Max Lucado is a wonderful and inspiring writer. Few can match his ability to bring fresh insights, infuse substance, and bring clarity to both the commonplace and complex things of life. One of his website posts was titled “Simply ‘Church’.” He posed two questions, “…what would happen if all the churches agreed, on a given day, to change their names simply to ‘church’?…if there’s no denominations in heaven, why do we have denominations on earth?”[1] His point was that we should not attend a church based on the sign outside, but we should join our hearts to the hearts of the people on the inside.[2]

This is a noble sentiment and reflects the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Romans, “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Romans 15: 5-6. KJV] In other words, the church should be in unity in thought and message.[3] Matthew Henry’s writings three hundred years earlier agree with Lucado’s sentiments, “The foundation of Christian love and peace is laid in like-mindedness. This like-mindedness must be according to Christ Jesus…” In other words, Christ should be our pattern because the unity of Christians glorifies God. However, Henry warned that our prayers for like-mindedness “…must be first for truth, and then for peace…it is first pure, then peaceable.”[4] [emphasis in original]

In our search for like-mindedness with other Christians, we must return to Henry’s admonition that our quest must first be for truth and then for peace. In that quest for truth, labels are invaluable and become a type of shorthand for what we know to be true or not true.[5]

Throughout the ages language has been the means of achieving order in culture. Knowledge of truth comes through the word which provides solidity in the “shifting world of appearances.” Richard Weaver called words the storehouse of our memory. In our modern age humanists have effectively used semantics to neuter words of their meaning in historical and symbolic contexts, that is, words now mean what men want them to mean. By removing the fixities of language (which undermines an understanding of truth), language loses its ability to define and compel. As the meaning of words is divorced from truth, relativism gains supremacy, and a culture tends to disintegration without an understanding of eternal truths upon which to orient its self.[6]

Therefore, the problem with simply “Church” is that we live in a fallen world, and there are competing voices each professing truth. Removing the labels and being simply “Church” won’t work when we must give priority to truth. Without truth, simply “Church” won’t achieve like-mindedness in a world immersed in a relativistic sea of shifting appearances. In such a world labels become our anchors to truth. But like “Church,” there are other words that have lost their ability to define and compel and be relied on to reveal truth. One of those words is “evangelical.”[7]

The evangelical label and what it means to be evangelical

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” This is the opening sentence of Mark Noll’s book The Scandal of the Evangelical mind. Noll was a professor of history at Wheaton College at the time of its publication in 1994. The book was well received in academic and intellectual circles and in a wider audience on the liberal side of the evangelical spectrum. Although Noll praises evangelicals for their generosity, involvement with the hurting elements of society, sustaining the church and its supportive organizations, and spreading the gospel message, he contends that evangelicals have failed to cultivate a serious intellectual life because they have forsaken the universities, the arts, and other spheres of “high” culture. In essence, Noll is saying that the scandal of the evangelical mind is that it has failed to “think like a Christian” about the physical world (its nature and workings), human social structures (government and economy), the meaning of history, and non-evangelical perceptions of the world.[8]

Noll’s prescription for the mindless evangelical is that we first must jettison any beliefs regarding “creationism”—a theory that claims the earth is ten thousand years or less old. Noll summarizes one writer’s assertion that creationism is “…a fatally flawed interpretive scheme of the sort that no responsible Christian teacher in the history of the church ever endorsed before this century…” Also, evangelicals must dispense with dispensationalism and its fascination with the end of the world which he labels as radical apocalyptic speculation that wrongly interprets world affairs.[9]

Once the distractions of these intellectually toxic beliefs are banished to the closet of superstition and anti-intellectualism, Noll believes that evangelicals can concentrate on what is essential for Christianity and not what is merely distinctive about American evangelicalism. By subordinating the distinctives to the essentials, Noll believes there is a greater chance for developing a Christian intellectual life. Noll elaborated on the differences between distinctives and essentials. He cites the evangelical distinctive of activism as opposed to the larger Christian essential of a profound gratitude to God which can be found in contemplation as well as activism. Other evangelical distinctives marked for subordination include a “literal” interpretation of Scripture, preoccupation with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and a fascination with the apocalypse. Superior to these distinctives and an essential for Christianity is a “profound trust in the Bible as pointing us to the Savior and for orienting our entire existence to the service of God.”[10]

Religious liberalism invades evangelicalism

More than a half century ago, A. W. Tozer wrote that the evangelical branch of the church is the only one that “even approximates New Testament Christianity.” However, Tozer went on to say that over the half century preceding his writing the evangelical church had “an increasing impatience with things invisible and eternal and have demanded and got a host of things visible and temporal.”[11] In hindsight, we can say that what Tozer was seeing was the evangelical church in its autumnal season. But through the work of the progressives and modernists within the evangelical church since the time of Tozer’s writing, its autumnal season has transitioned into an evangelical winter, an apt description of the prevailing spiritual coldness and lethargy in much of American evangelicalism. As a result, large segments of American evangelicalism no longer identify with the truth, passion, and power of New Testament Christianity. The roots of their defection are found in religious liberalism birthed in the nineteenth century.

Certain of the humanistic elements of the eighteenth century Enlightenment entered German universities and gained wide influence among their faculties. This influence led nineteenth century German theologians to adopt a rationalistic theological liberalism which taught a “higher critical” view of the Bible as containing many mistakes.[12] The influence of higher biblical criticism migrated to the United States from Germany during the nineteenth century as thousands of American university students attended German seminaries. Under higher criticism, Christianity was perceived as being the result of evolving religious ideas and customs. Therefore, Scripture was not divine revelation but a product of changing conceptions of God within an evolving culture.[13] As a result Christianity must be flexible as it was the result of changing religious ideas and customs. These beliefs came into full flower in American liberal Protestant churches by the end of the nineteenth century, and a half century later it spread to some evangelical churches and seminaries in the form of modern critical approaches (see Chapter 33). Dr. Noll’s book is a leading example of the outworking of these modern critical approaches. He has sacrificed truth in his efforts to achieve peace and unity in evangelicalism.

Homogenized evangelicalism – Amorphous essentials replace solid doctrinal distinctives

Fifteen years after Noll’s book, Carl Trueman challenged Noll’s conclusions in a small book titled The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Trueman is a vice president of Westminster Theological Seminary and professor of Historical Theology and Church History. Trueman agreed with Noll that there is a scandal of the evangelical mind, but it is a different scandal than described by Noll.

More concerning is the lack of any consensus about evangelicalism’s intellectual identity…there must be not just a mind, but also a readily identifiable thing call an “evangelical” and a movement called “evangelicalism”—and the existence of such is increasingly in doubt.[14]

Trueman questioned whether such a thing as evangelicalism still exists because it has become such a meaningless term. He cites one historian who attempted to give evangelicalism definition and meaning by listing four of its hallmarks: the Bible as the primary source of truth (biblicalism), the atoning work of Christ on the cross (crucicentrism), spiritual conversion (conversionism), and public proclamation of the gospel and living life according to it (activism). Yet, these hallmarks in some form or fashion are claimed by many disparate groups within an ecumenically-oriented evangelicalism. Therefore, evangelicalism’s identity remains blurred because of a lack of institutional or clerical direction, the subjectivity of experience, and most importantly because of a casual tip-of-the-hat to important but generalized biblical concepts that have not been given the necessary solid doctrinal structure and gravitas upon which a definitive evangelicalism may rest.[15]

Trueman presents a solid case for his view that the problem is not that there is no evangelical mind, but there is no longer a definitive evangelicalism. He points to many varieties of evangelicalism who do not sing “variations of a single melody so much as different songs altogether.”[16] At its beginning in the early 1700s and even in the Indian summer of American Christianity during the 1940s and 1950s, evangelicalism had a number of distinctive and recognizable stand-alone doctrinal traditions and voices whose similarities gave form and substance to evangelicalism. But even during the 1950s, two things began happening that would eventually blur the meaning of evangelicalism as a result of a sustained assault by a culture saturated with humanistic concepts of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion. First, to maintain a degree of cultural authority, some in the evangelical camp began incorporating, changing, or abandoning doctrines, beliefs, and activities in ways that conflicted with two hundred and fifty years of evangelical thought, belief, and practice. Second, other non-evangelicals and non-Christian organizations began to appropriate for themselves the attractive, culturally-respected “evangelical” brand. This book has documented many of these groups, organizations, ministries, and movements that no longer offer variations of a single evangelical melody but sing different songs from non-evangelical and even non-Christian hymnals. This is one of the reasons for the title of this book. There is an evangelical winter because there are many in the big tent of evangelicalism that no longer sit or have never sat in the warm sunshine of New Testament Christianity.

Future of evangelicalism

Because “evangelical” has such a broad usage and has become so inclusive, it has been rendered meaningless as an identifier of truth. It seems as though almost everyone has become evangelical. Trueman states that if the evangelical church is losing the ability to be “salt and light” in the culture, the reason is not that evangelicalism has failed to win a place at the cultural table. Rather, it is because they do not have a solid grasp of the basic elements of the faith, as taught in Scripture and confirmed by the doctrinal understandings of their faith.[17] The reasons for this rampant biblical illiteracy in the evangelical church were discussed in Chapter 26.

Evangelicalism has become fragmented as never before. In a recent CNN article Russell Moore, a leading spokesman for the Southern Baptists, was quoted, “The problem is that many secular people think that all evangelicals are alike, when there are multiple streams and theological and generational divides within evangelicalism.” As an example of this fragmentation of evangelicalism, the CNN article listed seven different evangelical approaches to politics and voting for candidates: the old guard (traditional), institutional, “Arm’s length,” entrepreneurial, millennial, liberal, and cultural evangelicals.[18]

Trueman believes doctrinal fragmentation within big-tent evangelicalism will cause a fundamental realignment among evangelicals as the various players coalesce around either a mainstream secularism or a return to New Testament Christianity, once the heart of evangelicalism.

