By Will Hess

I have served in church leadership and pastorship for over a decade now and I have noticed a continual theme: pastors are quitting. I am not talking about those who have been involved in some form of infidelity (because I’ve seen that as well) but I am referring to good, honest, God-fearing pastoral families who are leaving ministry in droves. As someone who has also stepped down from full-time pastoral ministry – I have regularly found myself wondering why this was the case. Many people I knew who had stepped down from ministry were people of whom I had great respect for, personable, loved God, loved people, and were over all fantastic people that would be the benefit of any Christian fellowship. After talking to many of these individuals, I can honestly say, the reason we are losing good pastors is because of bad environments. We have a deeply sick disease at the root of our Western churches and the problem is only getting worse – not better.

Let me explain, for years all I wanted to be was a minister of the Word of God. Serving others, teaching others, and lifting up the Body of Christ. However, once I joined ministry, I experienced so many problems that it is hard to even know where to begin. I had to be a whistle blower on sexual abuse allegations while the lead pastor attempted to cover it up, I also experienced the nastiest forms of church politics, manipulation amongst the people, and saw people striving for power grabs and authority. While this was happening, most people were quick to critique, make accusations, and complain, but even fewer were willing to serve, assist, and build up. I experienced nasty division while my wife’s mother was passing away, and again when we lost two of our pregnancies. Yet, we pressed on. My wife and I continued to serve, but once she got pregnant for the third time, I knew it was time for a change. For the health of my wife and the health of my child.

This was one of the hardest decisions I had ever made because, truthfully, ministry was my life and dream. It is what I always wanted to do, but I also knew that this environment was not healthy for a family. I remember being puzzled, as it was nothing like what I thought ministry would be, and to this day, I do not believe it is what ministry should be. We sell ministry as a job that is focused on the Word of God and serving others for the sake of Christ. The reality is vastly different than the pitch and I think this causes pastors to reconsider their careers. Over the years I have contemplated the issues that ministry families face and thought I would document them here. This will be a different article than what we typically promote here. This one will not be biblically exegetical, nor will it attempt to be academic. This post I am hoping will help non-ministry families realize what their pastors are truly facing, help ministers articulate some of their own thoughts, and perhaps be something that can help steer our churches in the right direction.

NUMBERS DON’T LIE

All someone has to do is take a cursory view of statistics regarding pastors and it’s easy to see that our pastors are not okay. Currently 38% of pastors have considered leaving ministry this past year alone. I also know the vast majority of those who enter pastoral ministry, will not retire as ministers – meaning most of them quit along the way. The statistics are alarming and prove the mental health of our ministers are not in a good place. Frequently stating they are stressed, have no close friends, they were under-prepared at seminary, work absurd hours, and so much more – it’s no wonder 1,500 pastors leave the ministry every month. So why is that? In no particular order I will give various reasons I think ministry is not a viable field for many ministers.

ABSURD EXPECTATIONS

Pastors are often faced with expectations that are impossible for any one man to perform. My personal experience of this still has me laughing from time to time. In my second pastorate I was expected to be the lead pastor, preach three or more times a week, lead the youth group, lead praise and worship, lead a few bible studies, handle upkeep of over 5 acres of land, council people’s marriages, assist with financials, disciple various individuals, put together various curriculum, keep track of all church supplies, help in two remodeling projects at the church at a moment’s notice (and if I was unable to help whenever this gentleman chose to work on his project – I would be accused of being a lazy millennial), and many more. All this while placed in a tiny one-bedroom apartment making poverty level income. Eventually, once the old pastor moved, I moved into the parsonage which we found to be infested with hundreds of bats and falling apart. Apparently, the old administration knew of the infestation, they just didn’t do anything about it. Things spiraled even more out of control as we had to handle 3AM phone calls to help a hurting family, had to deal with sexual abuse within the youth group, substance abuse, and so much more.

Remember, this is just scraping the surface of my particular story and I have actually heard far worse stories than my own. No singular person can be expected to spearhead all these issues at once. Plus, each of these issues typically involves wildly different skill sets. Pastors shouldn’t be expected to be project managers, accountants, counselors, theologians, orators, and anything else you need him to be. A pastor is a man same as you and he has a particular skill set. Typically, that skill set involves counseling, preaching, teaching, and theology. Even amongst pastors, those categories range in strength. Some are better at preaching than they are systematically teaching. Some pastors are horrible speakers but wonderful counselors. A church should never expect their pastor to be the “one man with all the hats”. If a pastor is able to fill other roles and he wants to, that’s awesome! But it should hardly be the expectation.

In fact, I am aware of many churches who won’t hire a pastor unless he is able to play an instrument, sing, or lead worship. Which is frankly unacceptable, we are pastors, not entertainers. If you want a concert, go buy a ticket. If you want builders and architects, go hire one. If you want a CEO, get a job, and go work for a multi-billion-dollar corporation. These are not the roles of a pastor and many people have it entirely backwards. If your pastor is willing and able to do those tasks – great! But that’s not his job. According to Scripture, if a pastor meets the qualifications, he is to be a minister of the Word of God to the flock. That’s it. It’s not an easy job either, but it is what pastors are called to be. 

All this to say, pastors often are buried under unrealistic expectations. They clock in 55-75 hours a week and often don’t get a full day off to be with their family. In fact, those unrealistic expectations often are extended to the family as well. The pastor’s family isn’t to just be present within the ministry, but to be at the beck and call of everyone in the church. This often means pastor’s wives aren’t even able to plan their day with their families without the potential of it being entirely ruined or interrupted. After all, if you don’t live up to the expectations of people, the people will get upset, which will lead to more meetings, angry phone calls, and people leaving the church. One thing ministry taught me was how incredibly immature and fickle people can truly be. Wal-Mart Karens got nothing on Christian Karens and when the customers get upset – it will be hell to pay. (Pun intended)

THE KARENS STRIKE BACK

What most people end up saying here is, “well, if they don’t like the pastor, they can leave!” Which is true, but for pastors this isn’t so simple. If someone leaves the church, it is rarely peaceful. The person who leaves a fellowship often feels they have to validate their decision to leave, so they gossip behind the pastor’s back for months, find anything they can to twist and distort to make the pastor/church appear inadequate, defame his ministry tactics or capabilities, and once all the seeds of dissension have been properly planted and nourished – they will leave. Upon leaving, they will attempt to take as many with them as possible, this is often what is at the root of a church split. Typically, this means when someone leaves, it causes the pastor even more havoc as he is continually inculcated with demands for an explanation as to these people’s exodus and is forced into correcting the record of falsehoods, lies, gossip, and slander. I cannot tell you the number of backwards stories I have heard go through the rumor mill and come out the other side nearly unrecognizable.

Honestly, this is why whenever negative press comes out on any pastor, I am always apprehensive. I know many pastors who have been horrible and abuse their positions, but I also know even more great pastors whose names have been dragged through the mud over disgruntled members. This can get even more difficult for a pastor as sometimes they are privy to information that could save them from the persecution, but often it would mean exposing someone else’s grave sin in order to do so. Thus, many pastors will just take the beating, convinced they’re being a good martyr.  On the flip side, many abusive pastors know this, and will continually claim, “there’s more to it than that, but I am not at liberty to discuss this.” They use this tactic to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Due to the complexity of perception, pastors often feel stuck between a rock and a hard place when disgruntled members go on the offensive. Either tell everyone the issue and risk gossiping yourself or come off like a potential abuser who withholds information. It’s a nasty spot to be in.

It’s also worth noting that when this occurs, pastors are forced to spend hours of their weeks stomping out unnecessary fires, all because some random member in the church chose to cause division in their disagreement and instead of leaving peacefully or striving for unity, they attempt one more political stunt to bring havoc onto the church and the pastor.

When those aforementioned unrealistic expectations are not met, busybodies get to work, and cause a pastor a lot of grief. If he’s lucky, the busybody will leave, along with their ilk. If he’s not lucky he could lose his job, livelihood, and home. Remember, for the congregation the church is just the building in which they fellowship. For the pastor, it is often his lifeblood. I have known pastors who have lost their jobs and home due to someone successfully turning a congregation on a pastor. In the end, these people are often too willing to sacrifice the pastor and his family on the altar of their own petty agenda.

This also means that every disgruntled member can become a serious financial threat to the church and the pastor’s family. Consider that if people leave so does their tithe. This means pastors are often faced with a choice of bending the knee to the demands of a mob or standing on their own principles and risk losing funding. Personally, I took a stand for what was biblical, consistent, and true, and this forced me to get a job to sustain myself as a minister – that way I could focus on ministry without financial pressure (one of the best decisions I ever made). However, this isn’t true for all pastors. Some pastors choose to either comply with the increasing demands of the people, or just shape the church’s culture to be as seeker friendly and milquetoast as possible. It’s no wonder so many pastors step down or lose all backbone. They’re people after all, just like you and me, and to continually fight can be exhausting.

