John H Armstrong

The Day of Pentecost

Today is Pentecost Sunday in churches all across the globe. Much as Easter is celebrated on one day, though each Sunday is truly Easter Sunday, so it is with Pentecost. Every Sunday we remember that the Holy Spirit is with us, and in us, and that we have the Comforter, the "spirit of Jesus" living in our soul, personally and collectively as believers.

The term Pentecost comes from the Greek name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks at the close of the grain harvest fifty days after Passover and Unleavened Bread. In the early church Pentecost at first designated the whole period of fifty days from Easter; only later did it refer particularly to the fiftieth day, which became a feast in its own right.

The fifty days that celebrated the resurrection in the ancient church were "the first fruits of the end, one great Sunday" (Athanasius) and "the most joyful season" (Tertullian). Augustine said the "Alleluia" was a hopeful sign of the time when "we shall become a perpetual praise." Favorite liturgical texts for the day include readings in John, Acts and Revelation.

By the fourth century the fiftieth day was regarded as the seal of the period, with the Ascension of Christ and the Descent of the Holy Spirit as its twin themes.

In the liturgy I shared this day the following words were part of our call to worship:

In the beginning, O God, there was only you, our ending and our beginning. The Breath of our Life, our Guide and Inspiration, the Fire that fills our soul; consuming us, driving us and renewing us, calling us, commissioning us and empowering us, leading us ever onward to paths we could never imagine, ways we never sought, lives filled and lived in the joy of divine transcendence even in the face of evil: suffering pain and death.

When the Spirit's renewing power and gifting was first experienced in the early twentieth century, in an unusual way, this feast day became associated with this new outpouring of the Spirit, thus the label "Pentecostal." I am thrilled to use the term in this manner so long as it does not become a new denominational label with which to divide the church again.

Ecumenically, the Eastern Orthodox see themselves as bringing a pneumatological ecclesiology, typified in the event of Pentecost, thus they see their view as correcting the Western emphasis upon institutionalism. Understanding this insight would be a great help to those of us in Western churches, especially Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant.

A Prayer for the Illinois House of Representatives

Most of you know that my son is a pastor and serves a church plant in nearby Streamwood, Illinois. (I preached there on May 10 and 17. The photo above is of Matt introducing me to his flock to preach.) Matt, his wife Adriana, and their two beautiful girls, Gracie and Abbie, drove to Springfield on Thursday afternoon in order to be in the Illinois House of Representatives for Friday's morning session. Gracie and Abbie served as "pages" for the day while Matthew gave the invocation to the House. Little did any of us know when Matt accepted this invitation that the government of this state would be in such a mess over ethics, budgets and power and that the end of their present session loomed with ominous overtones as they try to settle a number of perils the state now faces. In my forty years in this state I have never seen the legislature in such a conflicted state. Much like California, we face bankruptcy and huge spending issues. Unlike California the voters in Illinois have not put a lid on new taxes and spending. Put simply---things are a political mess in Illinois. Our papers and broadcasts are full of this news daily. Both parties are at fault and both continue to blame the other. This is what made Matt's visit, and his prayer, so significant. I prayerfully hope that some of the men and women in the chamber on Friday actually heard what Matt prayed and that God will truly be sought by leaders in this state. Here is Matt's prayer from Friday:

An Invocation Before the Illinois House: Friday, May 29, 2009

God, our help in ages past, you are our hope for years to come. You know the tremendous challenges before the women and men in this House today. In these times of corruption, deceit and economic crisis, we remember that not a sparrow falls to the ground but that you notice it. You are intimately concerned with all the details of our lives, our families, communities, state, nation and world. You made us, and you set us in relationship with one another. You love us and want the best for us and so we acknowledge you here this morning. We ask that you would reveal yourself in new and fresh ways to each person in this room. May it be that today you will use these women and men to accomplish your purposes for the State of Illinois. May they make laws that are just and fair, which promote honesty and hard work—laws that provide care for the poor and provide opportunity for all.

