by Frank Viola
On “Great” Christians
For the both of you who are apoplectic right now because I used the word “great” to describe fallen humans, let me point out that I’m merely following Jesus here (emphasis mine):
The greatest among you will be your servant. (Matthew 23:11)
Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11)
Whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
So settle down, okay?
Note that I’m only covering eight “great Christians” in this book. In my study of church history, these are the people I believe shaped the evangelical Christian world the most. I don’t have a “shocking belief” entry for Billy Graham since I don’t think he fits into that category. However, I did feature seven surprising (perhaps even shocking) quotes by him.
You will find that no women are featured. That’s because in my research, the women who significantly shaped church history (such as Fanny Crosby and Amy Carmichael) didn’t appear to hold to any shocking beliefs.§ I suppose that’s a compliment to them.
Finally, I’ve deliberately omitted the shocking actions of the great Christians, focusing instead on their beliefs (actions and beliefs aren’t the same).
It bears repeating: the purpose of this book is not to lower these individuals in your eyes. It’s actually the opposite. It’s to show you that despite their strange (and sometimes flawed) thinking on some issues, God still used them. Mightily, even.
The lesson, of course, is that God uses His people in spite of their strange or erroneous perspectives. And since that’s the case, let’s have more grace whenever we disagree with one another.
It’s time for us to regrace.¶
*While I claim the term evangelical myself, because it best fits my theological views, I don’t stay within my corner of evangelicalism when it comes to reading the writings of others. I also believe that modern evangelicalism has a number of blind spots, something I’ve addressed on my blog—frankviola.org.
†Frank Viola, Insurgence: Reclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). Many have called Insurgence my “signature work.”
‡Frank Viola, God’s Favorite Place on Earth (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013).
§Carmichael dressed like the Indian women she ministered to and allegedly kidnapped children who were being sold as sex slaves (in an effort to rescue them). She also didn’t accept donations. But none of these beliefs would be shocking or surprising to a twenty-first-century Christian audience.
¶By regrace, I simply mean rethinking and rediscovering God’s grace in relation to those with whom we disagree. In other words, to begin to be gracious toward all our fellow sisters and brothers in Christ, especially when we don’t see eye to eye.
2
’Tis Humor
All along, let us remember we are not asked to understand, but simply to obey.
~ Amy Carmichael
When I began my “shocking beliefs” blog series that eventually became this book, I anticipated that some readers would misuse a post to attack the Christians I was covering.
Others wanted to roast me over a slow spit after they realized their spiritual hero didn’t possess immaculate perception.
For these reasons, I added this caution just before the comment section that followed each blog post. This one appeared under the C. S. Lewis post:
WARNING: Now that you have been made aware of some of the surprising beliefs of C. S. Lewis, you may be tempted to overreact. So before you write your comment, heed this warning: If anyone wields accusations like “C. S. Lewis is the mouthpiece of Satan” or “Lewis is a cross between the Antichrist, the Zodiak killer, and the Unabomber” and other such sentiments, our beloved Blog Manager won’t approve the comment.
So those of you who found this post on the web somewhere and are starting to march toward the comments box with pitchforks, blowtorches, and blunt objects in order to delegitimize, castigate, or marginalize Lewis beyond repair, your remark will vanish into the electricity after the Blog Manager hits the Delete key.
In addition, this isn’t the place for a theological smackdown, a doctrinal beatdown, a “look how much I know about C. S. Lewis” ego session, or a Calvinism vs. Arminianism feeding frenzy. We simply ask that you post your favorite C. S. Lewis quote in the comments. Thank you very much.
3
We Know in Part
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.
~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
As I argued in Revise Us Again,1 every follower of Jesus is a rough draft. Over time, the great Editor—the Holy Spirit—shapes our lives and views. But until we see the Lord, and we “know even as we are known,” we are all in process.*
This is also true for the great Christians who have gone before us.
Therefore, one of the mistakes we should guard against is the temptation to dismiss a person’s entire contribution because they may hold (or have held) to ideas we find difficult to stomach.
Speaking personally, if I demanded that a person’s theological views be identical to mine, then if I met myself thirty years ago, I would have had to disfellowship myself!
The truth is, my views on some topics have changed over the years.
And so have yours.
We are all in process. None of us gets everything right all the time. This stands true for every Christian who has ever breathed oxygen.
So my purpose in highlighting some of the shocking beliefs of the people upon whose shoulders we stand is not to burn them in effigy. Nor is it to dismiss their positive contributions to church history.
Rather, it’s to demonstrate that even though they may have held views that would raise the eyebrows (or the ire) of many Christians today, that doesn’t overturn nor negate the valuable ideas they contributed to the body of Christ.
