS makes this world necessary. There is no other way things could have been. Abuse victims had to suffer their abuse. Your family member had to die without receiving Christ. Another implication could be that God is a property.[12] As I’ll argue here, another implication is that God cannot forgive you.
A quick note: perhaps this is not your father’s divine simplicity. If this is not a DS you recognize, then I submit that it may not be simplicity that you believe,[13] because all of these claims above are express statements by classical theists, old and new. These are exactly the things that they say. If the shoe doesn’t fit, find a new shoe. It is also possible that there are some intramural disagreements between DS supporters; perhaps not everyone agrees with Anselm, for example. If you reject a particular tenet of what I take to be DS, then fair enough.
Another quick note: perhaps you don’t want to read this whole article. You may just be wondering if you should affirm simplicity or deny it. You should reject DS if:
- You think it is incoherent.
- You think its implications are false.
- You think Scripture teaches against it.
- You have any intelligence at all.
Ok, maybe the last reason is wide of the mark. Classical theists are often sharp thinkers that, I believe, are just misled by some counterintuitive metaphysics. It’s not an intelligence question as some may cast it, but rather a question of whether or not one finds attractive the prior commitments that the classical tradition requires. For my part, I find them wildly implausible.
The Problems of Forgiveness
“But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.”~Augustine[14]
“You are happy, indeed you are by nature happiness, because you are in possession of yourself.”~John Duns Scotus[15]
Keep these in mind; they’ll help us later.
So, I contended previously that a timeless God cannot forgive because he cannot change. One rejoinder could be that the classical theist could just say that God’s one act of being includes his act of wrath on sinners and his act of forgiveness to anyone who turns from their sin. After all, since they affirm that everything in God is God, they would just say his wrath is identical to his forgiveness which is identical to his existence. Therefore, since he is simple, the classical God can forgive you. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast. Actually, things just got worse. Much worse.
Problem #1: No real relations.
Normally, when discussing the doctrine of no real relations, one would quote from Thomas Aquinas, perhaps Summa Contra Gentiles II.11-13 or Summa Theologiae 1 q.45 a.3. You know, where he explicitly states that God isn’t really related to the world? Sadly though, I have been informed that I don’t understand him. So I’ll settle for Peter Lombard (1100-1160) saying basically the same thing. Maybe I understand him?
“From these comments, it is plainly shown that some things are said of God in time relative to creatures, without change of the deity but not without change of the creature; and so the accident is in the creature, not in the Creator. And the name by which the creature is called relative to the Creator is relative, and it denotes the relation which is in the creature itself; the name by which the Creator is called relative to the creature is also relative, but it denotes no relation which is in the Creator.”[16] (Sentences I Dist. XXX.1)
Let’s apply Pete’s logic to God’s forgiveness.
I say that X is in a forgiving relationship with Y if and only if the propositions “X is the forgiver of Y” (or vice versa) and “Y is forgiven by X” (or vice versa) are both true. In my previous article I laid out at least a partial definition of forgiveness, but here that definition doesn’t actually matter. Christians affirm that God is our forgiver; our faith is false without it. But the proposition “God is the forgiver of a repentant sinner” has just been, by implication, literally denied by the classical theist. The relationship (forgiving a sinner) does not really have a referent on God’s end. Lombard says the accident, or property, (being forgiven in our case) is in us. But then he says that “the name by which the Creator is called relative to the creature…denotes no relation which is in the Creator”. Forgiver is not actually referring to anything in God. Then what does “God is the forgiver of a repentant sinner” refer to?
Aquinas comes to the rescue! Maybe I understand him if I’m using him to bail out the classical theist? Is that how this works? Aquinas wasn’t silly; he knew there had to be some way we can be related to God. So he called such relations to God “relations of reason”.[17] These relations exist solely in our understanding. Creator, Redeemer, Lord, Savior, Sustainer…it’s all in your head. Whether or not this answer is compatible with Christianity is left as an exercise to the reader.
Problem #2: No real distinctions.
