About Svigel

Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, author, husband, father.

Will God Annihilate the World? Part IV

(…Continued from Part III)

A Plea for Redemption, not Annihilation

Besides the exegetical concerns discussed in this essay, several other theological and historical matters should be brought to our attention.

I would like to especially appeal to my fellow premillennialists (whether dispensational or not), asking them to reconsider their belief in a re-created heavens and earth. Premillennialists of all people should stand against the “disposable world” perspective precisely because of their premillennialism. They ought to believe that Christ’s reign on this present world for a thousand years will remove the curse, spread the glory of God throughout the planet, and “Re-Edenify” the world. It seems strange that premillennialists, then, would teach that this same renewed world will be sent to God’s trash heap by annihilation and completely replaced by “Earth 2.0.” Those who view the release of Satan from the Abyss and his subsequent rebellion do not see God’s judgment on the Dragon and his armies in Revelation 20:7–10 as another period of tribulation like the seven-year conflagration that had ushered in the millennium. Rather, the rebellion of Satan and the final resurrection should be viewed as a “comma” within the eternal reign of Christ at the end of its first thousand years . . . not as an exclamation mark that ends Christ’s reign and the world. Why would God spend one thousand years removing the curse, perfecting creation, and re-populating the earth, only to destroy all matter and start over? This does not fit God’s ultimate plan of redemption.

And redemption is the key word. God’s plan is not one of surrendering to the destructive work of Satan and fallen humanity. Rather, His plan is to reverse the degeneration of creation through resurrection and regeneration. As our human bodies have been redeemed and will be resurrected and glorified, so the physical world will be redeemed, restored, and glorified at the return and reign of Christ (Romans 8:18–25). God’s redemptive purpose would be thwarted if He were to simply annihilate this creation and re-create it ex nihilo. It would mean that Satan succeeded at destroying God’s creation after all, and that God was either unable or unwilling to redeem creation through Christ. At stake is the ultimate cosmic defense of the goodness and greatness of God! At stake is the only Christian theodicy—that through Christ’s redemptive work this wicked, fallen universe will be reclaimed, restored, and glorified in a way that leaves no doubt that God is, in fact, all-powerful and all-good in spite of the millennia of distortions and degenerations experienced because of the Fall.

This view is also consistent with a proper incarnational Christology and all that this profound truth implies. The permanent character of the incarnation of Christ should itself be viewed as a promise that true deity is now inextricably connected to the fate of the physical creation. Christ is fully God—uncreated Creator. He is also fully human—created creature. The fate of both divinity and humanity, eternity and temporality, heaven and earth, are wrapped up in the destiny of this One divine-human Person. Colossians 1:19–20 says, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” All things in heaven and earth are summed up in Christ by virtue of the incarnational union of the divine and human natures. Therefore, the purpose of any judgment on this physical world is purification, restoration, and renewal, not destruction, disposal, or annihilation. Christ’s is a cosmic ministry of reconciliation, not divorce. His is a mission of summing up, not subtracting from.

Finally, it must be recognized that the view that God will create a new universe out of nothing after disposing of this universe by annihilation is not the view of the earliest Christians close to the apostles, but the view of the Gnostics who saw no need for a future physical universe. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180), who grew up in the church of Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, explicitly rejected the idea that this physical universe was to be annihilated. He wrote:

For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment, that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but “the fashion of the world passes away;” [1 Cor 7:41] that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; and I have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.1)

Even Irenaeus’s amillennial counterpart, Origen of Alexandria, writing by about A.D. 220, explicitly rejected the idea of a complete annihilation of the universe. After quoting 1 Corinthians 7:31 and Psalm 102:26, he wrote:

For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is said to be “all and in all.” And if any one imagine that at the end material, i.e., bodily, nature will be entirely destroyed, he cannot in any respect meet my view, how beings so numerous and powerful are able to live and to exist without bodies, since it is an attribute of the divine nature alone—i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any degree of a bodily adjunct. (Origen,
First Principles 1.6.4)

Yes, this present heaven and earth will undergo an intense judgment characterized by fire. The very foundations of the world will be shaken. The principalities and powers of spiritual and political wickedness will be forever destroyed. But the world itself will undergo a restoration, transformation, and glorification. It will not be absolute annihilation, but an extreme make-over befitting a God whose goal is to reignnot resign—as King of all creation.

