Josh Benner

Category: Editorial

  • The decline of Christianity in America, and why I’m hopeful

    The decline of Christianity in America, and why I’m hopeful

    Christianity is declining in America. 

    New research from the Pew Research Center looks at the data and paints a picture of an even less Christianized future for America. 

    In looking at religious trends and various demographics, Pew shows a downward of trajectory which could have Christians representing less than half of the US population in the year 2070. 

    In 1972, Pew’s research says that 90% of Americans identified as Christians. That number was down to 64% in 2020. Pew’s research factors in people who have identified as Christians who have switched away from Christianity. Pew gives different estimates, and predicting future demographics is admittedly an inexact science. 

    But the overall point remains the same that there has been a downward trend in Americans who identify as Chritians and there are not many signs that this trend is going to reverse course. 

    Yes, that’s unfortunate and lamentable. I think there are negative societal ramifications which stem from that fact. But there are some reasons why I’m still hopeful and optimistic. 

    From grassroots to grand cathedrals

    I’ve been reading David Gustafson’s latest book “Gospel witness through the ages: a history of evangelism.” And I’m struck by how the early church in Rome had the opposite problem. In the early generations of Christianity (for instance, the third century), there was harsh persecution upon the church. Christians often had to meet in secret. By the end of the third century, it’s estimated that just 10 percent of Rome’s population was Christian. 

    In 313, the western and eastern emperors (Constantine and Licinius) issued the Edict of Milan which gave Christianity legal status within Rome. 

    Constantine’s personal religious convictions are a subject of debate. But what’s not debatable is that he was very friendly to Christianity. He made Sunday a day of rest throughout the empire. He exempted pastors and bishops from property taxes and worked to free Christian slaves. 

    In 391, Emperor Theodisius made Christianity the religion of Rome, outlawed paganism, and closed temples to pagan gods. 

    In less than a century, Christianity Rome went from being a small and persecuted minority to the state religion of Rome. 

    I won’t get into another history lesson, but the same thing would happen in Europe for over a thousand years. Everyone was “Christian.”

    But that’s the problem. You cannot force the gospel. You can force behavior. But you can’t force faith and belief. 

    In America, we’ve had generations of cultural Christianity. Most people are not atheists. Most people believe in God. America has Judeo-Christian roots, and so it’s easy to attach to that and say you’re a Christian even though you might not believe that Jesus died and rose, that it is Jesus who is the Lord, and that it is Jesus who alone forgives sins (things which are essential aspects of the gospel). 

    When Christianity dominates a culture, it becomes easy to be a Christian in Name Only. it becomes easy for people to be moral people without being born again believers. It’s easy to go to church (or at least be listed as a member of a church), without actually serving and ministering within the church. It’s easy to check the box. 

    And so again, while I think it’s unfortunate that there’s been a decline in the church in America, I’m hopeful for a more authentic future of the church. I’m hopeful that American churches can have greater spiritual depth with more committed members. 

    As it becomes easier for a person to acknowledge that they’re not a Christian, I’m hopeful it’ll become easier to know where people really are, Spiritually. There won’t be the same pressures to go through the motions or put up a front. If someone doesn’t believe in the gospel, as a pastor, I’d rather know that and go from there than have them feel like they need to pretend to be more religious than they actually are. 

    It’s a season which will also have its challenges. The American church has gotten too lax on personal evangelism. Perhaps it was easier to write that off as not being important when it was thought that most people were Christians. But Christians are becoming the cultural minority and there’s work to be done. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • Megachurch pastor takes leave of absence for inappropriate online relationship

    Influential megachurch pastor Matt Chandler announced yesterday that he was being placed on leave as a result of an online social media relationship.

    We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. And the more facts we get about this situation, the better. But I am a believer that when popular ministry figures acknowledge (as Chandler does) or are credibly accused of potentially disqualifying sins, that people should be investigated. We have created a culture where it is appealing to become an influential pastor. It brings money, fame, and power. The character of these individuals does matter. 

