As someone who was raised within the Anabaptist tradition, I greatly appreciate the focus most Anabaptist cultures place on creating strong families with disciplined and faithful children. Unfortunately, many conservative Anabaptist communities increasingly struggle to retain young people past early adulthood.[^1] Some move toward more liberal expressions of Anabaptism, while others join another denomination. External influences often bear the blame for this, but we must examine the internal dynamics that may make alternative expressions of Christianity more attractive—even to sincere young believers.
This article focuses on what I believe to be one of the major factors incentivizing young people to leave our movement. Given the focus of this article on young people, its scope will be narrowed to the impact on them. My concern is for our practical theology regarding sin and the fallen nature of man. Error here subtly shapes our view of the purpose of the law and the necessity of transformative grace. These errors are not new but find alignment with the ancient heresy of Pelagianism. Although our communities are not formally accepting the doctrines of Pelagianism, our discipleship often flows out of unbiblical assumptions that could be described as “Functional Pelagianism.”
What Is Functional Pelagianism?
Pelagianism. Pelagius, the British ascetic monk credited for this heresy’s origin, was noted for his strong emphasis on morality and human freedom. Pelagius contended that man is born with a nature untarnished by sin, and that man contained within himself the God-given ability to live in perfect righteousness if only he willed to do so. This view clashed with the dominant view of original sin held by the Roman Catholic Church. After a series of written debates (most notably against Augustine of Hippo) and church councils, the church excommunicated Pelagius as a heretic in 418, followed by many of his disciples in 431.[^2]
Augustine’s analysis of Pelagianism has long been regarded as one of the foremost works in understanding the Pelagian controversy. In his critiques of Pelagianism, Augustine identified three central claims. First, man possesses within himself the ability to live without sin if only he chooses to do so. Second, man is born without inheriting a sinful nature but is created morally good (denial of original sin). Third, man does not need an ongoing inner work of grace to live in a manner pleasing to God.[^3] Although some aspects of Augustine’s conclusions are objectionable (most notably his defense of infant baptism as a means of removing the guilt of Adam’s sin), his insights brought clarity to a grave error in what might have appeared as a fervent appeal for righteous living.
Functional Pelagianism. Functional Pelagianism is a contradiction between a stated doctrine of human inability and practices that operate under the assumption of natural human ability. This term arises from an older concept known as “practical/functional atheism.” In describing what he called “practical atheism” in the daily lives of Christians, Francis Schaeffer notes: “Many Christians who are soundly orthodox in doctrine live, in practice, as though God did not exist.”[^4] This dichotomy of belief and practice has been observed throughout church history starting with biblical authors (see James 2) and moving forward to the modern age.[^5] The term “functional atheism” has become more popularized in recent years in describing this dichotomy and informs the wording for the term being coined in this article.[^6]
Functional Pelagianism does not formally deny the doctrine of original sin or man’s need of transformative grace to live as he ought. Conservative Anabaptist churches affirm confessions of faith that clearly acknowledge the sinful nature of man as a consequence of the Fall. The 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith affirms that men are “sinners by nature” as a result of Adam’s sin. It further describes man as “self-centered, self-willed, rebellious toward God, unwilling to yield to Christ, unable to break with sin, and under divine judgment.”[^7] Similarly, the 1632 Dordrecht Confession of Faith states that man is “ruined, separated, and estranged from God” by the consequences of Adam’s sin.[^8] Additionally, man is said to possess “utter inability” before God.[^9] The strong language of these statements stands in stark contrast to the Pelagian heresy. With few exceptions, those within the sphere of conservative Anabaptism would reject Pelagius’ conclusions as against Scripture and worthy of condemnation.[^10]
Rather than being a matter of explicit doctrinal denial, Functional Pelagianism operates in a dichotomy similar to “functional atheism.” Emphases and practices quietly work in opposition to doctrinal positions that would be sincerely defended if brought into question. Dichotomies like this are not rare; any honest believer will acknowledge that it is difficult to “practice what you preach.” An awareness of this should create an openness to investigate our own practices with the question of “does this align with Scripture?” rather than “does this align with my culture?”
Given this article’s focus on young people, I will highlight three key methods in training our children that embody Functional Pelagianism. These methods have devastating consequences, even if they can seem to produce polished young people with strong discipline and biblical ethics. Regardless of how rigorous and well-intentioned this child-training is, it fails to be Christian discipleship if it does not consistently point towards Christ alone as the sole means of acceptance before the Father.
The following observations are not intended to perfectly describe every conservative Anabaptist community; there is too much variety to expect that. With that caveat, I believe that general conservative Anabaptism trains children towards Functional Pelagianism with the following three methods: 1) overemphasis of responsibility by neglecting inability, 2) misuse of the Law, and 3) underemphasis of the absolute necessity of grace.