Unfortunately, many evangelicals are quick to discount—and even damn—their fellow brothers and sisters over alleged doctrinal trespasses, even if those same brothers and sisters hold to the historical orthodox creeds (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.). But such discounting serves no one on the kingdom side of the aisle, and it can be avoided.
When diversity within orthodoxy is encountered, grace should be extended. Just as we would want grace extended to us, seeing that none of us sees perfectly (Matthew 7:12). Therefore, we should never judge the whole bag by one or two grains of wheat.†
The words of Paul of Tarsus contain thunder and lightning on this score:
Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete. (1 Corinthians 13:9 NLT)
Or in the words of the NKJV, we “know in part.”
*This is a reference to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (KJV).
†Later in the book, I will address what constitutes orthodox Christian belief and how we should treat those who teach doctrines that contradict it. In other words, I’ll discuss “heresy” and those who promote false doctrines.
4
Honoring Those with Whom You Disagree
I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
We’ve all seen it. The belligerent throwdowns where Christians take the gloves off with fellow believers over doctrinal, theological, and political differences.
Many of them can’t walk away from a fight or lose. Instead, they either pour coals on an already roaring fire or they bring in the gasoline trucks.
For this reason, it’s time for us to recover the lost art of agreeing to disagree.
The devil gloats when God’s children are at one another’s throats over their petty disagreements. But forfeiting a relationship over a disagr
eement effectively dismantles the words of Jesus:
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:35)
That they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me. (John 17:23)
John Wesley was the first to put the phrase “agree to disagree” in print in the eighteenth century. George Whitefield was his sparring partner, and Wesley attributes the phrase to him. Here’s the quote:
If you agree with me, well: if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree to disagree.1
In light of the doctrinal disagreements between Wesley (an Arminian) and Whitefield (a Calvinist), someone once asked Whitefield if he thought he’d see John Wesley in heaven. Here is Whitefield’s reply:
I fear not, for he will be so near the eternal throne and we at such a distance, we shall hardly get sight of him.2
This statement reveals the spiritual stature of George Whitefield.
To recognize the place of another servant of God in the kingdom despite doctrinal disagreements is an evidence of a person who walks with God.
To speak well of another servant of God, honoring them in public even, is a mark of spiritual greatness and Christlike humility. This is especially true when we have significant disagreements with their theology (or their politics).*
To have the insight to see when God’s hand is on a person and using them, despite the doctrinal differences we may have with them, is a sign of someone who knows the Lord well.
Whitefield’s remark about Wesley is rare to see in our day where bickering, casting aspersions, and dismissing (in particular) are the order of the day when it comes to theological disagreements among Christian leaders.
Let’s take our cue from Wesley and Whitefield when encountering a disagreement with a fellow believer. Learn the art of agreeing to disagree. When it comes to countless doctrinal, theological, and political disagreements, most of those hills aren’t worth dying on.
(Indeed, there are times when we should dig in our heels on a point of orthodoxy, but not to the point of violence—either physical or verbal. We’ll explore this matter later in the book.)
May Whitefield’s tribe increase!
*I, of course, am not speaking about what the Scriptures call “false teaching” or “heresy.” I treat those kinds of erroneous beliefs in another part of the book. But God even uses heresies and false teachings for good, despite the harm they bring. Samuel Bolton’s The Arraignment of Error (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999; first published 1646 in London), is entirely dedicated to this thesis.
5
It’s Not a Bloodsport
I choose to look at people through God, using God as my glasses, colored with His love for them.
~ Frank Laubach
A careful read of church history will chill your blood. From the late fourth century until the seventeenth century, Christians slaughtered their fellow brethren over doctrinal differences.1
Sure, there were doctrinal wars undertaken in print where one writer would quarrel at pen’s point with another author. However, the pamphlet wars eventually evolved into something far worse.
Christian leaders began unsheathing their swords and the bloodletting began. Tragically, the blood has been flowing ever since, even today in the West where there is freedom of religion (I’m speaking metaphorically).
During the past four decades, I’ve been given a front-row seat to watch a number of church splits. In every case, it began with someone getting their feelings hurt and going on the warpath.
I remember one case in particular. A man came into our fellowship with a pet doctrine that he wanted everyone else to embrace. (We’ll call him Tom.) Tom was so persistent he could wear down a granite mountain. He ran our blood hot.
Despite his efforts, we didn’t accept Tom’s teaching. He got his feelings hurt and the Ginsu knife made its appearance.