    Chandler’s story

    One of the peculiarities of the revelation of Chandler’s leave of absence is that he was allowed to announce it to the church. This also allowed him to get out ahead of the controversy and give his own narrative. 

    Chandler begins with his series of events, “Several months ago, a woman approached me outside here in the foyer. She had some concerns for how I was DM’ing on Instagram with a friend of hers. I didn’t think I had done anything wrong in that. My wife knew that, her husband knew that. And yet, there were a couple of things that she said that were disorienting to me.” 

    Chandler says he immediately contacted the church’s lead pastor, Josh Patterson as well as the chairman of their elder board. He said he went home and told his wife about the exchange and that the elder board looked into it. Chandler says “We cannot be a church where anyone is above the Scriptures and above the high heavenly call into Christ Jesus.” 

    He says that the elder board had some concerns but that the conversations were not romantic or sexual but that the conversations were “unguarded and unwise” and that the concerns were “really about frequency and familiarity” and language Chandler had used which was “coarse and foolish.” 

    Because of Chandler’s inability to see what he was in was probably revealing some “unhealth” in him, but that he agreed with the board’s decision to put him on a leave of absence. 

    Chandler again thanks the elders for holding him accountable saying “do you know how easy it would have been to make it nothing and just let me not address whatever this is?”  

    Commentary

    I think this is part of the problem with Chandler being able to speak in this situation. Even if I take his statement at face value. He starts off by talking about how his wife and the other lady’s husband knew about the conversations (minimizing the issue). He didn’t think they were doing anything inappropriate. 

    Plus the wording of his statement is vague. It was unguarded and unwise but it wasn’t romantic. It was coarse and foolish but it wasn’t sexual. 

    So what was it?! What did he say that was so bad that he got put on leave? The really striking phrase to me is “do you know how easy it would have been to make it nothing and just let me not address whatever this is?” I feel like that could almost have a double meaning, but perhaps that’s me being cynical.. 

    So you have Chandler speaking and saying he hadn’t thought it was a big deal but he is also totally respecting the decision of the board (to suspend him for something that is totally undefined and unclear). 

    It makes it look like the Village has the highest elder standards of any church in America! Their standards are so high that they would even suspend a rockstar pastor without it even being an overtly, obviously, disqualifying sin. 

    Do they have the highest standards? Time will tell. 

    The church’s story

    According to a statement from the church who had commissioned an investigation in to Chandler’s texting, emails, and social media, they said that the messages were not “romantic or sexual in nature” but that “the frequency and familiarity of the messages crossed a line. They revealed that Matt did not use language appropriate for a pastor” 

    The church’s statement agrees with Chandler that “the messages were not romantic or sexual in nature, the frequency and familiarity of the messages crossed a line.”

    The best possible light

    I think that the best possible light, and what I hope is the reality is that Chandler made some mistakes and that the church is holding him accountable. That’s how it’s being framed. The church has crafted a narrative of how they want things to appear. 

    If it’s all true, then yes, the Village could be looked at as a model of pastoral standards, ministerial integrity, and Biblically restorative discipline. Again, I hope that’s the case. But for now, all we have is their side of the story. 

    The worst possible light 

    There are no shortage of skeptics out there who want to assume the worst, to assume that there’s much more under the surface, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, that is something we’ve seen before with ministry scandals. 

    If it’s the worst case scenario, it would be another fall from grace from another popular pastor. And it would be a sad day for me, someone who’s always really appreciated Chandler’s ministry. In my early 20s, Chandler’s sermons were a major influence on my faith. I had never heard anyone preach like him before. He was engaging and matter of fact. He was funny. I found his sermons smart without being pretentious. I felt like he wasn’t afraid to address the gritty and difficult parts of life, while painting a beautiful picture of what living life for Jesus could be like. For all of those reasons, I again say with sincerity, that I hope that everything he and his church have said is true. If it’s true, I hope they also have a healthy process for restoration and that he can eventually be restored to ministry and to continue to do the work he’s done for nearly two decades at the Village which has blessed so many across the world. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!