Will God Annihilate the World? Part III

(…Continued from Part II)

Peter’s Apocalyptic Problem

But doesn’t 2 Peter say that the universe—nay, even the elements—will melt with intense heat prior to the creation of a new heavens and new earth? Isn’t this a clear support for an annihilation of the present creation in preparation for a completely new creation? To answer this we need to examine Peter’s entire argument more closely. Let me first set up the general context of the letter.

Throughout Peter’s second epistle he makes reference to the coming judgment, which we call the tribulation—the judgment that culminates in the second coming of Christ on earth to establish His kingdom. In chapter 2 Peter uses past judgments as types of the coming judgment. He refers to the days of the flood, during which the “world of the ungodly” was destroyed (2:5). Sodom and Gomorrah are also examples. These cities were condemned to “destruction by reducing them to ashes” and they are thus an example of the coming tribulation judgment (2:6). Yet in the midst of these statements Peter reminds his readers that God knows how to rescue the godly from “tribulation” (2:9), referring to Lot as an example (2:7–8).

Peter then describes the character of the ungodly of this world who await judgment. He notes that they will “in the destruction of those [animal] creatures also be destroyed” (2:12). Peter also refers to the scoffers who make fun of those who are expecting the Lord’s return: “In the last days mockers will come with their mocking, . . . and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” (3:3–4). Peter has in mind here the condition of skepticism and cynicism characterizing the end of the age.

In response to this skepticism about the Lord’s return, Peter again draws on the analogy of the flood in the ancient world—a world that was utterly destroyed. He writes: “It escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (3:5–6). So, just as the initial order of the world of humanity, animals, and even the earth itself was “destroyed,” leaving only a remnant to return and repopulate the earth, the future coming judgment will similarly destroy our present world. But in Peter’s mind the coming judgment at Christ’s return would be more severe, for instead of judgment by water, it will be judgment by fire.

Peter writes, “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). Given the context of this passage in Peter’s letter, we must connect this coming judgment with the judgment of the world that accompanies the return of Christ, that is, the tribulation judgment. This is the anticipated “day of the Lord,” during which the current world system will be destroyed, just as the pre-flood world ceased to exist, having been replaced by the new order after the flood. Peter refers to this coming judgment as “the day of the Lord” that would come “like a thief” (3:10). There is no basis for understanding this as anything other than the anticipated tribulation period, to which Jesus and Paul had already referred in similar terms (Matthew 24:42–43; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Revelation 3:3; 16:15). This coming judgment is what Peter describes with vivid terms of destruction:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:10–12)

 

Who or what are the “elements” that will be destroyed? The Greek word stoicheion (“elements”) must not be read anachronistically as a reference to the atomic “elements” of modern science. According to Gingrich (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament), this term may refer to angelic beings in Galatians 4:3, 9 and Colossians 2:8, 20. In this sense, it may be a reference to the destruction of Satan and his wicked angelic hosts who currently reign over the heavens, but who will be destroyed and cast into the Lake of Fire—or, in the case of Satan, consigned to the Abyss—at the coming of Christ. This would fit the similar language of the removal of heavenly and earthly powers in Isaiah 24:21–22, a passage we’ve already examined above. It is also possible that the text refers to the destruction of earth, water, and air regarded as “elements” in the ancient world, which destruction we see described in great detail in the book of Revelation (Revelation 8:1–9:21; 16:1–21). This drastic change—not annihilation—of elements in judgment is also seen in Wisdom of Solomon 19:18–20—“For the elements (stoicheia) were changed in themselves by a kind of harmony, like as in a psaltery notes change the name of the tune, and yet are always sounds…. For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground. The fire had power in the water, forgetting its own virtue: and the water forgot its own quenching nature.” In any case, it would be very misleading to conclude that Peter had in mind the absolute annihilation of atoms or subatomic particles when he used the word stoicheion in 2 Peter 3:12.