God, I thank you for each representative here today. They have worked hard and sacrificed much to be here and to represent the people of our state. Please honor them as they honor you. Bless them as they bless the people of Illinois. Be with them and give them great wisdom at a time of great testing. Grant them, we pray, foresight to understand how decisions made today will impact people’s lives for years to come. I believe that you have a plan and a purpose for Illinois that is greater than anything we can imagine. So I ask that this plan would be realized and that you would use these representatives to do so. Be with them today. May they feel your presence encouraging, guiding, supporting, and sustaining them in their important work of crafting laws. May they always act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with you. For your glory. Amen.

The Best Athletes in Professional Sports?

Among fans of professional sports there is a debate now and then about which sport requires the most athleticism. I have no doubt that the answer is "hockey." Friends know that I love baseball and college football best. (I have written about them both on this blog over the years.) But I have always enjoyed hockey. I do not get to see NHL games very often because of the cost of a ticket. This season was no exception since the Chicago played really well for the first time in years and cheap tickets were not easily available. In fact, the Hawks made it to the Campbell Conference finals against the Detroit Red Wings and lost a second overtime game Wednesday night to end that series. They won only one game against the far superior Detroit team. My prediction is simple---Detroit will win the Stanley Cup! Sorry Pittsburgh Penguins fans but Detroit is still too good to beat in my book. They will repeat as the champions.

But back to the question: "Which sport requires the purest and best athleticism to excel?" I answer hockey for several reasons. One, these guys have to run, skate, jump, shoot and stick handle a puck just to play. Then they have to muscle each other and bang bodies as fiercely as football players. And they go all out the entire time they are on the ice. (For sure, no player goes this hard for a full sixty minutes!)

You know the old joke: "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out!" It is partly true. These guys are very physical even though most of them are not huge like football players. They are in top shape physically.

Decathletes may be the world's greatest athletes but in team sports no one is in better condition, tougher and more truly athletic, than a professional hockey player.

The first hockey game I ever saw as a kid was in Chicago. My dad brought me here to visit the city (we lived in Tennessee). It was February, and very cold, from what I remember. He took me to the old Chicago Stadium to see the Red Wings play the Blackhawks. I was in awe of the players that night and I still am, almost fifty years later.

Two weeks ago the Blackhawks beat the Vancouver Canucks to get to the Western Conference finals with Detroit. I was unusually blessed to see game six, the deciding game of that series. In this case I actually rooted for the visitors. Why? My friend Paolo Aquinli (photo to my left) is an owner of the Canucks (with his two brothers). So Stacy and I were given two premium tickets for this great game. We sat a few rows from the ice, directly across from the goal. I have never been that close to a hockey game, much less one with the intensity of the NHL playoffs. What an evening. You truly get into a game when you are right there. I will never forget this one as long as I live. The crowd noise was unbelievable and the Chicago fans were starved for a win and the Blackhawks won by scoring three goals in four minutes late in the third period. The only problem with them winning was that Stacy and I rooted for our friend and his team, the Vancouver Canucks! (We sat with one of the players families in the same section.) We cheered when they scored and felt Paolo's emotion high above us in the owner's box, especially when the Canucks went up 5-4 with seven minutes to go in the game. We even texted one another at crucial moments in the game. My heart really got into the Canucks. This week a signed team jersey arrive from Canada and it will go in a prominent place in my home when I get it framed.

Next time someone wants to have a serious conversation about the best professional athletes, at least in a team sport, you tell them that they are the hockey players. If they don't believe you then put skates on them and let them try this game. Or maybe give them a ring side seat like I had for the Canucks/Hawks game and I think they will agree with me in a few minutes time.

"We All Live By Luck!"

The sovereign activity of God can be seen in many instances in Scripture. In fact, the truth is found throughout the entire biblical record. This is part of what led to my own embrace of this powerful truth almost forty years ago. Christians disagree about the particulars, at least in terms of how they define man's will and God's sovereignty, but they should not disagree about the basic fact of divine providence.