  • Religious leaders sue in Florida arguing that having abortion is an issue of religious liberty

    Religious leaders sue in Florida arguing that having abortion is an issue of religious liberty

    The Washington Post has an article about a group of religious leaders in Florida who are suing the state over abortion restrictions with the argument that it violates their religious freedom. 

    Florida’s new abortion laws do not ban abortions outright (unfortunately). But they do ban abortions after 15 weeks unless there are risks to the health of the mother. But that doesn’t go far enough for these folks. 

    The article begins: 

    When the Rev. Laurie Hafner ministers to her Florida congregants about abortion, she looks to the founding values of the United Church of Christ, her lifelong denomination: religious freedom and freedom of thought. She taps into her reading of Genesis, which says “man became a living being” when God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam. She thinks of Jesus promising believers full and abundant life.

    Interesting that the article begins by talking about life and the breath of life, and abundant life in an article where pastors are arguing against the right to life of the unborn. We’re alive before we’re born so I’m not sure exactly when all of these rights begin. The Bible also talks about God knowing who we are prior to physical birth. 

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jeremiah 1:5). 

    For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:16). 

    The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name (Isaiah 49:1). 

    he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace (Galatians 1:15). 

    I could continue, but you get the point. 

    The article continues with the “pastor” saying, “I am pro-choice not in spite of my faith, but because of my faith.” 

    Ah yes, that great Christian virtue of taking life of the unborn. There is no taking of innocent life to the glory of God. It is a backwards misrepresentation of Christianity to argue that it is this great thing to support. I can appreciate that there are Christians who believe in the gospel and who are misguided and have a wrong view of abortion. But it’s a sad commentary when a person is a member of the clergy and is advocating against the rights of the unborn. Not only is she arguing against these rights but she’s arguing that supporting the killing of a baby is something which her faith compels.  

    In the article, Hafner says, “​​I think the religious right has had the resources and the voices politically and socially to be so loud, and frankly, they don’t represent the Christian faith,”

    I wouild argue that culturally, it is the left who has the loudest voice and they’re the ones who have largely brainwashed our society into thinking hat abortion is this great good. Not just ab ortion but radical beliefs on abortion such as late term abortion, and for any reason. That’s the stance of the Democratic Party. 

    She says the religious right does not represent the Christian faith. I can appreciate the room for critique, but the Christian left certainly does not represent the Christian faith when its proponents advocate for a whole host of beliefs which are antithetical to historical (and more importantly, Biblical teachings) on sexual ethics. 

    From the article: “Look biblically; Jesus says nothing about abortion. He talks about loving your neighbor and living abundantly and fully. He says: ‘I come that you might have full life.’ 

    Jesus does say nothing about abortion. So then why ought a professing Christian advocate for it? Shouldn’t we er on the side of life rather than on the side of death?

    Love your neighbor? Abundant life? They’re the ones advocating for killing the unborn. I would say to love your neighbor is also to love the unborn.

    Jesus said Let the little ones come to me (Luke 18:16). 

    Jesus said Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me (Matthew 25:20). Surely the unborn, who are unable to protect themselves and advocate for themselves fall into that category. 

    There are things that can be done to support the mothers. Christians adopt at higher rates than non Christians. I’m all for also supporting mothers, but not at the expense of the life of the baby. 

    The article also interviews a Unitarian pastor named Tom Capo who argues,” “It has to do with the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being,” Once again, that’s incoherent. Inherent worth and dignity of every human being? You’re arguing in favor of abortion. You do not believe in inherent worth and dignity. If you believed it was inherent, you’d be pro life. That’s why I am pro life! Because I believe that we actually have inherent worth and dignity. He believes we have acquired worth and dignity at some point.

    It’s disgraceful. 

    Also, I thought we were supposed to have separation of church and state? That’s what I always hear. Being pro life is not an inherently religious position. But these religious leaders are the ones beating their chests about how “It’s because I’m religious that I’m pro choice.”