Those institutions that cherish their place at the cultural table will have to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and to abandon a fully Pauline gospel of salvation predicated on a historical Adam. Those institutions wishing to maintain traditional orthodoxy on these points will have to accept their status as marginal figures in a broader world, objects of scorn and not serious contributors to the public square.[19]

Trueman’s expected division within evangelicalism is in its early stages as shown by stirrings among some Christians and churches that are disassociating and distancing themselves from many mainstream evangelicals that have abandoned the tenets of biblical Christianity. That said, Christians should reconsider Trueman’s last statement in which he believes Christians following the beliefs of traditional evangelicalism will not be serious contributors to the public square. As will be shown in the next chapter, the obligations of the church to influence culture are not abrogated by cultural hostility and marginalization of Christianity. All through history, it is the suffering church that has spoken most compellingly to a decadent and hostile culture.
______

Among the humanists’ and liberal theologians’ calls for peace through ecumenical promotion of cooperation, unity, and tolerance, we must remember that truth must precede peace in achieving like-mindedness. As a consequence, those that stand with truth may need a truth identifier other than evangelicalism—perhaps it should be New Testament Christianity which, according to Tozer, evangelicalism was originally intended to mirror.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Max Lucado, “Simply ‘Church’,” Max Lucado, November 4, 2013. http://808bo.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/max-lucado-simply-church/ (accessed November 6, 2013).
[2] Larry G. Johnson, “In Defense of Labels,” CultureWarrior.net, November 13, 2013. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/11/15/in-defense-of-labels/
[3] Ibid.
[4] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p.1794
[5] Johnson, “In Defense of Labels,” CultureWarrior.net.
[6] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 148-149, 152, 158, 163.
[7] Johnson, “In Defense of Labels,” CultureWarrior.net.
[8] Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), pp. 3, 7.
[9] Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[10] Ibid., pp. 243-244.
[11] A. W. Tozer, Man—The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 2008), p. 150.
[12] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1976, pp. 175-176.
[13] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), p. 426.
[14] Carl R. Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 2011), p. 12.
[15] Ibid., pp. 14-15.
[16] Ibid., p. 37.
[17] Ibid., pp. 38-39.
[18] Daniel Burke, “7 types of evangelicals—and how they’ll affect the presidential race,” CNNPolitics.com, January 25, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/politics/seven-types-of-evangelicals-and-the-primaries/index.html (accessed February 4, 2016).
[19] Trueman, p. 38.

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. [Hosea 8:7. RSV]

Many modern evangelical churches have foolishly sown to the wind and are reaping a whirlwind. As a result, many of their once faithful members are abandoning evangelicalism and seeking solace elsewhere, having found that much (though not all) of modern evangelicalism is merely a confused and pitiful shadow of the once stalwart champion and defender of New Testament Christianity but which now has little to offer other than what the world already has given. The abandonment of evangelical New Testament Christianity in America is being hastened by two significant occurrences—one of recent emergence and the other having been active since the beginning of the church. The first is the rise of the emergent church and the second is doctrinal decay in evangelical churches because of its wavering on inerrancy of the Bible.

Emergent church

One of those aliens is post-modern evangelicalism and is called the Emergent church. Gary Gilley wrote that the rise of the emergent church in America was generated by a void in evangelicalism as a result of the dominating presence of the Church Growth movement during the latter half of the twentieth century.

The emergent church has largely been a backlash against the seeker-sensitive movement, with its slick programs, high-octane entertainment and superficial worship. The postmodern generation wants something more authentic, something with substance, even something that is other-worldly. Whereas the seeker-sensitive movement attempted to make the church look like the world, emergent youth want a sense of the sacred. Where the seekers wanted to offer everything the world offered in purified form, the emergents want unique experiences the world does not have and cannot give. Where the seekers repudiated church history and behaved as though the church was born yesterday, the emergents want not only a link to the past but a return to the past.[1] [emphasis added]

Notice that the young emergents were said to be in search of “unique experiences” as opposed to searching for God. The young emergents and their parents have been well indoctrinated by decades of humanistic emphasis on experience as the sole basis of truth. However, the experiences sought by emergents are not the same experiences sought by the evangelicals in the first two Great Awakenings and thereafter. We must remember that the primary goal of the Awakenings was to rouse the faithful from their spiritual lethargy characterized by coldness and indifference and not so much on the making of new converts. The faithful had to be revived not through their head knowledge but through their hearts. The evangelicals were not against intellectual knowledge of God, but they saw the heart-felt conversion experience as necessary to counter the coldness and indifference that permeated the Reformation church.[2] To be converted, mere intellectual assent had to be replaced by New Testament notions of a “new birth,” and as any mother will attest, the birthing process is an emotional experience felt by both mother and child. The conversion experience is also dependent on heeding the message of the cross as discussed in Chapter 29. For men who choose Christ, of necessity, must choose death to self and sin for they cannot otherwise follow Him.

To provide these unique experiences to the young emergents, a number of leaders in the emergent church adopted themes surrounding the Ancient-Future faith movement (hereafter called “A-F”) founded in 1977 and 1978 following the publication of two best-selling books: Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth by Richard Foster and Robert Webber’s Common Roots: A Call to Evangelical Maturity. A-F classifies church history as having six periods: “primitive (first century); ancient or classical (100-600); medieval (600-1500); Reformation (1500-1750); modern (1750-1980); and postmodern (1980 to the present).” A-F adherents believe that the solution for the future of the postmodern church is to model it on the ancient or classical traditions of the church (100-600). The younger evangelicals want to encounter God beyond emphasis on doctrinal matters such as conversion and self-denial as professed by traditional evangelicals. They also reject the shallow, pragmatic ministry-driven programs of the Church Growth movement. Young emergents see these two forms of Christianity subsiding as the emergent evangelicals begin to dominate Christianity during the twenty-first century.[3]

It is important to note that the emergent church looks to the ancient-classical period as its source for molding Christianity as opposed to the apostles and New Testament church of the first century. Emergents deem the rich traditions developed in the classical period of church history (100-600) to be superior. As a result, emergents have adopted much of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma and practices. (see Chapters 3 and 4 for a discussion of these beliefs and practices).[4]

But emergents do not stop there. They believe that the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox traditions can be united if doctrinal distinctives are subordinated to ancient practices and creeds. Emergents consider the Reformation as being “an unnecessary schism perpetrated by Protestants” and reject the Reformers’ sola Scriptura in favor of Rome’s view that the church presides over scripture and final authority rests in the church.[5]

How is it that emergent evangelicals (in name only) could have sat in evangelical churches for any length of time and subsequently have bought into the absurd beliefs and teachings of the emergent church? The answer is that for over a half century they have warmed the pews of thousands of churches in America that forsook the pristine doctrines, power, and authority of the New Testament that once marked the character and demeanor of evangelical churches. Also, they resembled the Hebrews who were immature in their knowledge of the Bible (see Chapter 26 for a discussion of biblical illiteracy). In the apostle’s letter to the Hebrews (believed to have been Paul) he wrote of those immature believers who were dull of hearing.

About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the world of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. [Hebrews 5:11-14. RSV]

The Church Growth movement is partially responsible for this general immaturity and shallowness which is aggravated by its methods and through its incessant spoon-feeding milk to seekers while neglecting provision of solid food for mature Christians. They justify themselves by wrongly asserting that the more mature on the spiritual growth continuum are responsible for their own spiritual growth and not the church. This error arises because of a basic misconception as to the purpose of the local church. The existence of this misconception is confirmed by the great discontent of the more mature Christians in churches of the Church Growth movement and especially the Willow Creek and Purpose Driven models of doing church (see Chapter 31). It is also confirmed by the general defection of younger evangelicals to the emergent churches for they are children who cannot distinguish good from evil.

Doctrinal decay – evangelical wavering on inerrancy of the Bible

If one imagines a raindrop falling somewhere in North America, its location in relation to the continental divide will ultimately determine whether the little drop will eventually become a part of the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean. Unlike our little raindrop, Christians may choose which side of the theological divide they will inhabit with regard to the question of biblical inerrancy. But their choice, one way or the other, will have consequences for virtually all of their beliefs about God, the Bible, Creation, mankind, and a host of other theological issues, questions, interpretations, and worldview.

Those that reject inerrancy of the Bible fall into the trap of focusing on the particulars to justify their less authoritative view of the Bible. An analogy of two puzzle boxes will illustrate the fallacy of using particulars to dismiss the inerrant view of the Bible. The boxes are identical and each contains a lifetime’s supply of puzzle pieces to be sorted and arranged in such a manner to make sense of the mess man inherited from his ancestors.

One box is held by the forces of humanism. They claim that by man’s efforts alone the pieces can be sorted and arranged to supply the understanding and satisfactions that man so desperately seeks. No help from the outside is needed, thank you, for everything required is contained in the box. Through science and reason they proceed to examine each piece (the particulars) and arrange them in all sorts of configurations, but all of their efforts are of no avail. Frustrated with their elders’ failure, each succeeding generation applies their new, better, and more progressive ideas to solve the puzzle of life, but without God they fail to find cohesive answers to the pervasive disorder and mystery of evil.

Christians hold the other box. Unlike the humanists, they look outside the box and beyond the confines of nature. They discover a picture that reveals the truth of the universe and all therein. It contains all that man needs to understand the mess he has made and as well as instructions for putting the pieces back together to match God’s plan for mankind. That picture is the unchanging, eternal, and inerrant Truth revealed by the Bible. And from that man finds truth, not in the particulars but the grand meta-narrative of creation, the Fall, and redemption.

Here we see a fundamental distinction between humanism and Christianity. To discover truth, humanists dismiss the supernatural. There is no God. All is material and found in the physical confines of the universe—the puzzle box. By reducing everything to their most basic elements (the puzzle pieces, i.e., the particulars), they seek to discover the scientists’ coveted “theory of everything” from which they will fashion answers to alleviate the chaos of life in which man finds himself mired. For those Christians that reject inerrancy of the Bible, they too have chosen to follow humanistic methods by examining the particulars and discarding those portions of the Bible which they have determined are not truth.

The defense of inerrancy is not the same as an apologetic or defense of the faith as Peter commanded. “…Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” [1 Peter 3:15b. RSV] Rather, it is a polemical defense of inerrancy against those in doctrinal error within the faith as opposed to an apologetic defense of the faith to those primarily found outside the faith.

Anselm was a great Christian thinker of the eleventh century whose words capture the essence of a Christian’s understanding of truth through faith. “For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand.”[6] Truth resides in the biblical revelation to mankind, the grand mural painted by God of as opposed to the mundane particulars of creation. In an article titled “On the Origin and Nature of Things,” A. W. Tozer adds to our understanding of the puzzle box analogy and the meaning of Anselm’s profound statement regarding the means by which Christians receive truth.