Providence is the doctrine of God's care for the creation, involving his preservation of it and his guiding it to his intended ends. The famous Heidelberg Catechism, personally my favorite catechism, says that providence is: "The almighty and everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven, earth, and all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, comes not by chance but by His Fatherly hand."

Note the primary emphasis seems to call on this point: All things come about by the Father's purpose not by chance!

The following question (No. 28) in Heidelberg, says that this truth profits us so that we "may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and with a view to the future may have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love, since all creatures are in His hand that without His will they cannot so much as move."

My life bears witness to this truth. I have found again and again that I do not need to figure out what is happening to me, or get a direct answer to all the "why" questions. I can rest with deep patience in the midst of dark adversity and I can give thanks in prosperity. I do not know how else to live well.

I believe the only logical alternative to a deeply Christian confession, at least for real Christians, is to believe that God responds to events, as they transpire, with love and mercy. But in this view His mercy is not rooted in perfect knowledge or the divine control of what actually happens. This is the primary reason why I believe the "openness of God" view is the only real alternative to this classical view of providence. Most Christian views link divine foreknowledge with providence. But these alternative views, to that stated by Heidelberg, tend to fall flat under the sheer weight of biblical evidence. I believe this is the reason the "openness" view has found acceptance among some young evangelical Christians who reject the classical doctrine because they sincerely see "fatalism" in it. (Understand, there is mystery in every Christian view and the classical view, which I firmly believe, embraces this mystery with profound wonder!) Those who embrace the openness view cannot accept the traditional alternatives to a strong (Augustinian) view of divine providence, believing that these alternative views (Arminian) do not fit the biblical evidence and/or their philosophical presuppositions. For this reason the "openness" view has gained some acceptance among thoughtful Christians, some of whom I count as my personal friends.

The openness debate has sparked some pretty acrimonious hostility among evangelicals. At its core the openness view teaches that God can and does change his mind. It is argued that freedom is an illusion if someone, even God, cannot change his mind. And if God knows, with absolute certainty, what will happen then it will happen whether you embrace this fact as an Arminian (foreknowledge) or a Calvinist (foreordination). This is why those who embrace openness see no freedom in either the Arminian or the Calvinist approach. They reason that in order to be free one must be able to decide and act otherwise. This means that God cannot know what will come to pass, except perhaps in the ultimate sense of the intended goal, or He would not be truly free. Clark Pinnock, a first-rate theologian and a fine Christian man I know and love, pictures God's relationship with free human beings as a dance. God leads, but human beings play their parts too. God's will and ways are flexible, thus He truly responds to human beings without possessing complete knowledge of the future. Pinnock believes that God is both omniresourceful and omnipotent. And Pinnock further believes that He can be surprised, but not thwarted! As much as I reject openness theology (and I do seriously reject it) I think Pinnock's point should be respected for what he is actually saying, not what his critics infer that he is saying. As with all theological controversy among serious confessing Christians, and Pinnock is one such Christian, we should be careful about how we reject what they teach, not just the content of what they teach. I visited this debate online while I was writing this post and was again appalled at the hostility and hype I saw in the writing of many who agree with my view. They have concluded that theologians like Clark Pinnock are, ipso facto, not real Christians! They attack not only his ideas but his person and his character. The acrimonious nature of this debate profoundly troubles me, which will make more than a few on my side of the debate despise me and question my motives. Is this type of theological polemic truly fruitful? Does it make us any more like Christ? Does it solve all the problems that honest Christians have when they seek to understand the Scriptures and the historic theological differences that exist among earnest Christians?