    I have no doubt that these people are all very religious but the problem is that their religion is the religion of liberalism and liberalism great sacrament is the right to kill the unborn.

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • “You’re not pro-life, you’re pro birth:” And other ridiculous arguments

    “You’re not pro-life, you’re pro birth:” And other ridiculous arguments

    A common argument I hear in the abortion debate is that pro life people aren’t really pro-life, we’re pro birth. That if we were really pro-life, we’d support all sorts of government programs. Federally backed universal pre-K, expanded maternity leave, etc, etc, etc. Furthermore, we also must personally be adopting and fostering babies and donating to help support mothers who don’t want to have babies. 

    To be fair, many pro-life people do those things. Christians, for instance, adopt babies at a rate that is twice the national average. Pro-life people open up pregnancy centers to care for mothers. There are also innumerable government programs which help provide food, healthcare, and other necessities. During this formula shortage (and as the father of an eight month old, I’m in the thick of it), I learned that like half the babies in America qualify for WIC . 

    Could these programs be expanded even more? Sure. I’d be on board with that. But here’s part of the issue. There’s always one more government program people can think of.

    I also think that it should be easier for people to adopt. If it wasn’t prohibitively expensive, many more people would adopt. But just because I haven’t adopted a baby, that doesn’t mean that I’m just pro-birth. 

    That’s like saying that if a person didn’t personally host a Jewish person in their home during the reign of the Third Reich, that they didn’t really oppose the Holocaust. Yes, I realize that’s not a perfect analogy (as far more babies have been aborted than people died in the Holocaust). I know people will say it’s not the same. But it’s a sad thing that we can’t at least agree that tens of millions of aborted babies is a tragedy. 

    It’s such a bizarre exercise where pro-choice people try to dictate what pro-life people must do in order to actually be pro-life. And if we don’t, then people should be allowed to kill their babies. So basically, it’s a hostage situation. 

    Now for the person who’s pro-choice, if pro-lifers did all of these things, would the pro-choice person then be pro-life too? Of course not! (At least, not anyone I’ve ever talked to who’s pro-choice). Because it’s not simply about a lack of resources, but it’s about a fundamental belief that it’s morally acceptable (and even laudatory) for a person to kill their not yet born baby. 

    For that reason, the argument has always seemed to be to be disingenuous. 

    So pro-life people aren’t really pro-life if we’re not progressive liberals. That has always seemed pretty convenient. But here’s the thing. 

    If you’re pro-choice, then that means you are just as supportive of a woman choosing to abort OR to have the baby. But if you’re truly supportive of a woman having the baby, then what are YOU doing for that child? You also need to adopt him or her. 

    I mentioned earlier in this piece that tens of millions of babies have been aborted in this country. In the wake of the Roe reversal, I’ve wondered if the radicalism of the abortion movement was part of what led to the pro-life movement having the political will to see numerous states pass laws which are pro life.

    We had been told it could never happen. Abortion went from being something “safe, legal, and rare,” something that was an unfortunate reality to something that became glorified. Not among everyone who’s had an abortion, but you’d see the “shout your abortion” movement and those talking about having had multiple abortions and treating abortion as birth control. It became grotesque. Blue states pushed for late term abortion laws where a fully developed fetus could be killed.

    I’ve heard people talk about how much of a step back this is for America. The Mississippi law that led to the legal challenges that led to the overturning of Roe challenged a Mississippi abortion ban (unless there was an emergency situation) after 15 weeks. That’s later than most of Europe allows abortions. 

    But it wasn’t good enough. The radical abortion movement in America fought any limitations on abortion. Even with a fully developed fetus, even with a fetus that had a developed nervous system and that could feel pain. And we were told that such actions were good things. 

    The taking of innocent life was never good.

    Thanks for reading. If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • Popular pastor says evangelicals are too concerned with winning

    Popular pastor says evangelicals are too concerned with winning

    Atlanta based megachurch pastor Andy Stanley has a new book coming out titled “Not in it to win it: why choosing sides sidelines the church.” 