So, Peter anticipates this judgment of fire as coming upon the present world system at the return of Christ, that is, in the final days of the tribulation. In a premillennial view of the end times, this tribulation period will destroy the present system, including all evil and sin. It will also include the destruction of demons and a razing of the world’s geography. The world that comes when Christ returns to reign on the new post-tribulation millennial order, then, Peter describes thusly: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth,” qualifying this statement with regard to its righteous quality, not its creation ex nihilo: “in which righteousness dwells” (3:13).

Peter was no doubt familiar with the Old Testament background of his phrase “new heavens and new earth.” Peter’s reference to the “new heavens and new earth” must be understood in his own context of the anticipated coming of Christ in judgment on the present world during the tribulation and in light of the “new heavens and new earth” promises in Isaiah 65 and 66—both of which refer to the restoration of the world after the tribulation and during the reign of the Messiah and His saints over the redeemed earth.

Therefore, we must understand the destruction language of 2 Peter 3:10–13 as a vivid picture of judgment referring to the tribulation and coming of Christ preceding the millennial reign. It is not a reference to a post-millennial, pre-eternal annihilation or “un-creation” of the universe and its physical elements. Nor is the “new heavens and new earth” in Peter a reference to a re-creation ex nihilo of a world that has no relationship to the present physical world. Just as the pre-flood earth was renewed after the judgment of water, the current world will be renewed after a judgment of fire. However, Peter’s language implies that the coming judgment at the return of Christ will be just as severe as the world-altering flood of Noah.

Return to Revelation

It is in light of Isaiah 65–66 and 2 Peter 3 that we must understand John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. To read this as annihilation and re-creation out of nothing would be to read into it meanings for “pass away” and “new heavens and new earth” that are foreign to the sum of biblical teaching. In fact, Revelation 21:3–5 actually interprets its own language precisely in keeping with the idea of qualitative renewal and redemption similar to Isaiah and 2 Peter. Note how the voice from heaven interprets the vision for John:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”

 

Revelation 21:4 interprets the symbols of the vision that heaven and earth “passed away”—“the first things have passed away.” What things are these? Not elements, not atoms, not molecules—but the evil order of things: the death, wickedness, grief, suffering, pain, degeneration, and deterioration that had long held all of these physical and spiritual elements in bondage. Look at the clear statement: “There will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

In light of this, I believe the greatest misunderstanding concerning the “new heavens and new earth” described in Revelation 21 has been to take the symbolic vision in Revelation 21:1–2 too literally rather than learning the meaning of the vision from the prophetic interpretation in 21:3–5 and the use of the same phrase in the Old and New Testaments. When we understand “new creation” language in light of the Bible’s entire teaching on this matter, we should conclude that this creation is bound for regeneration and redemption, not annihilation and re-creation ex nihilo.

(Concluded in Part IV…)

Will God Annihilate the World? Part II

(…Continued from Part I)

Qualitative Redemption, not Quantitative Replacement

The fact is that the passages that seem to suggest an absolute annihilation of the heavens and earth followed by a recreation out of nothing do not actually assert this. The original terms translated “pass away” do not mean “be annihilated.” The terms are neutral, referring simply to “going away,” or “departing.” Paul uses one of these terms, parerchomai, to refer to the old things of the believer’s life that have “passed away”: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away (parerchomai); behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). This implies an extreme makeover of a person’s life and character, not an annihilation of the old and replacement by the new. First Peter 4:3 uses the same Greek term in a similar sense: “For the time already past (parerchomai) is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles.” The time of former sin has “passed away.” So, this general term does not mean “be annihilated.” It simply means to go away. The question, though, is what “goes away”—the actual substance itself, its behavior, its form, its function, its existence? The mere use of the term “pass away” does not itself imply annihilation. It could refer to a radical transformation of the quality of something rather than to its absolute destruction.