I thought about this whole debate, and thus the doctrine of providence, while reading the daily paper last Monday, Memorial Day. Thirty years ago (May 25) American Airlines flight 191, bound for Los Angeles, crashed at O'Hare Airport on takeoff. All 271 people on board died and two more people perished on the ground. It was the worst disaster in the history of O'Hare. I still remember seeing the terrible fire and smoke more than 15 miles away. I knew immediately that something tragic had happened. I quickly turned on the radio in my car and heard the first reports. It is one of those days you simply never forget.

Our paper featured a number of stories about various people who lost loved ones that awful day. (A move is underway to erect a memorial on the site.) Some people who were not on that flight, and had been scheduled to travel on flight 191, also noted how the last thirty years had unfolded for them. One such person is the novelist John Powers, who had just hit it big with his best-selling book, Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up? Powers was scheduled to fly to LA on flight 191 but because of a cold he chose to rest and fly the next day. The paper included a piece about his life since 1979. In looking back, now at the age of 63, Powers said, "I think we all get those kind of situations that aren't nearly as dramatic. You catch a yellow light or whatever. We all live by luck."

It is that last phrase that struck me so profoundly. I think this is the clear difference between Christians and non-Christians on these matters. Even the most ardent proponent of openness theology does not believe that we live by luck! However you understand divine providence you cannot take God completely out of the equation and still have real hope, the kind of hope that springs from complete confidence in God's loving purpose. Classical theists, and openness evangelicals, differ strongly about how they understand the nature and character of God at this point, but I am quite sure that they all disagree with John Powers' statement: "We all live by luck." I know Clark Pinnock and he does not believe that at all. To suggest that he does is scandalous misrepresentation.

Basic Christianity: The Right Approach

Yesterday, I referred to the fiftieth anniversary edition of John R. Stott's classic book, Basic Christianity. Today I return to this incredibly useful book to comment on Stott's opening chapter where he lays our what he calls: "The Right Approach."

Stott says that the first four words of the Bible are more than an introduction to the creation story or the book of Genesis. "They supply the key which opens our understanding to the Bible as a whole" (11). What these four words tell us, all interpretive issues regarding Genesis aside, is that the religion of the Bible is the religion in which God takes the initiative. Again, Stott has the ability to cut away so much that is less than central to the faith to get at what really, truly matters. Here is how he puts it:

You can never take God by surprise. You can never anticipate him. He always makes the first move. He is always there 'in the beginning.' Before man existed, God acted. Before man stirs himself to seek God, God has sought man. In the Bible we do not see man groping after God; we see God reaching after man (11).

Read that again. In a few words Stott has summarized more important biblical theology in this paragraph than most writers do in a hundred pages. He says that most people visualize a God who sits comfortably on a distant throne, aloof and indifferent. But this image is totally false. While man is lost in darkness and sin God rises from his throne and lays aside his glory and stoops to seek and to find lost men and women. "This sovereign, anticipating activity of God is seen in many ways" (11).

God is the person who takes the initiative. He created. He spoke. He acted. He redeemed. And he has spoken and acted in Jesus Christ alone. He has actually done something thus Christianity is not about a collection of religious teachings or a system of practices. It includes these but it is primarily about "the good news of God" revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Stott concludes, "It is not primarily an invitation to man to do anything; it is supremely a declaration of what God has done in Christ for human beings like ourselves" (12).

I so wish I could get most Christians to understand this simple point. Christianity is not about our work, our faith, our practices, etc. It is about God taking the initiative in his grace to rescue us in his Son, Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ!

Basic Christianity: A True Classic

No modern author has given the church a greater written treasure, at least regarding what is essential to Christianity and real faith, than John R. Stott. I have written about John R. Stott in several previous blogs over the last four years or so. I love to encourage a new generation of readers to discover the importance of his work for evangelism, apologetics and solid biblical theology. Stott's small book, Basic Christianity (first published in 1958) was recently released in a fiftieth anniversary edition, thus making it a true classic now available in a new format and special edition. I use this particular book to teach young believers. I also use it to guide those who have never had a "basic" introduction to the central truths of Christian faith, even if they've been in the church for decades. This is a book that both Catholic and evangelical readers can profit from precisely because Stott addresses the "fundamental claims of Christianity" not the polemical issues that still divide Christians.