Obviously, I do not think this is good. Pastors should have strong backbones and biblical principles and churches should support that. Congregants would do well to not making mountains out of mole hills. Your pastor isn’t perfect, and neither are you – there will be disagreements. This is why God calls us to humility. One of the marks of a truly healthy church is when people can disagree with each other without splitting the place asunder. Pastors, I’d also encourage you to be loving, gracious, and kind at all times, but if someone is causing division – follow Matthew 18:15-20 as fast as possible. Protect your flock and mark those that cause division.

Christian Karens aside, the primary reason pastors don’t want people to leave is because they want to see lives changed for God. Every person that leaves can often feel like a personal failure (and maybe it is) and thus pastors will usually fight to keep people rather than cast them out. Remember, pastors are shepherds, and they want to lead sheep and protect the church from wolves. It can be difficult for a pastor to come to terms that someone within his flock has been a wolf this whole time and it is better they depart than for them to stay.  Thus, he will often work hard to meet with the person, attempt to flesh out any obstacles between them, and try to bring reconciliation. This is because pastors want to see lives changed by Christ and unity to thrive amongst the brethren, it’s typically the driving force behind their call to ministry. (Because it certainly isn’t the money).

In short: church politics suck.

THE POVERTY GOSPEL

All this can leave great pastors emotionally and mentally strained. However, this merely brings us to discuss the financial issues pastors are faced with. Most pastors make precious little money. Most pastors (myself included) make poverty level salaries. Which gets increasingly absurd since churches often expect their pastors to have lofty seminary degrees while paying pennies to the metaphorical dollar. This creates a major imbalance for pastors as they are usually trying to pay off school debt while making barely any money. In all actuality, many pastors I know have had to go on government assistance just to make ends meet.

This gets even worse when it comes to dealing with upset people in the church. Every single person that leaves is also dollars leaving. Should pastors necessarily think this way? Probably not, but it doesn’t change the reality that people leaving the church means funding leaving the church. In other words, every single person that leaves could very well impact a pastor’s ability to put food on their table for their family. Most pastors I know will always choose to do the right thing, despite the financial pressures, but then we wonder why good pastors eventually quit? Probably because they don’t want their income and family’s well-being dependent or controlled by a fickle group of people who aren’t afraid to turn on you in a moment if they don’t get their way. Which is asinine since a church ought to be the hands and feet of Christ, meanwhile pastors often feel alone despite being surrounded by people (but more on that later).  It gets even worse when people actually threaten to leave and take their tithe with them (yes, this has happened to me. No, I did not acquiesce to the man’s request after that stunt).

Even more egregious is pastors are told, “this is the way it’s supposed to be. You shouldn’t be in it for the money! Was Jesus wealthy? Was Paul rich?” Yes, people will shame you just for desiring a living wage. Ironically, I was told this sort of thing continually from a person who was on the hiring committee at my second pastorate who made well over six figures a year.  Meanwhile this same individual would regularly be upset my wife and I didn’t continually host people at our house for dinner – despite them paying their last pastor twice as much. However, we could barely afford our own food, let alone paying multiple families. He chocked up my pay shortage to “a lack of experience” (I was fresh out of seminary but notice the corporate mindset already. Experience = more pay). I was young and naïve at the time, I shouldn’t have agreed to the salary in the first place, but I was sold on the poverty gospel. That I was to be a willing servant of the Lord no matter how little I made or how much it cost. After all, you can’t put a dollar amount on a soul! I still cringe at my naivety at the time.

Now, not all churches can afford to pay their pastor a living wage and keep the lights on. Most pastors understand that and are willing to endure for a while. That’s fine and even admirable. However, I would suggest that if a church is going to have multiple paid staff, their first goal ought always to be to get their pastor a full-time living wage. Take care of your Jerusalem before you worry about the uttermost. So often churches get financially bogged down by trying to get a better production, fancier programs, or perhaps they desire the noble goal of getting involved in missions. Although missions is great work, if the church can’t yet support their pastor on a full-time living wage, then they really shouldn’t be spending hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on missions where pastors are trying to get a full-time living wage. It’s putting the chariot before the horse. Consider, if your pastor is financially stable, he will be in a healthier state of mind and thereby become more effective in his position. Likely this will help create a healthy church which will grow and allow more financial latitude in order to support even more missions, non-profits, other pastoral staff etc.

This is of course only if a church truly desires to have a full-time pastor. However, I highly recommend having a bi-vocational pastor where he is asked to minister the Word of God, have the other logistics covered by the congregation, and have the expectations of availability adjusted accordingly. Paul was a tent maker, Jesus was a carpenter, have our pastors have their own trade as well. This will relieve tons of pressure on the pastors. If a church finds this untenable then they should seek to provide a living wage for their pastors while not making other unnecessarily large financial commitments.

It has been demonstrated that financial pressures can be the top thing that destroys marriages and drives people to depression – then we wonder why so many pastoral families fall apart? Why so many leave the ministry? Well, despite all the pressures in ministry, financial pressure is easily one of the top issues. This is why I, and many others, opted to enter the secular workforce and operate our own personal ministries independently. Think about that for a moment. Good pastors have chosen not to receive a salary at a church and continue to minister independently just to avoid the absolute trainwreck that is church-based financial pressure. Want healthy pastors? Have realistic expectations, don’t let small things get in the way, give your pastor space, and compensate them fairly. If you choose not to pay a pastor at all (as many pastors/churches choose to do), then adjust your expectations accordingly and understand his time will be far more limited.

LIVING IN A FISHBOWL

Pastors and their families are continually living under the microscope of other people’s perceptions. Often this leaves pastors and their families feeling like they are walking on eggshells – even in their own home. Remember those absurd expectations I rambled on about? This is where those expectations become invasive as everyone becomes the critic of you and your family. Your child having a bad day? People will think their pastor is a poor parent. Dealing with a personal family problem? People will think you’re distant and disinterested in the church. Like sci-fi movies? Well, someone at church might find those horrendously evil. Like to watch sports at your favorite bar and grill? Sounds good, unless Miss. Shirley at church doesn’t like the idea of her pastor going to a sports bar. Like to play video games online with your friends from seminary? Well, if brother Ken finds out, he’s going to be upset. Did you go shopping at Target? Well, someone’s going to get mad that you’re supporting a place with a backwards bathroom policy (while they order another package on Amazon). On and on I could go, but you get the picture. Everything you do is often scrutinized. You’re not allowed a personal life. Whatever you enjoy doing privately better stay private, or else you might be in for more church drama.

Consider what message this sends to pastors and their families. “Don’t tell anyone at church we watched Lord of the Rings, went to the movies, went to the beach, went to that restaurant, had a glass of wine, have an Amazon membership etc.” Due to constant scrutiny pastors often live secluded lives at home and have even fewer close friends. What this essentially communicates to pastors is they should live double lives. They should not be open and vulnerable but closed off from the very people they are to be shepherding. Where’s the sense in that? No one wants their job to be that invasive in their personal life. Well, neither do pastors, and this is one of the top complaints I have heard from ex-pastors. They were tired of their personal life always being under scrutiny because of the fickle nitpicking of cantankerous church members.

THE LONESOME ROAD

Now, if you consider everything I’ve discussed up to this point, it should be no surprise to you that many pastors don’t have close friends. In fact, in my first seminary, I was told not to have any close friends within the church I pastored. Why? Because I was to be their shepherd, not their friend. I deeply disagreed with this (and still do), so when I began pastoring, I befriended everyone. I was open and honest at all times – and this backfired hard. When decisions were made these people didn’t like, they were quick to take all our joking, confiding, general conversations, and twist them as weapons for their cause. I remember I was shocked when this happened. I couldn’t imagine Christians being so malicious toward one another (told you I was naïve). The first time this happened I remember thinking to myself, “screw it, I’m not befriending anyone. At this point, pastoring is my job. Nothing more.” I quickly realized how foolish and childish such a thought was and chose to press on. This happened a few more times and I grew increasingly apprehensive of developing any friendships within the church as I really didn’t want to deal with that sort of betrayal again. Originally, I thought my story was unique and I just happened to get the short straw.  That was until I began to talk to other pastors, and they echoed similar sentiments.

This didn’t make ministry any easier though. I didn’t have many close friends. Most my close friends were states away. Honestly, I accepted that I’d likely be mostly alone. I’d call friends and family whenever I really needed to talk to someone, and just continue pastoring my flock. I would bear the burdens of the flock, and my distant relationships would serve to bear my own burdens. Needless to say, this wasn’t healthy, but it was certainly better than dealing with potential drama. As I’ve spoken with and counseled other ministers, I have grown to realize many pastors operate the same way since being open and vulnerable with a group of people can result in people using that against you. Many pastors have no one to confide in if they’re struggling. After all, pastors are supposed to “have it all together” and thus are not allowed mistakes, human error, or struggles. It’s no wonder why so many pastors leave the ministry or fall into living double lives.