Read in this light, two of the passages that seemed to suggest annihilation actually fit the perspective of a qualitative redemption. Remember the imagery in Isaiah 24:20? “The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.” Isaiah goes on with an interpretation of the imagery of the stumbling drunkard and teetering shack: “So it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of heaven on high, and the kings of the earth on earth. They will be gathered together like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be confined in prison; and after many days they will be punished” (Isaiah 24:21–22). So, the utter collapse of the earth refers not to the annihilation of the physical universe itself, but to the judgment of the sinful condition of that physical universe. This will include punishing the spiritual wickedness in the heavens as well as the human wickedness on the earth. God’s anger is directed toward spirits of wickedness and sinful people, not rocks, molecules, atoms, oceans, and air.

Similarly, the passage in Psalm 102:25–26 also suggests an extreme transformation rather than absolute annihilation. The Psalmist wrote, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment.” He then adds, “Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed” (102:26). The image implies an external change, like a person whose clothes become old and tattered. While the outer form is utterly changed, the inner person remains, though completely transformed and renewed.

But more directly related to our question regarding the new heavens and new earth, Peter uses the word apollumi (“to destroy”) when describing the judgment of the world before the flood (2 Peter 3:6). In that case he refers to wiping the earth clean, destroying life and land, but not actually annihilating the universe and recreating everything from nothing. In the case of the flood, Peter describes the destruction of the sinful quality of the world system—both in the earthly and heavenly realms. He was not referring to a literal de-creation and re-creation, but an extreme makeover of the physical universe and especially its human and heavenly institutions.

How “New” Are the New Heavens and Earth?

Revelation 21:1 says, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.” John says he had seen “the first earth pass away,” which was part of the vision of the heaven and earth fleeing from the presence of God in Revelation 20:11. Remembering that John had been seeing all sorts of symbolic visions throughout the book, we must allow the text itself to interpret what John is seeing here. The vision could refer to a complete annihilation and re-creation. But it could just as reasonably picture an “extreme makeover” of the present creation—a “new and improved” version that bears little resemblance to the past order of things. Thankfully, the Bible itself helps us properly interpret the vision of the “new heavens and new earth.”

The first place in the Bible where we find a description of the “new heavens and new earth” is Isaiah 65:17–25. We must read the entire passage to see exactly how this “new heavens and new earth” is described.

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing and her people for gladness. I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; and there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying. No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed. They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build and another inhabit, they will not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, and My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. They will not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity; for they are the offspring of those blessed by the Lord, and their descendants with them. It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the Lord.

One should recognize that the condition described as “new heavens and a new earth” in Isaiah 65:17–25 refers to the future millennial kingdom on this present earth following the tribulation judgments and return of Christ. This present world will endure numerous fiery judgments under the just wrath of God. All wickedness will be wiped clean, and then the world will be restored under the reign of Christ and His saints. During this thousand-year reign the curse of the Fall will be lifted, the earth will be repopulated by righteous survivors of the tribulation, and the inhabitants of the earth will experience a quality of life never seen in history. Satan and his demons will no longer be ruling over the heavens; that realm will be controlled by Christ and His saints. In short—peace, harmony, prosperity, and righteousness will reign supreme. This millennial condition of renewal and redemption—not a re-creation out of nothing—is what Isaiah 65 describes as the “new heavens and new earth.” Clearly, this is a qualitative newness.

Isaiah 66:15–22 also refers to the renewal of the current heavens and earth under the reign of Christ. Following a period of judgment, which we call the coming “tribulation” associated with the second coming of Christ, the earth will be renewed: “For behold, the Lord will come in fire and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For the Lord will execute judgment by fire and by His sword on all flesh, and those slain by the Lord will be many.” This refers to the coming tribulation judgment. Nations will be converted and Israel will be re-gathered (Isaiah 66:17–21). And then God swears, “‘For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘So your offspring and your name will endure.’” All of these details refer not to the eternal state, but to the first thousand years of Christ’s eternal reign—the period often called the “millennium.” Thus, the “new heavens and new earth” in Isaiah’s prophecy refer not to a new creation out of nothing, but to a renewed creation under Christ after the present world system has been judged by the wrath of the tribulation.