Methods of Functional Pelagianism
Overemphasize Responsibility by Neglecting Inability. This error arises from an emphasis on a truly biblical truth—choices matter. Loving parents deeply desire to see their children well-equipped to make good decisions that bring the blessing of God. This desire fuels intentional training that disciplines bad behavior and encourages good behavior. As the child matures, this training combined with the influence of the broader church community forms within his mind a clear standard of right and wrong. This is paired with a conscience spared from much of the hardening that less-fortunate children experience. From every side, this child is pointed towards the blessings of obedience to Scripture and strongly warned of the dangers of disobedience.
This method’s error is not teaching children responsibility for their choices or training them to distinguish between right and wrong. Rather, it is in so strongly emphasizing their responsibility to fulfill what God requires that we minimize or completely neglect to teach them about their inherited inability to fulfill that responsibility without an inner work of grace.
Pelagius provides a clear example of this error. Since he denied the inheritance of a sin nature, he possessed a very optimistic view of human ability. In his Letter to Demetrias (one of his few surviving works) he writes: “Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and the conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving.”[^11] Within the same section he later writes: “Let us then lay this down as the first basis for a holy and spiritual life: the virgin (Demetrias) must recognize her own strengths.”[^12] This was the grounding point of Christian discipleship for Pelagius—the power of human nature in its God-given ability to choose.
Pelagius pointed to the goodness of God as the source of a good human nature: “You ought to measure the good of human nature by reference to its creator, I mean God, of course.”[^13] Pelagius denied that the corruption of this nature had not passed to all men, but explains the pattern of all men sinning as “that long habit of doing wrong which has infected us from childhood and corrupted us little by little over many years.”[^14] For Pelagius, the struggle with sin was merely a result of learned bad behavior and not of a broken nature. This learned behavior resulted from sinful choices; the path forward is found in making righteous choices that flow from the good that is found in man. Although we would disagree with Pelagius’ diagnosis of the human condition, our neglect to teach human inability while strongly emphasizing human responsibility has the same practical effect—professing Christians looking within themselves for the power of righteous living.
As they reach appropriate maturity, children need to be clearly and repeatedly taught that they were born as sinners (Ps. 51:5). Their sinful hearts are “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9, NKJV). Their sinful minds are in warfare against God because they “are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Rom. 8:7). Their individual sins are not isolated bad choices but flow from a broken inner condition (Mark 7:21-23) that cannot be overcome by simply “choosing correctly.” Rather, they are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) without any natural hope of overcoming their sinful nature. The Apostle Paul gives a devastating conclusion to this human condition, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8).
Is this doctrine of sin too harsh? Will it not cause despair once a child is old enough to grasp it? We should hope so, for despair is the appropriate response of a sinner who has truly seen his fallen condition in contrast to the righteousness of God. The alternative of softening our doctrine of sin while maintaining a strong emphasis on responsibility risks impressing an unbiblical view of natural human ability upon our children.
Misuse of the Law. This method of Functional Pelagianism misuses the law of God by heavily emphasizing its communication of God’s standards while laying aside its primary purpose of confronting the sinner with his need of Christ. From a young age, our children are exposed to snapshots of the commands of God: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Eph. 6:1); “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matt. 7:12). As they mature, they are trained that God’s law is comprehensive—it gives command and guidance for every area of life. This is not an error, Christian parents ought to raise their children “in the training and admonition of the Lord.” (Gal. 6:4).
The error arises in falling short of the correct use of the law in the process of disciplining sin. If the pattern of discipline is as follows: reminder of standard, confrontation of failure, dealing out a consequence, and lovingly giving an exhortation to do better next time; then it is a model of discipline that falls short of a biblical understanding of God’s law. This method approaches the law as a means of grace to reform behavior rather than as a means of condemnation that points towards the Savior.
Pelagius had this view of the law as a means of grace. His explanation for the introduction of the Mosaic Law was that habitual sin made it necessary by slowly overcoming the good of human nature by burying it “beneath an excess of vices” and tainting it “with the rust of ignorance.” In response, “the Lord applied the file of the law to it, and so, thoroughly polished by its frequent admonishments, it was enabled to recover its former brilliance.”[^15] According to Pelagius, the law removes habitual sin and restores righteous living as an external means of grace.
Contrary to Pelagius, Scripture describes the law as bringing condemnation so that sinners may be brought to Christ. In Rom. 3:19-22 the Apostle Paul states that the purpose of the law is so that “all the world may become guilty before God” (v.19). Man cannot be justified before God by “the deeds of the law,” that was never the law’s purpose. Rather, “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (v. 20). Paul does not leave the sinner without hope; he quickly pivots to the Gospel solution: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe” (v. 21-22). According to Paul, the law is a means of condemnation for the sinner, making him aware of his need for grace and a righteousness that he cannot create.