In all actuality, churches should strive to have an open and honest relationship with everyone within its walls, the pastor included. The church is instructed to operate in unity and bear one another’s burdens. Unity isn’t possible if people are continually striving to nitpick. Bearing burdens isn’t possible if no one is able to share their burdens. We will never succeed as a church if we continue to ostracize our ministers in hopes that in their isolation, they will remain strong. Pastors are often surrounded by people, but the loneliest person in the room. Everyone comes to him for their problems, but he has no one to confide in about his own burdens. After all, last time he did, someone condemned him for it, ran around, and used it as political leverage. I am not referring to grave immoral sin here either, I’m talking about standard struggles or even how he operates his own home on a day-to-day basis. Yes, even the daily operations of his home could come under fire because someone thinks he’s “too strict” while another person will accuse him of being “too loose”. It’s an impossible tightrope for many pastors to walk, so they just choose to distance themselves from the flock. Keeping their personal lives practically a secret.

CORPORATE CHURCH

A lot of these issues stem from the culture by which we have cultivated the church. Many of us go “church shopping” and enter churches wondering what the church can do for us and not what we can do for the church. This is because the Western world is extremely consumer and individualistically minded, and not communal. What can often happen is a new family comes into the church and begins to attend for a few months. The pastor has gotten to know them, maybe had them over for dinner, and invested into them. However, a while later these people leave because they feel the church doesn’t meet their needs.

I remember this happened with one family. We had gotten to know them over the course of a year, had dinner with them, went to movies with them, and even connected with their kids. Eventually this family left the church, why? Because they didn’t feel “connected” in the church. This same family would show up to service notoriously late and leave as soon as service was over. It was no wonder they weren’t connected to anyone in the church – they were never there. Want to get connected in the church? Get to know people within the church. Show up early and fellowship. Find ways you can serve in the church. To expect to barely show up, warm a pew, leave, and somehow have a rich connection is just unrealistic.

Situations like this can cause pastors or churches to stop viewing church members as Christian brothers/sisters but instead to begin viewing them as customers. After all, these people seem to only want to consume, not serve. They seem only interested in the self, and not others. Plus, if they leave, the church will lose funding, the pastor might lose his salary, a missionary might have to be dropped, and on and on the list could go. Thus, churches start aiming everything on Sunday morning to be a performance of sorts where they do everything they can to be as seeker friendly as possible. Does it tend to create shallow followers? Yes. But does it ensure the business model operates well and the customers stay happy? Absolutely.

This places undue pressure on pastors as they attempt to lead the church in the ways of God. Either they can gear things to be seeker friendly and compromise their principles, or they can stick to their principles, but many might protest that it’s not “inclusive” enough. This is the problem with corporate church -we’ve made pastorship a career and the congregation his customers. These customers will spend money there or take it on down the road where they can get a product that better suits them. It’s a relentless and unnecessary pressure all because we treat church like a business. The church should be a fellowship, the office of the pastor something to be respected, and the service should be used to encourage and equip the brethren. In short, the church ought to be a living and breathing organism. The goal should be to grow people spiritually, not necessarily numerically. It ought to be community minded, not individualistically focused. The church isn’t a business, it is the Body of Christ. A fellowship of believers.

In fact, I would personally encourage pastors to become bi-vocational if they can or in the very least have a skill that can effectively be used in the secular work force (after all, even Paul was a tent maker). This removes a lot of the aforementioned financial pressures, allowing the pastor financial freedom and it also pushes the church a little further away from a corporate model. However, if your pastor does serve in the workforce, then a church must adjust their expectations for a pastor. If he is juggling two jobs – then it will mean he’s going to have less time to do miscellaneous duties and will have to focus on the main parts of being a pastor. If you do choose to pay your pastor full-time then still be sure to curb expectations and not to create a corporate atmosphere where you’re the paying customer, he’s the CEO, and the church is the business. That is about as toxic as it is stupid and just creates numerous problems in a church.

BURNOUT

Needless to say, this can cause pastors and their families to experience exhaustion in the pastorate where they feel they are perpetually navigating a mine field. When I talk to pastors/missionaries I have repeatedly heard that they feel they are continually pouring out and very few people pour back. This isn’t because these people are weak or desire pity, it’s just spiritual physics. If you live to only serve others and never receive any form of appreciation, only demands, you will continually drain yourself. In short, ministers need to be ministered to as well. Sometimes this could involve a card, a gift, or just being willing to serve in the ministry. Sadly, most people prefer to attend than to serve, and this can be a serious discouragement to a pastor. If not discouraging, it can certainly be exhausting.

Think about it for a moment. A pastor is preaching multiple times a week, leads worship, has discipleship meetings, counsels people, hosts activities, studies, visits people in need, is filling in for three different ministries, and for weeks he has been announcing that they need someone willing to help in nursery. Weeks turn into months as he continues to announce that their nursery workers need help – all he ever receives is an awkward silence. For months he has been serving everyone beyond his expected duties, and he can’t even get someone to volunteer to go on a nursery rotation. This sort of thing is disheartening to a pastor because as he, and a select few people, continue to serve the congregation…the congregation never wants to serve in return. This can cause a number of problems: resentment toward the congregation, cliques amongst the leadership, the same people running things for years and eventually never wanting to give up their seat, and even complacency as people fall into routine. This list could be endless, but you get the point.

This pastor would obviously be struggling to keep his head above water. Let’s take the same pastor and say that on Sunday morning, right before he preaches, some lady in the church complains about a lack of family activities being done at the church. He acknowledges that he would like to create more opportunities for fellowship activities across all age groups and asks if she would be willing to organize such a thing. She responds with, “well, I’m super busy. I’m not looking to lead this thing, just thought it would be a good idea.” In a moment of transparency, the pastor responds, “well, if you’re not willing to lead it, I don’t think anyone’s going to. Most everyone else is stretched thin as it is.” Now, this Christian Karen gets upset and starts gossiping to everyone that pastor doesn’t care about fellowship, because if he did, he would do what she suggested.

The pastor goes up to the pulpit and preaches on Romans 9, ends service in a song, lifts up a final prayer, steps down from the platform and suddenly a man walks up to him and says, “I disagree with your take on that passage.” The man proceeds to tell him how theologically wrong the pastor is on this topic and others. The pastor asks if the man has read on the topic and studied it deeply. The man scoffs and says, “I don’t read them theology books. I just read the Bible for what it says!”. The pastor finds the statement amusing yet annoying as the pastor understands they both read the word but doesn’t mean you’re interpreting it properly. However, the pastor chooses to just graciously hear the man out and finally is cut loose from the awkward conversation. Suddenly he’s grabbed by someone else who informs him that Jane, an elderly woman in the church, lost her temper on Amanda again in the kitchen. The pastor begins to hurry over to see what the matter was, but not before he is grabbed by Richard who tells him “your sermons are good, but I really wish you’d slow down from time to time it’s hard to keep up with you!” Pastor acknowledges he could slow down and continues to walk quickly, trying to find Jane or Amanda. The words, “Hey Pastor!” ring across the hall, “These are my parents in from out of town! They were so excited to be here today.” He exchanges pleasantries with them and wishes them the best. He continues his search just to find out both women had left.

He goes home and attempts to call both of them. He gets in touch with Amanda, and she explains the situation. He knew that Jane could be territorial about the church kitchen and that it has been her baby for 36 years. With a deep breath he calls Jane. No answer. He gets a text from a church member telling him that Jane is calling people telling them her “new rules” for the kitchen. He tries to call her again. She picks up and lets her explain herself. After an hour conversation with her he gets her to calm down and things return to normal. He looks at the time and realizes he has to lead youth group in an hour. He rushes out and the night continues as normal. (As normal as youth group can possibly be that is)

As insane as this picture I’ve painted seems, this is a pretty normal occurrence for pastors. They are continually running to the next thing and stomping out fires all while people critique, engage in small talk, and complain about varying subjects. This can be exhausting mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. I know personally, the burnout was the #1 thing that was wearing me down. Honestly, I can handle complainers, entitled Karens, and people’s subjective judgment. What I couldn’t handle was running around so much I’d rarely see my family. I chose to make a change. I got a career, built my own ministry from home, got involved in a friend’s church, became an Elder there, and I have found I am far more effective in ministry now than I ever have been. Why? Because all the aforementioned baggage I no longer have to endure. I have freedom I’ve never had and can personally invest into people’s lives directly. I can teach that which I believe to be biblical without having to question whether or not my job will be sustainable. Oddly enough, the removal of my pastoral salary was the thing that gave me the most ministerial freedom.

HOW TO KEEP GOOD PASTORS

I’m not saying that pastors would be better off quitting nor am I saying this describes every church. To make such a claim would be foolish. There are many healthy churches out there and many pastors in great positions. I am blessed to be in such a church. My goal here is to shine some light on the issues pastors are facing on a day-to-day basis and why so many leave. If this did describe your church, be part of the change.

However, I would be remiss if I didn’t follow through with some solutions to the problems. After all, I am known in my house to say, “don’t raise a complaint if you can’t raise a solution.” Honestly, as monumental as these problems are, they’re really more of a snowball effect with only a few issues at their core and it would really help absolve these issues completely.