In keeping with this same kind of “new creation” idea of redemption rather than re-creation, Paul refers to believers with “new creation” language in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Here believers have not ceased to exist only to be re-created ex nihilo. Rather, the salvation of a sinner is a regeneration, a renewal, a redemption—a buy-back of the old and a transformation into something qualitatively new.

(Continued in Part III…)

Will God Annihilate the World? Part I

Introduction

When I was a relatively new believer I was taught that the present world will be annihilated. Not just the animals and vegetation, not just the land and the waters—but the subatomic particles themselves would one day be dissolved into nothingness . . . utterly destroyed . . . obliterated. In its place God would then create a completely new heavens and earth—ex nihilo, “out of nothing.” This new heavens and earth would not merely be qualitatively different (“improved”), but quantitatively different (“absolutely new”).

But is this true? Will God utterly annihilate this present universe . . . or will He renew it? Will the original creation of Genesis 1 be rejected as beyond repair . . . or redeemed from its fallen, cursed condition?

“Heaven and Earth Will Pass Away”

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly describe a time when heaven and earth will “pass away” or “perish.” Psalm 102:25–26 says, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment.” This same Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 1:10–12. Similarly, Jesus famously said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). With vivid images, Isaiah 24:20 pictures the fall of the world: “The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.”

Perhaps the most definitive statements about the ultimate destruction of the universe are found in 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 20:11 and 21:1. Peter writes, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” And John records his vision of the new creation in startling terms: “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11). And then: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea” (21:1).

Read quite literally, these Old and New Testament texts seem to carry a degree of finality—utter destruction of the present heavens and earth and a replacement with a completely new physical universe.

But there’s a problem, because Scripture also says . . .

“Heaven and Earth Will Not Pass Away”

In Psalm 148:3–6, all creation is called to praise God. We read: “Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created. He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away.” Clearly the sun, moon, stars, heavens, and waters have all been established “forever and ever.” In fact, God’s decree “will not pass away.”

In Psalm 89:36–37 the promise of the eternal covenant with David and His descendents is linked to the eternality of the heavens and earth: “His descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful.” We know that this Davidic covenant is fulfilled eternally through Jesus Christ, the final Davidic King. So, just as the Davidic King will endure forever, the sun and moon, likened to the Davidic promise, must also endure forever.

Similarly, God solidifies His promise of everlasting faithfulness to His covenant with Israel by appealing to the continuation of the heavens and earth: “Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the Lord of hosts is His name: ‘If this fixed order departs from before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever.’” If the heavens and earth were intended for absolute destruction in the future, then this promise of God to Israel could be broken!

These passages describe a creation that is not expected to pass away or be destroyed. In fact, the sun, moon, stars, and heavens could not cease to exist without disastrous implications for the faithfulness of God and the reliability of His promises.

So, which is it? Will heaven and earth pass away, as the Bible says? Or will heaven and earth be preserved forever, as the Bible says? Does the Bible contradict itself? Or is there a way to harmonize these two apparently contradictory truths?

(Continued in Part II…)

A Case for RetroChristianity

Naming an idea can be risky. The newly-named “idea” takes on a life of its own and can then be accepted, rejected, modified, ignored, loved, or despised. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to finally name that cluster of ideas that has been gestating for some years now—about fifteen, to be precise. I actually think the child was born a few years ago, but he’s been awaiting an identity—something that will distinguish him from his look-alike siblings that came before him. So, the name I’ve given my course of thinking is RetroChristianity. I will explain exactly what this means and why I chose this particular name in due time. But to do this successfully, I first need to name and describe a few other concepts in contemporary Christian thinking. These terms include “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and “Heresy.” To these common labels I want to add two more: “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

