Kenneth Wilson has written a book entitled Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society: Become a Christian Without Faith in Jesus as God and Savior. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of GES, but you will not find many of them in Wilson’s book. Indeed, he actually had the opposite effect from what Wilson wanted. The day it was released, Grant Hawley of Free Grace Alliance disavowed Wilson’s work, which is no surprise since Wilson called Hawley’s views heretical. Several of Wilson’s fans have come out to say that this book caused them to question his other works, which is quite reasonable. Kenneth Wilson is most well known for his studies on church history. I appreciated an article that he wrote last year for SBL and even quoted it positively in our recent volume on current issues in soteriology,1 but having seen how poorly he represents his contemporaries, we are left wondering how well he deals with theologians of old. In the same volume, I criticized Christian Pluralism, which is the position that Wilson takes, so in retrospect, I would have loved to interacted with his book there, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day.
One of the claims that Wilson makes is that Zane Hodges changed his view of the Gospel. This claim is incorrect, so Mike Lii has written a book in response entitled Zane Hodges Did Not Change His View on the Gospel: A Response to Kenneth Wilson’s Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society. Mike’s book is my favorite contribution to the ongoing debate.2
If this debate is to continue, I would like to see the derogatorily-called ‘crossless’ side produce more works that follow in Mike’s footsteps. Wilson made several errors in his book, so Mike chose one particular issue — that Zane changed views — and addressed it thoroughly. There are six areas where Wilson claims that Zane changed and Mike has a chapter for each:
1. Did Zane Previously Teach Belief in Jesus as God to Be an Essential Part of the Message of Eternal Life?
2. Did Zane Previously Teach That Salvation Requires Belief in Jesus’ Death on the Cross for One’s Sins, and in Jesus’ Subsequent Resurrection?
3. Did Zane Previously Hold the View that Belief in Eternal Security Is Optional for Salvation?
4. Did Zane Change His View to Require Assurance as an Inseparable Part of Saving Faith?
5. Did Zane Previously View a Faith-Plus-Works (eg., Lordship Salvation) Gospel Message as a Saving Message?
6. Did Zane Change His View on Belief in a Bodily Resurrection as a Requirement for Salvation?
Please note that Mike stays within the scope of his book. He does not defend whether or not, for example, a faith-plus-works gospel is salvific,3 but rather stays on task. Whether or not you agree with Zane’s perspective, Mike’s book should suffice to clarify once and for all that Zane always held these views in the timeframe in question.
Mike is well-versed in all things Zane Hodges and he neither builds any strawmen against Wilson, nor does he misrepresent Zane. Mike, Wilson, and I all have Victor Street Bible Chapel in common. Victor Street is the publisher for Mike’s book and it is where Zane served for 50 years. Wilson attended briefly in the 80s and I attended before I moved to Ukraine (2009–2011).4 Mike attended Victor Street from the 90s until recently. He has done a lot of work to put Zane’s teachings online at The Zane Hodges Library and I had the privilege of being able to assist Mike in transliterating some Zane’s sermons that Victor Street has published. Mike has the most access to Zane material out of anyone that I know. He is able to pull from little-known talks that Zane did, even a DTS chapel service that Zane did in 1976.5 He pulls several quotes from Wilson’s book, and occasionally takes the Hodges’ texts that Wilson misquotes and provides in their original contexts.6 The book is 79 pages long and has 106 footnotes. Mike has incredible access to Zane material, but Wilson is pulling from his experience in the 80s as well as a one or two conversations in the early 2000s. Wilson’s recollections of his days at Victor Street fall short; he oddly mischaracterizes Victor Street, but Mike sets the record straight.7
In the final section of the book, Mike proposes three options for the confusion: either Zane was lying, Zane became senile, or, most likely, Wilson misunderstood him. This is an area where I might critique Wilson slightly differently than Mike did. Wilson says that Zane isolated himself and became dangerous and useless like a dull knife.8 Mike’s response is that Zane did not isolate himself; on the contrary, Zane continued to give the finest quality teaching at Victor Street, Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship, GES conferences, and other venues, which shows that he was by no means senile and isolated. Mike is right, but I think that Wilson’s point is a bit different.
Wilson’s point seems to be not that Zane isolated himself from everyone, but rather that he withdrew from his critics. He writes, “Hodges did not want to interact with these friends who disagreed with him. He lost accountability by pushing away supporters and friends who lovingly attempted to bring clarity to his confusion.”9 If Wilson is wrong here, then perhaps this deserves another short book for clarity, but Wilson’s statement does align with testimonies that I have been hearing from some of Zane’s critics in several conversations.
Wilson carries this over to GES, writing, “Sadly, Zane Hodges told Bob Wilkin that he would no longer speak at the GES annual meetings if anyone spoke who opposed his new teachings… To his credit, after Hodges died (2008), Wilkin did rescind that rule. But by that time, only a few of these numerous prior leaders were willing to speak at GES meetings.”10 This statement, if correct, could also explain some experiences that I have witnessed as well. Ministry is an unfortunately touchy line of work. Feelings get hurt. One would hope that if GES was to sincerely seek peace with others that peace would be reciprocated, but my own experience has been that Matthew 7:6 tends to become relevant in some of these discussions. If Wilson’s book has any merit, it is tucked away somewhere in the discussion of how GES took some poor actions, but even this topic in his book is often weaponized as a defense of Wilson’s own pluralism.11
In summary, Mike’s book proved exactly what it sought to prove: That Zane did not change his views. Wilson’s book did exactly the opposite of what it intended by driving people to become more GES-friendly. As a soteriology book nerd, I would say that it’s worth having both books on your shelf or in your kindle library. You can get either book through the links below:
- Paul Miles, “Does James Make Works a Criterion for Eternal Life?” in Current Issues in Soteriology (Kyiv, Ukraine: The International Society for Biblical Hermeneutics, 2021), 92. Available online here.
- A close second would be Tom Stegall’s exhaustive volume, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith. Both of these books are written with grace and clarity.
- Though, he has written about that here.
- To this day I credit Victor Street for seminary-proofing me. I heard all sorts of crazy stuff when I was working on my master’s degree, but it was all like water off a duck’s back because of the fine teaching that I received while I was in college. No telling where I would be today without the fellowship of Victor Street Bible Chapel as well as a few other like-minded churches in the DFW area.
- Lii, Zane Hodges Did Not Change, pg. 34 footnote 50.
- See Lii, 14–16, 18, 25–28, for example
- Lii, Zane Hodges Did Not Change, 73.
- Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, kindle loc., 476–489
- Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, kindle loc., 480–481.
- Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, kindle loc., 485, 488–489.
- Especially chapter 8.