Child discipline that faithfully follows Paul’s understanding of the law will not be content with merely improvement in a child’s behavior as they respond to consequences. A variety of unbiblical models exist (e.g., Islam, behaviorism) that can produce well-behaved children using similar tactics. Rather, the ultimate goal in using the law in discipline ought to be lovingly guiding our children to an understanding of their insufficiency to fulfill the law. When this is realized, discipline flows into discipleship, and young sinners face the reality that their only true hope is in Christ.
Underemphasis of Grace. This method of Functional Pelagianism naturally flows out of the first two. In cultures with a heavy emphasis on human ability and the use of law to primarily transform behavior, there will be little or no emphasis on the absolute necessity of transformative grace in order to be pleasing to God.
Pelagius modeled this method in clear doctrinal statements rather than in subtle emphasis. Although he certainly wrote about grace, his belief in the goodness of human nature hampered his understanding of grace. His debates with Augustine began as a disagreement about the necessity of grace to fulfill the commands of God. In book 10 of Augustine’s Confessions he writes “Give what you command, and command what you will” in confessing his inner struggle with abstinence. In other words, Augustine confessed a total dependence on an active work of grace in order to fulfill the commands of God.
This confession outraged Pelagius to the point of public dispute in Rome, which became the catalyst for the controversy between the two. Pelagius believed that to hold such a view on the necessity of grace attacked the character of God and that it would be unjust to command what He knows man cannot fulfill within his own power.[^16] Regarding Christians who view the commands of God as difficult and themselves frail, Pelagius writes: “What blind madness! what unholy foolhardiness! We accuse God of a twofold lack of knowledge, so that he appears not to know what he has done, and not to know what he has commanded; as if, forgetful of the human frailty of which he is himself the author, he has imposed on man commands which he cannot bear.”[^17] Here Pelagius’ view of humanity and law combine into a dangerous conclusion: to believe in man’s incapability to fulfill God’s commands is blasphemy against God.
Pelagius did not deny the necessity of grace but limited it to external assistance of human goodness. B.B. Warfield provides a summary of this external grace: “the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holy example.”[^18] This understanding of grace enabled Pelagius to profess a belief in divine grace while still denying man’s inability.
Scripture clearly contradicts this view of grace. In Philippians 2:12-13, Paul exhorts the church to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” Paul acknowledges the necessity of human effort but points toward the inner work of God as the source of both the desire and ability to be pleasing to Him. Paul applies this tension to his own work as an apostle in comparison to others: “I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10b). To deny inner grace as the sole source of a believer’s good works is to give a glory to man that not even the Apostle Paul would take upon himself.
If most of the instruction to our children centers around how they ought to live with little to no acknowledgement of their inner brokenness, they will arrive at Pelagian assumptions: “If God holds me responsible for obedience, I must be capable of achieving it.” This is not an assumption foreign to the human heart; everyone is born with a desire to be self-sufficient. Does our child-training at home, in the classroom, and across the pulpit confront this self-sufficiency or subtly feed it through clear statements about responsibility with clouded statements about the necessity of grace?
Consequences of Functional Pelagianism
Christless Christianity. Functional Pelagianism removes Christ’s work from the center of Christianity and places the believer’s work in His place. We affirm Christ and His work as important, but the Gospel does not have the central focus it deserves. Rather, young people observe greater focus onto practical application and maintenance of church standards. These issues are important, but they cannot supersede the Gospel in emphasis.
Communities that make the Gospel secondary to application risk making Christian conversion more about cultural integration rather than being joined to Christ. Young people deeply desire acceptance from their community, and young adulthood brings a social expectation of joining the church. When joining the church, young people will commit themselves to whatever the community has held up as central to Christianity. If that center is anything other than trust in Christ, they have been misled. In such cases, conversion can be performed rather than experienced. The young person views the making of correct public statements and sincere commitments to community expectations as the defining point of their Christianity rather than faith in the work of Christ as expressed in the Gospel.
Pursuit of Acceptance by Works. In a culture of Functional Pelagianism, a young person will make his performance the center of his Christianity rather than the accomplished work of Christ. The Gospel becomes less about being accepted before the Father through faith in the Son, and more about achieving and maintaining acceptance with the Father through faithfulness to the expectations of the church community after experiencing a spiritual renewal. The work of the Son is still regarded as important (particularly in forgiveness of sin), but he is not clung to as the central means of a righteous standing before God.