By “Orthodoxy” I signify the correct view on the central truths of the Christian faith and a proper practice of Christian works. As a rule of thumb, orthodoxy is that which has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. The “all” includes those who people who intend to be counted among orthodox Christians and who have generally been regarded as such by other orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy means holding the right opinion about crucial Christian truths and acts in keeping with what Christianity has always believed about these things. Some things that fit this general criteria are: 1) God created all things out of nothing; 2) God is Triune: one divine essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) The eternal Son of God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary and was born Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one unique Person; 4) Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended into heaven, waiting to return from heaven to earth to act as Judge and King; 5) The Holy Spirit moved the prophets and apostles to compose the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inspired, unerring norm for the Christian faith; 6) The Church is Christ’s body of redeemed, baptized saints who by faith partake of the life and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the new community of the Spirit. Some universal practices have included baptism as the rite of initiation, the Lord’s Supper (or communion, or eucharist) as the rite of continued fellowship, evangelism, missions, charity, worship, and Bible teaching. Many other things have been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all, but this sample list indicates the kind of central, crucial doctrines that mark one as “orthodox.”

Now this all sounds simpler than it actually is. Sometimes it requires a little bit of squinting in order to overlook minor blemishes on an otherwise hopeful history of orthodoxy. The reality is that without constant check-ups and regular cleaning, orthodoxy is subject to “truth decay.” This can happen to individuals, to churches, to vast communities, to entire generations. But don’t despair! One of the main functions of the Spirit of Truth is to guide the church into truth, to restore her to orthodoxy when she veers too far, and to breathe into her renewed vitality. The history of the church is filled with these revival movements that retrieve forgotten aspects of orthodoxy. So orthodoxy can never be taken for granted. It must be constantly re-received and re-taught. It is not passed down from one generation to another in the form of a creed or confession if that creed or confession is not faithfully and intentionally taught. Orthodoxy is not bestowed upon the next generation through the Bible if the Bible is not read and explained within the context of classic orthodoxy. There’s no such thing as orthodoxy by osmosis or trickle-down orthodoxy. It must be intentionally and clearly taught everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Moving on, I use the term “Heterodoxy” to mean, literally, “another opinion.” Heterodox teachings tend toward the margins of the received doctrines of the faith. And they sometimes teeter at the very edge. They still want to be part of the Christian tradition and still acknowledge the central Christian truths, but they also want to be unique, innovative, and clever in their theology and practice. They feel comfortable recasting traditional truths in nontraditional language. They sometimes want to rearrange, reinvent, reinvigorate, and reformulate the things that had been handed down to them. They like to surf the waves of the margins, buck the system, go against the grain—all within the community of orthodoxy. However, heterodoxy often results in an unintentional distancing from the normative center of Christian orthodoxy . . . and with a little push heterodox teachers run the risk of breaking free from orthodoxy’s gravitational pull and winding up in the bleak void of heresy. Heterodoxy is also often characterized by exaggerating a minor distinctive and trying to jam it into the center of orthodoxy. When a unique aspect of a person’s theology becomes the focal point, the true center of orthodoxy becomes marginalized and minimized. Thus, heterodoxy develops because of a failure to keep the primary orthodox truths front and center. Division, dissension, and destruction often ensue. Heterodoxy is cured by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

I use the term “Heresy” to describe doctrine that challenges and destroys the central core of orthodoxy. As such, heresy alone is damnable doctrine. It often finds its origins as a radical heterodoxy, but not all heterodoxy ends up in denying basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. Heresy differs from heterodoxy in that the heretic knowingly (not ignorantly), willfully (not accidentally), and persistently (not momentarily) denies a key tenet of historic orthodox Christianity. He or she rejects certain truths that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For example, somebody who denies the full deity and humanity of Christ is a heretic. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not literally rise from the dead is heretical. And the view that the Holy Spirit is a created being and not a fully divine person is heresy. Heresy is defeated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Orthodoxy. Heterodoxy. Heresy. I think these categories are clear. Now, floating among Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy I see two tendencies, especially in free church evangelicalism. I call these tendencies “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