Such truths as men discover in the earth beneath and in the astronomic heavens above are properly not truths but facts. We call them truths, as I do here, but they are no more than parts of the jigsaw puzzle of the universe, and when correctly fitted together they provide at least a hint of what the vaster picture is like. But I repeat: They are not truth, and more important, they are not the truth. Were every missing piece discovered and laid in place we would still not have the truth, for the truth is not a composite of thoughts and things. The truth should be spelled with a capital T for it is nothing less than the Son of God, the Second Person of the blessed Godhead. [emphasis in original]

The human mind requires an answer to the question concerning the origin and nature of things. The world as we find it must be accounted for in some way. Philosophers and scientists sought to account for it, the one by speculation, the other by observation, and in their labors they have come upon many useful and inspiring facts. But they have not found the final truth. That comes by revelation and illumination.[7] [emphasis added]

Here Tozer gives us a clue as to why the non-Christian cannot see truth and why a Christian can. Final truth comes by revelation and illumination. Illumination comes by faith as the apostle tells us in Hebrews. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” [Hebrews 11:3. KJV] But where does the Christian get the requisite faith spoken of by the apostle? Faith is a gift of God. It is a work wrought in the Christian by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now we return to the question of inerrancy. If the Bible is truth, then by inference it must be inerrant. To say otherwise is to say that truth is not truth. J. I. Packer assists with our understanding of this concept.

If the words of Scripture are God breathed, it is almost blasphemy to deny that it is free from error in that which it is intended to teach and infallible in the guidance it gives. Inerrancy and infallibility cannot be proved (nor, let us note, disproved) by argument. Both are articles of faith.[8]

Francis Schaeffer sums up the concept of biblical inerrancy.

Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality—and the intellectual hold of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.[9]

Inerrancy of the Bible has been the defining mark of evangelical orthodoxy since the beginnings of evangelicalism in the early 1700s to the 1960s. However, in the early 1960s through the late 1980s, American evangelicalism became caught up in a series of controversies that eventually focused on “whether the adoption by evangelical scholars of modern critical approaches to biblical studies could be reconciled with traditional views of the authority of Scripture.”[10]

These modern critical approaches of critiquing the authority of the Bible varied in the degree of their departure from inerrancy. Some called for retention of the concept of inerrancy but with room to explain or define it in such a way as to allow for intellectual examination and probing. At the other extreme some evangelicals believed that inerrancy and infallibility with regard to the spheres of science and history could not be maintained. In their view, Scripture was infallible only as it applied to its divinely intended purpose.[11]

One recent example of the slippery slope of modern critical approaches to reconcile biblical inerrancy with humanistic science is the BioLogos Foundation’s promotion of a significant and well-funded effort to “…change the way Christians understand Genesis and the origin of man.”[12] For those in agreement with the core beliefs of BioLogos Foundation, creative evolution is an established or accepted fact (as we are frequently reminded by evolutionists of all stripes). For BioLogosians, all other truths and interpretations must bow to the absolute truth of creative evolution when studying the natural world and the Bible.[13]

But man’s effort to explain the nature of God and His creation through creative evolution is both unnecessary and impossible. It is unnecessary because God’s invisible nature is already plainly understood by man’s perception of the things He created (see Romans 1:20). It is impossible because imperfect Nature cannot add clarity to the picture of divine reality as revealed by the Bible. The biblical record brought clarity to nature, not the other way around. This is the fundamental error of BioLogos when it attempts to humanize religion by embracing creative evolution in order to give a better understanding of divine reality through the workings of imperfect Nature.[14]

The push for relaxation of evangelicalism’s staunch support of biblical inerrancy arose as a result of cultural pressures to succumb to what seemingly appeared to be a widening gulf between biblical inerrancy and the presumed superiority of scientific evidence to the contrary. However, humanists and others inappropriately interchange the usage of “literal” and “inerrant.” The meaning of “literal” implies a concern mainly with facts, and for the humanist that means facts that can be scientifically validated. But the Bible is a book of history, poetry, prophecy, parable, and allegory. All are part of the inerrant word picture that God used to reveal His character and nature and His relationship with man. The point is that humanists and Christians pursuing modern critical methods attempt to force the Bible into a laboratory test tube to prove or disprove its claims, but as previously stated the Bible deals with the non-material things that are outside the capabilities of science to decipher but are just as real in our human understanding and experience as any scientifically-proven hypothesis.[15]

Does this seeming disconnection between science and the Bible mean that the evangelical must surrender inerrancy on issues such as the six-day creation, dispensationalism, and other presumed contradictions with science? Absolutely not! What it does mean is that there is a gap between scientific “facts” and what the Bible says. Christians must begin with an unfailing belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they must also recognize that if certain scientific facts are correct, then a gap exists in their knowledge which prevents them from reconciling the two.

There are many things God has chosen not to reveal at this point in man’s history and may never reveal this side of eternity. But we know He is God, that He created the universe, and that He has the answers to fill in the knowledge gaps. The humanist attempts to fill in the knowledge gaps by separating reason from faith which artificially separates scientific truth from religious truth. But reason and faith are inseparable allies. Therefore, Christian faith is not a “blind faith.” Reason is important in our journey to the door of faith, but we enter the door of faith through the inerrant revelation from God and the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit within.
______

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, much of the modern evangelical church has foolishly sown to the wind and is reaping a whirlwind. Hosea’s prophecy revealed sin and pronounced judgements on a people that would not be reformed and had become apostatized over several generations.[16] But whirlwinds need not be followed by obituaries. God is ready to redeem returning sinners and restore relationship with Him.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dr. Gary E. Gilley with Jay Wegter, This little church had none, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: EP Books, 2009), p. 37.
[2] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004, 2005), pp. 269-270.
[3] Gilley, This little Church had none, pp. 39-41.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., pp. 43, 59.
[6] Anselm, a quotation from Chapter 1 of the Proslogion, published in The City, VIII, no. 2 (Winter 2015): 1.
[7] A. W. Tozer, Man—The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), pp. 19-20.
[8] James I. Packer quoted by Roger Nicole, “James I. Packer’s Contribution to the Doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture,” Doing Theology for the People of God, Eds. Donald Lewis & Alister McGrath, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 176.
[9] Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 15. Quoting Francis Schaeffer’s address at the University of Notre Dame, April 1981.
[10] Brian Stanley, The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2013), pp. 105-106.
[11] Ibid., pp. 107-108.
[12] Daniel James Devine, “Interpretive dance,” World, November 29, 2014, 35.
[13] Larry G. Johnson, “Creative evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part I,” CultureWarrior.net, January16, 2015. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/16/creative-evolution-screwtapes-science-for-christians-part-i/
[14] Larry G. Johnson, “Creative evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part II,” CultureWarrior.net, January23, 2015. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/23/creative-evolution-screwtapes-science-for-christians-part-ii/
[15] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 177.
[16] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1105

As noted in Chapter 1, the church over the course of its history has suffered attack from within (theological compromise) and without (cultural compromise), but the principal thrust of both attacks can be described as nothing less than the diminution and final abandonment of biblical truth.

Within the theological realm, the diminution and abandonment of truth has occurred because the church has failed to recognize and resist the spirit of the world which has invaded the church. The spirit of the world during an age of rampant humanism has redefined and compartmentalized the meaning of truth in all spheres of American life. Decades of this humanistic view of truth has been absorbed in varying degrees by most American Christians and many evangelical churches. As a result the critical importance of biblical truth has been diminished in the minds and hearts of many.

Along with humanism’s infiltration into the thinking of the church, there has been a marked decline in biblical literacy of Christians during the last decades of the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century to the present day (by which is meant a remarkable lack of familiarity with the Bible, its doctrines, central themes, and teachings). Because of the growing ignorance of the Bible’s commands, the evangelical church has not only failed to resist the humanistic spirit of the world but has accommodated much of it within the church.

On the cultural front, the American evangelical church no longer has the power and authority to speak truth to a diseased and dying culture. One hundred years ago the liberal church knelt at the altar of humanism and secularism (see Chapter 13). It appears that the evangelical church is doing the same in the post-Christian world. Their “new vision for the church” is undermining long held doctrines and is producing a powerless church. Without repentance and turning from sin, the church will lose its saltiness and “…be good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” [Matthew 5:13b. KJV]

The Great Apostasy

Apostasy refers to the once faithful who have renounced, deserted, or become traitors to their faith. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the Apostle Paul spoke of a time when a great falling away would occur just before the second coming of Christ. The falling away is a rebellion of many in church against God and is called the great apostasy. The coming of the Lord will not occur unless the rebellion comes first.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. [2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, KJV]

Here Paul is speaking of the last days which began at Pentecost and will continue until Christ’s second coming. The falling away (Great Apostasy) of the church will occur near the end of the last days. That the church is in the time of Great Apostasy is revealed by the emergence of three significant trends, all of which that testify to the soon coming of Jesus Christ spoken of by Paul.

Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word

Paul spoke of the compromise of sound doctrine in his second letter to Timothy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned to fables. [2 Timothy 4:3-4. KJV]

Many churches have incorporated questionable methods in their scramble to survive in a rapidly changing and increasingly hostile culture. By doing so they have also gradually and subtly changed and softened the Bible’s message as well. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with sound doctrine and teachings of the Bible, and without a foundation of biblical truth, they have become powerless.[1]

In 2001, Jim Cymbala wrote that as the church confronts an antagonistic culture it needs to take a look at what the church is doing.

Instead of being a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God (in the New Testament sense of the words), the world’s value system has invaded the church so that there’s almost no distinction between the two.

Wouldn’t it be wise to ask ourselves what kind of teaching has brought about this sad state of affairs? What are we doing, or not doing, that causes such a breakdown in the spiritual fiber of professing Christians? We had better start asking some hard questions and be prepared to throw overboard whatever has made the church so weak and carnal.

Instead of that, a massive cover-up is going on. Rather than face the obvious facts around us, certain church leaders proclaim that everything is fine because they have a “new vision for the church.”[2]

When the world’s value system invades the church, the church becomes worldly. The Bible is very explicit about what constitutes worldliness. The Apostle Paul gave a very clear picture of what it means to not be worldly. “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.” [Titus 2:11-12. RSV]

Do not misunderstand, the church should reach out to the lost by being charitable, helpful, friendly, encouraging, and welcoming through our activities in the community. Churches can and should be involved in certain secular activities, but it is wrong to adopt methods that are by their very nature worldly to the point of impiety which brings reproach upon Christ’s church and the gospel message. The church must guard against a compromised message and methods that incorporate corrupting elements of worldliness that lead to impiety whose synonyms are sin, sinfulness, irreverence, transgression, immorality, and ungodliness.[3]

Mixing light with darkness

In their efforts to be ecumenical and culturally relevant, many churches have attempted to find common ground with organizations and false religions that stand in opposition to God’s word.

