Can you Lose your Salvation?
This note has been hastily drawn up because we ran out of time in Season 2 Episode 4 of the Podcast, when Ollie and Jim discussed “Deconversion”. The big theological issue raised by stories of people walking away from their Christian profession is whether or not a child of God can be lost eternally or not.
This note (a) clarifies the underlying issue at stake; (b) sets out the basic Biblical arguments; (c) applies the Biblical argument to the de-conversion debate; (d) answers the common objection that, if we are eternally secure, then we don’t need to worry how we live; and (e) goes through the warnings in the book of Hebrews which, at first sight, seem to undermine the doctrine of eternal security.
Point A: Understanding the Core Issue
The Bible asserts on many occasions (e.g. John 10:27–29) that a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is eternally secure. In his first epistle, the Apostle John makes it clear that a believer can know that they are eternally secure. But we are still left with a tough question: can a believer be sure that once she has believed, she will always remain a believer?
So the deeper question here is: can a genuine believer lose his faith, cease altogether to be a believer and so be lost after all? Or can a genuine believer be confident that his faith will endure, prove indestructible, and that he will remain a believer and therefore be eternally secure?
Our Lord attached great importance to the parable He told about the sower (Luke 8:4-15). In Mark 4:13 He gives it a foundational status in all of His teaching. The parable describes four different responses people can make to the offer of salvation presented by the preaching of the Word of God. In the first three cases there is either no belief or a temporary, superficial belief; only in the fourth case is the seed of the Word received in the right way. The seed that falls on the path describes who Satan can thwart any response to the Word at all. The seed that falls on rocky ground describes a shallow and rootless belief that quickly reveals its superficiality. The seed that is choked by weeds describes people who attend to the Word with some seriousness, but before the Word can be received and obeyed, it is killed off by the concerns of this world, and nothing comes of it. The Lord Jesus makes it explicitly clear that people in these first three categories were never true believers. “These have no root”, he says.
In contrast, the seed that falls into the good soil describes the moment when people in an honest and good heart, having heard the Word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit with endurance. It is clear that the New Testament (John’s Gospel, in particular) uses the word “believe” in two distinct ways: there is this superficial, cognitive, response that fades away when the rubber hits the road; and there is genuine faith, which endures and which, when given the opportunity, produces fruit.
Now the work we have done so far allows us to set out the core question that underpins the entire debate over eternal security: can a sincere believer be sure that their faith will endure?
Point B: Why we can be confident that our faith will endure
The Apostle James begins his epistle with these words: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2–4).
If I was terrified that my faith might not endure, how could I possibly regard the testing of my faith as a source of joy? Surely I should be a bundle of nerves? But notice that James tells us that we know that testing will produce steadfastness.
The Apostle Paul makes precisely the same argument in Romans Chapter 5. That famous Chapter sets out how we can be justified through faith, given peace and hope because we stand in God’s grace. But that raises the core question we identified earlier: how can I be sure that my faith will endure to the end? Well, now here Paul in Romans 5:3: “More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance”.
The Apostle Peter agrees with Paul and James. He begins his epistle by addressing those of us who have been born of imperishable seed, and who are guarded by God’s power through faith. But, his reader asks, what will happen to my faith when I am tested? Aha! Says Peter. Your faith is like gold. It is such a precious thing to God that he goes about refining it. But here’s the apostle’s point: God will no more allow trials and testing to destroy our faith than a goldsmith would allow the fire of his crucible to destroy his valuable piece of gold.
How can the Apostles all be so sure that a true believer’s faith will endure? Because of three roles that the Lord Jesus fulfills. Firstly, remember that the outcome rests on the intercessory work of our Great High Priest. Peter knew all about that: there was a time in his life when it looked very much as if his faith had failed. He denied Christ with loud curses. But Jesus had told him two things beforehand: (a) that He had prayed that his faith would hold, and (b) that Peter would be restored. In John’s Gospel the Lord Jesus tells us that it is the Father’s will that He lose none of his flock. So the believer’s eternal destiny depends on Christ doing His Father’s will perfectly. That is a pretty solid ground on which to stand, isn’t it?
