The triune God has graciously revealed himself to us. Historically and on biblical grounds, Christians have held two affirmations about who and what God is—God is one God, and he exists as three persons. This identification of God as triune stands at the heart of the Christian faith, along with the confession that the second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on a human nature without ceasing to be God.

The Way We Talk about God
Imagine that you’re trying to describe what God did on the cross. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (including, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father poured out his wrath on the Son.
The Father turned his face away.
The Father abandoned his Son.
The Son felt the pangs of hell because he was separated from the Father on the cross.

Notice that in describing the cross this way, we are saying that there are two primary actors, two distinct individuals, the Father and the Son, the first two persons of the Godhead, and that each is doing something different at the crucifixion. For now, notice also that the third person of God, the Spirit, is never mentioned in these statements.
Let’s use a different example. You’re asked to describe God’s providence. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (again, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father chose this path for me because he cares for me.
When we talk about election, we’re talking about the plan of God the Father.
We have a good Father who has planned all things to work together for our good.

Notice that in describing providence this way, we’re attributing God’s “plan” specifically to God the Father, and sometimes it sounds as if it’s only God the Father who plans out providence. One last example will suffice. Imagine that you’re told to describe how a Christian receives and uses spiritual gifts. What do you say?

The Spirit gave me the gift of [X, Y, or Z].
I can [use gift X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit empowers me.
I’m gifted at [X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit chose to make me that way.

Are the Father and the Son involved in the spiritual gifts? Or just the Spirit?
In each of these examples, and even in the way we’ve asked the follow-up questions, what we’re trying to help you see is that we often think about God’s acts as divisible between the persons and distributed according to their roles. So in these scenarios, sometimes the actor is primarily the Father, as in the examples about providence; sometimes the actor is the Son, as in the examples about the crucifixion; and sometimes the actor is the Spirit, as in the examples about the spiritual gifts.
Let’s return to the examples related to the crucifixion. A question we often ask our students when talking about this subject, and after we’ve described the crucifixion in the ways we gave above, is, “What was the Spirit doing while the Father was forsaking the Son?” Was the Spirit just watching from the sidelines? Was he taking a break from his divine duties? Are the Son and the Spirit also wrathful toward sin? Returning next to providence, do the Son and the Spirit sit on the bench while the Father governs his creation? And with respect to the spiritual gifts, do the Father and the Son renounce their authority and hand it over to the Spirit to let him distribute gifts to whom he wills?
These questions, we hope, help us see that the way we talk about God’s acts often divides the persons of God in a way that is contrary to our confession that God is one God in three persons. If only one divine person, or in some cases two of the three, is acting on any given occasion, how is that consistent with the Christian confession of one God, or with its roots in Jewish monotheism? Aren’t there now three Gods, each of whom acts in different ways in different times? Or is there one God who is sometimes Father, sometimes Son, and sometimes Spirit?
Read More
Related Posts:

The false narrative of separation of church and state was never intended to keep the church silent on matters of politics and political policy. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. The idea was originally designed to keep the state out of the church rather than to keep the church out of the state. Therefore, for Christians to speak up, engage, and vote with a commitment to honoring Christ is essential for the good of our country.

Our nation has never been more polarized than it is today on matters of politics. It seems that many politicians are attempting to gain support and grow their base by jumping from one extreme position to the next. This is especially true regarding the issue of abortion. For the Christians, life is a non-debatable issue. For the liberals, the it’s being spun as a matter of “reproductive freedom” and a “private healthcare choice.” Suffice it to say, elections have consequences.
The social justice agenda has left an indelible mark upon our nation. The impact of deconstructionism is being felt in all spheres of our society. We see it in the sphere of the academy where every radical view imaginable is given center stage to indoctrinate the minds of the next generation while orthodox views of marriage, life, and foundational principles regarding the family and capitalism remain under vicious attack. We see this same move in the sphere of evangelicalism. While many religions are experiencing this dreaded threat, it’s the conservative protestant sphere that has in many ways capitulated the most.
What is at stake is massively important to western civilization and Christianity in America—which will have an impact upon the whole world.
The Tragedy of Christian Silence
During the rise of social justice movement (pre-2018), Christian leaders were moving about in the shadows and setting the stage for the social justice deconstructionist agenda. After the release of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, a light came on for many people.
Sadly, many people remain confused and committed to supporting the very men and ministries who were exposed during that time period. During the post-George Floyd era, many Christian leaders have become willing to speak up, march in the streets in Black Lives Matters events, and articulate their positions regarding systemic injustice, critical race theory, and intersectionality.
Today, these same voices are silent. They have moved back into the shadows. At the very hour when the truth should be made known and for the church to vote properly, they refuse to speak up. This lack of clarity results in confusion on the issues at hand and encourages politicians to look beyond the borders of orthodoxy for voices to help them spread the truth regarding the dangers that attack the very fabric of our civilization. Compromising Christian leaders should be ashamed of their commitment to the middle of the road rather than the truth. You can’t be committed to truth while embracing error.
The Tragedy of False Christianity
If the church is to honor Christ, the church certainly does not need false prophets and leaders of false religions to be leading the charge in the fight for freedom. Sadly, within the sphere of evangelical Christianity, far too many Christian leaders have remained silent on the issues. They have gone off the grid. They are unwilling to stand and allow their voices to be heard. Because of this, many politicians have chosen to hitch themselves to false prophets of the highest order such as Kenneth Copeland and Paula White. This is tragic on many levels.
Read More
Related Posts:

