Strong Delusion
In order to complete my M.A. in Church History/Historical Theology, I had to take an Essay Exam, and one of the topics to be written on was that I had to select what I thought were the 3 most important developments in Christianity during the Modern Period (c. 1650-present), explain why I chose those three developments, and explain their emergence, significance, and their lasting impact on Christianity. The article which follows, which I have entitled “Strong Delusion,” is the essence of my answer. It discusses the following three developments in Protestant Evangelical Christianity during the Modern Period: (1) the supposed need for a dramatic, convincing conversion story or a crisis-conversion; (2) the supposed requirement to know without a doubt that you are saved; and (3) the globalization of Easy Believism or Security-in-Sin.
The reason I selected these three developments in Christianity during the Modern Period as being the most important is because of the negative (and potentially deadly) combined or cumulative effect I believe they have had upon Christianity, myself included. Understanding how they developed is helpful in escaping their negative influence.
1. The first development is the supposed need for a dramatic, convincing conversion story or a crisis-conversion:
Although a person could point to incidents in church history prior to the Modern Period where conversions of this sort might be seen,[1] expectations and ideas concerning what subjective elements a ‘true conversion’ consists of really began to be spread into the non-English Puritan Protestant community (e.g. to German & Dutch Reformed and German Lutheran Pietists) during the Modern Period. The practice of journaling & then publishing spiritual autobiographies & using Conversion Narratives as a test for church membership ended up becoming widespread amongst English Puritan Independents (i.e. Congregationalists) who reached the height of their influence during England’s Commonwealth period (1649-1660).
Because the Puritans’ spiritual writings were translated into other languages and spread abroad, they not only influenced the piety and thought-life of people in England (such as John Wesley), but that of people living elsewhere in Europe as well. Puritan literature containing conversion stories were published and widely read amongst Protestants as a genre of literature. When this literature was read, it put ideas in people’s minds about what the typical pattern of conversion was, or what subjective elements a ‘proper’ conversion ought to consist of—what being ‘born again’ normally feels & looks like, and in their minds, it did not include water baptism. Particular Baptists held to these Puritan ideas about conversion, too, and after a person had told their conversion story to the congregation (it was a requirement to do so if the person wanted to be a full-fledged member), the people of the congregation would then vote on whether or not they felt that the person’s story was genuine. If the account of the conversion was convincing to the majority, then the person would be baptized to become a member of the local church because they had been saved, but not in order to be saved. Such ideas on Christian conversion/regeneration also influenced the Pietists, who influenced the Moravians, who interacted with devout Anglicans, etc.
By such means, around the time of the First Great Awakening, the Puritan Conversion Narrative became the Evangelical Conversion Narrative. Dramatic conversion stories & emotional, subjective religious experiences characterized Puritan/Pietist/Evangelical Christianity. But the tendency to focus on this sort of thing and then expect every true Christian to have had a similar experience was a new development. It was not something that had always been held to by all Christians everywhere. Many Protestants began to think that to be “born-again” was to experience a crisis-conversion that could be marked off in time and recounted to others, but it did not have anything to do with the rite of Christian baptism. In the case of those who had been ‘made’ Christians by infant baptism and had subsequently had a ‘conversion experience’ as believers, they thus became a ‘new kind’ of Christian–a ‘born again Christian.’ And of course, this concept of conversion has had a lasting impact on Christianity to the extent that many Christians today no longer consider water baptism (of any kind) to be necessary. This is a serious departure from original Christianity which taught that, in the normal course of things, water baptism was necessary to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). It is a development that, simply by itself, could very possibly have a devastating eternal impact. But there is more…
2. The second development is the supposed requirement to know without a doubt that you are saved (i.e. in a ‘state of grace’):
The popular idea that if you are not 100% sure that you are saved, then you are 100% lost seems to have really blossomed in the Modern Period amongst the Pietists. Many Pietists, like August Herman Franke,[2] began asserting that ‘genuine’ conversions were subjective, datable, “break-through” experiences that were always preceded by a lengthy time of agonizing repentance (and had nothing to do with water baptism), and this was much like the Puritans. But then, in Germany, in 1727, a wealthy landowner and devout Lutheran Pietist named Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf[3] had given refuge to a large group of Moravian refugees from Eastern Europe. While living on Zinzendorf’s property, members of this group (which was a radical offshoot of the Hussites) reportedly had spiritual experiences and dramatic conversions of pentecostal intensity. After struggling with anxiety and doubt about their salvation, some of the young girls received unusual assurance of God’s grace. They reported that all anxiety and doubt was instantly taken away, and their experiences were then written down as a devotional practice. This convinced Zinzendorf that full assurance was indeed possible, but he allowed for a time gap between the moment of actually being justified and the moment of receiving 100% assurance of it. Also, Zinzendorf himself did not quite buy into the Puritan model of conversion that was commonly touted as normative by his fellow Pietists (i.e. being necessarily preceded by a long penitential struggle). Instead, Zinzendorf asserted that a true conversion could be quick & happy, or joyful & casual, and the Moravians were influenced by his thought. Thus, the Moravians came to hold ideas about conversion similar to the Puritans and Pietists, although their thoughts concerning salvation assurance and the penitential struggle had changed somewhat. The Moravians eventually came to believe that the coveted breakthrough experience came by way of stillness and contemplating the bodily sufferings of Christ, with no anxious striving required.