Imagine that moment when Christ presents His people to His Father. You are there with Paul and Mary Magdalene and Peter. And the Father asks: “Now wasn’t there a strange creature called Jim Crookes in the flock at some point?” Does anyone think our Lord would reply: “Well, he didn’t amount to very much, you know, so I didn’t manage to get him home”. It is unthinkable, because it would mean that Christ had not fulfilled His Father’s will perfectly.
The second reason we can be assured that we’ll make it home to Heaven is because of our Lord’s role as Judge. The believer does not have to wait until he stands before the Great White Throne before he hears the final verdict pronounced upon himself. Meeting Christ in this life, hearing his word and believing on him that sent him, the believer is assured by the judge himself that as far as the believer is concerned the final verdict is settled. The believer has already passed out of death into eternal life.
Now here’s the wonderful thing: since this verdict is the final verdict, it is irreversible. As Paul puts it, ‘Who shall bring any charge against those whom God has chosen, when it is God who justifies?’ (Rom 8:33). Will anyone dispute God’s verdict, or question his declaration that those who believe in Christ have been justified from all things? And if no one brings a charge there will be no case to try, nor will any charge be proved against them.
There is a a third and final reason why we can be assured that our faith will endure. We need to recall that the Lord Jesus is the Source of Life.
The work done at regeneration within the believer himself is irreversible. Human beings are born into this world as creatures of God; fallen creatures it is true, but still creatures. And even if they refuse salvation and are lost eternally, they will never cease to be creatures of God. But when a man or woman is born again, a new creation takes place. ‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come’ (2 Cor 5:17). This new creation lasts eternally. Think about it this way: stare your deepest fear in the face and ask yourself, what would theoretically happen if somehow your faith did not endure. Would you be ejected from God’s family, and have God’s life excised from your being? Would you be cut out of the Body of Christ? Those ghastly sorts of operations would be required but they are repellent because the Bible has nothing to do with them.
Point C: What about these people who de-convert?
The passage of Scripture that most evangelicals think of in the context of a “de-conversion” story is found in 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they are not of us”.
The Apostle is talking about teachers who promote such extreme false doctrines that he calls them anti-Christs. These people were professing believers, members of a church. But they started to preach heresy against the Lord Jesus Christ. And John uses their actions as a litmus test. He concludes “they were not of us”. In other words, they had never been genuine believers in the first place. He is giving us a test that any church can apply here: people who abandon the fundamental apostolic doctrines concerning the person of the Lord Jesus reveal that they were never saved in the first place.
Two fairly obvious points can be made about de-conversion from the teaching in 1 John. Firstly, we should not be in the least surprised that these sorts of incidents occur in church life. They have occurred from the earliest days of the Christian church. Our Lord Himself warned us that we would experience these sorts of moments. Paul talks of “savage wolves” who will arise from within the Christian community, determined to savage the flock. So there is no need to be alarmed. This is business-as-usual for the Christian Church. In fact, it is going to become more and more common as cultural Christianity collapses in the West.
The second point is a word of caution. We need to be very careful before we denounce anyone as a “false teacher”. What represents a “fundamental apostolic doctrine concerning the person of the Lord Jesus”? There are many disputable, secondary matters that Christians have argued over for centuries. So when Christians from different traditions come together as Gospel partners, we need to be careful not to circle the wagons too tightly in doctrinal terms. Always keep the main thing the main thing.
But what do we do with contemporary figures within Christendom who have consistently undermined the authority of Scripture for many years? Nearly all the heresies in the early life of the Church targeted the person of Christ; nearly all the heresies today target the authority of the Scriptures. But it seems to me at least that an attack on Scripture is an attack on Christ, because the Scriptures have been created to lead us to the Saviour. In the context of this conversation about de-conversion, remember that if you delete sin from Christianity, you are also deleting the need for a Saviour.
Perhaps the most gracious and wise course of action is to (a) not allow the likes of Peter Enns or Jen Hatmaker into your pulpit or your church library, and (b) offer quiet, rational, and gracious critiques of their teaching, so that church members are equipped to defend themselves. The question of apostasy is between them and the Lord. Our job is to pray – pray firstly that the damage they do will be limited, and then pray sincerely for them as individuals, recognising the psychological factors that might well be driving their behaviour. If they were never genuine believers, then we pray for their salvation. If they are genuine believers whose pride and conceit has caused them to go into a towering sulk with other believers, then we should pray that they experience restoration before they cause even more damage to innocent young believers.