Remember Augustine and Scotus above; where God is happiness itself, and there is nothing distinct in God, that everything said of God is really the same thing? This backfires on the classical theist, as it happens. Recall the (working) definition of forgiveness from the prior article:
“You are feeling indignation or at least have some negative evaluation of the other person. But in response to someone asking for your forgiveness, or due to some consideration of what the ethical thing to do is, you forgive them. Your forgiveness involves you changing your evaluation of the person, and you no longer hold their offensive action towards you against them.”
We wrong someone, and so they feel indignation towards us. Then we apologize, or make reparations, and then they relinquish their indignation towards us. Their pre-forgiveness state is qualitatively different from their post-forgiveness state. They felt wrath and now are at peace with us; regardless of what one thinks about time and befores/afters,[18] they are distinct states to be in. Can God do this?
I do not see how, on DS. Since all that we say is in God, say, wrath, would be identical to everything else we say is in God, say, grace or happiness, there is no such thing as distinct states for God to be in. Not even conceptually! There is only God as happiness itself. There can only be God’s happy, graceful, loving, wrath (which is God himself, in case you forgot). Thus, there will be no difference between a simple God’s state “prior” to his forgiveness of me and his state “when” he has forgiven me, even using temporal notions non-literally. And thus, the defender of DS seems forced to reject at least one of the following claims, which I will call the Five Ways (Out):
- God is wrathful towards unrepentant sinners.
- God is not wrathful towards repentant sinners.
- God is not at peace with unrepentant sinners.
- God is at peace with repentant sinners.
- We can say that God forgives repentant sinners.
Claims 1-4 would be the move by someone who thinks one need not have any negative evaluation of someone at any point in the forgiving process, or else that one may still feel negatively towards someone after forgiving them (discounting human deficiencies; this is God we’re talking about). Rejecting (1) is unlikely to be a popular move, as it is the express statement of a prophet of the Lord (John 3:36). Rejecting (2), and so affirming that God is wrathful towards repentant sinners, may sit well with the Calvinist but not with normal Christians, as we are not under God’s condemnation (John 3:18). Rejecting (3) is unwise as well, since it is by faith that we gain peace with God (Romans 5:1). If I had peace with God before I repented, then I lose my grasp on just what repentance is supposed to do. Rejecting (4), by my lights, provides strong motivation to stay in my sin, or otherwise to not want the “peace” that 2 John 3 says will be with us from God.
That leaves (5) as the only way out. The classical theist can say that God does something,[19] but whatever it is, it cannot include forgiveness. I will leave it to the classical theist to make the case that we still have a gospel if we cannot say that God forgives repentant sinners.
Ok, there is, technically, a sixth Way. In theory, the classical theist could just say that forgiveness need not involve distinct states for the forgiver to be in, and thus they would reject how I define forgiveness. This will come at a cost, though, namely the cost of intuition. I find it a highly non-intuitive account of forgiveness that says that I can be forgiven by a God who feels the exact same way about me having forgiven me as he does without having forgiven me.
The End of The Matter
I think I have shown that all four distinctives of classical theism run directly counter to the crucial claim of Christianity that God forgives sinners. Thus, I can only call divine simplicity an “own goal” in theology, just like timelessness. The view is difficult, if not impossible, to even be made coherent. By my lights, the classical distinctives make gibberish out of Christian theology and are among the biggest mistakes in all of church history.
So, why in the world would any person hold on to their divine simplicity? I think Dr. William Hasker expressed my thoughts well when he wrote:
“Many of us, I believe, encountered our first philosophically serious theism in the writings of eternalist theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas–not to mention C.S. Lewis! As a result, the eternalist conception of God became incorporated into our thinking and belief at a rather deep level.