In 1738, in London, England, a group of Moravians established The Fetter Lane Society for the purposes of Christian discipleship and accountability. The leadership of this Society was distinctly Moravian, but most of their members were devout Anglicans, including the Holy Club members John & Charles Wesley and George Whitefield. These famous Anglican men were influenced by their fellowship with the Moravians and reportedly experienced a powerful, Pentecost-like moving of the Holy Spirit in at least one meeting. This was welcomed by John Wesley, but the Moravians in London not only believed that all true conversions were crisis-conversions, they also insisted that instantaneous full assurance was necessarily granted (at the very moment of initial justification) to those who had been truly saved. The Moravians in England did not believe in degrees of faith, but rather a complete faith accompanied by confident assurance. If a person had a trace of fear or doubt about their salvation, this was a sign that they lacked both faith and salvation.
John Wesley was influenced by these ideas, at least for a season of his life. In fact, in 1738, he journaled and published his personal experience in which he reportedly arrived at full assurance, and this has subsequently been reported as having been his ‘conversion’ (and at the time, Wesley apparently thought it was, too). But, after rethinking things and talking to Moravians in Germany (who differed somewhat from the Moravians in England), his thoughts concerning the supposed necessity of all true conversions to be accompanied by instantaneous full assurance soon changed, which led to a split between him and the Moravians in England. Concerning the place in his journal where he had described his 1738 Aldersgate experience as having been his conversion, in 1774 Wesley went back to that 1738 journal entry and added the commentary: “I am not sure of this.” This reflects his mature view that allowed for degrees of faith and it shows that his views concerning the absolute necessity of assurance had changed as well. It was not very long after his famous Aldersgate experience in 1738 that Wesley came to publicly disagree with the Moravian insistence that justification had to be accompanied by instantaneous full assurance and that communion had to be withheld from those who did not have that full assurance. When Moravian leaders insisted that the way to acquire faith (i.e. a ‘saving’ faith which was supposedly necessarily unwavering) was to simply wait upon God without employing any means of grace (such as worship, prayer, listening to sermons, partaking of communion or doing good works), Wesley felt compelled to challenge such assertions in two sermons in 1740. He was wary of the antinomianism that the Moravian stillness doctrine made room for. As a result, Wesley was no longer welcome at the Fetter Lane Society, but the Moravian’s spirituality and practices continued to influence the many Anglicans who remained in association with them, whether these Anglicans were of the Calvinistic or Arminian variety and whether the conversions reported were lengthy & agonizing or quick & easy. The reporting of these spiritual experiences stimulated revival. Those who were exposed to these conversion stories tended to have similar spiritual experiences (sometimes people reported having multiple conversions), and once they had the desired ‘experience,’ they were strongly discouraged from ever entertaining doubt concerning their salvation. But might there ever come a time or situation in which it is appropriate for a person to examine themselves (2 Cor 13:5, 1 Cor 11:28) as to whether or not they are actually in a saving state of grace, especially considering this next development?
3. The third development is the globalization of Easy Believism or Security-in-Sin:
The most visible marker in time for this development in the Modern Period would seem to be in 1949 with Billy Graham’s Los Angeles Crusade. Billy Graham was originally a Presbyterian, but he then became a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist Convention is a Calvinistic Baptist organization (i.e. in the Reformed Baptist/Particular Baptist tradition), and it is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. In 1950, Billy Graham, the world-renowned evangelist, formed the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), which had immense financial resources. The BGEA employed the best communication tools & techniques known to exist and tried to avoid conflict with other varieties of Christians; it took its message all over the world and left the mark of this particular version of the American revivalist tradition on every continent.