Point D: So does it not matter how we live here on earth?
One of the most common objections to the theological position I have adopted in this paper (that no genuine child of God can be lost) is that it leads to the conclusion that the way believers live doesn’t really matter. It has no eternal consequences.
Let’s imagine two professing believers. One is called Bert and the other Ernie. Bert lives a life in communion with God. He is faithful in prayer; he studies the Scriptures. He works hard in various ministries in his church. Over the years his character develops so that at the end of his life Bert is a kind, big hearted, self-controlled, and wise old man. Ernie, on the other hand, relies on a childhood profession of faith. He attends church reasonably often. But his goals are entirely materialistic. He seems to value money and power more than moral qualities. At the end of his life, Ernie is a bitter old miser with a bad temper. But so what? 1 John 3:2 says: we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him. If Bert and Ernie both have some sort of magic wand waved over them after they die, did Bert’s faithful service do him any good?
In Galatians 6, Paul is writing to believers and says: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life”. Well, let’s imagine that for reasons we don’t know, God asks a farmer to plant a field of barley. But in a moment of wilful rebellion, the farmer plants a field of wheat. Well, in due time the crop grows up and the farmer stands looking at what he has done. He repents before God for having disobeyed such a clear command. And of course the Lord will forgive him, as He does any truly penitent sinner. But here’s the thing. There’s still a whacking great field of wheat outside the farmer’s front door. True believers are always promised protection from the penalty of sin. If you are a true believer then you will never face the wrath of God for your sin. But nowhere in Scripture is a true believer promised protection from the consequences of her sin. A man reaps what he sows, says Paul.
Suppose I drink a pint of methylated spirits every day. Eventually I cry out to God and ask him to forgive me. I will be forgiven. But my liver will still be wrecked. I have been protected from the penalty of my sin, but not from its consequences. One evening King David was leaning over his palace balcony and he saw a beautiful woman bathing. She was a married woman called Bathsheba. David committed adultery with her, and then, in an attempt to cover up his sin, he arranged for Bathsheba’s husband to be killed. Now David repented of his sin. He really did. You can read all about it in Psalm 51, one of the most famous prayers of repentance in all of Scripture. But the consequences of David’s sexual sin wrecked the kingdom. Just read through 2nd Samuel. David lost all his moral authority, so he couldn’t exercise judgement in his own family. And the consequences just kept rolling in until Absalom leads a rebellion against his father’s own Kingship. Reading 2nd Samuel is like watching a car crash in slow motion. The thing has so much momentum that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. David reaped what he sowed.
There’s a big principle here. If we don’t judge ourselves, then God will judge us. As a father chastens his children, God will intervene in your life. And it may involve pain. Think of the Prodigal Son. He was completely careless at the start, his conscience untroubled by the sin of leaving his Father. So God allowed that man’s life to hit rock bottom. He ended up wanting to eat pig swill. If the story of the prodigal son was told in a modern setting, I’d imagine him sitting in a dirty room in some cheap Las Vegas motel, a middle-aged man on his last bottle of gin. He wanted idolatry. So God handed him over to his own idols. And idols never fail to fail. They always crush the human heart. But, you say, the story of the Prodigal Son ends happily. Yes it does. But how many years had the Prodigal been away? “All these years” the elder son says. The Prodigal was probably middle aged when he returned. Think of the years lost to decadence and self-indulgence. All gone. A forgiven man, yes. But nothing to show for his life apart from a great golf swing.
Sin just doesn’t have consequences for this life. Think again of Bert and Ernie. A lot of evangelicals today think that at the return of Christ, God will wave some sort of magic wand and we’ll all suddenly turn into clones of Christ. Somehow, all our characters will be identically and fully like Jesus Christ. Now if that were true, what motivation would I have to make progress in this life? Why should I bother, if we’ll all be identical clones in the long run?
Listen to these chilling words from 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Paul is talking about how Christians should build their lives on the foundation of Christ. “If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames”.
If I had to ask you to think of someone who escaped by the skin of his teeth, who just escaped from the flames, I suspect you would think of Abraham’s nephew Lot, who was dragged out of Sodom just as the fire of God’s judgement fell. And I think Lot is in Paul’s mind as he writes these verses. Lot himself was saved but he got to safety by the skin of his teeth. All the stuff he had worked for in Sodom got burned up. So Paul says: If I have built my life down here with wood, hay and straw, then it won’t survive my judgement. I myself may be saved, but I’ll have built nothing that lasts for the eternal kingdom. We shall all be like Christ, what is left of us.