“Metrodoxy” is a term I coined to describe trendy, faddish, and “cool” doctrines and practices that tend to take over contemporary churches, especially “megachurches” and megachurch wannabes. If you want your church to have greater cultural “impact,” to draw media attention, and to place itself on the map of evangelical Christianity, you must accept and live by metrodox values. These include relationship, not religion . . . contemporary, not conventional . . . relevance, not ritual . . . innovative, not obsolete . . . fresh, not stale. Metrodoxy thrives in metropolitan areas, drawing from a pool of young, energetic men and women who have excess time and money. This group is often impressed by a clever lingo, advanced technology, and trendy buzz. Anything perceived as boring, belabored, or bogged down gets snuffed. But amidst the excitement, metrodox churches tend to be in a constant state of identity crisis, needing to reinvent or re-brand themselves every few years. After a few phoenix-like rebirths, these churches eventually find themselves adrift, unsure of what they’re supposed to be doing or why. Of course, we find all sorts of ready captains prepared to take over and steer the ship toward some new and trendy port . . . but these navigators are usually not going back to classic orthodox beliefs and practices as their guides to lead them on. The result of this constant identity crisis is often a failure to identify and pass on what has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. So, extreme metrodoxy can be treated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

On the other extreme we find what I call “Petridoxy.” If the metrodox are too progressive and trendy, the petridox are frozen in time, unable and unwilling to change. They have been petrified. They tend to fear change as a great evil, not realizing that their own practices were themselves once quite new (and likely controversial). They often have a very myopic perspective on their own history, believing their way has stood the test of time. They have no desire to critically examine their narrow perception of so-called “orthodoxy” or to evaluate whether what they’re doing actually does help to preserve and promote central orthodox beliefs and practices. Petridox churches would just as soon die a slow and painful death than make major adjustments. Having lost sight of the fundamental goal of receiving, preserving, and passing on the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, petridoxy settles on one method of receiving, one manner of preserving, and one means of passing on the faith . . . and then it congeals in that particular form. Petridoxy therefore tends to be primitivistic, reactionary, ultra-conservative, and idealistically nostalgic. However, petridoxy can be softened by refocusing attention on the purpose of the church’s forms and structures: to intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

With this background on concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, heresy, metrodoxy, and petridoxy, I’m ready to explain the concept of “RetroChristianity.” The prefix “retro” means “involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past.” But in contemporary compound words, it indicates an attempt to bring the things of the past into the present, giving both the past and the present a new life.

First let me make it perfectly clear that RetroChristianity is not fundamentalism redivivus, a retreat back to Papal Rome, a pilgrimage to Eastern Orthodoxy, or a veiled attempt to promote a flaccid ecumenical faith. Rather it’s an honest attempt to more carefully navigate our received orthodox faith and practice through the precarious channel between metrodoxy and petridoxy, both of which can shipwreck the faith. Therefore, RetroChristianity wants to bridge the gap between the ancient and contemporary church without going to two extremes: 1) idealizing the ancient and condemning the modern, or 2) eschewing the ancient and seizing the contemporary. RetroChristianity has some things in common with the many “ancient-future” movements, while acknowledging that many forms of that trend can easily slip into just a new identity for metrodox churches . . . or drive headlong into the rocks of an out-of-touch primitivistic petridoxy. RetroChristianity tries to address the real practical questions of “how” we can intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all. It also draws much of its inspiration from the concept of paleo-orthodoxy and thus explores the foundational work of the patristic period. But it also seeks to move, in concrete practical steps, from that pre-modern, pre-Christian cultural context to our post-modern, post-Christian context.

Ultimately RetroChristianity means carrying on a constant dialogue with the past, but it also requires an actual practical connection with the present and an orientation toward the future. Therefore, it asks how we can and ought to teach and practice orthodoxy everywhere (that is, in every kind of church and ministry around the world), always (in every ministry opportunity, outreach, or service), and to all (young and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, men and women). RetroChristianity demands that the past first be reckoned with on its own terms. It can not settle for picking over the past for relevant bits and pieces that will make us feel more “connected” to our roots. It can’t stand for politely consulting the ancient Christians to make us look sophisticated. And it can’t naively transplant the past into the present as if the preceding centuries of development never happened. As such, the dialogue is a complex, time-consuming, strenuous work that requires the input of many. This includes patristic, medieval, and reformation scholars; pastors, teachers, and laypeople; denominational and free churches, and numerous others interested in genuinely engaging in either real transformation . . . or unashamed preservation.