1. Become a community: This is a nearly foreign concept in our Western world because we are so individually focused. If each individual shifted their focus on others within the community this would create less selfishness and thereby less self-centered ideals being pushed in the church. This would ideally result in less hurt people in the church in general (congregants and pastors alike). When one reads Acts, we see the early followers fellowshipping and breaking bread with one another, sharing their property etc. Why? Not because they were socialists (sorry progressives) but because they were a community who loved and cared for one another. This means putting others ahead of our egos.
2. Unity in Diversity: Remember that not everyone is going to agree on everything. If unity were conformity, then we wouldn’t see disagreements amongst apostles in the early church. But we do. Thus, it cannot be true. Rather, remembering unity in one Lord, one Spirit, one God, and one mission ought to be enough for believers to not despise one another, but rather to love one another. Allow for diverse opinions and even for leadership to make decisions that you might disagree with. Do not make mountains out of mole hills.
3. Remove Animosity: if you’re angry at someone in your church, go talk with them or learn to let it go. Animosity only breeds bitterness and resentment, things that hurt churches and yourself. You’re going to have to live with each other in heaven, so you may as well start practicing here on earth. A mark of a mature Christian is someone who can address each situation as it comes without constantly living in the past. There have been plenty of people in churches I have disagreed with, some that even frustrate or annoy me, but in the end they’re my brother or sister in Christ – show them love and respect.
4. Promote Mental Toughness: If you’re going to disagree with people in the church (and trust me you will) you better be able to have the mental fortitude to deal with that. The church gets nowhere with weak minded and strongly opinionated people. In Paul’s day he’s walking around a place like Corinth and dealing with a believer who is sleeping with his mother-in-law. Yet, nowadays, Christians can barely handle a mild disagreement or someone dropping a four-letter word. In short: toughen up. We are the Kingdom of God and sometimes we allow ourselves to be far too mentally fragile.
5. Serve in your church: Rather than criticizing everything in the church, how about you help in the church? Want change? Help foster it by carrying the burden of service. No one wants to work with someone who does nothing but has the nerve to complain about everything.
6. Don’t sweat the small stuff: At some point in your life, you need to figure out your “non-negotiables” in a church and then stick to those. If your non-negotiables are shallow surface level items – you should deeply reconsider your thoughts. Try keeping them simple: Do they preach the good news of Christ? Do they believe in the divinity of Christ? What’s their position on Scripture? How do they promote a Spirit of Christ within the church? It’s okay to attend a church where you don’t agree on everything. Just be sure that you know what you will not negotiate on – and honestly that list should be pretty short and kept to the essentials of the Christian faith.
7. Be humble: The biggest issue in all of these things is pride. If you’re attacking the church or its people, you really need to slow down and consider if it’s truly worth it? I’ve known people who will never walk into a church again because of the division some Christians were sowing. Put your pride and ego aside and learn to work together and never attack another believer or his family over a trivial disagreement.
8. Think of your church as an extension of Christ: Do not view it as an extension of yourself, your preferences, your agenda, or your own passions. If you cause division, ask yourself if it’s worth taking a hammer to the Body of Christ? One must seriously consider the repercussions. If Christ died for the church, then consider that every move you make could cause damage to the church for which Christ died.
9. Mind your business: Let’s be honest – sometimes we need to keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves. As someone who is highly opinionated and speaks regularly in his public ministry, I try to speak less about every single waking opinion I might have at church regarding matters that don’t concern me. It saves me a lot of headache and also is a way to promote unity. If you get involved do so in a way that is seeking to build up, exhort, and bear one another’s burdens. Not in a way to drive your own agenda forward. And speaking of business – stop thinking of it like a business where it’s a product and you are the customer. No. This is Christ’s church, and you are a member of it. Don’t get it twisted.
10. Take care of your Jerusalem: Whether you like it or not, the church you’re at is your church. These are your people. This is your Jerusalem. Take care of it. Support your church’s ministry, including your pastor. You won’t always agree and that is just fine. In fact, your maturity will shine through when you support him even when you disagree. Financially prioritize your Jerusalem and you might just see enough growth to care for the uttermost parts of the world. If a church cannot (or chooses not to) financially support their pastor – then adjust expectations accordingly. Don’t expect full time work if he is not a full-time employee. If he is full time and your church has prioritized that, then be sure to still keep healthy expectations. After all, he’s a pastor, not your hireling. You do not own him. Often times Israel failed because they became divided amongst each other, became entitled, stirred up division, and did not properly prioritize. Do not follow their pattern – prioritize Jerusalem.

By Chris Stockman and Will Hess

I (Chris Stockman) wrote in a previous article about how I found apologetics. I was only in high school. There are a good many others like me that found apologetics at a young age. Also like me, and Will, they eventually “graduated” from the work of popular apologists like J Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, Sean or Josh McDowell, and now almost exclusively study scholars on specific questions within sub-disciplines of apologetics.

These individuals I call the young guns in apologetics (a more generous use of “young” in Will’s case), and you’ll frequently see them online in different discussion groups. Very knowledgeable on certain topics, despite lacking formal training on these issues. We are “autodidacts”; if there is a topic we want to know more on, we will study it for ourselves. We’ll read the primary sources that the popular apologists draw on in their work, and be able to speak confidently on complicated topics in theology and philosophy. By any other label, we would be competent apologists. 

However, there are many of us whose young age and quick study has led to losing sight of the goal of apologetics. These are the cage-stagers. They are bright, but are doing more harm than good at the moment. Tearing down pop apologists (Frank Turek is the preferred punching bag these days) is spare-time enjoyment. Now, Turek isn’t my favorite, but he’s a darn good apologist who has had the career and impact that his detractors will never have. Will and I have had several interactions with these cage-stagers, and have finally had enough, which prompts us to drop this. 

This is a declaration of war on the young apologists. 

What They Intended 

First, what are their intentions? They spend a lot of time criticizing the work of well-known figures. What they want to do is point out flaws in popular arguments (like the moral argument, or minimal facts argument for the resurrection) in order to address them and make the argument stronger and present a stronger Christianity. They’re not merely on a seek and destroy crusade against apologetics. But, in the words of Ultron, “I know you mean well. You just didn’t think it through.” 

The problem is 1) some of them do this far too often, and 2) some of them, if you didn’t know them from Adam, would be confused for the village atheist with what their critiques are as well as how incessant they are. Here, I am not saying not to criticize wrong ideas. Of course, if an apologist like Frank Turek or Michael Licona is incorrect on something, it should be (graciously) pointed out. But, by who? Twenty-something’s with YouTube channels that nobody watches? Even still, that does not call for commenting on everything a popular figure does and criticizing it as if you were giving feedback on an academic article, or chiding it for not drawing on your favorite philosopher’s monograph that costs $100 used. At that point it just becomes friendly fire. Someone who spends so much time criticizing pop apologists has, oddly enough, made their bed with the skeptics. 

What They Are Saying

Below are a couple examples of the sorts of things these individuals actually say in italics. These people are actually serious; they’re not joking. 

“But there are countless examples who are less popular than Frank Turek, but are better at defending the Christian faith. Joshua Rasmussen, Rob Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Joshua Sijuwade, Andrew Loke, Timothy McGrew, and Richard Swinburne are all great places to start.”

The claim is that you should start with these. Not gradually work your way up to, but start with. All of these names are indeed great thinkers. Worth reading. These are arguably the cream of the crop when it comes to intelligent Christians. But they are (with the possible exception of Rasmussen) horrible places to start. Starting with them would be the worst thing a young, budding apologist could do. In fact, I would recommend a presuppositionalist as a starting place before I would recommend that someone start with Andrew Loke or Richard Swinburne. (Bear in mind that I believe Presuppositionalism is utterly worthless in advancing Christianity.) 

So why would it be such a bad idea to start with great thinkers? It’s simple: aside from Rasmussen, they have done (practically) nothing at a lay level. I love, LOVE Richard Swinburne. One of the best theologians ever, his career has been in academia, publishing on topics ranging from philosophy of time to epistemology. But he is a chore to read, as he is a prime example of a brilliant mind with poor prose. Someone who just wants to be equipped with how they can give a simple answer to, say, a coworker’s claims of corruption in the Bible, does not need to read any of these great minds (more on that below). The aspiring apologist should start with what they can understand. Start with the accessible, lay-friendly work of the J. Warner Wallace’s and Frank Turek’s, and master it before graduating to the Swinburne’s and McGrew’s (if one has that level of interest). Starting with the high-octane thinkers would just turn away potential apologists by reinforcing the myth that “I’m not a good enough thinker to do apologetics”. (Hopefully, if nothing else, reading a presuppositionalist would show that you don’t need to be a good thinker to do apologetics.) I found apologetics in high school. While I’d love to brag on myself, there is absolutely no way I had any business reading something from those thinkers. I have to either seriously question the humility of these young so-called apologists, or else their self-awareness. 

Now, these young apologists aren’t all bad. They have gotten deep into the academic literature on arguments for God (a good thing! It’s very good to know far more about something than the skeptic.) But they have begun mistaking the tree (the academic sub-discipline they study) for the forest (apologetics). I would wager that 99% of people who listen to pop apologists will never examine each tree and study it to the roots. Rather, they set foot in the forest and that’s all they need. Their faith is edified not by the academic study of the answers, but by the fact that there are such answers that some people will study deeply. 

“This is not a case of people hating on Frank Turek for no reason. We want to raise the quality of Philosophy of Religion discussions.”