There will be different sizes of personality in Heaven. All believers will be like Christ, but not all will be the same size, and not all will have the same responsibilities. Only that which is produced by faith, only characteristics built from that precious and costly material, will last in the eternal kingdom. Now of course every true believer will get into Heaven. But some will be like Lot, getting in like one escaping from the flames.
Remember, entering heaven isn’t just about entering into a place. It is about entering into an experience, entering into activity. Our enjoyment, and our level of responsibility, are dependent on the qualities we have developed in our personalities.
Think of a birthday party. There is a baby with a soup spoon, spreading cream on his head. Then there is the nine-year-old, playing on the floor with trains. A sweet 17-year-old girl sits in her best dress, full of excitement because she has found out that there is more to life than trains. Mum and Dad enjoy the party at an even deeper level. By loving for so many years, learning self-discipline and selflessness, they have the capacities to find joy and meaning at an altogether more profound level. All these characters are at the party, but some enjoy it more deeply than others.
So how we live on this old earth matters. God will always forgive. But sin still matters. It has consequences for this life and for eternity.
Appendix (i) – What about those terrible warnings in Hebrews?
Historical Context
Historical context is absolutely key to understanding Hebrews. Tens of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem had ‘converted’ to Christianity during the period of the Acts of the Apostles. Many were of course genuine believers. But others seem to have only believed in Jesus as their national Messiah. So the twin ideas of (a) Jesus as the Son of God, and (b) the global scale of salvation that included the gentiles were not accepted by this large group. Today we might call them cultural Christians.
The book of Hebrews is the last chance saloon for the Jewish nation. It is written just before Jerusalem’s fall in AD70. History tells us that the nation, including the ‘cultural Christians’ chose nationalism over the Gospel. And so the Romans destroyed the system completely.
Structure of the Book
There are four terrible warnings given in the book of Hebrews. (The section on discipline in a believer’s life in 12:25-29 is not part of this series). The four terrible warnings increase with intensity. Here’s a silly illustration to explain what I mean. Imagine that a beautiful, Godly girl likes a young man. In the first scenario (1-2), he sees her from a distance, but decides to reject her. In the second scenario (3-4), he walks up to the front door, looks through the window, and then rejects her. In the third scenario (5-7), he meets the girl, talks to her, and then rejects her. In the fourth scenario (8-10), he enters the house, has a meal with her parents, really gets to know the family, and then rejects her. The point of the silly illustration is to explain the increasing intensity of the warnings. The seriousness of rejecting the Gospel increases as knowledge of who God is and what He has done for us, increases.
The first warning (2:1-4)
The risk is drifting away from what has been heard. This is rejection of the word of truth by a slow process of not being tethered to the truth of the Gospel.
The term ‘drifting away’ is one of two nautical terms in Hebrews. The other is found in 6:19-20 (the famous ‘anchor’ for the soul, which is a metaphor for faith in Christ Himself). Unless someone is rooted and secure in Christ, they will drift away from the truth they have heard.
This warning is for people who have never been properly tied up in the first place.
The second warning (4:1-11)
This passage sets up the ‘big scenario’ that the author uses as his main word picture – the moment in Israel’s history when the people refuse to enter the Promised land at Kadesh Barnea. It was Israel’s watershed moment: God had done everything for them – brought them out of slavery right up to the very border crossing into their inheritance. They could even stare across and see the promised land stretch out before them. All they needed to do was trust God and step into the land. But in a shocking moment, that generation said, in effect, “Nah!” and turned their backs on the whole scheme. They wanted to go back to Egypt.
Note that in 3:19 the sin is ‘unbelief’. Not lust, or telling lies, or being unkind. Unbelief. They refused to trust God. That was why they didn’t go in. And 4:2 and 6:6 make it clear that their unbelief wasn’t a momentary lapse, like Peter sinking in the water. It was a disbelief in the Gospel itself.
Look at 3:18 and 4:6. Is this not another reason? The issue here seems to be disobedience. But the Greek word used here (29 times in its various forms in the NT) never once is used to describe a believer’s disobedience. It always refers to people who refuse to obey or trust God and His Gospel.
The generation of Israelites who refused God at Kadesh Barnea liked bits of God’s plan. They liked escaping Egypt (at least for a while) and they enjoyed seeing Pharaoh being knocked over. But salvation is not a pick-and-mix buffet. It’s a package deal. The whole scheme is premised on trusting God. When they finally got to understand those terms, the people’s initial attraction to God’s salvation turned to dislike, and they decided to head back to Egypt.
This warning is to people who are attracted to bits of the Gospel message but who refuse to trust God with their real lives.
The third warning (6:4-12)
This warning is to people who are described in three ways. (A) they are enlightened, (B) they have tasted the heavenly gift, and (C) they have shared in (= experienced the work of) the Holy Spirit.
Let’s start with (A). What is this ‘enlightened’ metaphor about? The author is referring primarily to the Kadesh Barnea story. The people could stare across the border into the Promised Land. They could really see what their inheritance would look like. They could visualise what it would mean for them to live a life of faith in the Promised Land. It is possible to be enlightened without being saved. The incident in John 8 is crucial here: both the Pharisees and the adulterous woman saw into the very heart of God as Christ, the Light of the World, revealed Him. But the Pharisees chose to walk back into darkness, and only the woman remained. Being enlightened is not the same as being saved.
What about (B)? What is meant by the ‘tasting’ metaphor? Consider the details of the Kadesh Barnea story. The Israelites could do more than look at their inheritance. The spies brought back huge bunches of grapes, so they could taste the produce of the land without entering it. It is possible for people to ‘taste and see that the Lord is good’ without being saved. They can see and appreciate God’s goodness, His mercy and kindness, they can taste its reality, and still go “Nah!”
What about (C)? Remember these Jews had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem. People walking in Peter’s shadow, or who touched Paul’s garment, were physically healed. What about a person who has first person knowledge of a loved one’s salvation? They see a transformation that can only be explained by the Holy Spirit’s work. But they still say “Nah” to salvation for themselves.
So this awful warning is for people who see into God’s heart, who really understand Him and appreciate His goodness, and still say “Nah!” to salvation by faith alone. This is the unforgiveable sin. It’s not that God withdraws his offer of forgiveness. The text never says that! It’s that there is nothing more He can do to draw people to accept His salvation. The unforgiveable sin is the moment when there is nothing more God can do to save someone.
Note that the following verses (6:13-20) are perhaps the strongest statements made in Scripture about eternal security. Unbreakable security is a reality that every believer can enjoy.
The fourth warning (10:26-31)
There are two points to be made about verse 26, the second of which is the more important. Firstly, we know that even true believers sin (1 John 1:6-2:2). But they confess their sin and get it dealt with by appropriating the benefits of the Cross of Christ into their lives (Hebrews 9:14). So the strange term which the ESV translates as “deliberate sinning” is clearly different. From verse 26 itself we learn that the author is talking about a wilful, rebellious, reaction to revealed truth.
The more important point comes by examining verse 29. Here the nature of this “deliberate sinning” is revealed. It is the wilful decision to deny the deity of Christ and to profane his blood. In so doing, this sin denies the effectiveness of the New Covenant which is the very basis of salvation.
The OT allusion here is probably to Cain, who ‘trampled’ his brother’s blood.
So this final warning to the religious unbeliever is about the peril of insulting the Spirit of grace by profaning the blood of Christ. It is for someone who says: ‘I don’t need any of this saved by the blood nonsense. I can get right with God through my own works than you very much’.
Jim Crookes - October 2020.
Obeying the State
These notes supplement the Season 2 Episode 1 podcast called “Has COVD killed the Church?” They are really just a set of rough notes on the topic of obedience to the State. They reflect the author’s personal opinions and should not be linked to the policies or views of any church or Christian organisation
The Christian’s Relationship to the State
Christians are not political insurrectionists. We aren’t Marxist revolutionaries who use physical force to tear down the structures of oppression or injustice.
Our Lord famously said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. Crucially, in His conversation with Pontius Pilate, the Lord said “My Kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my servants would fight”.
Romans 13:1 plainly says: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” 1 Peter 2:13 explains: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men”. Now the Apostles placed no caveats on their instructions, and remember they were writing to people who would suffer under Nero.
Now that does not mean that we should withdraw from society and cover our eyes from the bad decisions political leaders take. Christians should not be silent in the face of evil. Sometimes we must speak truth to power. We can submit to governing authorities and still speak out against what is wrong. The moment when John the Baptist confronts King Herod is a good illustration of that principle.
Our main job in relation to the State is to pray for our rulers so that people can live quiet and Godly lives (2 Timothy).
Now there are some really difficult cases that Christians have to think through in extreme circumstances when a State has collapsed into anarchy, or when an evil occupying Power has rolled its tanks into a stable and peaceful nation. But we need concern ourselves with those exceptions here.
Why the Christian Position is important
We live in a culture that reduces everything to power. All of life is boiled down to a political struggle between oppressors and victims. So most non-Christians today, when they see Christians in the public square, automatically assume that the Christians are making a power play, that we are trying to defend our historical rights and privileges. So they will not examine our Truth claims. A policy of non-retaliation is the only way for people who reduce everything to power to encounter Truth. That is Peter’s main argument in his first epistle.
This debate came up in the COVID crisis when a famous pastor in the US called John MacArthur encouraged Christians to disobey the State, and meet together. I have to say that his contribution made me really uneasy. Just think of the impact of that statement on the Chinese Government. They have this paranoid fear that Christianity represents a threat to the wellbeing of the State, that Christians are basically insurrectionists. Now if they got to hear John MacArthur’s statements, their fears would be increased, and so the lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ would become even harder in China. So it is important that we never forget to show that we want to be good citizens in a society, that we aren’t just another political lobbying group making a power play. That sort of attitude will only make life difficult for other Christians – either Christians in the Global South, or the Christians of future generations who will experience a “pay back” moment in the decades that lie ahead.
An Important Distinction
The New Testament is crystal clear that we should obey the State. But the obvious question arises: how do we square their clear instructions with Peter’s equally clear principle that we should obey God rather than man?
There is an important difference between disagreeing with the State and leading a rebellion against the State. John Bunyan, the renowned 17th century pastor, refused orders from the Government to stop preaching. He was imprisoned for many years. Bunyan said of his nonviolent resistance: “where I cannot obey my rulers actively, there I am willing to lie down and to suffer what they shall do unto me.”
Imagine that the present-day Government makes it illegal to teach the Bible’s view of human sexuality in a public meeting of the church. I would courteously refuse to obey that law, but when the Police came to arrest me, I would recognise their God-given right to punish me for breaking the law. In other words, I wouldn’t loot shops or start a movement to overthrow the Government. I would simply not comply and then recognise the State’s right to punish me.
So there is an important distinction to be drawn between peaceful non-compliance and insurrectionism.
Knowing when to resist and when to negotiate
There are clearly times when we can accept restrictions placed on us by the State, and times when we must adopt a policy of peaceful non-compliance. For example, the recent Charities Commission has placed a not-insubstantial administrative burden on churches. But all of us shrugged our shoulders and did what we were told. The key question here is, what are we prepared to die for?
The book of Daniel is really helpful here. In Chapter 1, Daniel is confronted with a problem when he is instructed to eat meat offered to idols. That violated his conscience, so he came up with an imaginative compromise with the State. But in Chapter 6, in the story of the den of lions, Daniel refuses to compromise. He is prepared to die because at that point in the story, the State was seeking to stop him from worshipping God. And that was a non-negotiable principle for Daniel.
Now the State tried to stop him from worshipping as an individual. It was invading the privacy of his personal and thought life. I don’t think the closing of church buildings falls into that category. The Early Church, after all, became very skilled at meeting in homes during periods of time when they were hunted down by State officials.
Christians who argue vociferously in the political sphere for their historic rights should remember that we follow a Man who was crucified by the State. We have all the rights of a crucified man.
Jim Crookes, September 2020.
Animal Welfare
These notes supplement the Season 2 Episode 2 podcast called “Earth”. They are really just a set of rough notes on the topic of animal welfare and the ethics of eating meat. They reflect the author’s personal opinions and should not be linked to the policies or views of any church or Christian organisation
Introduction
Animal welfare covers everything from hunting animals, using them for scientific experimentation or entertainment, and the keeping of pets through to farming and fishing. The basic question of our right to use animal products for food and clothing dominates the debate, but even young adults who are not vegan do worry about the industrialised processes used to produce beef, chicken, and dairy products.
An important Distinction
In any discussion about animal welfare, an important distinction has to be drawn between so-called “ethical veganism” and “pragmatic veganism. Lots of vegans adopt their lifestyle because they are worried about the environmental impact of eating meat and dairy products. But ethical vegans are the people who say “Meat is murder”. Their lifestyle is based on moral, not pragmatic arguments.
Ethical veganism cuts to the heart of the Progressive Left’s understanding of humanity. In 1975 the philosopher Peter Singer published a book called Animal Liberation. It triggered the Animal Rights movement. Now at the time, his arguments were regarded as nutty and extreme. But Singer was something of a prophet: nearly half a century later, his book reads like a standard text book from the Progressive Left.
Singer is infamous for arguing that a pig has more moral value than a disabled child. He asserts that because he defines personhood in terms of function: the ability of a creature to communicate and reason. He completely rejected the idea that human beings were somehow special or different from other species. So he was able to argue that humanity was the oppressor species mistreating victim species. He coined the term 'Speciesism' which he said was the idea that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals.
Young believers have to be careful that their views on animal welfare don’t lead them into pantheism. Never forget the huge gulf that exists between a human being and an animal. Yes, we are part of the community of creatures. We are formed from dust. But we are also made in the image of God. We are magnificent moral, rational and spiritual creatures made in God’s image. We have souls that will last for ever. If you read Genesis 1 carefully you will see that there is as big a gulf between inanimate and animate life as there is between animals and humans.
Understanding the difference between animal and human consciousness
Obviously, farmers should never treat animals with cruelty. But even if we assume that farmers follow best practice, an emotional argument remains. And it relates to the consciousness of animals. A lot of the YouTube videos anthropomorphise animal behaviour. In other words, they project human subjectivity on to a different creature. Animal and human brains share a lot of commonality. Animals can be curious; they can show basic rationality and empathy. An atheist evolutionist sees the human brain as part of a spectrum starting with jellyfish at one end and dolphins and humans at the other. But building ethics on that position creates a logical mess.
Think of the well-known philosopher Gwyneth Paltrow. Paltrow is not a complete vegetarian. She confidently asserts that she will eat squid, but not calamari, because octopuses have lots of neurons in their tentacles, and are therefore too smart to eat. Now what sort of ethical framework can be built on the relative number of neurons in a creature’s body? I think it important to distinguish between sentience, which is a function of the brain, and human consciousness, which is a product of the human soul. We have no idea how it feels to be a cow. That’s why animal welfare is a really tricky problem to talk about.
The Christian response to animal welfare
Within the Christian worldview, we need to start by asking, what is God’s relationship to His creation? And the answer is simple: He loves it. Read Genesis 1, and note the recurring phrase. “And God saw that it was good”. God thought creation was good before we came along. He loves trees and flowers and giraffes and dolphins. One of the most moving parts of Matthew’s Gospel is when the Lord Jesus tells us that our Father in heaven watches when a little sparrow falls to the ground. Job talks about God’s care for the ravens and the lioness. One of the reasons God did not destroy the wicked city of Nineveh was because of the cattle they kept. So that gives us the right foundation. When we are called to give an account of our lives to God, one of the things He will ask us is how well did we look after the creation he loves?
The welfare of animals is an important theme that runs through the Bible. The story of Noah and the Ark is a beautiful picture of man protecting and caring for creatures. Proverbs doesn’t just command us to care for animals. It says that we should empathise with its situation. The mistreatment of animals is regarded as a wicked thing in Scripture. And all those insights into how we should treat animals are a reflection of how God feels about them.
Animal welfare is a vital area for Christians to address. Some vegans think they own the issue of animal welfare, but that is completely false. It is possible for someone who eats meat to care deeply about the issue.
What about eating meat?
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were vegetarian. They weren’t vegan, but they were vegetarian. I say that because even in Genesis 1 there is a distinction made between wild animals and livestock, so the keeping of domestic animals was part of God’s perfect world before the Fall. After the flood, God explicitly gives us the right to kill animals for food. And the only thing the New Testament does is to remove certain restrictions on the type of meats we can eat. So it is perfectly Biblical for a Christian to eat pork, for example. Our Lord Himself ate fish and he must have eaten lamb at Passover times.