Stott rightly claims that the fundamental question is this: "Was Jesus God?" We cannot dodge this question given the centrality of Christ's person to the faith that we believers hold dear. Is there evidence for the deity of Jesus? Is the evidence minimal or seriously flawed, or is it historically strong enough to commend it to an honest intellect? Sott says that Jesus' claims about himself are "extravagant . . . so bold and so unassuming" (Basic Christianity, 8). It is claimed that he rose from the dead thus Stott rightly concludes that "the circumstantial evidence for this resurrection is most compelling" (8). But, supposing Jesus was the Son of God is the acceptance of this fact what basic Christianity is really all about? Sott's answer, typical of the clarity of his honest insight, is "No."

Once we examine the nature of his work we must ask: "What did he come to do?" The biblical answer is that he came into the world "to save sinners." He is the Savior that all sinners need. Salvation is what he came to bring and he accomplishes this by his death and resurrection.

"Then is basic Christianity the belief that Jesus is the Son of God who came to be the Savior of the world?" Stott answers, maybe to some readers surprise: "No" (9). "To assent to his divine person, to acknowledge man's need of salvation, and to believe in Christ's saving work are not enough" (9). Stott says that our intellectual beliefs are important, indeed very important, but "we have to translate our beliefs into deeds" (9).

What then must we do? "We must commit ourselves, heart and mind, soul and will, home and life, personally and unreservedly, to Jesus Christ" (9). We must humbly trust in him as our Savior and submit to his as our Lord. Then, "we go to take our place as loyal members of the church and responsible citizens in the community" (9). "Such is basic Christianity" (9), Stott concludes.

I can't think of a better introduction, in only a few compact words and sentences, than this. And this is only in the preface of a superb book that I commend to all readers everywhere.

A "Holy Day" In America

Today is truly one of America's national "holy days." I am not saying this either as a form of judgment or of complete approval. It simple is what it is, a day to remember our national experience and the incredible sacrifice of our own to protect and defend this nation. I am grateful for the day myself. The tomb of the unknown soldier, seen at the left, still moves me very deeply every time I visit this site. I have friends who gave their lives for me and this nation. I respect and honor their sacrifice.

But I believe we who are Christians first and foremost ought to understand that this celebration is intimately connected to civil religion, a form of national religious expression that has nothing to do with the kingdom of God, at least not directly. It certainly has nothing to do with the Church and her mission to make disciples. 

Civil religious expression, like all religious expression, has gone through numerous struggles in our history. After its prolonged birth period historians discerned several elements that gave us a sense of our “religious” core. A set of “sacred” scriptures emerged: "The Constitution” (1789), “The Declaration of Independence” (1776), and speeches by famous fathers of the land; e.g., Washington, Lincoln, FDR and even JFK and Ronald Reagan in the modern era. One American historian notes that we have “religious” (civic) holidays such as July 4th, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving and even the much debated national recognition of Christmas, the most Christian of our holidays in spite of a huge modern connection of the date with commerce. Supreme Court decisions have also shaped civil religion, such as in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). Most of “these ‘core elements’ . . . . remain far distant from the realities of most citizens’ lives." But political leaders, and activist ministers, will stir up this form of national religion now and then through both words and profound symbolism. Today is such a day.

How does a missional Christian respond to such national religion? I, for one, intend to express a form of civic gratitude as I noted above. But I refuse to link all of this deeply and missionally with the kingdom of Christ on this earth or with his ordained purpose for the church. We must not confuse symbols like Memorial Day with the mission of the church, a confusion that is still all too common in America.