Someone decided to throw a match into the situation by correcting Tom. The result: we could all smell flesh burning. Others tried to correct Tom too, but they were left sucking air. Tom became so angry, he had smoke blowing out of both ears. (I’m aging by the moment as I think about it.)
Tom exploded into criticism and began vilifying the members of the church, accusing them of despicable and heinous things—none of which were true. He was on full meltdown, spewing venom wherever he could. Beyond his blistering denunciations, his sentiment was, “I wash my hands of those people!”
The words of judo champion Dumitru D. Coman come to mind: “When a toxic person can no longer control you, they will try to control how others see you.”
Regrettably, I’ve watched this same drama play out in different settings. Different actors, but the same scenes packed with the same slurs.
The lesson is a chilling one. If you’re going to meet in close quarters with other Christians, put your asbestos suit on. Someone is going to unleash toxins. And it will be over either a personality conflict or a doctrinal difference. (Often, these two are joined at the hip.)
More ironic, they will use the name of God and “protecting others” as a justification to malign their sisters and brothers in Christ. (Historically, those who incinerated heretics by fire or tortured them have always used “God’s name” and the “protection of the sheep” as their defense.)
The blood that flowed at the hands of Christians over theological disagreements in the sixteenth century was up to the horse’s bit. The tragic endings of John Huss, William Tyndale, Felix Manz, Balthasar Hubmaier, and countless Anabaptists will curdle your blood.
But we’ve come a long way today. We’ve come two millimeters!
Christians who have thin hide may not use the sword to impale those with whom they disagree. They’ll use the keyboard and the internet instead. But the effect is the same—carnage.
Throughout this book, I’m going to declare holy war on this entire attitude. Treating our fellow brethren with the love of Jesus Christ is written in the very bloodstream of God. And you can find it all over the New Testament.
To put it another way, theology doesn’t have to be a bloodsport. It can be a civil and intellectually honest conversation.
And it should be.
Unfortunately, much of the problem today is that Christians use different conversational styles when they discuss theology.* So the disagreement ends up being rooted in semantics rather than in substance. This isn’t always the case, of course. But it happens more than you’d expect.
Yet it should not be so among God’s people.
*In Revise Us Again, I identify the three different spiritual conversational styles and give tips on how to recognize and overcome each of them.
6
The Shocking Beliefs of C. S. Lewis
People pour themselves into their own doctrines, and God has to blast them out of their preconceived ideas before they can become devoted to Jesus Christ.
~ Oswald Chambers
With the popularity of his Chronicles of Narnia (selling millions), Mere Christianity, and The Screwtape Letters (both considered classics among evangelicals), Clive Staples Lewis is regarded by many to be a saint of evangelicalism.1
Christianity Today even called him “our patron saint.”2
According to Time magazine, Lewis was “one of the most influential spokesmen for Christianity in the English-speaking world.”3
According to J. I. Packer, Lewis was “a Christ-centered, great-tradition mainstream Christian whose stature a generation after his death seems greater than anyone ever thought while he was alive, and whose Christian writings are now seen as having classic status.”4
An erstwhile atheist, Lewis converted to Christianity and quickly became a renowned defender of the faith and an evangelical paragon. Lewis converted in 1931. His BBC lectures from 1942 to 1944 eventually became his book Mere Christianity (1952), establishing him as a renowned defender.
Interestingly, Lewis died the same day that John F. Kennedy did—November 22, 1963.5
&
nbsp; Not a good day for anyone to die. Many people didn’t hear about Lewis’s death until months later. All the oxygen was taken up covering Kennedy’s tragic death.
Here are a few highlights about Lewis’s life:
He gave away a good portion of his royalties from his Christian books to those in need. This rendered him poor during his lifetime.6
He had a near photographic memory.7
While he was brilliant, he was also awkward and clumsy. He never learned to drive an automobile or use a typewriter.8
He was intentional to craft handwritten responses to everyone who wrote him.9
He fought in World War I and engaged in “trench warfare.”10
Later in his life, he felt that his intellectual powers for defending the gospel had worn thin. Consequently, he felt that he was a failure as an apologist because he couldn’t persuade his closest friends and loved ones to accept the gospel.11
In his Problem of Pain, Lewis employed unassailable logic in unveiling God’s goodness and the problem of evil in the world. But when his wife passed away, he felt his earlier arguments about evil and pain were no longer adequate. His upgraded thinking on the subject appears in his later work, A Grief Observed.12
Yet despite his amazing contribution to the Christian faith, here are seven shocking beliefs that Lewis held.
1. Lewis believed in praying for the dead.
Here’s a quote:
Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden.13