The earlier “crisis-conversion” preachers/revivalists of the Modern Period (who believed in “waterless” conversions) taught that it was necessary for Christians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling to make their calling and election sure. In fact, Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement leaders (such as Thomas Campbell and Isaac Errett) specifically list or mention this emphasis on the necessity of righteousness, holiness and good works as being something that was (at one time, i.e. in their day) shared by all Evangelicals. Revivalists of the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings (such as John Wesley and Charles Finney) who preached that people could be ‘born-again’ without being baptized in water as repentant believers would at least still emphasize the necessity of righteous living and producing good fruit, even if it was thought (by Calvinists) to merely prove that a person had been genuinely born-again/regenerated. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, the earlier evangelists taught the necessity of persevering in the way of godliness until death.
But Billy Graham (and others like him) mostly focused on conversion or simply ‘getting saved.’ Repentance might have been mentioned, but that was usually just connected with initial salvation/conversion. Once those seeking salvation had done whatever the evangelist told them they needed to do to “receive Jesus” (which was just about anything besides being baptized), they were very often told that they were then “saved” and that they should never doubt their salvation in the future. This sort of evangelism brought about an increase of easy-believism in Christianity and made people think that no enduring change was necessary on their part. If they were to “fall away,” into a life of carnality and sin, it would merely mean that they were severely backslidden. They may have fallen out of fellowship with God, but the saving family relationship would always remain intact. Once a son, always a son. The important thing was that they had had ‘the experience’ or ‘received Christ’ and that was all that was really needed; no sin–no matter how heinous–can separate us from Christ. Or some might say that a person has to at least continue to maintain faith in Christ (a ‘head faith’ only), although Charles Stanley, who was at one time the president of the Southern Baptist Convention seems to think that even if Christians completely lose their faith that they will still retain their salvation. He wrote:
The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.[4]
Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy….believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful.[5]
It is not lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, or being unfaithful that sends people to hell. It is rejecting Christ, refusing to put their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sin.[6]
According to this view, once it has been received, salvation/justification is a done-deal and there is no need for a person to ever doubt their salvation no matter how evil, ungodly, and faithless their subsequent lives might become. After all, salvation assurance is very important! This is a soft Calvinism/Augustinianism that teaches preservation (no matter what), rather than perseverance. Whereas the Puritans, Pietists and Moravians stressed the need for a Christian to persevere in good works & obedience, this soft brand of Calvinism (or Augustinianism) does not. It allows for license, and any talk of the need for obedience is usually slandered as teaching a ‘works salvation’ or as legalism. Such soft, liberal teachings often make people feel comfortable living like hell while claiming heaven as their home. Such a message makes people feel comfortable living in ways that the New Testament clearly says will lead to eternal separation from God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8; 22:15). Therefore, with this development, not only were people being told that water baptism was unnecessary, but they were also being told that obedience was unnecessary and that a person can still be 100% sure of their salvation even while they are continuing to live in sin.
This Billy Graham style of gospel is not the gospel of the kingdom of God that was preached by Jesus and His apostles, but yet it has been preached around the world, and it includes: (1) the use of psychological pressures & techniques to bring people to an emotional crisis-conversion with no Christian water baptism required; (2) the stress on salvation assurance: i.e. that it is extremely important to never doubt that you are saved; and (3) the strong emphasis of antinomian prone doctrines such as Justification by Faith Alone and Unconditional Eternal Security, doctrines which make room for easy-believism or security-in-sin at its worst. These are corrupt developments, and it is simply amazing that the very people who preach such a message often complain about the bad fruit they see amongst those who have believed their message and then dare to live it out to its logical conclusion! The people who have preached such a message around the world then bemoan the rampant Easy Believism that they themselves have made room for in their hearers’ minds through their unsound teachings. These preachers who act as if they are guides to the blind or lights to those who are in darkness are baffled as to why those to whom they have taught such a message do not bother to come to church, have no desire to be baptized, and continue to live in sin that grace may abound. But Jesus said that when the blind lead the blind, both fall into the same ditch (Mt 15:14/Lk 6:39). And so, in my opinion, this bad fruit is the logical result of these baffled teachers having rejected the ancient faith that was once for all delivered to the saints in preference to teachings that are mere innovations, and “for this reason God” has sent “them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes 2:11-12).
Notes
[1] Earlier examples might include the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus; Augustine’s conversion story; Francis of Assisi’s profound religious experience that led him to embrace a life of poverty; Luther’s ‘tower experience’/conversion story; or the initial emergence of the confessional diary as a literary genre among the English Puritans and the use of the Conversion Narrative Test amongst English Puritan Independents during the late Reformation Period.
[2] A German Pietist who was successor to Phillip Jacob Spener and founder of the University of Halle.
[3] Zinzendorf had been influenced by medieval mysticism and was the godson of Phillip Jacob Spener and the student of August Herman Franke.
[4] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 74.
[4] Ibid., 93, 94.
[6] Ibid., 70.