So what can we conclude about the infamous dropout numbers? The rates of dropout and return are far less bleak and more complex than we’ve been led to believe. The claim that 90 percent of kids drop out after high school clearly needs to be left behind.

Debunking the Dropout Myth

“Well,” the pastor said, “nine out of 10 kids drop out of church after they graduate. Evidently, what we’re doing isn’t working.”
“Mm-hmm,” the children’s director agreed. “We just want to do so much better than that.”
“Is your church actually losing that many?” I asked. They looked at each other before shrugging.
“I don’t really know,” the pastor replied. “We don’t see them after they graduate. Sometimes that’s because they’re involved in another church, I guess.”
The children’s director continued, “If we had programs to teach parents how to grow their kids spiritually, we could stop the loss.”
“I’ll do everything I can to help your church,” I said. “But first, let’s rethink your reasons for considering these changes because the problem you think is the problem is probably not the problem at all.”
Here’s why these two ministry leaders—and scores of others like them—need to rethink their motivations: The nine-out-of-10 dropout number isn’t true. It was never true, yet many church leaders still believe it. Take a trip with me to the origins of this statistic and why it’s long past time to lay this lie to rest.
Gut Feelings Aren’t Good Statistics
This lie didn’t start as a lie. It was a well-intended, casual survey that metamorphosed far beyond what anyone envisioned. Some years ago, a doctoral student named Brandon Shields discovered the earliest sources of the 90 percent statistic. Apparently, it began in the 1990s when Jay Strack, a popular conference speaker, invited a roomful of youth ministers to share their gut feelings about how many youth were dropping out of church after high school. When Strack summed up the responses, he came up with a 90 percent dropout rate.
Strack later reported that he never intended his statistic to be interpreted as fact. Once he repeated the information a few times, though, other leaders began to reiterate the 90 percent dropout rate as truth. It spread quicker than a stomach virus in a cabin full of middle schoolers halfway through a week of camp. There’s nothing wrong with asking a few people how they feel about an issue. But conversational “surveys” will never result in reliable statistics. In this instance, the collective estimates of a few ministers resulted in exaggerated percentages that received tremendous publicity and eventually ended up in ministry resources.
Later claims escalated the hysteria. A popular book published in 1997 claimed that only four percent of young people surveyed at that time were born-again Christians. As a result, the author claimed, “According to present trends, we are about to lose eternally the second largest generation in America’s history.” The truth is, this survey spanned only three U.S. states and included information from a mere 211 youth. (To be fair, at least the author was transparent on his methodology.) Other leaders then trumpeted the “trend” as a harbinger of impending doom.
Bad News Is Big News
It’s easy to point accusing fingers at the sources of statistics—but the problem isn’t really the numbers. These numbers arose from well-intended attempts to assess the effectiveness of church ministries. The more problematic question is, Why are we so willing to wallow in the worst possibilities, even when those possibilities aren’t well-founded?
We get excited about bad news.
Human nature relishes the discovery of a hidden crisis. Once we’ve discovered that crisis, we rarely keep the news to ourselves. We spread bad news and, with each retelling, we tend to stretch it. That’s why God warns: “Do not go about spreading slander” (Leviticus 19:16). In a Wall Street Journal article, Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson provided a clear example of this phenomenon: “The national news media yawned over the Baylor Survey’s findings that the number of American atheists has remained steady at 4 percent since 1944, and that church membership has reached an all-time high. But when a study by Barna Research claimed that young people under 30 are deserting the church in droves, it made headlines and newscasts across the nation.”
The tendency to turn bad news into big news doesn’t completely explain how rapidly these numbers spread through churches. I suggest an additional reason. Since the 1950s, a fun-and-games approach dominated many youth ministries. In the 1990s, a new generation of youth ministers emerged.
Read More
Related Posts: