YWAM & Moral Government

YWAM and Moral Government

On the internet there are some Christian apologetics websites criticizing YWAM for entertaining the Moral Government Theology. Since I have been in YWAM for over 20 years, I would like to bring in my perspective. So allow me share a few thoughts.

1) The vast majority of YWAMers have never even heard of Moral Government theology.  . The way most who do hear about it is by stumbling across one of those websites critical of YWAM, and then researching on the web to find out what in the world this Moral Government Theology (MGT) is.

For example, I recently saw an email from a person who has been in YWAM for years doing effective ministry, and here is a quote:

"I have few questions from some of the things that I heard or learned in my conversation with my friends as I have been involving in mobilizing people to do DTSs. I think their concerns are pretty genuine and reasonable to respond. One of the things which concerns and disturbs me is about the teaching of "theology of moral government". I was not aware about this kind of teaching in YWAM history. I looked at some of the links and articles regarding this and learned this was a controversial issue in the past. Do we still have such teaching in any ywam locations? I am sure some of the YWAM seniors and leadership are more knowledgeable about this, therefore, I would like to get some YWAM or our leadership response article regarding this if that is possible."

2) Moral Government was popular with some main YWAM leaders back in the 70s, but by the mid 80s most of them had backed off from outspoken support of it once the controversy arose. There are still a handful of YWAM locations that to some degree teach MGT though, the main one being YWAM Tyler Texas. The main school in which some MGT is taught is called the "School of the Bible" (SOTB) which is offered at YWAM Tyler and a handful of other locations mostly pioneered by YWAM Tyler. But this number of locations is very few in comparison to the over 800 YWAM bases around the world.

The Bible School that is by far the most popular in YWAM all over the world is the School of Biblical Studies (SBS) and the related Biblical Core Course (BCC), both which tend to lean more toward the Calvinist side, stressing the sovereignty of God. That would be the opposite theologically of Moral Government which stresses man's choice.

3) Most of us in YWAM who have dug around on the internet and learned about MGT are in disagreement with it. Here is a summary given by carm.org, an excellent Christian apologetics website I have used often:
______________________________________________________

Moral government theology
A theological error that maintains that God is not immutable but changes His mind, that He does not exercise sovereign control over earthly matters, that He does not know all future events - particularly the free-will choices of individuals, etc.

Moral government theology denies that the atonement pays for our sins, denies Jesus’ substitutionary death, and denies the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. It asserts that people are capable of keeping the whole Law of God, that there is no depravity of human nature, and that salvation is up to a person’s free will choice.

The moral government theory of the atonement separates Christ's sacrifice from the legal requirement of the Law and effectively makes God's work of forgiveness arbitrary since it denies a direct relationship between Christ as a substitutionary and legal sacrifice and the ones for whom he atoned -- which in MGT, is no one.
_________________________________________________________________

But at least some MGT followers would disagree with the claims that MGT teaches all that carm.org and the critical websites say it does. So the discussion sometimes gets down to the issue of what exactly do the Moral Government people believe? Is there a difference on atonement between MGT and classic Arminianism? Some would say Moral Government goes back to Charles Finney, but his teachings differed to some degree with MGT taught today, such as the aspect of Open Theism (God in time and not knowing for certain the future). Finney was not into Open Theism. I feel like I need to watch those old Gordon Olson and Harry Conn videos to get more clarity.

Believers in Moral Government will say of course they believe that Christ died for our sins. And they most surely do. There are a number of obviously admirable & spiritual well known Christians like Winkie Pratney who believe in Moral Government Theology. But I wonder if some believe what the apologetics websites say that MGT technically teaches on the atonement.

My theory is that the centerpiece of MGT among those in YWAM who believe it is that God is in time.  They believe that Christ died for for our sins and all and trust in him for salvation.  The website carm.org makes it sound like they do not, and that does not seem to be the case.  

But believing that God is in time presents them with a problem... God would not know how many sins would ultimately be committed, and for how much sin the penalty would have to be paid.  And so the atonement of Christ has to be more a general sort of payment rather than an exact one.  So I see the problem as being a technical one, not a denial of the atonement and saving blood of Christ.  To me it would be like sentencing someone to be punished based on an estimation of what crime they probably will commit in the future since when Christ suffered for our sins many of the sins of mankind were in the future.

Most Moral Government supporters when discussing aspects of it seem to like to focus more on man's free will and the belief that God is in time and so does not absolutely know the future. (They think that if God knew the future absolutely, that would take away man's free will. I think they have yet to present a good argument as to why that would be the case.)

I totally disagree with Moral Government Theology and Open Theism.  To me it reduces God to someone who is limited and can be surprised.  One well known YWAM leader I talked to (who lovingly disagrees with MTG) said, "Oh yes, I'm sure God wakes up each morning and says, "I wonder what's going to happen today?!"  

We sometimes read scientific articles about how time travel could be possible if we could travel faster than light and other more complex theories... and yet these people think that  even God himself who created time has not been able to figure out how to do it!  

All the same I have respect and admiration for a number of people who I know who take this theological position.  The ones I know have had great ministries, clean hearts and great dedication to God.  My theory is that we all have our theological blind spots and this is theirs!   I keep trying to figure out what mine is... every now and then I adjust some minor theological position hoping I have found it and made the proper adjustment!

Some may find that this Wikipedia quote better explains it all (or better shows the discussion is not obviously black and white as some may think.)  Below that is a statement from YWAM issued 25 years ago.  I hope this all brings some more clarity.  Feel free to comment and I will gladly adjust this blog for better accuracy should that be needed.

- Dave Brodie
________________________________________

The satisfaction view argues that Christ made satisfaction to the Father for the sins of mankind by His sacrifice on the Cross, penal substitution theory argues that Jesus received the full and actual punishment due to men and women, while the Christus Victor view emphasises the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the Devil.

By contrast, governmental theory holds that Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through the suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received.

On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to "pass over." This view is very similar to the satisfaction view and the penal substitution view, in that all three views see Christ as satisfying God's requirement for the punishment of sin.

However, the government view disagrees with the other two in that it does not affirm that Christ endured the precise punishment that sin deserves or paid its sacrificial equivalent; instead, Christ's suffering is seen as being simply an alternative to that punishment. In contrast, penal substitution holds that Christ endured the exact punishment, or the exact "worth" of punishment, that sin deserved; the satisfaction theory states that Christ made the satisfaction owed by man to God due to sin through the merit of His propitiatory sacrifice).

It is important to note, however, that these three views all acknowledge that God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted. By contrast, the Eastern Orthodox view, which the proponents of that view maintain was also held in the early Church, states that Christ died not to fulfill God's requirements or to meet His needs or demands, but to cleanse humanity, restore the Image of God in humankind, and defeat the power of death over humans from within.
_________________________________________

When controversy arose about YWAM's connection to Moral Government Theology in the 1980s, these statements were issued by YWAM leaders in 1988:
_________________________________________________________________

A STATEMENT ABOUT MORAL GOVERNMENT

By YOUTH WITH A MISSION

(Originally drafted in 1988)

Since its inception in 1960, God has blessed the work of Youth With A Mission. We are deeply thankful for the thousands of people all over the world who have found a place of service in YWAM and the many thousands more who have grown through teachings given in our schools and on outreaches.

We are also grateful for those who have come to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior in over 200 countries where our teams have ministered since 1960.

However, we wish to address an area of concern that has existed in our mission. We want to clarify the correction God has brought to us, and make ourselves accountable to the wider Body of Christ.

Although many were coming to know Christ in the 1960s through our work, we became increasingly concerned about the lack of content in the message we were presenting in our evangelistic outreaches. Many of our converts did not understand what it meant to repent of their sins. This was reflected in their lack of holiness and disobedience to the word. Our approach to evangelism encouraged a kind of "easy-believism" that made us ashamed of the fruit of our evangelistic efforts.