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God… [2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. RSV]

Matthew Henry’s 300 year old commentary gives additional insight into the Apostle Paul’s words of cautioned to the Corinthians.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane. There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers. We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion can these have together?[4]

There are numerous examples of nationally recognized churches and Christian leaders that attempt to find common ground with anti-Christian secular organizations and false religions in direct contradiction of biblical commandments. When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ.[5]

Here we must clarify the difference between being mismatched with unbelievers and Christ’s command to make disciples. Where possible, Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in the hope of a sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ. Further, Christians and churches are not prohibited from working with government and private non-Christian organizations in worthy causes, activities, and programs (e.g., foster care, disaster relief, adoption, provision for the poor). However, the church cannot join with other organizations and those parts of our government that actively promote goals, programs, and activities that stand in opposition to God’s word (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage).[6]

Nonjudgmental Love as a substitute for repentance and turning from sin

Christians must not make judgements in a hypocritical or condemning manner with regard to fellow believers. Also, Christians are to use discernment when making judgement of some who appear to be Christian but are really false teachers and false prophets whose goal is to lead the flock astray (see Matthew 7:15-20).

The world often chastises the Christian for judging the non-Christian and point to the phrase “judge not lest ye be judged.” Those who demand Christians should “judge not” demand tolerance for non-Christians who think and act in ways contrary to the Bible have taken this commandment out of context and ignore the distinctions the Bible makes between judging sinners and fellow believers (see Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:1-5). However, when Christians lovingly and graciously present the gospel to sinners, judgement is not based on their opinions or theories but on what the Bible says. Christians are called to judge between right and wrong based on morality and truth as revealed in God’s word, but such judgement must be done in a spirit of love, kindness, and concern for the sinner, not in a spirit of condemnation.

However, many churches have embraced the world’s definitions of love and tolerance and by doing so have compromised the gospel message. As a result the message of many churches is that God’s love is nonjudgmental and so vast that He will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. In other words, love is all that matters. If this message is true, then sin is of no consequence in determining our eternal destination. And if sin is of no consequence to God, then He does not care about how we live our lives. If the presence of sin is not ruinous of man’s relationship with God, Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin becomes irrelevant. The new concepts of love and tolerance are expressed as unconditional acceptance which is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[7]

To become culturally accepted, the church has resorted to feel-good messages focused on fixing the self in the here-and-now as opposed to salvation and eternity. But, the modern gospel of nonjudgmental love is not new. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a brilliant German theologian who stood against the Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s until his death on a cold February day in 1945 when he was hanged on a Nazi gallows. He warned against the gospel of nonjudgmental love which produces a counterfeit grace.[8]

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[9]

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[10]

Decline of the evangelical church

The reason for the decline of many churches in America is not that the rising tide of secularism and humanism are stronger than the transformational power of the gospel. Rather, in an attempt to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant, many churches gradually (and for some almost unknowingly) have compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. However, these doctrinal compromises and non-biblical activities translate into spiritual weakness and generally start with the “what we do” (methods) part of the equation but soon extends to the “what we believe.”

In nations with a strong Christian influence, Satan must resort to guerilla tactics against the church by chipping away at the edges of the gospel message through compromise as opposed to a frontal attack. But as many American churches embrace an anemic and powerless message in the post-Christian and post-modern era, the church has steadily grown weaker and has begun to experience a greater number frontal attacks by Satan’s guerillas (e.g., challenges to the legitimacy and influence of the church in the public square and all spheres of American life).[11]

The Romans at the time of the early church saw value in all religions. Modern multiculturalists would call them “inclusive” and “tolerant.” The Pantheon in Rome was built to honor all gods, and the Christian God was welcomed if only the Christians would make themselves culturally relevant by giving some tribute and deference to the Roman gods.[12] But those early Christians refused to compromise their beliefs and unequivocally held to God’s commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” [Exodus 20:3. RSV]

Evangelical winter

World systems have predicted the death of the church from its beginning two thousand years ago, but the true church cannot die. As Tozer has written, “The true Church is the repository of the life of God among men, and if in one place the frail vessels fail, that life will break out somewhere else.”[13] Many evangelical churches, denominations, and fellowships in America have become frail vessels that have been depleted of their spiritual vitality within and have lost their effectiveness in speaking to the larger culture without. Beginning over a half century ago, a large number of evangelical churches in America and other parts of the Western world have undoubtedly entered a wintry season which has endangered their survival because they have lived too close to the world. Finding that many modern evangelical churches have little to offer other what the world already has given, many of the once faithful are abandoning evangelicalism and seeking solace elsewhere.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part II,” culturewarrior.net, December 26, 2014. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/12/26/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-ii/
[2] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 22-23.
[3] Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part II.”
[4] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Ed., Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part III,” culturewarrior.net, January 2, 2015. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/02/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-iii/
[6] Ibid.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV,” culturewarrior.net, January 9, 2015. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/09/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-iv/
[8] Ibid.
[9] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[10] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117- 118.
[11] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV.”
[12] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), p. 25.
[13] A. W. Tozer, Man—The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966), p. 155.

“Ouch!” was Bill Hybels’ response to the results of a 2004 survey of the spiritual growth and well-being of the congregants at Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago. Hybels had pastored Willow Creek Community Church for thirty years (as of 2005) using the seeker-sensitive Church Growth movement model of doing church. Since 1992, Hybels also had indoctrinated twelve thousand churches and their leaders with those same methods and practices through the Willow Creek Association (WCA). As a result of the 2004 survey, the church commissioned a three year study to delve into the reasons for the discontent and lack of spiritual growth in a large segment of those attending Willow Creek. The reasons for the survey results that shocked Hybels and his staff gradually emerged over the course of the three year study which was published in 2007.[1]

In 1975, twenty-three year old Bill Hybels and his wife Lynne began Willow Creek Church in Palatine, Illinois. In 1977 they purchased land and built Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, which became the central church among six regional campuses that have a combined weekly attendance of twenty thousand.[2]

Hybels’ approach to ministry was inspired by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, a New Testament professor at Trinity College, when he vividly described the Acts 2 church as it grew in Jerusalem (See Acts 2:42-47). Bilezikian (see Chapter 21) was born in France, grew up under Nazi occupation during World War II, immigrated to the United States in 1961, and became a minister and teacher at Wheaton College in Illinois. Bilezikian developed the mega church model that emphasized bringing people together in small groups to help each other accomplish their missions.[3] Similar to Rick Warren, Hybels attended Robert Schuller’s Institute for Church Growth seminars. As Hybels often states, “the church’s mission, to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, remains its singular passion.” But over thirty years later the Willow Creek study revealed that something was fundamentally wrong in the Church Growth movement’s formula to build a church similar to the one found in Acts 2.

The Willow Creek Study

The study was conducted by Greg L. Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek, and Cally Parkinson, brand manager for REVEAL, a WCA initiative that utilizes research and discoveries to help churches with spiritual growth among their congregants. They were assisted by Eric Arnson, an independent research and strategy consultant with twenty-five years of brand and consumer strategy experience with various consulting firms that primarily dealt with Fortune 500 companies.[4]

In 2004, the Willow Creek conducted its periodic congregational survey, but that survey was different than those conducted in prior years. Rather than just focusing on numbers and activities, the survey attempted to gauge “the movement of people toward Christ, toward deep love for God and genuine love for others.” Hybels was stunned at the results of the survey, “…nearly one out of every four people at Willow Creek were stalled in their spiritual growth or dissatisfied with the church—and many of them were considering leaving.” What followed was an on-going three year study aimed at revealing the reasons for the spiritual condition of a large segment of Willow Creek congregants.[5]

The study defined spiritual growth as “An increasing love for God and for other people.” The study accumulated 2.6 million data points and eleven thousand completed surveys from Willow Creek and six other churches across the United States which included denominational, seeker-targeted, and independent/Bible churches of various sizes, ethnicity, and both city and suburban churches.[6] The results of the study revealed six key discoveries.

1. Involvement in church activities does not predict or drive long-term spiritual growth. But there is a spiritual continuum that is very predictive and powerful.[7]

The researchers found that there was a positive connection between participation in church activities and behaviors such as tithing, service to others, evangelism, and praying. The researchers identified four levels of commitment across a spiritual continuum: exploring Christianity, growing in Christ, close to Christ, and Christ-centered. Where one is located on the continuum is highly predictive of the level of their spiritual growth, and the farther along one is on the continuum, the greater the level of spiritual growth. However, the finding that astounded the researchers was that higher levels of church activity did not mean a person had an increasing love for God or increasing love for others. In other words, participation in church activities does not drive spiritual growth. A growing relationship with Christ, as opposed to increasing involvement in church activities, moves one along the spiritual continuum (and which result in increases of spiritual behavior and activity).[8] From this finding, one may say that spiritual growth is driven from within rather than being externally driven by the church. Although the church cannot create spiritual growth, it can facilitate it.

2. Spiritual growth is all about increasing relational closeness to Christ.[9]

The researches asked the question as to why there is not a solid connection between participation in church activities and spiritual growth when the purpose of church activities is to turn people to Christ. Their answer is “Because God ‘wired’ us first and foremost to be in a growing relationship with him—not with the church…As we draw closer, we begin to see a dramatic change in how we live our lives and relate to other people.”[10]

3. The church is most important in the early stages of spiritual growth. Its role then shifts from being the primary influence to a secondary influence.[11]

The researchers conclude that the church is extremely important in the early states (Exploring Christianity, Growing in Christ) and a less important place to go for spiritual development and to find spiritual relationships for those in the later stages of spiritual growth (Close to Christ and Christ-centered). Rather, it is a “platform” that provides serving opportunities. They suggest that the church plays a lesser force and personal spiritual practices play a greater role in driving spiritual growth. The personal spiritual practices include “prayer, journaling, solitude, studying Scripture—things that individuals do on their own to grow in their relationship with Christ.”[12]

It is here that the researchers’ conclusions blatantly ignore an obvious and exceedingly important observation about those in the Close to Christ and Christ-centered segments of the spiritual growth continuum. A major part of spiritual growth and well-being of any Christian should come from preaching and worship directed at the church rather than preaching and worship that is directed week-after-week towards unchurched seekers. Therefore, the conclusion that spiritually mature Christians are less interested in small groups and weekend services is self-fulfilling because the spiritual fare is almost exclusively directed to seekers as opposed to the church (See Chapter 26). The Church Growth movement’s incessant focus on customizing its services (especially preaching and worship) to meet the needs and likes of unchurched seekers through a weekly evangelistic-topical message ignores or abandons preaching and worship directed to the church and which should be the primary purpose of the weekly services.