I am currently publishing a series on this subject as part of the ongoing ACT 3 Weekly articles that you can subscribe to for free online at ACT 3. Today the third article appears and there will be several more to follow. I believe that we need to understand how both political parties use this approach to try to unite our people. This is not a Christian Right issue, as I show in today's ACT 3 Weekly, but it also involves the rhetorical genius being employed by the current occupant of the White House as well. Christians ought to become more conversant with this social reality and understand civil religion for what it really is. If they do not see this more clearly they are very likely to equate Christian holiness with these national holy days, a mistake that is not without some major problems for our real commitment to the eternal kingdom.

A Weekend for Family

God gave me a unique and Christ-centered family heritage. My dad has been gone for twenty-three years in June and my mom passed away in November of 2007. I have one brother, almost four years older than me. He likes to remind me that he is also four years smarter. I don't tend to argue.

Like most siblings we had our share of rivalry growing up but we generally got along well, with me tagging along a great deal with the older boys. Since we were always four years apart our teachers were always comparing us in some ways. (Tom would finish elementary school, junior high school, or high school, and then I would come along, etc.) This did not create a problem but it did generate a few laughs along the way. Thomas William Armstrong (1945) was born at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, where our father was an army officer serving as a dentist during World War II. When the war was over dad and mom settled in a little place called Watertown, Tennessee. When I came along, in March of 1949, the family moved to nearby Lebanon, a town of seven or eight thousand people then. Today it is a much larger town that serves (almost) as a suburb to Nashville because of the Interstate highway system. Tom and I went to public grade school and then to Castle Heights Military Academy from seventh through twelfth grade. Tom then went to Baylor University (pre-med) and I to the University of Alabama and later to Wheaton College (history and theology). He finished medical school at the University of Tennessee (Memphis) and then began his medical practice in Huntsville, Alabama, where he still lives. I stayed in the Chicago area and the rest is history.

We have tried to keep in close touch and still talk many times a week. It is great to have a brother who loves you, loves the same Lord that you do and honors the parents you both knew so well. We are extremely grateful to be brothers in the flesh and brothers in Christ. Sharing three days this Memorial Day weekend has been a very special treat for us. The photo above was taken on Friday night at a minor league baseball game, where else? Our dad took us both to baseball games in Nashville when we were little kids. Tom still likes it, now and then, but I got the real bug and love the game at a whole different level, proving that you can see from the photo that we are related but we are also very different.

Catherine of Genoa: Discovering the Love of God

Catherine of Genoa (1447–1510), named after Catherine of Siena, was born into an illustrious family named Guelph. Two from her father’s family were popes. Her father was the viceroy of Naples, and a cousin was a member of the College of Cardinals. In 1463 she was married to Giuliano Adorno, a wealthy and very worldly individual, with whom she had almost nothing in common. (Those who praise “arranged marriage” with sentimentality, or an embrace of patriarchy, should take note!) Some ten years after marriage Catherine was converted to a contemplative life. In the same year her husband lost his fortune. With their remaining income they sought simple quarters among the poor of Genoa. Giuliano underwent what appears to be a genuine conversion and became a member of the Third Order of St. Francis. They both worked among the poor and the ill. In 1479 they left to live in the hospital and give their time in service to the sick and dying. A year later Giuliano died and in 1490 Catherine became the matron of the hospital.

Catherine became a mystic who was enabled to link her profound love of man and God to the world of practical philanthropy. She was ecstatic in feeling and original in thought. Her most important literary contributions were her Dialogues and her Life and Teachings.

In the latter work she wrote:

   

The creature is incapable of knowing anything but what God gives it from day to         day. If it could know (beforehand) the successive degrees that God intends to give     it, it would never be quieted . . . . When from time to time I would advert to the         matter, it seemed to me that my love was complete; but later, as time went on and     as my sight grew clearer, I became aware that I had had many imperfections. . . .  I     did not recognize them at first, because God-Love was determined to achieve the     whole only little by little, for the sake of preserving my physical life, and so as to         keep my behavioral tolerable for those with whom I lived. For otherwise, with such     insight, so many excessive acts would ensure, as to make one in supportable to         oneself and to others. . . . Every day I feel that the motes are being removed,             which this Pure Love casts out.