During this time God led some teachers to our mission with a strong emphasis on repentance, the lordship of Christ and human responsibility for sin. Some of these men taught from a Wesleyan theological framework. We found their teaching to be a great blessing as it answered questions for many of us who were hungering for something deeper from the Lord. It also brought much needed depth in the Gospel message we were preaching in our evangelistic outreaches. It answered the questions of university students educated in the humanism of 60s campuses where all moral truths were loudly denied.

The emphasis on responsibility also met the needs of many young people who were coming to us from the Jesus movement and hippie-type backgrounds.

This theological emphasis was called "Moral Government", a term used commonly by Theologians and preachers in the last century. It is a term commonly found in Charles Finney's writings. This teaching stressed God's rule over individuals' lives and freedom either to accept or reject the Gospel. We added this emphasis to the message we had always affirmed concerning Christ's deity, virgin birth, His substitutionary death On the cross, the universal sinfulness of the human family, and salvation and eternal life through faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross, as validated by His bodily resurrection.

Unfortunately, we went beyond receiving helpful teaching and fell into a spirit of theological argumentativeness. Some of us seemed to enjoy aggressively debating those who did not agree with our particular understanding of theology. We sincerely regret this. We understand how
wrong this was and how it grieved the Holy Spirit.

Pastors and teachers in the Body of Christ pointed out the need for correction and change. Subsequently, our international board of directors (called the International Council) confessed our sins of indulging in a spirit of religious controversy and asked God's forgiveness. At an international counsel meeting in the autumn of 1979, we repented of our proud and divisive attitude and the resulting theological imbalance. We now recognize a place in our mission for those from both Wesleyan and Calvinistic backgrounds. We have asked God to forgive our mistakes, immaturity, and sinfulness. We ask all who have been offended by these developments to forgive us.

We long to be balanced and biblical in our teaching and practice. We welcome all who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and who hold the Bible to be God's infallible word. We are called to be a missionary movement and we do not want to be sidetracked from missions and evangelism by theological controversy or imbalance.

A booklet has been written and self-published about Youth With A Mission that alleges there is currently serious theological error in our organization. We can appreciate the alarm of those who have read this book.

We were alarmed ourselves when we saw its claims. However we find the book highly inaccurate and very misrepresentative. We take exception with its statement that there are those in our mission who do not believe Christ's death on the cross was for our sins, and that He did not die in our place, taking the punishment we deserve. We know of no one in Youth With A Mission who denies that fundamental truth of the Gospel.

We are saddened that the booklet continues to be distributed even after we met with the author to express our commitment to being balanced and biblical and our openness to reasonable and mature correction.

There is genuine freedom for theological diversity within our mission today. We are truly an interdenominational Organization. We have people from all Evangelical theological traditions. As long as they have a sound view of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, they are welcome in Youth With A Mission.

The great majority of YWAM's 6,6OO full-time workers around the world have never been involved in these issues. Most have joined since 1985.

The problem of theological imbalance in our mission in the past centered around three theological issues; original sin, the atonement, and the foreknowledge of God. All three of these positions were a reaction to an extreme form of Calvinism. In each instance, we were concerned to affirm the free will and responsibility of the individual and to lift up the greatness, holiness, and righteousness of God.

We believed all persons are sinners - that was obvious to us both from the Scripture and from observing human fallenness. We have no hesitation then or now in affirming that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and that we are "by nature children of wrath" like the rest of the human family (Romans 323 NIV, Ephesians 2:3 NKJV) However, we felt it important to emphasize every person's part in ratifying Adam's rebellion.

If we emphasized man's sinful nature without also stressing every individual's choice to sin, there would be theological imbalance and neglect of certain parts of God's Word. For example, note the last part of Romans 5:12
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death
through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." (NKJV,
emphasis ours)

This was in no way an effort to deny human fallenness nor to say that man could save himself by his good works. Just the opposite was true--it was an attempt to emphasize humankind's responsibility for our sinful state

Original sin then became to us a description of the universal sinfulness and rebellion of all people, but not an excuse for sinning. We found there to be no scriptural basis to believe that because sin entered the world through Adam, a person could blame his sinful actions on Adam-although we actually heard people doing that.