When has Frank Turek been billed as an expert on Phil. Religion? Who, of his audience, has even heard the term “philosophy of religion”? Why anyone is looking to Frank Turek as a philosopher of religion is a mystery to me. This is like tearing down the reputation of a high school pitcher for not hitting 90 mph with their fastball. (If you live under a rock as far as sports are concerned, high schoolers that can throw 90 are rare and sure to get a bunch of college offers.)

Turek is an excellent apologist, because he is an evangelist. Not a professional philosopher, but an evangelist. His focus is sharing the Gospel and equipping lay people, and how he does it is a whole lot better than the way his detractors aren’t doing it. Frankly, for someone to say something like this indicates they don’t even know the first thing about apologetics. That’s correct; as intelligent and advanced as they have gotten, they have no idea what they’re talking about when they talk on apologetics. Apologetics is about the gospel and equipping Christ’s church, not the academic discussions. It can involve those but it is not reducible to them. I think it a grievous mistake to reduce the Gospel of Christ to one of many items of discussion in the Philosophy of Religion arena.  

Now, have Turek and other apologists always done their apologetics well? No, of course not. There are times where they dismiss questions out of hand, and sometimes they don’t realize that the question they gave a surface-level answer to is actually a powerful objection. That is, of course, not good. But that is no more of an error than getting so cerebral in your “apologetics” that you’re no longer answering actual doubts that regular people have. For example, it’s great that you can point out the flaws in JL Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument. When’s the last time you met someone who uses that? I would be very surprised if it’s ever happened. So what do you have for college students facing unbiblical views on sexuality, or religious pluralism? 

Christian apologists aren’t preparing people to be academics. But this young fellow thinks they should be: 

“If seasoned apologists spent more time teaching up-and-coming Christian apologists how to respond to the likes of Graham Oppy, JH Sobel, and Evan Fales, they wouldn’t ever have to bother teaching them how to respond to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dillahunty. Showing the flaws in bottom-tier atheist objections to Christianity borders on being a waste of time.”

Don’t you know what it’s like to be in conversation with a skeptic and they bring up Sobel’s Bayesian argument against the resurrection, or quote Graham Oppy’s Arguing About Gods to you?…you don’t? Yeah, me neither. I talk with skeptics regularly (in person, which is the last thing many of Turek’s detractors do), and “the likes of Graham Oppy, JH Sobel, and Evan Fales” have been mentioned a sum total of never. So why should apologists prepare the younger generation to encounter those arguments? There is no need. Apologists such as Frank Turek have done just fine at equipping laypeople to counter the rhetoric and the few actual arguments given by the New Atheists Dawkins and Hitchens and the I’m-not-convinced-ist Matt Dillahunty. And how did they do that? As strange as it (apparently) sounds to these young guns, they did it by showing the things these figures say, and pointing out factual and logical mistakes. Sometimes it is that easy.  

If you are not training to answer the questions and objections you are actually going to face, then you are not training for apologetics. You may be sharpening your thinking, or testing yourself, but it is not apologetics that you are doing. A good Christian thinker does not an apologist make.

There’s a more serious problem here, though, and I believe this indicates a heart issue in this person. The final line: 

“Showing the flaws in bottom-tier objections to Christianity borders on being a waste of time.”

Those bottom-tier objections are objections that Christians face. For the overwhelming majority of people (in general, not just believers), the bottom tier is the only tier. The people that you just run into on the street or on college campuses aren’t appealing to Rowe’s fawn as evidence against God; they’re saying things like “innocent people suffering proves there’s no God”. Practically nobody is citing critical scholars objecting to Pauline authorship of Ephesians; they’re saying that the Bible was compiled at Nicea in the 4th century. Practically nobody is appealing to steady-state or oscillating models of the universe to avoid a cosmic beginning; instead they advance the old “science has made God smaller and smaller” and “religion vs. science” tropes. That rattles a lot of people and can cause a lot of consternation if unaddressed. 

So, your friend just challenged you on good people suffering. But don’t worry, the apologists are here to help! And they say…showing the flaws in that objection is a waste of time. 

Your older brother went off to college and heard a professor say that science has removed the need for a God, and now it’s Thanksgiving and he’s an atheist. Answering your brother? A waste of time. 

Your little sister is hearing at school that she shouldn’t be a Christian because it’s sexually oppressive, and that she should “experiment” and “find” herself? Answering her is a waste of time. 

These scenarios are all too common, and we all know that, despite these objections being low-hanging fruit, answering them means everything in the world. Why? Because it means everything to the person you are answering. If someone has not grasped the inherit relational nature of apologetics, they should stop speaking on the subject, because they do not know what they are talking about. One does not just answer an objection; they are also answering the person in an effort to till the ground for the gospel.

Who They Are Forgetting

I (Will Hess) have been in pastoral ministry for about 10 years and unlike Chris, I found apologetics not in my teenage years, but in my early 20’s around the time I had left my extreme fundamentalist upbringing. The reason I left fundamentalism is a story for another time, but some key topics that led me out of it were topics on church history, textual criticism, doctrinal investigations and so on. After leaving fundamentalism and studying these topics thoroughly, I felt pretty confident in my capabilities to teach and minister.

Thus, I began my first year as a youth pastor at a small baptist church. 

That first year opened my eyes to issues much bigger than I had originally thought and I began to realize – I am woefully ill-equipped to handle these questions being volleyed at me. One night after youth group, I decided to do what any other self-respecting scholar would do: I ran to google. In fact, I specifically googled “proof Christianity is true” and I found the works of Frank Turek, Ravi Zacharias, and William Lane Craig – I was hooked. Soon after this I picked up Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist which was a game changer for me. I even bought the teacher’s guide and created my own curriculum using its material to teach at my church. At this time I had no idea I had barely scraped the surface of the neverending iceberg that is apologetics.

Essentially:  these apologists were my gateway drug. 

You might also notice that of those three men whom I listened to, only one of them is largely considered a scholar: William Lane Craig. However, when I first discovered this world of apologetics I found him difficult to understand and would often have to listen to his lectures multiple times to understand them. Now, as the weeks have turned into years, I find myself not just understanding Craig, but agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of points. I find myself disagreeing with Turek at times while cringing at the memory of Zacharias. 

As time passed, I began to realize that some of those popular apologists didn’t always address the topics or passages that I wanted them to address. This spurred me to explore the forest of apologetics and target the trees that I wanted to check out the most. I ended up getting a lot into works on the nature of God (comparing Platonic and Aristotelian views), on the nature of morality (Boyd, Thorsen, Morphy), on the problem of evil (insert Rowe’s fawn here), on Old Testament violence (Copan, Boyd, DeYoung, Webb), on reliability of the gospels (Licona, Habermas, McGrew), and my list of works on why Christ had to die would be far too long for a simple blog post. Truth be told, I don’t even remember the last time I listened to Turek, and the only reason I’ve recently listened to Sean McDowell is because the church I’m working at is promoting one of his talks.

My point is: I’ve learned. I’ve moved on. I’ve outgrown them.

However, I tire of young “would-be-apologists” flippantly putting down popular apologists for casting a wide net and “not going deep enough”. The reality is, their job isn’t to go deep on every topic. Their job is to present the broadest case for Christianity and address the most common objections to Christianity while inviting people to hear the gospel: to be evangelistic. In my past 10 years of ministry I have never encountered someone who asked me to quantify hedonic units in the face of evil and suffering. Usually what I’m having to address is the issue of pluralism, sexuality, the nature of God, the purpose of Christ’s death, the problem of evil, the resurrection of Christ etc. Whether these young apologists want to admit it or not – the popular apologists are doing the heavy lifting. I have no doubt that many of these boisterous critics of popular apologists are actually here because of the very work of the people they are criticizing. These budding apologists who are upset that J Warner Wallace isn’t responding to Kant’s arguments against miracles or Oppy’s thoughts on Ontological Arguments need to have a serious reality check:

Nobody cares. 

That’s right. Let that sink in for a moment. I’ll give you a minute to clean up your spilled coffee and pick your jaw up from the floor. Nobody. Cares. You can complain, shake your fists, scream, and type in all caps you want, but the fact will still remain: nobody cares. Is it because everyone else is just stupid and you’re a bastion of genius trying to prophesy truth to the ignorant masses? No. Just because someone isn’t interested in a topic that only you and maybe 7 others are interested in doesn’t mean they’re all ignorant chimps. Perhaps, they have simply done enough research in areas to answer their gnawing questions and have since moved on to raise their families, start a business, run a law firm, etc. 

“BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GETTIER PROBLEM!?”

I’ll answer the way I did before:

Nobody cares.

Think I’m wrong? The numbers don’t lie. These popular apologists have reached hundreds of thousands of people for the cause of Christ, seen many come to Christ, and have inspired others (like yours truly) to get in the game. Yet, these starting apologists will condescend these people (or their followers) with such an air of superiority the message falls entirely flat. What’s even more ironic is these young apologists claim to deal with “the real issues” (suggesting that those like CS Lewis never dealt with real issues), but have been unable to amass any following themselves. The ones who haven’t managed to build a following have a much smaller audience (and therefore influence) on the conversation as a whole. You wanna know why? 

You guessed it. 

Nobody cares. 

