Easy
Believism?? 
It
was bound to happen. Evangelism and
Evangelicalism generally taught the same message to Americans, a message that came
to permeate American society. American
Christianity, especially in the Second Great Awakening, and in the revivals
that followed, emphasized that the way to Christ is by faith. The message was preached in country
churches, in city cathedrals, in brush arbors, on street corners, and was
carried from house to house. America
was defined by revivalism. The message
was democratic and egalitarian, and fit America perfectly.
In
the excitement of revivalism, however, the sturdy Calvinism of the Reformation
was an embarrassment. How could the
egalitarianism of America be squared with the predestinarianism of the
Reformation? New England Theology led
the way in attempting the integration.
The result was Unitarianism, which came to dominate the universities. On the popular level it was free will
arminianism. Man had a free will, it
was thought, and every man had the ability to choose to be a Christian. Charles Finney and others believed that if
the “sale” were made properly, every man and woman would become a Christian,
especially children whose wills were still impressionable. American evangelicalism had no doubt that
only God could save a man, but there was also no doubt that man must make the
first move. It was man’s free choice
that triggered the power of God so that he could be a Christian. Thus the advertising agent became the mover
and shaker in evangelism.
I
remember my family, lined up on the front pew of an evangelical church, along
with a cousin who was staying with us at the time. The minister went down the line, asking each of us, “Do you
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?” Upon our affirmation we were immediately
bustled off to a back room, made to put on robes, and were dunked in the
baptistery.
And
so millions heard this Gospel, walked the sawdust trail, and professed
Christianity. But as this writer
frequently heard as a boy, very often it didn’t “take.” There were “lapsed” Christian everywhere. The formula had been followed; the words had
been uttered, but very many lived far from Christianity, even abandoning the
church. Many professed strange
doctrines and cults, and denied Christ in works and in doctrine. At Wednesday night prayer meetings, prayers
were offered frequently for Mr._________ or Mrs. ___________ who had been saved
years ago, but were now “walking afar off.”
And, of course, there were frequent prayers for another revival. A corollary of this was criticism that the
church for not “paying the price” for revival.
In
the years that followed, huge numbers of people abandoned traditional churches
for glamorous and “lively” churches that made Christianity “alive and
relevant.” The bar was lowered, and
fewer and fewer demands were made upon the lives and the doctrines of those who
attended.
What
was to be thought of such things?
Controversies arose among evangelicalism. Were such lapsed people true Christians? Hadn’t they accepted Christ and confessed
Him openly? On one side were the
“Arminians.” “Of course they aren’t
Christians. The will is free, and
people can walk away from Christ if they want to. If they don’t live holy lives they will be lost. These people were saved, as God promised,
but they have lost their salvation.”
In some of these circles, people were saved several times, sometimes
baptized several times, hoping to get it right, or until they gave up, saying,
“I tried to be a Christian, but I can’t live the life.”
On
the other side were the “Calvinists.”
They agreed with the Arminians on free-will, and agreed that such people
were really saved, but insisted that such were still saved, no matter what the
fruits in their lives. Most did not
realize that only a tiny remnant of the Reformation remained in their theology,
and that their view of faith was as shallow as the “Arminians.” I suppose that few issues have caused such
an emotional debate in evangelical circles than the debate between the “once
saved always saved” people, and those who think people can lose their
salvation.
I
heard a new phrase in my late teens. There
was a shift in the thinking of some of the more serious evangelicals. The evils of those who “lapsed” from the
faith would be cured if we warned people of the dangers of “easy believism.” People needed to be told to repent. It wasn’t easy to go to heaven, and people
needed to be told to make a greater effort.
It seemed attractive, for certainly there were many warnings in
Scripture, and even James had said, “Faith without works is dead.” The message was that “easy” believism does
not save. You still hear the phrase
today.
But
what is the alternative to an “easy believism”? a “hard” believism? Are true Christians those who have built
their faith up, worked hard at it, until their faith was hard and tough enough
to get the attention of God? Did Christ
really mean to say, “Blessed are the tough, for they shall inherit the earth?”
and “Blessed are the strong in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven”? Is the message of the Gospel
this: that men are saved when they join enough of their sincerity and tenacity
to the work of the Holy Spirit? What is
enough sincerity? How much tenacity is
enough?
The
problem is that those on both sides of the debate were operating on a wrong
view of faith, essentially a humanistic one.
They both thought that faith is an ability within the natural strength
of any man. Because faith was taught to
be a natural power, anyone could exercise it, and if they did so sufficiently,
God would add His strength. Men looked
to faith itself, rather than to the proper object of faith, Jesus Christ.
It
is true that the energy to lay hold on God is faith--but not just any sort of
faith. The Apostle Paul put it
distinctly in Ephesians 2:8-10: “For
by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift
of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast. For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them.”
It is faith which is the gift of God—a supernatural power by the Holy Spirit.
who calls a man by the Gospel to Jesus Christ, who is the only Savior of
men. Faith is the first manifestation
of new life in Jesus Christ, a fruit of the Spirit, not of the flesh.
Humanist
doctrine perverts the teaching of the Bible and teaches me to look to my
faith. This leads either to
self-satisfaction and complacency, or to disillusionment and despair. The Biblical doctrine teaches me to look to
Christ in the Gospel and to lay hold on Him, and to have no confidence in the
flesh. Christ alone is my
salvation. The perversion that trusts
in faith even exists in some small pseudo-reformed circles, where the purity of
doctrine (faith) is taught to be the mark of regeneration.
The
promises of the Gospel are not self-help formulas, but are to those who are
without strength. It comes to those who
are dead in sins, to those who are the poor of the earth. It breathes life and vigor into the dead
bones, into the weak and needy. The energy
that does this is not natural. It is
the vigor that flows to the branches from the Vine, from Jesus Christ, the
Savior of the Church.
“Come
unto me,” says the blessed Savior, “and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I
am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” Come, not to your faith; but to Christ,
where the bankrupt finds riches, the weak find strength, and the needy find
mercy. Christ is made unto us wisdom
and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. “I believe, help thou my unbelief,” was the prayer of the father
in Mark 9:24.
“Easy
Believism” or “Hard Believism”? It’s
just a humanist quarrel, after all.
Biblical faith brings no human power, because it is the gift of God, the
work of the Holy Spirit. It is powerful
enough to storm the gates of hell, save a man from the wrath of God, unite him
to Jesus Christ, and bring him safe through to glory. Hallelujah!!