But many of us have also found our philosophical home in the analytical tradition. And it is simply a fact that the habits of thought engendered by that tradition are not particularly congenial to the theory of divine timelessness.”[20]
The sentiment holds, I think, for classical theism in general. And I don’t mean to say that tradition is THE reason why anyone holds to it; classical theists do have their arguments. But there is something comfortable about tradition, to be sure. It is a nice feeling to know that one has centuries of great theologians agreeing with them. I certainly don’t want to give anyone the impression that I have no respect for the classical tradition and just want to be “freed” from its “shackles” like an angsty new atheist. Far from it; I respect the tradition enough to study it and take it seriously. I love tradition, and I greatly enjoy reading such luminaries as Athanasius the Great, Boethius, and John of Damascus, despite their mistakes. I smile at the thought of meeting them in the Resurrection (and winning arguments with them). But, I cannot shake the hold that the “analytical tradition” has on me.
Regardless of your tradition, pursue truth.[21]
[1] This is not a response to Jordan Ferrier’s article.
[2] Some make claims like that simplicity is the only way in which one can be a monotheist, or the only way that one can say that God is necessary. Such claims I consider to be not worth taking seriously.
[3]William Hasker, in Jeffrey Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers, 14: “About simplicity I have little to say, since those who defend the doctrine can’t seem to agree on exactly what it means. To be sure, God is not assembled out of parts; that much is agreed upon by all. The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, is supposed to mean a great deal more than this, but what that ‘more’ is remains in contention, so it is best to refrain from criticizing until there is a clear target for the criticism.”
[4] Fleshing out the difference here is beyond the scope of this article. In short, simplicity trades on a view of metaphysics in which a thing’s parts include the properties or attributes it possesses. The properties are a proper part of the actual object. For example, the property of redness is a part of a red ball on this view.
[5] Dolezal, James E. God without parts: Simplicity and the metaphysics of divine absoluteness. Westminster Theological Seminary, 2011, 2.
[6] John Duns Scotus, A Treatise on God as First Principle 4.84. How this is compatible with the Trinity is not clear.
[7] Anselm, On the Incarnation of The Word, VII. Anselm rejects even conceptual distinctions applied to God. Thus, one cannot conceive of God plus an attribute; there is only the divine substance. “Therefore, the being of God and the being of his power are the same.”
[8] Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God, 30-31 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017). (And many other places.) Potentiality/actuality is merely the difference between the way the thing is and could otherwise be. For example, I am not a father, but I have the potential to be a father.
[9] This is where a key assumption comes into play. Many ancient thinkers held that something that has parts has been assembled out of those parts; that is, that the thing would then depend on the parts for its existence. The extent to which you think this assumption is plausible is the extent to which you will feel the force of some arguments for simplicity.
[10] Apophaticism, or via negativa (way of negation) is the belief that we can only speak of what God is not, rather than what he is. This is a very mystical tradition that prides itself on not actually knowing anything about God himself.
[11] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/other-videos/the-modal-collapse-objection-to-divine-simplicity
[12] Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980). At least, if one accepts simplicity as Dolezal defines it.
[13] For example, Richard Swinburne, in The Christian God (1994) 160-163, wants to endorse DS. However, I have a difficult time calling his view DS, as he rejects how medieval thinkers expounded it, believes that God is temporal, and is an open theist. Not very classical of him.
[14] Augustine, De Trinitate VI.8
[15] John Duns Scotus, A Treatise on God as First Principle 4.84
[16] Lombard, Sentences I Dist. XXX.1, as in Mullins, The End of The Timeless God, 118-119.
[17] An illustration: I am currently thinking about Will and Brian. Thus, I am really related to them by the relation “thinking about”. But (so the thinking goes) Will and Brian are not really related to me, not even by the relation “being thought about”. Their relation to me is thus a relation of reason; it is only in my apprehension of them.
[18] Here I have in mind the concept of a logical moment in contrast to a temporal moment.
[19] But since God has only one act which is identical to himself, which is unknowable to us, this means that we can’t know what it is.
[20] William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge, 180-181.
[21] Thanks to Travis Pelletier, Mariah Woolley, and Dr. RT Mullins for looking over prior editions of this and for the helpful feedback.