Think about it. It’s hard enough to get most Christians today onboard with popular apologetics being a regular part of their churches or conversations, and you want to bring in even more technical stuff? For what purpose? So that you (and perhaps one other person) can feel validated while everyone else is catching up on their sleep? Perhaps it’s time for you to admit – not everyone is going to care about these niche topics, and that’s okay. What matters is bringing people to Christ. In your conquest to be the best apologist available, don’t forget the “every man”. Don’t forget the mother of 4 who can barely find the time to read her bible – let alone to read technical scholars. Don’t forget the father who works 60 hours a week while serving as an elder at his church, and don’t forget about the high school student whose entire life is mostly consumed with whatever extracurricular that stole her heart. These are your “every man”, these are the masses, and these people are the real reason we do the work that we do – to be a resource for those in need. As soon as we begin to forget the average person, we have lost sight of the mission. 

No One Can Be An Expert at Everything

These popular apologists serve a specific role in the church: to popularize apologetics. To help people overcome the biggest objections to Christianity today and help the masses give themselves permission to believe. They serve as an entryway to the world of apologetics, philosophy, and theology. That’s their role. To expect them to be an expert on textual criticism, theological disputes, epistemology, metaphysics, and history is just wildly unrealistic. Brian (co-host of The Church Split) is an engineer. Not just any engineer, but a computer engineer. It would be not just unrealistic, but downright foolish for me to expect him to also be an expert in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering (although with that man’s skillset I don’t think it’d take him long if he wanted to). Sadly, this is what many young budding apologists seem to do with mainstream apologists: they expect them to be a specialist on far too many topics. They can’t be. Not if they are to be writing accessible books, traveling to various speaking venues, coordinating and planning entire ministries across the globe, etc. So perhaps instead of having a spirit of chastisement, one of humility would go further. 

By the way, I am not saying to avoid doing what you’re passionate about. By all means bring your iron to sharpen, but be careful not to cheapen the work of those who have come before. Show decency, humility, and respect. Add to the conversation respectfully, not sully it with putrid arrogance. 

Know Your Place

Seriously. Know your place in the world and how to orient yourself in it. If popular apologists are a mile wide but an inch deep, and your desire is to be a mile deep on a few topics – then own it. Be the expert on the “Historicity of the Gospels” or “Theological Worldview of the Ancient Near East”, but just accept the fact that you will have a much smaller audience – and that’s okay. You can help get someone deeper on a topic you know well, but don’t chide others who can’t do the same. The church is a body and we all have our own gifts. Some gifts are needed more often than others and we ought to be okay with where we fit into the grand equation. I know I can talk circles around most people when it comes to how Christ’s resurrection saves us (atonement), and I know Chris can wax eloquently on how God relates to time, but the reality is – only a few people will find it interesting enough to sit through a lecture on the topic or read a book on it. That’s an unrealistic expectation and would be as equally foolish as expecting Brian to magically become adept at chemical engineering. When we know our place in the church it can help us build the church, not tear it down. It can help us to be an encouragement, not a nuisance. 

Let me give you an example. While I was between ministry jobs I was a teaching elder at my pastor friend’s church (hello Pastor John!). I remember it took me a while to convince the leadership that an apologetics class was necessary, but when they finally gave me the greenlight I went all in. Within the first few months the class had expanded to the point where we had to switch to the auditorium just to make room. People were very interested in the subject matter, but I noticed a pattern. When I kept things on the “popular level” many people would attend, but when I dove into deeper and more technical topics, fewer people would attend. Sometimes I even got an occasional text asking me, “what’s the point of this? We’ve been exploring this part for 3 weeks…just seems to be getting lost in the weeds”. Although I believed these topics were important, I was losing the interest of the “every man” when I explored them. It was at this point I realized what I had to do: communicate at a popular level and then offer to meet privately for those with deeper concerns. It worked out great! I ended up making a great friend (Brandon) who would come over after his college classes on Tuesday nights and hit me with a barrage of questions he had over the week. It was awesome! He was the person who wanted to go deeper while everyone else was content having the “main reasons” to believe and moving on. This helped me solidify further why pop apologists are necessary while having some people be the specialists (who are less well known) can take people further in. 

In the end, we need young apologists to learn to respect the work of these apologists who are carrying the apologetics industrial complex on their shoulders. The show fell on hard times later in its life, but there’s a great villain from an early season in Arrow named Slade Wilson who originally trained the show’s protagonist, Oliver Queen, when they had been in exile together. Long after a falling-out (to put it mildly), in one episode, after laying a beating on Oliver to send a message, Slade says, “Don’t forget who taught you how to fight, kid.”  While neither of us could pull off Manu Bennett’s delivery of the line, we would say to these young apologists: Don’t forget who taught you apologetics, kid.

The Turek’s and Childers’ of the world are the ones doing the heavy lifting and they’re the ones bringing many people into the doors and inviting them to go deeper. They will never be experts in niche topics, and that’s okay. You can fill that role, but don’t be cannibalistic. Don’t undermine their work but rather seek to strengthen it, perhaps re-frame it, and at times correct it when it’s not as precise as it could be. It’s okay to disagree with them (I sure do), but I also respect them and want them to keep doing the work that they’re doing. I want people to walk through the same gates I did and be challenged to become an investigator. Chris became an investigator on how God relates to time, I became an investigator on how God relates to the cross, and perhaps you can be an investigator on the historical background of the New Testament. The world is your oyster after all. However, to castigate others for not investigating the same subjects you think are important is foolish, unrealistic, and brash. 

Let’s build the body up, not tear it down. Remember the every man, know your place, and then thrive in it. 

By Jordan Ferrier

A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.

Classical Theism (CT) is a vast topic. In 2023, Fuqua and Koons released a book, Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God. Taking a look at the table of contents, the individual essays have many types of Classical Theists: there are chapters that reflect a wide variety of faith backgrounds; Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox. 

 CT spans a great deal of time, from Parmenides, who lived about 500 years before Christ, to John Duns Scotus (at least), who lived 1200 years after Christ’s triumph over Satan.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses told Israel that God had told him to tell them, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

If you believe that God is one, you are some sort of Classical Theist; however, for over a millennia, Christian theologians have been asking, “God is one what?” and different Classical Theists have answered that question in different ways, which leads to quite a bit of confusion.

To try and clear up this confusion, I will try and present two very different views of God that were held by two of the theologians that Stockman referred to in his article, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D.)

Augustine was born in 354 in North Africa. His mother was a Christian, and his father was a pagan. While he received a Christian education, when he was 18, Augustine moved to Carthage and fully indulged in its pagan culture and had a son out of wedlock at the age of 19. While he was 19, Augustine read Cicero and declared that while rhetoric was his profession; his heart was in philosophy. Augustine became a Manichaean and struggled with the Epicurean problem of evil. After teaching rhetoric at Carthage, Augustine moved to Italy at the age of 29 and opened a school of rhetoric. After a few years, Augustine moved to Milan, read the works of Plato and Plotinus, and fully embraced Christianity at the age of 33. Augustine worked to fuse Platonic philosophy with Christian dogmas, and continued to struggle to resolve the problem of evil. Augustine returned to North Africa at the age of 34, where he served many years in the church at Hippo as a Priest and eventually as Bishop. (A much fuller account of the life of Augustine may be found at newadvent.org, St. Augustine of Hippo).

After converting to Christianity, Augustine had to reconcile how evil came into the world with his belief in the God of the Bible. We need to think through how Augustine thought of God, and how Augustine rationalized an answer to the problem of evil, which allowed him to believe that God existed, was Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.

The problem of evil has 3 basic components:

An Omnipotent God could stop evil from coming into the world.

An Omnibenevolent God would want to stop evil from coming into the world.

We could easily blame a previous evil for a current evil, but the problem of evil asks how evil came into the world. To answer, “How did evil come into the world”, we need to restrict the discussion to how the first evil came into the world, rather than how evil keeps coming into the world today.

Augustine believed that Adam committed the first sin (Romans 5:12), that God, by his Omnipotent power could have stopped Adam from sinning, thus, it must be good that there is evil in the world.

Augustine wrote, “Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exist, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the Omnipotent Good” (Enchiridion, C. 96).

Augustine used what I call an “Omni-benevolence category theodicy”.  This category of theodicy tries to explain why it was good for God to ordain, permit, or otherwise allow evil to come into the world, because God, being Omnipotent, could have stopped evil from coming into the world.

How God can will evil to happen, and it is good that evil happens, was a conundrum Augustine solved by stating, “Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of the logicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold” (Enchiridion, C. 14). 

God can will evil, and it is good that God wills evil, because the rules of logic do not apply to God’s Omni-benevolence. 

Augustine also believed that everything happens as God wills, “Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will of the Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or Himself doing it” (Enchiridion, C. 95).

In Parmenides, Plato writes, “Must it not be of a single something, which the thought recognizes as attaching to all, being a single form or nature.”

For Augustine, God was one essence, and the essence of God is a will. God is to be conceived of as one will, and the forms of God’s will would be a perfect will, an ordaining will, a will of permission, etc. 