Thus, it is not surprising that the more mature, faithful, and spiritually advanced Christians have less interest in weekend gatherings. But the underlying reason for this decline in interest is not because they are relying on personal spiritual practices. It is because they are not receiving essential spiritual sustenance traditionally gained from weekly preaching, worship services, and Sunday school directed to the church. Should the researchers have recognized that weekly preaching and worship services directed to the church as being highly important aspects of spiritual growth and spiritual well-being (especially the Close to Christ and Christ-centered segments of the spiritual continuum), such recognition would have presented an irreconcilable conflict with the Church Growth movement’s substantial focus on the seeker-sensitive paradigm. As noted in discoveries 1 and 2 above, the church cannot drive spiritual growth in the Close to Christ and Christ-centered segments but it can facilitate it by directing services and worship to the church and not the seeker-sensitive.

4. Personal spiritual practices are the building blocks for a Christ-centered life.[13]

This discovery led to two key observations by the researchers. First, people are propelled along the spiritual continuum by a deep internal desire to fill the spiritual void in their souls. As one advances along the spiritual continuum, influences beyond the church become more important in spiritual growth. Second, the church declines in influence as one proceeds along the spiritual continuum. From these observations, the researchers concluded that, “The church doesn’t need to handhold people who are moving along in the later stages of the spiritual continuum.” In other words, a growing Christ-centered life is a result of a growing personal relationship with Jesus Christ.[14]

In this discovery, the researchers have again misread the needs of the church’s more spiritually advanced members. These members are not asking that their hands be held, but they desperately need regular spiritual support that should be received at weekly services but which the Church Growth movement continually and substantially focuses toward the seeker-sensitive elements at the lower end of the spiritual continuum.

5. A church’s most active evangelists, volunteers and donors come from the most spiritually advanced segments.[15]

The substantially higher levels of activity (evangelism, tithes and offerings, and volunteer service) come from the Close to Christ and Christ-centered segments of the spiritual continuum. This finding was contrary to the Willow Creek assumption that evangelistic fervor was highest in the early stages of one’s journey on the spiritual continuum.[16]

It is interesting to note that in advising pastors who are considering adopting a Purpose Driven church model, Rick Warren states that opposition will most likely come from the “pillars” of the church. He cavalierly suggests that those pillars (those in the Close to Christ and Christ-centered segments) are interfering with the pastor’s vision (holding things up) and should be allowed or even encouraged to leave the church.

Be willing to let people leave the church. And I told you earlier the fact is that people are gonna leave the church no matter what you do. But when you define the vision, you’re choosing who leaves. You say, “But Rick, yes, they’re the pillars of the church.” Now, you know what pillars are. Pillars are people who hold things up … And in your church, you may have to have some blessed subtractions before you have any real additions.[17]

If the pillars of the church are the most active evangelists, volunteers, and donors, why would Warren and other Church Growth advocates have such casual contempt for this segment of the church? Perhaps it is because they are so enamored with the Church Growth paradigm that focuses on the seeker.

6. More than 25 percent of those surveyed described themselves as spiritually “stalled” or dissatisfied” with the role of the church in their spiritual growth.[18]

The researchers state that stalled spiritual growth generally occurs in the early to middle stages of the four-segment spiritual continuum. Those stalled in their spiritual growth represent one out of every six surveyed. In the stalled group, 40 percent are satisfied, 28 percent are dissatisfied, and 25% are considering leaving the church.[19]

The dissatisfied group generally comes from the more “Christ focused,” that is, the evangelists, financial contributors, and volunteers. This group, unlike the stalled group, is committed to daily spiritual practices (prayer, Bible study, etc.). In other words, these are true Christ-followers and not just believers. Ninety-six percent attend church three to four times each month, 61% volunteer at least once each month, and 31% tithe. Yet, 63% report they are the considering leaving the church due to much lower levels of satisfaction with the church across the board.[20]

Ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room

Because the researchers are committed to (or perhaps “blinded by”) the Church Growth paradigm, they blame the stalled and dissatisfied congregants for their discontent because they haven’t taken responsibility for their own spiritual growth. .

But at the heart of their unhappiness may be the fact that neither segment seems to realize that much of the responsibility for their spiritual growth belongs to them. This is the big “aha.”

The decline of the church’s influence as people mature spiritually suggests that the church may have put too much emphasis on the spiritual equivalent of the diaper-changing and homework-helping stage of care.

As people work to grow in their personal relationship with Christ—a relationship that presumably has benefited from a foundation of solid theology and encouragement from church teaching—the institution of the church becomes less central to their faith development.[21]

The researchers have wrongly presumed that their members have a foundation of solid theology and encouragement from church teaching. But those progressing on the spiritual continuum grow beyond the elementary weekly fare of most seeker-sensitive churches. As they mature they aren’t given anything beyond the basics which will allow them to continue growing. This conclusion is confirmed by the study when it states that dissatisfied Christ-followers in seeker-sensitive churches say they “desire much more challenge and depth from the services,” whether it is church services, Bible classes, or small groups. Only 20% rate services as “outstanding or excellent” versus 71 percent of the total surveyed.[22] This supports the author’s conclusion in discovery 3 that to address the dissatisfactions of the Christ-followers in Purpose Driven and other seeker-sensitive churches presents an irreconcilable conflict with the Church Growth movement’s focus on the seeker-sensitive paradigm. This arises because the overall purpose of the local church’s weekly services has been wrongly redirected from ministering to the body of Christ to almost exclusively ministering to the needs and desires of seekers.

Rather than “more challenge and depth” from church services, the researchers promise additional and larger studies to

…evaluate the effectiveness of small group strategies, service formats and a host of other church activities…and detail the impact of things like Internet-based products and services on people’s spiritual lives, as well as different approaches to prayer, journaling, solitude and other personal spiritual practices.[23]

Even though Willow Creek’s leadership remains married to the idea that weekend services have less value for those farther along the spiritual continuum, the study’s findings have forced them to see the need to “extend the impact of our weekend services” to these disaffected groups. One example of their efforts is the provision of a free journal, pages for taking notes, questions for use during the week to reflect on the week’s passage of scripture, study questions for small groups, and insights from a biblical commentary. However, such halfway measures are merely pacifiers and will never satisfy the dissatisfied as long as the fundamental purpose of the local church’s weekend services are substantially directed to the seekers and their needs and desires.

Has Willow Creek’s spiritual continuum left out accepting Christ as one’s savior?

The Willow Creek study is primarily concerned with an adherent’s progress on the spiritual continuum. A continuum is “a range or series of things that are slightly different from each other and that exist between two different possibilities.”[24] In Christianity, the beginning of the spiritual continuum occurs when one accepts Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and savior. The other end of the spiritual continuum is reached when one leaves this earthly life as a Christian.

For Bill Hybels and the researchers, the foregoing definition appears to contradict Willow Creek’s definition of the spiritual continuum. This becomes apparent when their definitions of the segments of the spiritual continuum are examined.

Exploring Christianity – “I believe in God, but I’m not sure about Christ.” These people are taking the first steps in spiritual growth and are marked by significantly lower levels of agreement with belief statements such as “I believe salvation comes only through Jesus Christ.”

Growing in Christ – “I believe in Jesus, and I’m working on what it means to get to know him.” These believers are growing in their faith through church experiences and are also starting to incorporate personal spiritual practices into their normal routine outside the church.

Close to Christ – “I feel really close to Christ and depend on him daily for guidance.” These believers report much higher levels of spiritual practices than earlier segments. Serving emerges as an important expression of their faith. While their devotion to Christ is growing they still hold back from full commitment.

Christ-centered – “God is all I need in my life. He is enough. Everything I do is a reflection of Christ.” These people have fully surrendered their lives to Christ, demonstrated by their significantly higher levels of spiritual behaviors across the board. They “very strongly agree” that they seek God’s guidance in every area of their lives-at two times the level of any other segment.[25]

In the entire book that presents the study’s findings, no reference can be found as to the requirement that to be a Christian one must accept Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior. Many people in the Exploring Christianity phase of Willow Creek’s spiritual continuum apparently believe in God but not Jesus Christ. They attend church, participate in church activities, sing, worship, and pray. But if they do not believe in Jesus Christ (and most importantly have not also accepted Him as their Lord and Savior), then they are not Christians. They are lost sinners, not on the spiritual continuum, and therefore not growing spiritually. The seeker may be under conviction of the Holy Spirit, but they are not saved and therefore not growing spiritually. It is only when one accepts Christ as his or her Lord and savior that they begin their spiritual journey. Those in the Growing in Christ segment have professed a belief in Jesus, but again that is not the same as accepting Christ as one’s Lord and Savior. Here we have people supposedly moving along the spiritual continuum but with no mention of the life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ which is the true beginning of one’s journey on the spiritual continuum.
______

The substitution of man’s efforts to replace the redeeming work of the cross appears to be one of the great failings of the Church Growth movement and seeker sensitive churches (see Chapter 29). Paul’s second and final letter to Timothy warned what the last days would be like, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” [2 Timothy, 3:5. KJV] Matthew Henry wrote of Paul’s warning. “In the last days would come perilous times, not so much on account of persecution from without as on account of corruptions within…A form of godliness is a very different thing from the power of it; men may have the one and be wholly destitute of the other.”[26]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal – Where Are You? (Barrington, Illinois: Willow Creek Association, 2007), pp. 3, 111.
[2] “Willow History,” Willow Creek Community Church. http://www.willowcreek.org/aboutwillow/willow-history (accessed December 29, 2015).
[3] George Mair, A Life With Purpose – Reverend Rick Warren, (New York: Berkeley Books, 2005), pp. 101-102.
[4] Hawkins and Parkinson, p. 111.
[5] Ibid., pp. 3-4, 8.
[6] Ibid., p. 29.
[7] Ibid., p. 33.
[8] Ibid., pp. 35-37.
[9] Ibid., p. 39.
[10] Ibid., pp. 38-39, 41.
[11] Ibid., p. 41.
[12] Ibid., pp. 42-43.
[13] Ibid., p. 44.
[14] Ibid., pp. 44-45.
[15] Ibid., p. 45.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Rick Warren, “Building a Purpose-Driven Church,” Seminar at Saddleback Church, January, 1998. Rick Warren Quotes. http://rickwarrenquotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/driving-under-influence-of-rick-warren.html (accessed January 12, 2016).
[18 Hawkins and Parkinson, p. 47.
[19] Ibid., pp. 47-49.
[20] Ibid., pp. 50-53.
[21] Ibid., pp. 54-55.
[22] Ibid., p. 53.
[23] Ibid., p. 59.
[24] “continuum,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuum (accessed January 12, 2016).
[25] Hawkins and Parkinson, pp. 38-39.
[26] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 1896-1897.

Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, is the largest congregation in America having over 40,000 who attend the 16,800 seat nondenominational Christian mega church. From their base at Lakewood, Pastor Joel Osteen and wife Victoria preach an upbeat message to a worldwide audience of 200 million. The essence of their message can be found in Osteen’s best-selling book Your Best Life Now.

Too many times we get stuck in a rut, thinking we’ve reached our limits. But God wants us to constantly be increasing, to be rising to new heights. He wants to increase you in his wisdom and help you make better decisions. God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas, and creativity.”[1]

In other words, God wants you to be happy; it’s all about you. Therefore, it was not surprising that an undated video clip began circulating in August 2014 which captured Ms. Osteen, with her husband standing close behind and nodding his approval, admonishing the congregation that the purpose and intent of obedience to God and worship was to make the people happy.

I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we’re happy. That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy…

So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy…When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?[2]

But is the primary purpose of obedience and worship of God to make people happy in this life? A quick survey of several scriptures quoted in the previous chapter says otherwise. For the born-again Christian, this life is about cross bearing, dying to self, living the resurrection life, and following Christ’s example. Cross bearing and dying to self may not fit the world’s image of happiness but it will result in eternal happiness as we commune with God forever.

A biblical perspective on worship

Both the Old and New Testaments have a number of things to say about worship.

Worship is commanded: “O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker.” [Psalm 95:5. KJV]

Worship is to accompany our best offering–our first fruits: “Give the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” [1 Chronicles 16:29. KJV]

Worship requires a right attitude: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” [John 4:24. KJV]

If we teach the doctrines of men, we worship in vain: “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” [Matthew 15:7-9. KJV]

We must be vigilant that our worship does not turn to idolatry: “Take heed to yourselves that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them.” [Deuteronomy 11:16. KJV] “I am the Lord; that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” [Isaiah 42:8. KJV]

Although not a comprehensive examination of the church’s worship of God, His commands and expectations are clearly revealed in these verses. Worship of God is not optional for the Christian, and it is not about making us happy. Our worship is rejected if we worship with the wrong attitude, we teach man’s doctrines, and is in vain when it accompanies an offering of less than our first fruits. True worship is an expression of our love, adoration, reverence, respect, devotion, and praise of God. Can much of what we see in many evangelical churches of today come close to this description of true worship?

Entertainment disguised as worship

Francis Schaeffer has said that God uses different ways in different moments of history, but he cautions that this freedom to use various ways in accomplishing His work has limits.[3] The Church Growth movement and particularly the Purpose Driven techniques and methods espoused by Rick Warren have gone far outside acceptable limits in their worship services. One of those ways the Church Growth movement has crossed the line is the manner in which they have incorporated man’s ideas in marketing God to the unchurched—the consumer. The unchurched seekers are the target market and must be given what they want. And what attracts them is entertainment. Entertainment is now disguised as worship. As a result, seeker-sensitive churches are incorporating world-centered entertainment designed for and directed at the seeker-consumer instead of being Christ-centered worship directed toward God.

In Chapter 26 it was noted that Warren and the other Church Growth advocates have committed a fundamental error that underlies the entire concept of the Church Growth movement. They have wrongly redirected the purpose of preaching and weekly church gatherings from being primarily focused on the body of Christ to weekly seeker-sensitive services aimed at the unchurched. Similarly, they have redirected the worship service toward the unchurched seeker as opposed to worship that is directed to God. The truth of this statement could not be more strongly validated than through the words of Victoria Osteen, “When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy.” [emphasis added]

Chapter 13 of Warren’s The Purpose Driven Church is titled “Worship Can Be a Witness.” He states that “Everything we do in our weekend services is based on twelve deeply held convictions.” These convictions all center on the various elements of worship such as “style” of worship, witnessing, seeker expectations, and seeker understanding.[4] What he does not talk about is what the Bible says about worship. In Chapter 15, “Selecting Your Music,” Warren states that the church must match its music to the kind of people God wants your church to reach. But where in the Bible does it say that churches should specialize in the type of sinner they wish to reach?

Several quotes expose Warren’s faulty beliefs about music in the church.

Music is the primary communicator of values to the younger generation. If we don’t use contemporary music to spread godly values, Satan will have unchallenged access to an entire generation. Music is a force that cannot be ignored.

I reject the idea that music styles can be judged as either “good” or “bad” music. Who decides this? The kind of music you like is determined by your background and culture.

Churches need to admit that no particular style of music is “sacred.” What makes a song sacred is its message. Music is nothing more than an arrangement of notes and rhythms; it’s the words that make a song spiritual.[5] [emphasis in original]

On one page Warren writes that music is the primary communicator of values to the younger generation. He contradicts himself on the next page when he says that music is nothing more than an arrangement of notes and rhythms, it’s the words that make a song spiritual. Style is immaterial and only words matter. Let’s examine these statements in greater detail.

This author visited a mega church style service at which one of my wife’s school students was being baptized. Before the baptismal service, we had to “endure” the worship service conducted by a writhing twenty-something in skin-tight attire backed by five guitars players. It was only after the service we learned that because the rock-styled music was so loud the church routinely provided ear plugs at the entrance of the sanctuary for people that can’t endure the noise level. I can honestly report that during the entire worship production I did not recognize any words of the songs and certainly had no clue as to their messages. If words make the song spiritual and the message makes it sacred as Warren intones, I and most others in the building received nothing spiritual or sacred from the worship service that evening.

Music and song are chief expressions in a church’s communal worship of God. When music and songs that mirror the world are brought into the house of God and presented as worship, what distinguishes these from worldly entertainment and true worship of the living God? Is it words alone? The Old Testament had much to say about defiling God’s house, and things that defile included much more than words. “But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.” [Jeremiah 32:34. KJV]

A substantial portion of the music of Warren’s church and many others following the Church Growth model is centered on rock music. Writing thirty years ago, the late David Wilkerson delivered a devastating indictment of rock music. He began with a quotation from the second book of the Chronicles.

“And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice.” [2 Chronicles 7:12. KJV]

Every time a child of God preaches, prays, praises, or sings—he is bringing a sacrificial offering unto the Lord. Every Christian concert or record is an offering unto the Lord.

What has this to do with rock music in the church? How can it apply to Christians who perform or listen to it? It should be obvious. In worship or praise, our Father will not receive, but rather He will furiously reject any offering that is polluted or spotted in the least bit.

I hear sincere Christians say, “Satan doesn’t own music. It belongs to God. The music doesn’t matter as long as the words are right.” Dead wrong! The devil owns all music that is ungodly and evil. And Satan had all the right words when he tempted Christ. The Israelites dancing around the golden calf had all the right words. Were they not singing, “This is the god that brought us out of Egypt”? Same people, same words—but their god had changed. It is much more than holy, intelligent words. Satan has always spoken in temptation with accurate words mingled with a lot of Scripture, and so has every angel of light who has come to deceive.[6]

Wilkerson wrote that rock music can’t be defined or judged on technicalities because it is primarily a soul and spirit matter. The line between satanically inspired punk or heavy metal rock and other forms of popular music cannot be drawn by legalistic rules—it is a matter of spirit and truth.[7] But spirit and truth receive little attention in many Church Growth/Purpose Driven churches as they compete for the best musical hook to snare the seeker surfing the church scene. This is not a condemnation of all non-sacred music. There is much music in the world, although not sacred music intended for worship, which is not ungodly or evil in and of itself. However, even when “non-spiritual” popular music passes the spirit and truth test, it still doesn’t belong in God’s house of sacrifice.

Even in non-Christian circles, the evils of certain types of music are recognized and condemned in terms far more powerful than used by David Wilkerson. One of those voices was Robert H. Bork who wrote Slouching Towards Gomorrah – Modern Liberalism and American Decline. In 1987 Bork, a Constitutional originalist, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. An intense and orchestrated campaign by liberals in government, the media, Hollywood, and the American Civil Liberties Union viciously attacked Bork and eventually scuttled the nomination through a sustained flood of lies and distortions.

Bork’s book argues that the forces of modern liberalism have brought the nation to the brink of disaster. He states that the nation’s only hope is to recognize and understand the problem which must be coupled with a will to resist. Along with the collapse of popular culture and a general weakening of intellect, he also cites “trouble in religion.”[8]

Bork wrote that in keeping with the themes of liberalism and its progress in the 1960s, popular entertainment embraced the hedonistic concept of the unconstrained self. The importance of self was expressed in the music of the era—rock ’n’ roll which evolved into hard rock[9] and its various iterations such as punk, heavy metal, acid, and rap. Bork quoted Michael Bywater who wrote of the modern music industry.

[The music industry] has somehow reduced humanity’s greatest achievement—a near-universal language of pure transcendence—into a knuckle-dragging sub-pidgin of grunts and snarls, capable of fully expressing only the more pointless forms of violence and the more brutal forms of sex.[10]

Bork contended that the rock music business clearly understood that a large part of the appeal of rock music to the young was its subversion of authority through its incoherence and primitive regression.[11] Rock ‘n’ roll was the rebellious cadence to which many in the Boomer generation and their liberal elders marched.

Recall that Warren wrote, “Music is the primary communicator of values to the younger generation.” Whether or not it is the primary communicator of values is debatable, but Warren is correct insofar as he means it is an important communicator of values. And here we speak not just of the words that communicate values; it is the whole package in which the words are wrapped. When people think of rock music, it is not the music of Pat Boone’s “April Love” of the 1950s but the music of the 1960s and thereafter beginning with the Beatles who proclaimed themselves to be more popular than Jesus Christ. It is the music of drugs, sex, rebellion, and the autonomous self. And that is the message of rock music which still communicates the values of much of the rebellious Boomer generation to the present day. It has no place in the lives of the followers of Christ, and it certainly has no place in the house of God.

Ravi Zacharias wrote, “The lesson from history is that sanctity within the temple ultimately defines life outside the temple, and without the former, life becomes profane. Just as reverence is the heart of worship, profanity is at the heart of evil.”[12] Zacharias was speaking of worship in the larger sense of living a Godly, holy life. But if applicable in the larger sense, it is also applicable to corporate worship. There is certainly no sense of reverence in the type of rock music discussed above. Regardless of the change of words, it is not sacred or secular but profane.