Catherine says we cannot see these imperfections since if we saw them we could not bear the sight. Because of his love and grace God allows us to see the work he has achieved, as if at times no imperfections remained. But he still works to remove them all along.

She adds that many instincts are being consumed within her so that she could see what was bad and imperfect. In the mirror of truth (which she calls as a mystic Pure Love) everything is seen as crooked which once appeared straight.

The problem, says Catherine, is our “self-will.” The answer to this problem is what she calls “Pure Love.” Pure Love “loves God without why or wherefore.” Everyday she said she loved God more and was given a key to the house of love. As a result of living in this house of love she adds that God and sin cannot live peaceably side-by-side. But the way God drives out sin and love for this life is by giving us sight, step-by-step, of the life to come.

Ultimately a deeply joyous Christian learns to live in a way that opens his or her entire heart and soul to God’s agape, that is divine love. As the recipient of such love the person becomes “Christ intoxicated.” Catherine was plainly one such person.

The Great American Religious Switch

We are a nation that “switches” a lot of personal choices. A recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says we change, or switch, our religious preferences often as well. Indeed, the AP says “we are a nation of drifters.” About half of Americans switch faith affiliation at least once during their lives.

Nothing in this report surprises anyone who has been a Christian in America for long. Brand names—Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc.—mean less and less. But the reasons for swapping do vary according to the survey. If one grows up Roman Catholic they are more likely to leave their church because they stopped believing its teaching. Many Protestants change churches too, but less because of teaching and more because of changed circumstances in one’s life. I have long felt this was the case, based purely on anecdote, so this evidence served to confirm my sense of things.

What did surprise me was the reason those unaffiliated with any religion are growing. The survey says that this demographic is growing not so much because of a lack of religious belief but because of disenchantment with religious leaders and institutions. The survey says that between 47% and 59% of U.S. Adults have changed their religious affiliation at least once. (I am in this group having moved from being a Baptist to the Reformed Church in America.) D. Michael Lindsay, a respected Rice University sociologist of religion says, “This shows a sort of religious a la carte and how pervasive it is. In some ways it’s an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there’s a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving.”

A 2007 Pew Survey found that 44% of U. S. adults left their childhood religious affiliation but re-interviews found the extent is likely much greater. The new survey revealed one in six Americans who belong to their childhood faith are “reverts.” Almost 2/3rds of those Catholics and Protestants who now claim no religious affiliation say they have changed faiths at least twice. 32% says they’ve changed affiliations three times or more. This figure is the dark underside of changing church affiliation. They more people do it the more likely they are to give up on religion altogether.

Age is also a factor in all this changing. Most people who left their childhood faith did so before age 24 while the majority joined their present religious affiliation before age 36. As the director of Pew Forum put it, “If people want to see a truly free market at work, they really should look at the U.S. religious marketplace.”

What do we make of all this change?

1. Mobility makes changing churches relatively easy. A Baptist in South Carolina is likely to become something else in Chicago. A Roman Catholic in Chicago is likely to find Willow Creek, or some similar mega-church, appealing when they marry a non-Catholic and begin to raise children.

2. Switching faiths is good and bad. Some of this demonstrates that people think for themselves and change their minds and this can be a sign of personal spiritual development and growth.

3. Many lapsed Catholics “revert” when they age and have a family. Some come to faith in evangelical churches only to return to Catholicism once they discover the depth of their tradition and value it in a new way. The Pew Forum does not track this but I experience quite a bit of it and generally find it a positive trend when people go back with a living and vibrant faith in Christ as Lord.

4. Switching faith, or church, is not nearly the concern that some make it out to be. The real question is where people end up? The evidence that an increasing number switch several times and then quit altogether is growing. This is the trend that ought to deeply concern us. And the survey underscored the primary reason might be “disenchantment with religious leaders and institutions.”