For Augustine, some of the attributes of God are incomprehensible. For example, why did God love one twin and hate the other? Because, “The love, therefore, wherewith God loves, is incomprehensible and immutable” (Tractate 110).  

God, prior to creation, willed everything that would take place, and knew everything that would take place.  After creation, God either did everything himself, or permitted the creatures he created to do what he willed prior to creation of the universe. 

Augustine also spent a great deal of time on Romans 9 and how the election of Jacob and Esau, before they were born, fit into the will of God. Prior to any person being created, God willed the eternal destination of each person. God being in the Heavens, and doing as He pleases, means that God could permit Adam to sin and bring evil into the world, and God could choose to save some from eternal destruction, and pass over others and permit them to spend eternity in hell.

Augustine wrote, “The condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace” (Enchiridion, Ch. 100).

Any parent will tell you that it is difficult to think of one of your children suffering eternal conscious torment in the fires of hell. Augustine had to reconcile a God who is love, whose will is always done, who could give the gift of faith to every person which would guarantee their salvation, with people going to hell. 

Augustine wrote, “Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the Omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished” (Enchiridion, Ch. 103).

Again, Augustine is convinced that an Omnipotent God could save all, so God must have willed many not to be saved. How could a good and just God, will most people to spend eternity in hell, when God could save every single one?

Augustine answers this question in On The Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 1, by positing that God is without passion. If God suffered when a person made in His image went to hell, then God would want to save everyone:

The “creator though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all things without having them, in His wholeness, yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion”.

If God could be made to suffer passion by the creatures He made, God would not send anyone to hell. For Augustine, God being impassible means that God dispassionately predestined most people to hell when he created the world.  God wills all people to sin, and God wills to forgive some people. This is all done prior to creation, according to the will of God, which makes the will of God immutable. God is able to forgive the sins of the elect because God willed to forgive the sins of elect prior to God creating the world, which means God can forgive without His will changing. 

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was a revival of Augustinian theology. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk.  John Calvin stated that he agreed with Augustine. 

John Calvin wrote, “In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so, with all fullness and satisfaction to myself, out of his writings” (EPG, p. 20).

Calvin, “It would be utterly absurd to hold, that anything could be done contrary to the will of God . . . Whereas, Augustine proves, by this very argument, that everything that is done on Earth, is effectually ruled, and overruled, by this secret providence of God. Nor does he hesitate to conclude, that everything that is done, is done by the will of God” (EPG, p. 190).

Calvin, “But it could not be otherwise. Adam could not but fall; according to the foreknowledge and will of God” (EPG, p. 76).

Calvin, “The eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the fall of Adam, what should take place, in the whole human race, and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined” (EPG, p. 108).

Calvin, “Augustine then adds this short sentence; ‘These are the mighty works of the Lord! Shining with perfection in every instance of His will . . . (God) accomplished what He willed, righteously, and with the height of all wisdom: overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace” (EPG, p. 26).

Calvin, “Augustine testifies, that men are not chosen because they believe; but, on the contrary, are chosen that they might believe”, “Again, in another place, he says, ‘Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it? – Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’” (EPG, p. 23).

Hopefully you can see from those quotes that Calvin is saying the same thing about Augustine’s version of Divine Simplicity as what I have been describing. This version of Divine Simplicity means that everything takes place necessarily, as God willed it from eternity past, and God is immutable (steadfast) so what he decreed and ordained to happen from eternity past will not change: Calvin, “All we say is that God is in charge of the world which He established and not only holds in his power the events of the natural world, but also governs the hearts of men, bends their wills this way and that in accordance with His choice, and is the director of their actions, so that they in the end do nothing which He has not decreed, whatever they may try to do. Accordingly we say that those things which appear to be in the greatest degree due to chance happen of necessity – not by their own innate properties but because the purpose of God, which is eternal and steadfast, is sovereign in governing them” (BLW, p. 38). Calvin continues, “Accordingly everything that happens, happens of necessity, as He has ordained” (BLW, p. 39).

Martin Luther, a monk in an Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church, said much the same thing, “You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so. From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and his wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He forsees and wills” (BW, Sect. 9). 

Luther is rejecting simple foreknowledge, that God knows what will take place in the future: Luther is saying that God wills what will take place in the future, so God knows what will take place in the future.

Luther goes on to clarify what he meant by things “even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily”.  While God is a necessary being, we are contingent beings, thus, when Luther says something is done contingently, he means that it is done by a contingent creature, not that the choice was contingent upon the creature’s decision, “But, (that we may not be deceived in terms) being done by contingency, does not, in the Latin language, signify that the work itself which done is contingent, but that it is done according to a contingent and mutable will – such a will as is not to be found in God!  Moreover, a work cannot be called contingent, unless it be done by us unawares, by contingency, and, as it were, by chance; that is, by our will or hand catching at it, as presented by chance, we thinking nothing of it, nor willing anything about it before” (BW, Sect. 9).

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century, about 900 years after Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church was completely Augustinian by this time. Augustine was a “Doctor of the Church”, and to go against Augustine would be to go against the teaching Magisterium, which would be tantamount to saying that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus founded on Peter, the rock. 

In his book on Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton remarks, “St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy, saved us from being Platonists” (Ox, p. 12).  Chesterton continues, “So the Thomist was free to be an Aristotelian instead of being bound to be an Augustinian” (Ox, p. 18).

Chesterton was simply pointing out the historical fact that Luther, Calvin, etc., were Augustinian Platonists, while people like himself (and C. S. Lewis) were Thomistic Aristotelians. Aquinas would recycle the same words Augustine used, while giving them very different meanings, which means we need to pay careful attention to the details to grasp the differences between the two.

For Aquinas, God is one essence, and is to be conceived of as His attributes. 

Rather than the essence of God being a will, Aquinas taught that God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas gave an example similar to this:

A Pterodactyl has essence and used to have existence.

An Ostrich has essence and has existence.

A Pegasus has essence but has never had existence.

Pterodactyls had existence, but no longer do.

An Ostrich currently has both essence and existence.

The Pegasus is a mythological creature that has an essence, but has never had existence.

Essence and existence are separable in created beings. 

God, having Aseity, was not created, thus, essence and existence are not separable in God, God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas, “God is the same as His essence or nature” (Prima Pars, Q3, A3).

“Therefore, it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence” (Prima Pars, Q3, A4).

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that “God is truly and absolutely simple” (Prima Pars, Q3, A7).

However, Aquinas disagreed with Augustine that everything happens as God wills it: “The foregoing is to set aside the error of certain persons who said that all things proceed from God according to His simple will, which means that we are not to give an explanation of anything except that God wills it” (SCG, 1.87.5).

We need to return to the problem of evil.

Aquinas wrote, “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of Divine Omnipotence” (Prima Pars, Q25, A3).

Aquinas used what I call an “Omnipotence category theodicy”. This type of theodicy shows that it is logically impossible for God to stop evil from coming into the world after God creates creatures with real freedom.

For example, when God created Adam:

Adam was created in the image of God

Adam was created with rectitude of nature

Adam was adorned with the light of reason

Adam’s will was ordered to the good.

Benevolence is “to will the good of another”, and God, being Omni-benevolent, willed the good of Adam.

God did not both will the good of Adam and for evil to befall Adam. That would be logically contradictory.

God gave Adam real freedom. This good gift was given through the freedom to eat from every tree, with a prohibition of eating from one tree. Even Omnipotence could not give freedom and withhold it at the same time, thus, contrary to Augustine, God could not stop Adam from eating from the prohibited tree after Genesis 2:17.

God did not want Adam to do the opposite of what God commanded Adam to do.

God did not give Adam permission to sin.

God did not allow Adam to sin; to allow something implies the power to stop it from taking place.

God did not will Adam to sin. If God willed Adam to sin, then it is a sin to do the will of God.

Aquinas rejected the Nominalism of Augustine (that two contraries can be predicated of God’s goodness at the same time, thus the rules of logic do not apply to God), and taught that God cannot do what is logically contradictory: give real freedom to Adam and withhold it at the same time, or, lie to Adam and remain the Truth, because a being that is both the truth and a liar is logically contradictory and nonsense.

Ed Feser, in his “Beginners Guides to Aquinas” states, “Aristotle and Aquinas would also be baffled by the modern tendency to think of causation as essentially a relation between temporally ordered events” (p. 20). Feser continues, “For Aristotle and Aquinas, it is things that are causes, not events; and the immediate efficient cause of an effect is simultaneous with it, not temporally prior to it” (p. 21).

Now, if that paragraph does not make much sense to you, perhaps you can concede that the task of explaining Thomistic Divine Simplicity is a bit tricky.

A comparison between the “Kalam cosmological argument” vs Aquinas “argument from motion for the existence of God” may bring some clarity.

The Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; Therefore, the universe has a cause. God did not begin to exist, God has always existed; Therefore, God is the cause and creator of the Universe.

The Kalam invites the reader to think back in time to the beginning of the universe. It is an argument that uses temporally ordered events. While I am not opposed to the Kalam as an argument for the existence of God, there are a few things to consider:

Could it be argued that God wound up the world and walked away?