We also wanted to emphasize that an individual truly could accept or reject God's grace and that human free will was not an illusion. We wanted to help people see that it was human actions, not God's, that were responsible for the suffering and evil on this planet.

We reacted adversely to the teaching that His death was an exact payment for the elect alone, and that they had no free choice over the matter. We emphasized that Christ's death was a general payment for the sins of all who would respond to the call of the Gospel.

In retrospect, we see that some with a Calvinistic view of the atonement misinterpreted our rejection of a literal exact payment theory of the atonement (Christ died only for the sins of those predestined to be saved) as a rejection of the substitutionary death of Christ. We did not believe that His death was simply a moral influence on humankind, but that He took
the sins of the whole world upon Himself.

Today there are people in our mission who affirm Wesleyan theories of the atonement and those who hold to Calvinistic theories, We all agree that it is not one's view of the atonement that will save you, but Christ's death on the Cross.

Lastly, we found great excitement in realizing that the Almighty God chose to allow Himself to be affected by human choices. He is truly a personal God. When God declared that He would judge a nation, and subsequently that nation repented. God responded graciously. Whatever words one uses to describe this marvelous fact, God actually responds to our choices and our
prayers.

Questions do arise out of this view about the foreknowledge of God. To believe that God gives all people a free will and that He responds to our choices does not lessen God's greatness. This view increased our awe of God and His infinite ability to respond to all the actions and reactions of a planet of human beings exercising their freedom of choice for and against God.

Our love for God grew as we came to the conviction that He chose to create humanity in His image and endow humankind with the ability to accept or reject His love and grace We saw how profound and tragic is the grief that comes to God's heart because of sin. Every choice we make affects God deeply (Genesis 6:5-6 Genesis 3:12, Romans 2:3-4~ II Corinthians 7;10).

We came to the belief that prayer was not only for our benefit. God in His great wisdom and generosity allows His people to participate with Him in affecting the course of human history through intercession and prevailing prayer (Jeremiah 18:1-12, James 4:1-l0).

We marveled that God invites us to join with Him through prayer to influence the choices others make This is a mystery that cannot be explained by human beings an absolute sovereign God allows those whom He created a certain realm of freedom. Through the obedience and intercession of the saints a spiritual battle is waged for the souls of men and women. This spiritual conflict is not a mockery; it is real. The spiritual destiny of lost people can be affected by our obedience.

Whatever our view of God's foreknowledge and the mystery of human free will in relation to God's sovereignty, we all agree that God is absolute in His power an infinite in His wisdom and knowledge, and that He truly has given each of us responsible free will. He is never surprised by anything a person does. Nothing can take away from God's sovereignty. There are simply some things about God we cannot explain.

We hope this paper clarifies why there has been a basis for controversy over these issues in the past.

To summarize, the International Council of Youth With A Mission has clarified our commitment to sound doctrine in our own Statement of Purpose (see enclosed). We also affirm the Lausanne Covenant published by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (5950 Fairview Road, III Fairview Plaza, Suite 202, Charlotte., NC 28210). These statements of mission and faith make it clear that all people have sinned, that Christ died for the whole human family and that God's power and knowledge are infinite.

We are deeply regretful for our immaturity and sins of the past, and greatly aware of our need for correction and teaching. We have sought to state clearly our beliefs in this paper. We affirm the historical truths of the Church. We also affirm the wisdom and importance of theological diversity within the confines of loyalty to God's Word. We believe God has not disclosed full understanding of Himself or His Word to Youth With A Mission, or to any one person or group, and that we as Christians need each other for wisdom and balance. This is one reason we insist that every YWAM staff member belong to a local church.

Youth With A Mission is not a perfect instrument of God's Will - we have many weaknesses, both past and present--but we want to please the Lord. We welcome constructive criticism, correction, and encouragement. It is our prayer that God will help us serve Him in humility and righteousness, and that we will be faithful to His calling upon us as a mission.

For the International Council of Youth With A Mission,

Loren Cunningham
President and Founder
Youth With A Mission

________________________________________________________