Richard M. Weaver wrote that, “…it is admitted that what man expresses in music dear to him he will most certainly express in his social practices.”[13] One need only look at the social practices that have grown over the last half century as rock music became the anthem of popular culture. In every facet of American life including much of the church, there has been a decline of the sacred and a breakdown of what it means to be a civilized and moral society.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 183, quoting Joel Osteen from Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential, (New York: Time Warner, 2004), p. 5.
[2] Heather Clark, ‘Do Good for Your Own Self’: Osteen Says Obedience, Worship ‘Not for God’, Christian News Network, August 28, 2015. http://christiannews.net/2014/08/28/do-good-for-your-own-self-osteen-says-obedience-worship-not-for-god-video/ (accessed December 18, 2015).
[3] Francis Schaeffer, “Interview with Francis & Edith Schaeffer – God’s Leading in L’Abri & Our Lives,” How Then Should We Live? DVD – Gospel Communications International, Inc., (Worchester, Pennsylvania: Vision Video, 1977).
[4] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 239-249.
[5] Ibid., pp. 280-281.
[6] David Wilkerson, Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth,” (Lindale, Texas: World Challenge, Inc., 1985), pp. 98-100.
[7] Ibid., pp. 92-93.
[8] Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah – Modern Liberalism and American Decline, (New York: Regan Books, 1996), Cover flap.
[9] Ibid., pp. 125-126.
[10] Ibid., p. 124.
[11] Ibid., pp. 23-24.
[12] Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997), p. 155.
[13] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 87.

There is one incomprehensible moment in all eternity and creation’s flow of time at which the Creator’s incarnate Son was executed. Jesus was nailed to a rugged cross by His special creation—man. In Chapter 16 the tripartite story of mankind was briefly outlined: the Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Before the foundations of the world were laid and before the creation of man, God knew man would reject Him, and He also knew the cost of that rejection.

Because His holiness cannot abide the corruption of sin, sinful man was separated from God. Yet, God made a way for man’s sin to be washed away allowing return to a right relationship with Him. But that way would cost the death of God’s son on the cross at Calvary because man is powerless to save himself. Only by man’s free will can he accept or reject the atoning gift of forgiveness and redemption made possible by Christ’s death on the cross. In this chapter we will examine Redemption—the last chapter in the story of mankind. It is called salvation and comes only by way of the cross.

The work of the cross

Paul and Silas had been imprisoned for teaching and preaching in Philippi, a city in Macedonia. Around midnight while they prayed and sang praises, an earthquake broke the walls of the prison and the shackles fell off all of the prisoners. The distraught guard drew his sword to kill himself, knowing the escape of the prisoners meant his own death from his superiors. But Paul cried with a loud voice.

Do thyself no harm for we are still here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [Acts 16:28-32. KJV] [emphasis added]

The first verse memorized by almost every child in any Sunday school is, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16. KJV] [emphasis added] Believe—so simple, but oh how complicated man has made it.

Writing in his short little book The Nonnegotiable Gospel, Dave Hunt says that there is only one true gospel of grace. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works should any man boast.” [Ephesians 2:8-9. KJV]

For those who believe, it is this gospel alone that saves…Sentimental appeals to “come to Jesus” or “make a decision for Christ” avail nothing if the gospel is not clearly explained and believed.

Many are attracted to Christ because of His admirable character, noble martyrdom, or because He changes lives. Such converts have not believed the gospel and thus are not saved.

The gospel (gospel of grace) contains nothing about baptism, church membership or attendance, tithing, sacraments or rituals, diet, or clothing. If we add anything to the gospel, we have perverted it…[1] [emphasis in original]

The substitution of man’s efforts to replace the redeeming work of the cross is not a new phenomenon within the church. In A Treatise on Relics, John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote that the principal cause of corruption in the early Christian church was the introduction of pagan ideas and practices soon after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (See Chapter 3). The pagans’ practices and religion elevated mortal men to be gods and demigods. This eventually led Christians to venerate early Christian martyrs and also caused them to be viewed as a type of demigod. This became even more pronounced as the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with paganism. Because so many had been baptized into the church without having been truly converted, the Christian church incorporated many rites and ceremonies including polytheism held by these unconverted church members. At first the church tolerated these “temporary” compromises but later found they could no longer remove them because of their strength due to having been so deeply imbedded in the church. What once was tolerated and winked at now was legalized by the church. Instead of bringing the pagan through the strait gate, the church widened it to such an extent that the rush of paganism nearly overwhelmed and swept the church from its foundations.[2] The saving work of the cross was replaced with man’s ideas and labors.

We find the same pattern of compromise occurring in the Puritan church in America during the latter half of the 1600s (See Chapter 8). In 1662, the “half-way covenant” began in New England. Because the preaching of the time so emphasized sensational conversion experiences, many people in the pews were afraid to come forward and be baptized because they did not have one. They stayed in the church but did not call themselves Christian. Rather, they chose to be called “seekers” having only a half-way covenant.[3]

Such heresies do not spring forth fully grown but occur through various intermediate stages which initially appear to adhere to biblical prescriptions but with a pragmatic twist and/or modern spin. The rough edges of the gospel of the cross are smoothed to make it comfortable and more acceptable to the seeker, all under the guise of accomplishing the Great Commission. But soon the work of the cross and its message become irrelevant to what now passes for salvation and the Christian life.

The cross reduced to religious symbol

The importance of the cross in evangelical churches is declining rapidly, either through substitution of man’s efforts or the diminishment of its necessity and centrality in Christianity. Well before Rick Warren surveyed Saddleback Valley in California, Bill Hybels surveyed unchurched people to find out their preferences as he began building Willow Creek, a mega church near Chicago. The answers included “get rid of the organ,” “pad the seats,” and “ditch the cross and other symbols that make people nervous.”[4] [emphasis added]

Rick Warren also cautions the leadership of Purpose Driven churches to “…be careful not to overdo mystical, religious symbols in your facilities. Everyone knows what the cross is, but the unchurched are confused by chalices, crowns, and doves with fire coming out of their tails.”[5] Warren may be correct in saying that “everyone knows what the cross is,” but in such seeker-sensitive churches focused on church growth, it is highly probable that most do not know what the cross means because it is rarely or never clearly and correctly explained.

In his unauthorized but glowing biography of Warren, George Mair spoke of his first impressions upon arriving at Saddleback church.

Stately old palm trees stood guard near the main entrance to the Worship Center, shading benches for worshipers…a sound system carried the services throughout the complex, so overflow crowds or those who simply prefer to sit outside could enjoy the sermon and music in chairs set out under the shade trees…

I looked for a cross, or other signs of a Christian center, and finally spied a slender cross of dark metal above the complex—more a piece of art than a religious symbol.

In many ways the meeting hall was more like a basketball stadium than a church—there were almost no Christian symbols or artifacts in view. I knew there had to be a Christian cross somewhere inside, but I couldn’t find it. I didn’t know it then, but the lack of Christian imagery was characteristic of the new wave of so-called mega churches in America.[6]

The cross was never meant to be just something beautiful, a charm to wear around the neck, a piece of art, or an object of adoration. These items are of little concern to the Christian as long as he continues to understand the true meaning of the work and message of the cross. However, the absence of the cross used to identify a Christian church is a tragedy when its removal is a mere sop to the sensibilities of lost seekers. The cross should always be a reminder to the Christian of its true meaning, and they should see it as the Romans did. It was an instrument upon which men were executed in a most horrible fashion. Men shrink from it. The cross is considered an offense by the world system. One writer calls the message of the cross as “the chafing point between the physical and spiritual realms…an agitant thrown into the mix of each new generation of every nation, creating conflict while at the same time offering true peace.”[7] However, the modern-day sensibilities of many evangelical church leaders cause them to fashion sermons devoid of the work and message cross so as to bring order to the souls of their congregants without upsetting them or causing undue discomfort. But an ordering of the soul can only be found at the cross whose message calls to every man, woman, and child on the planet.

The message of the cross

The message of Christ is the cross. As the apostles went out to preach Christ, it was a radical and powerful message that “changed bad men into good ones…shook off the long bondage of paganism and altered completely the whole moral and mental outlook of the Western world.”[8] How did this message eventually conquer the mighty Roman Empire?

Then Jesus said unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV]

The apostles were rough working men, most with little education and all without wealth or political power. Nevertheless, they took up their crosses, denied themselves, and followed Christ. They understood the cross to be a place of death. As the cross brought death to Christ at Calvary, so did their crosses bring death at the hands of men to all but John who was exiled to Patmos. And so too men who choose Christ, of necessity, must choose death to self and sin for they cannot otherwise follow Him. It is both an immediate and ongoing death to self and the world. The essence of this message is captured by the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The cross is laid on every Christian. The first Christ-suffering which every man must experience is the call to abandon the attachments of this world. It is that dying of the old man which is the result of his encounter with Christ. As we embark upon discipleship we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with his death—we give over our lives to death. Thus it begins; the cross is not the terrible end to an otherwise god-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ. When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.[9]

But such death brings a life of holiness, spiritual freedom, and eternal communion with God as they follow Christ and conform themselves to the nature of God.

The seeker-sensitive message

But self-denial and death are not readily marketable to the last three generations of Americans submersed in modern Madison Avenue techniques of selling Christianity. In the 1950s death and self-denial were banished by Norman Vincent Peale’s practical Christianity which was a blending of psychology and New Age practices into a religious mix aimed at healing the soul through self-help and the works of men (See Chapters 19-20).

Robert Schuller refined Peale’s positive thinking into possibility thinking in which inborn sin is a condition to be dealt with therapeutically as opposed to an action requiring repentance and a turning from sin. The act of faith itself absolves sin without the necessity of an ongoing faith walk—a daily dying to self and sin. The purpose for one’s salvation is to do good works rather than having a right relationship with God (See Chapter 21).[10]

Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and other Church Growth leaders have not as blatantly abandoned doctrinal soundness as did Peale and Schuller, but they are promoting the same techniques and compromises that are filling churches with “converted” seekers who appear by their lifestyles to be half-way covenanters. Warren defends these methods by saying that “proclaimers of truth don’t get much attention in a society which devalues truth…While most unbelievers aren’t looking for truth, they are looking for relief. This gives us the opportunity to interest them in the truth.”[11] But the truth doesn’t need any help. The church need not attempt to sell the truth by convincing the sinner that it is good for them. As discussed in Chapter 26, the power of the Word and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit are the only ingredients necessary to bring salvation to the heart of a sinner that accepts the grace of God.