In his letters, Paul talks quite a lot about the choice to be a vegetarian. He makes it clear that no Christian should look down on a fellow believer who chooses not to eat meat. But at the same time, he will not permit vegetarians to enforce their views on others, or to enjoy a feeling of moral superiority. In fact, in one of his letters, Paul highlights the attempt to enforce vegetarianism as a form of false teaching.
The Bible’s view of meat-eating is more nuanced than a simple ‘up to your conscience’ argument, isn’t it?
Yes, there are a couple of important caveats to attach to the principle of meat eating. The first is that in the Bible, God’s people always knew that they were taking the life of one of God’s creatures. Books like Leviticus are really bloody. You read details of the animal carcase being dismembered. Every part is put to use, and thanks is given to God. The Israelites were not permitted to drink the blood of the animal because the blood represented the creature’s life. The blood had to be poured out on to the ground as an offering back to God. So meat was never a “thing” to an Israelite. He was always conscious that God had allowed him to kill an animal. The problem with meat in our culture is that we think meat is a thing that comes from a Tesco fridge. So I guess the point is that Christians who eat meat should be prepared to visit an abattoir.
The second caveat is about the amount of meat that we eat. In the Bible, meat was not eaten every day. It was something associated with feasts. So, given the link between deforestation and beef production, a Christian might choose to eat meat every other day. Maybe eat fish from a sustainable source a couple of days a week, and cut down on red meat. I’m not being prescriptive here, of course. Just encouraging people to use Biblical thought forms to make their own decisions. The decisions Christians take here will depend on which part of the world they live in. Never judge those who do eat meat. Particularly those who live in the global south. A chicken is an incredibly efficient source of protein for people living in poverty, and I am sure they would be bemused by a lot of the virtue signalling wealthy westerners engage in.
Why would God allow us to kill animals for food, do you think?
If your sympathies are more on the left of politics you have to be careful that your views on the environment don’t lead you into pantheism. One of the reasons I think God has allowed us to kill animals for food in this fallen world is because the sinful heart most naturally ends up in pantheism. So it is vital that you never slip into a way of thinking that closes the huge gulf between a human being and an animal.
Veganism is a very fashionable lifestyle choice. What is the Christian view on veganism?
Well, earlier I distinguished between pragmatic vegans and ethical vegans. As far as the first group goes, Paul’s discussions about vegetarianism also apply to veganism. No one should look down on a Christian who chooses a vegan lifestyle. But the Christian vegan should not become a self-righteous moralist who carps at those of us who are not vegans. I think this is particularly important in the home. If a teenage girl wants to adopt a vegan lifestyle, then she cannot expect her parents to double their meal preparation times. Nor should she seek to persuade the rest of the family to adopt her position. Some sort of arrangement might be agreed, whereby the extra cost and time involved in preparing vegan food could be balanced with an agreement to do extra chores, for example. Chores completed with a cheerful heart.
Ethical veganism is a very different thing. I am afraid that it is anti-Biblical. It is not based on a high view of animals. It is founded on a low view of humanity. It is also completely illogical. The ethical vegan believes that she is nothing more than an evolved primate. She is biologically an omnivore. And yet she chooses not to eat other species. Why? Just about every species on the planet consumes other species. Why shouldn’t humans?
How can animal welfare be improved?
The most strategic work to be done probably relates to economics. It seems to me that the root problem in the West is that we have commoditised food production. The big supermarkets have squeezed their supply chain so hard that farmers are forced to use industrial production techniques. Now of course we would all want to eat grass-fed milk and beef, organic vegetables and so on. But at the moment those organic food lines are just a lucrative product line that plays on middleclass guilt.
And that brings us to economics. At the most basic level, we need a system that forces us to consume less and spend more of our money on sustainable food. In 1957 a typical household spent 33% of their weekly budget on food. Today it is 15%. So we have to be prepared to spend more money on food. That will mean less money spent on giant flat screen TVs and holidays in far flung destinations. I have wondered about a food tax on non-organic food, and an extra tax on imported food, because that might tip us into buying locally sourced and sustainable food. So Christian economists should be doing PhDs on these sorts of topics.
Jim Crookes, September 2020.