    From the description of the book: 

    “Is it possible to disagree politically and love unconditionally? The reaction of evangelicals to political and cultural shifts in recent years revealed what they value most. Lurking beneath our Bible-laced rhetoric, faith claims, books, and sermons is a relentless drive to WIN!

    But the church is not here to win. By every human measure, our Savior lost. On purpose. With a purpose. And we are his body. We are not in it to win anything. We are in it for something else entirely. That something else is what this book is about.”

    Umm…

    We’re in the middle of a major cultural shift where numerous things have become mainstream which are antithetical to the gospel, and Andy Stanley wants to concern himself with evangelical Christians trying too hard to win? 

    A baker in Colorado had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to assert his right not to have to bake cakes for gay weddings. And he’s been harassed by LGBT groups ever since. This week, a handful of baseball players for the Tampa Bay Rays refused to wear pride themed jerseys and they’ve been vilified. Chick-fil-a is a constant source of ire because the company has evangelical Christian values and used to donate money to some causes who had the audacity to affirm traditional marriage. Charlotte, North Carolina lost the 2019 NBA All Star game because the state would not allow transgender people to use their preferred bathroom. And countless other examples. 

    There’s incredible venom and vitriol against any who stand up to these social pressures. The culture bullies anyone who stands up against these social issues and labels them as hateful and bigoted.  

    And Andy Stanley wants to say evangelicals are too focused on winning? 

    Evangelicals are just trying to stand up against being forced to comply with this paganism of our society. 

    Think of all of the major cultural institutions who have thrown in with the progressive left in the culture wars. The media, Hollywood, social media companies, higher education, healthcare, (increasingly) big corporations, professional sports, and on and on and on. 

    And so with all of these major institutions already being to the left, Stanley’s comments are easy to make about those on the right. It’s easy to say that too many evangelical Christians and leaders make too much of an idol of politics. But what’s hard to say is that there are too many liberal churches who have embraced abortion and the LGBT movement and that these beliefs are unbiblical. 

    I don’t find Stanley’s thesis to be particularly interesting or original. Russell Moore says similar things, Beth Moore, the Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller in his own cryptic way. I feel like I see a similar commentary every week. In the mainstream Christian media (Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, Religion News Service), the call for political moderation only seems to go one way. It’s the argument that evangelicals are too conservaitve (and everyone else is just fine).   

    “Evangelicals are too political.” I think of churches where I’ve served and attended. And yes, more people were probably voting republican than democrat. But politics was not the focal point of what we were doing or what was being taught. And someone who believed differently about politics was still welcome (and many such people served these churches in meaningful ways). 

    Are there evangelical churches that are more politicized than the churches that I’ve attended and served? I’m sure there are. 

    But for every evangelical church that wants to conflate republicanism with the gospel, there are rainbow flag waving churches who clearly have cast their own political lot with the left. For those churches, not only are they too political, but they’re also out of step with the Bible. Where’s the call for these churches to repent? 

    Stanley argues “By every human measure, our Savior lost.” It is true that Jesus willingly gave up his life for his people. Jesus was unjustly arrested, tortured, and crucified. And he also never turned a blind eye to sin.

    A common argument I hear is that evangelicals should be more loving to our neighbor. Stanley writes, “The moment our love for or concern for country takes precedence over our love for people in our country we are off mission.” I would argue that part of loving the country and the people within the country is wanting what’s best for both the country and its people and that the progressive cultural issues which dehumanize the unborn, which say that gender is a social construct are both bad for the country and for its people.

    It isn’t loving to stand idly by. Yes, we can’t force people to live a certain way, but we should stand up to a society that is trying to force a contrary set of values upon us and everyone else. And one of the tools to combat these issues is politics, how we vote, who we vote for, and what we support. 

    I too would say that we should not make idols of politics or make saviors out of politicians. Politics and “winning” are not all important. But they are also not unimportant. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.