Could it be argued that the prior event caused the current event, which stretches back to the creation of the world, which implies that everything was determined by how God created the world? After all, Atheists (like Sam Harris) concede that temporally ordered events means that everything is determined by the universe, and humans do not have free-will.

Can it be proven scientifically or philosophically that the world began to exist?  Aquinas didn’t think so, instead, he thought that the fact that the Universe began to exist could only be known by Divine revelation.

To explain how Aquinas explained causation, I need to define and explain several terms:

Power is “potent”, as in, God is Omni-potent; thus, God is all powerful.

A potential is “potency”.  A dog has the potential to wake up and run across the room.

While the dog is asleep, it is both potent (having the power to run), and potency (having the potential to run).

Act is “actuality”. The dog in the act of running has actualized the power to run and “moved” from the potency of running to the act of running.

In agreement with Aristotle, Aquinas stated, “potency does not raise itself to act; it must be raised to act by something that is in act” (SCG, 1.16.3).

Aquinas, “God is eternal: Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end (SCG, 1.15.2).

Aquinas is saying that God is immutable because God does not move from potency to act, because anything raised from potency to act must be raised by another that is in act; thus, “There is no passive potency in God” (Aquinas, SCG, 1.16).

Next we need to discuss the four causes: efficient, material, formal, and final cause.

Several years ago, I wanted to get a dog for my kids to enjoy.  Before we bought the dog, I wanted to have a fenced in backyard, so I could let the dog out the back door in our suburb and not have to worry about it.

My work, every evening and weekend for months on end was the efficient cause of the fence.

The type of fence I built, made of wood, plastic, and metal, was the material cause.

The fact that it was a fence was the formal cause. You may be imagining a chain link fence, a wood picket fence, a fence made of vinyl panels, etc.; However, when you are driving through a suburb and see a fence, you know it is a fence, because it takes the form of a fence.

The final cause of the fence is fencing. The fence keeps the dog in and the neighbors out. 

In summary:

Efficient cause: person

Material cause: wood, etc.

Formal cause: fence.

Final cause: the good of fencing.

Now, it probably is not too difficult for you to think of examples in your own life where you are the efficient cause, there is a material cause, where you form the material to effect a final cause.

The same four causes also apply to God.

God is the efficient cause of the Universe.

Matter is the material cause of the Universe.

Planets, people, animals, etc. are the formal cause.

The final cause is that what God created He ordered to the good (i.e., Adam and Eve).

After power, potency, act, and the four causes, I need to explain what is necessary and what is an accident.

Think of a loaf of bread that just came out of the oven.

What is necessary for the substance you just took out of the oven to be called a loaf of bread?

Does it have to be moist? No, you could have baked it until it was dry.

Does it have to be dry? No, it could be moist.

It is not necessary for dryness or moistness to be present for the substance to be a loaf of bread, so things that are not necessary are called “accidents”.

God is a necessary being, so there are no accidents in God.

The creatures that God creates are not necessary beings, so we are contingent.

God being necessary is a different “order” than contingent beings.

When God is the efficient cause of all things, God is the – first order efficient cause – of all things.

God, by the fact that he is upholding the Universe at this very moment, is the first order efficient cause of the entire Universe, and the fact that God is upholding the Universe is what makes it possible for a second order (contingent) person to be the efficient cause of building a fence.

The Thomist asks, “What attributes must God necessarily have prior to God creating anything?”

This is done by a process of remotion, where we remove what God is not, to know what God is (See SCG, 1.14).

God is not nonexistent, God is existence, which is the attribute of Aseity.

God is not finite, God is infinite.

God is not unjust, God is justice.

God is not willing the evil of another, God must be Omni-benevolent.

R.C. Sproul explains the Augustinian perspective of everything happens as God wills: 

When evil comes into the world by God’s sovereign will, it is good that evil occurs (NC, 2007).

Vs.

Aquinas, “God cannot will evil” (SCG, 1.95).

God is not impotent, God must be Omnipotent.

God is not composed of potency and act, God must be pure actuality.

God is not composed, God must be simple (not divisible).

God is not changing (moving from potency to act), God must be immutable (always in actuality).

God is not created or His creation, God must be transcendent to His creation.

God does not fail to uphold the Universe, God is immanent to His creation.

God is not a liar, God is truth.

God is not unreliable, God is faithful.

God is not hate, God is love.

Etc.

Necessary attributes are pure actuality, they do not move from potency to act. 

For example:

God is love.

Love is the essence, being, and substance of God.

Because God is love, God is jealous for those he loves.

Jealousy is not a necessary attribute, rather, it is the attribute of love in action.

Aquinas states, “An accident depends on a substance” (SCG, 1.23.7)

Jealousy is an accident, dependent upon the substance of love.

While God is jealous, and jealousy is an accident, jealousy is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

God is just.

Because God is just, God hates evil.

While God hates evil, evil is an accident, evil is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

When Thomists say that there are no accidents in God, that does not mean that the accidents of jealousy, grace, mercy, wrath, sovereignty, etc. are not attributed to God: those things are characteristics of God, that are attributed to God, that flow from the essence of God, and God is simultaneously all of His necessary attributes, but God is not simultaneously all of His characteristics.

As creatures, we are composed of both potency and act.

A tree has the potential to be cut down and made into a table.

The table has the potential to be cut up and used as firewood.

We all know a person who squandered their potential.

In Deuteronomy 30, God tells Israel through Moses, “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction” (v. 15). Moses then explains that the choice is theirs to make. God has given contingent creatures the real freedom to choose to obey or disobey, and the choice is contingent on their decision.

The people Moses was speaking to had a will, an intellect, and a conscience.  Paul explains “their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them” (Rom 2:15). 

Choice is a function of the intellect, which is informed by the conscience.  

People make choices, and then they either have the will to carry out that choice or not.  

God cannot be good and withhold the grace people need to be able to choose him.

God cannot force people to freely choose him.

God has told us, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

When God gives the freedom of choice to people, like when God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and God gave Israel the freedom to choose, God still knows what will be chosen.

As Calvin explains, foreknowledge is not the cause of things (Institutes, 3.23.6).

Aquinas, “The Divine will does not remove contingency from things, nor does it impose absolute necessity on them” (SCG, 1.85).

God knew that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul (1 Samuel 23).

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not cause it to happen.

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not make it necessary that it happen.

God knew what will happen if David stayed in Keilah. God knew what will happen when he told David that the citizens of Keilah will hand David over to Saul if David chose to stay in Keilah.

God knew what will happen in both possible contingent futures.

When a choice is made by a contingent creature, and it is contingent upon their choice, people are able to do otherwise than what God wills. People are able to do otherwise than what God predestined. When God gives the freedom to choose to people, like he did to all the people of Israel, God cannot make every person choose life and prosperity.  Foreknowledge does not cause an event to happen, and foreknowledge does not make an event necessary; God can intervene, like He did with David, and David made a different choice with his intellect, with the additional information God gave him.

For God to know how to correctly advise David, and for God to know how best to intervene, God needs to know all possible contingent futures. This is why in Thomistic Classical Theism, God is said to exist in eternity, outside of created time, because God is transcendent over His creation, and God simultaneously knows all possible contingent futures, which means that God knows how best to interact with each and every one of us.

The death of the timeless God has only taken place in the small minds of the philosophically inept.

This explanation started out by stating it would be: A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.  Stockman also pointed out that for God to forgive, God would have to suffer passion and be “moved to do something in response to something outside of Himself”.

Aquinas, and Scripture, both say that “God is love”. For Aquinas, God is love in pure actuality. Each of God’s attributes extends to every other attribute, and God’s attributes are all co-extensive simultaneously. 

God’s love is just.

God has the wisdom to love justly.

God has the power to wisely love justly.

The attributes of God that are necessary are all simultaneously one, because God doesn’t stop being just when he loves, and God doesn’t cease to be love when he dispenses justice.

God being impassible means that a contingent creature cannot swap places with God (a necessary being), and become the first order causation that moves God from the potency to love to the act of loving. 

This would be like a stream rising higher than its source. 

God is love, and God is already, and always, in the act of loving his creation. God is immutable because God does not change from potency to act. God can forgive sinners because sinners do not have to be the cause of moving God from the potential to love them to the act of loving them.

Stockman also wrote, “Classical Theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all”, then quotes Aquinas, “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above in treating of the divine names”. 

The Question Stockman quotes from is Prima Pars, Q28, “Whether there are real relations in God?”

Aquinas answers, “Therefore as the Divine procession are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained, these relations, according to the Divine processions, are necessarily real relations” (Prima Pars, Q28). The relations Aquinas is considering are the concepts of paternity and filiation in God. As is stated in Q28, “The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy”.

For Aquinas, God is one nature and His creation is of a different nature. 

If Stockman wants us to be in real relation to God, in the way Aquinas is discussing, then we need to be in very nature God. 

If each of us is in very nature God, then God is a Quadrinity (or Trillioninity), rather than a Trinity.

For Aquinas, the creature is separate from God, and God is transcendent above His creation. 

Stockman has simply misunderstood the definition of relation, and has stated something about Aquinas that is incorrect. If you have read this far, you can probably grasp how easy it is to misunderstand meanings when reading either Augustine or Aquinas.