To clarify, the point here is not that faithfulness in practical life does not matter; all who love Christ wish to be faithful to him. Rather, it is ensuring that outer faithfulness flows out of a confidence of right standing with God, not as an attempt to achieve it.
Cultures that operate under the assumption of acceptance by works will struggle with discipleship. If performance is the measure of right standing with God, failure becomes almost unbearable to deeply address. Quick fixes to restore cultural acceptance operate in the place of a deep self-examination that arises from confidence in Christ. Sin is dealt with in short public confessions and promises of improvement rather than intensive discipleship that purposely exposes sin so that grace may abound. Such cultures may have impressive strength in maintenance of ethics, uniformity, and nonconformity; but they will be powerless in addressing failure in a way that is Gospel-centered and transformative.
Isolated Sinners. What about those who know they do not measure up? Some young people are spared from deeply destructive behaviors before faith in Christ. Others carry hidden stories of addiction, depression, and shame beyond their years. What hope do they have in communities that operate in Functional Pelagianism?
A gospel with human effort at the center is not good news for such individuals. They suffer from the consequences of their own efforts every day and attempts at self-improvement just pull them more deeply into their sin. Without clear, consistent reminders that every person in the community is a hopeless sinner saved only by grace, these individuals experience a profound loneliness in the belief that they are uniquely depraved and unsavable in comparison to the highly ethical and disciplined believers that surround them.
Generally, these isolated young people have two options: blend in or give up. Those who blend in maintain outer conformity to the culture—correct clothes, correct public activity, and enough correct answers to get through baptism. Those who give up become the church’s “trouble children” that all parents worry about their own child being influenced by.
Unless God intervenes, the outcome for both options is usually an escalation of the felt isolation to the point of leaving the community. The exit of the “trouble children” is more expected (and usually earlier) than those who blended in. In both cases, cultures that operate in Functional Pelagianism are not equipped to care well for these hurting young people outside of sending them to external counseling centers or boys/girls camps.
Disillusionment. Central to the problem highlighted in the introduction, the Functional Pelagianism found among conservative Anabaptists has contributed to disillusionment with the movement for many young people, even ones who wish to be faithful to Christ. This disillusionment cannot be addressed with stronger affirmations of our Anabaptist distinctives or the values of our conservative culture. That would just deepen the issue.
Generally, our young people reach adulthood much more highly trained in biblical ethics and Anabaptist applications of biblical principles than in studying Scripture well and understanding the depth of the Gospel. The fault does not lie with them; they simply reflect the culture that formed them. This reality comes into sharp focus whenever they encounter rigorous teaching from Christian sources outside of Anabaptism.
The hard truth is that some of these sources provide much clearer teaching on sin, the law, and the Gospel than many Anabaptists. Some non-Anabaptist communities fall short in specific practical applications but have a church culture more deeply shaped by a strong doctrine of sin and a fuller emphasis on grace. Although there may be objectionable components to these communities, they shake the image of Anabaptism as a “city on a hill” among all other Christian denominations.
What if the attraction to other faith expressions is not just a rebellious desire to be “free” of conservative Anabaptist applications? What if the attraction is towards church cultures that do better at keeping the grace of Christ central rather than the efforts of man? How harshly can we fault them for being willing to drop certain practical applications in favor of gaining a deeper portrayal of the Gospel?
Conclusion
I do not write as one who has perfectly risen above the fog of aligning my practices with my theological convictions. As an educator in an Anabaptist school, I confront this dichotomy within myself as I interact with young people who are well-trained and well-mannered yet need Christ just as much as the worst-behaved young person in a secular environment. It is far too easy to unintentionally point students towards their own willpower and knowledge of what is right as the ultimate hope of becoming what they ought. The Gospel is quietly laid aside while law and consequence attempt to fulfill a role they were not designed for: transformation of broken sinners.
The irony of our current state of Functional Pelagianism is that one of the greatest historical strengths of Anabaptism, simple obedience to Christ, might become one of our children’s greatest stumbling blocks in coming to Christ. We ought not abandon our emphasis on the importance of obedience and careful application of biblical principle. However, this emphasis must flow out of a much stronger and clearer emphasis on the sufficiency of Christ who provides for our insufficiency. If we fail in this crucial point, we only have ourselves to blame when our young people search for communities more grounded in grace.
Pelagius’ error was not in his morality, commitment to simple living, or affirmation of the basic facts regarding the Gospel; he was highly regarded as a valuable teacher in those points. Rather, Pelagius’ displacement of grace for human effort brought Augustine’s condemnation of him as an “enemy of grace.” Our confessed doctrine sides with Augustine, but can our discipleship escape a similar condemnation?