Yes, the church can and must provide relief where possible and appropriate, but man’s salvation is not dependent on bait and hook techniques as promoted by the Church Growth movement. And yes, the church must not hit the sinner over the head with every sinful thing they’ve ever done. This does not mean the church must soft-pedal the message of the cross, but in the end it must remember that the ultimate work of salvation rests with the Holy Spirit and power of the Word of God.

By giving the sinner some slack as suggested by Warren[12] and others in seeker-sensitive churches, many preachers never get around to presenting the unadulterated powerful message of the cross nor allow time for the Holy Spirit to do His office work of convicting the sinner of his sin. Rather, the seeker-sensitive church attempts to entice the sinner through the church’s doors and then focuses on meeting their felt needs with the hope that over time the importance of being a Christian and its associated benefits will convince the seeker that they should “make a decision for Christ.” Thereafter, sanctification will come through listening and responding to a series of therapeutic messages designed to make them better people and thereby partake of the popularized view of Christianity “as the good life.”

But the heart of Christ’s call to discipleship is not doing better but embracing the message of the cross, dying to self, and living the resurrection life which will result in true sanctification. “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:27. KJV] “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Galatians 2:20. KJV] The resurrection life makes no provision for the flesh. “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” [Romans 13:14. KJV]

The Christ of carnal convenience

Tozer warned that many are following a false Christ, constructed by their own imagination and made in their own image. It is a Christ of “carnal convenience” closely akin to the gods of paganism. It is a utilitarian Christ whom they summon as needed to minister to their needs and wants without concern for biblical admonitions or the will of God for their lives.[13] If one is following a utilitarian Christ, then he or she is not a Christian because they have not heeded the message of the cross. But this is the story of many who sit in evangelical churches week after week, year after year, listening to user-friendly messages and enjoying the perks of Christianity without ever surrendering their lives to Christ, dying to self, and daily taking up their cross. This occurs because commitments to Christ “avail nothing if the gospel is not clearly explained and believed” and merely result in a mental shift rather than a heart and life change. But when the unapologetic message of the cross is spoken with compassion and a loving spirit, many sinners will respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and accept Christ as their Savior. Others will not. Will the demands of a New Testament understanding of the cross grow a church? Perhaps not as fast as one that is driven by purpose. But it will grow the kingdom of God.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dave Hunt, The Nonnegotiable Gospel, (Bend, Oregon: The Berean Call, 1998, 2014), pp. 9-11.
[2] John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics, Second ed., Translated from the French original, (Edinburgh, Scotland: Johnstone, Hunter & Co., 1870). A public domain book. Amazon Kindle Book, Chapter 1.
[3] Andrée Seu Peterson, “Unstable Elements,” World, September 5, 2010, 75.
[4] George Mair, A Life With Purpose – Reverend Rick Warren, (New York: Berkeley Books, 2005), p. 83.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), p. 268.
[6] Mair, pp. 3-6.
[7] Douglas B. Wicks, writing in the Preface, A. W. Tozer, The Radical Cross, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 2005, 2009), p. ix.
[8] Ibid., p. 3.
[9] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, quoted by Goodreads. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Bonhoeffer+suffering&commit=Search (accessed March 4, 2016).
[10] Robert H. Schuller, My Journey, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), pp. 127-128.
[11] Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, p. 226.
[12] Ibid., p. 216.
[13] A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 2006), pp. 23-25.

The modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. As a result, many in the today’evangelical churches are abandoning a forthright proclamation of the gospel and replacing it with conversations about tolerance, charity, understanding, goodwill, and other noble-sounding objectives defined and dearly held by a humanistic culture. But once again we must look to the pithy writings of A. W. Tozer for wisdom and clarity. “When men believe God they speak boldly. When they doubt they confer. Much religious talk is but uncertainty rationalizing itself; and this they call “engaging in contemporary dialogue.”[1] [emphasis added]

God doesn’t have “conversations” with man about sin

Brian Houston, head of Hillsong’s twelve global churches (including one each in New York City and Los Angeles) appears to favor the conversational approach. While speaking at a press conference during Hillsong’s October 2014 conference in New York City, Houston was asked by Michael Paulson of the New York Times to clarify his statement about same-sex marriage with regard to the church’s staying relevant to modern culture.

It can be challenging for churches to stay relevant…On the subject [homosexuality], I always feel like there’s three things. There’s the world we live in, there’s the weight we live with, and there’s the word we live by. The world, the weight, and the word.

And to me, the world we live in, whether we like it or not, is changing around and about us. Homosexual marriage is legal in [New York City] and will be probably in most Western world countries within a short time. So the world’s changing and we want to stay relevant as a church. So that’s a vexing thing. You think, “How do we not become a pariah?” So that’s the world we live in.

Then the weight we live with is the reality that in churches like ours and virtually any other church, there are young people who have serious questions about their sexuality… And maybe they feel a sense of rejection there [because of homosexual feelings]…So you can have churches—not just our church, but churches—young people who are literally depressed, maybe even suicidal and, sadly…feel that the church rejected them. So there’s the world we live in, the weight we live with, and then the word we live by.

The word we live by is what the Bible says. And it would be much easier if you could feel like all of those three just easily lined up. But they don’t necessarily…For us, it’s easy to reduce what you think about homosexuality to just a public statement. And that would keep a lot of people happy. But we feel at this point, it is an ongoing conversation, that the real issues in people’s lives are too important for us to just reduce it down to a “yes” or “no” answer in a media outlet.[2] [emphasis added]

Houston felt it necessary to issue a second statement following the press conference on LGBT issues when newspaper headlines stated that his church “won’t take [a] public position on LGBT issues.” Houston stated that he had not abandoned the traditional Christian teachings that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but in addressing the issue the church must remain relevant to the culture.[3]

I think with the church, the message is sacred but the methods have to change for the church to stay relevant. And it’s challenging. It’s challenging to stay relevant. I mean, if we go to the one big hot topic maybe for churches … now with homosexual marriage legalized, and churches for generations, they hold a set of beliefs around what they believe the Word of God, the Bible says. All of a sudden in many circles the church can look like a pariah, because to many people it’s so irrelevant now… So staying relevant is a big challenge. I think it’s more than just singing more contemporary songs and the colors you paint your walls or whatever.[4]

Houston’s ambiguity and equivocating about homosexuality amounts to abandonment of biblical truth in order to remain relevant to the culture. This attempt to balance cultural relevance and a truthful presentation of God’s word has evolved to the point of being dangerously close to apostasy in Houston’s own church. If one doubts this assertion, one need only to read the remarks of Carl Lentz in an interview with CNN in June 2014. Lentz, pastor of Hillsong’s New York City Church, said that his church has “a lot of gay men and women…Jesus was in the thick of an era where homosexuality, just like it is today, was widely prevalent. And I’m still waiting for someone to show me the quote where Jesus addressed it on the record in front of people. You won’t find it because he never did.” Lentz wife stated in the same CNN interview that, “It’s not our place to tell anyone how they should live. That’s their journey.”[5]

If the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God, then no part of it is less true or less applicable than another. But this is what Lentz has strongly implied when he attempted to lessen the sin of homosexual behavior by claiming Christ did not speak against it. The Apostle Paul did condemn homosexuality in a very forthright and plain manner (see Romans 1: 18, 24-27). Paul’s admonishment regarding homosexuality is a part of the inspired word of God and is no less inspired than the writings of those who recorded the words of Christ in the gospels.

Ms. Lentz’s comment that we should not tell anyone how to live is absurd and would be laughable if her error was not so serious. One must ask what the purpose of Paul’s pronouncements on homosexuality was if he did not intend to instruct Christians (and all of mankind) on how they should live. What is Ms. Lentz’s husband doing when he preaches to the New York City Hillsong congregation? He is giving instruction on how one ought to live one’s life.

It is commendable that Lentz’s church has a lot of gay men and women attending, but without forthrightly addressing the sin of homosexuality Hillsong Church has compromised the word of God in order to maintain cultural relevance while gaining attendance and/or ministering to the felt needs of practicing homosexuals. The Bible speaks plainly about a time when truth is not taught and sin is tolerated in the church.

…preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. [2 Timothy 3:2-4. RSV]

The world is evangelizing the church

Much of the American church is desperately trying to remain relevant in the rapidly deteriorating culture. However, writing in 2001, Jim Cymbala warned that as the church confronts an antagonistic culture we need to take a look at what the church is doing. One of the things he observed was that the church is, “Letting the world ‘evangelize’ us without our realizing it…Instead of being a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God (in the New Testament sense of the words), the world’s value system has invaded the church so that there’s almost no distinction between the two.”[6]

Oz Guinness identified the process whereby the world evangelizes the church which ultimately leads to its collapse into worldliness.

• Assumption – Some aspect of modern life or thought is assumed either to be significant, and therefore worth acknowledging, or superior to what Christians know or do, and therefore worth adopting. Soon the assumption in question becomes an integral part of Christian thought and practice.
• Abandonment – Truths or customs that do not fit in with the modern assumption are put up in the creedal attic to collect dust. They are of no more use. The modern assumptions are authoritative. Is the traditional idea unfashionable, superfluous, or just plain wrong? No matter. It doesn’t fit in, so it has to go.
• Adaptation – Something new is assumed, something old is abandoned; and everything else is adapted. In other words, what remains of traditional beliefs and practices is altered to fit with the new assumption.
• Assimilation – The outcome is that what remains is not only adapted but absorbed by the modern assumptions. It is assimilated without any decisive remainder. The result is worldliness, or Christian capitulation to some aspect of the culture of its day.[7]

In this four-step process the world infiltrates the church which leads to compromise or abandonment of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seems that an integral part of the process in each step of the world’s infiltration begins with conversations. Whether it is homosexuality, outreach to false religions, racial problems, or some other pressing issue afflicting society, it seems that all must begin with conversations to properly identify and define problems and construct man-made solutions. In reality all of the problems that seem unique to modern culture have existed since the beginning of man’s time on the earth. That problem is man’s fallen nature as a consequence of sin. And the only solution to man’s problem with sin is his repentance and restoration to a right relationship with God through Christ’s atoning blood shed on the cross. Biblical truth is non-negotiable, and no amount of conversation among men, however sincere and well-meaning, will change this.

What are we to do with “sin”?

Many churches are compromising the gospel message through incorporation of the world’s definitions of love and tolerance. The message of many churches is that God’s love is nonjudgmental and so vast that He will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. In other words, love is all that matters. If this message is true, then sin is of no consequence in determining our eternal destination. And if sin is of no consequence to God, then He does not care about how we live our lives. If sin does not matter, then Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin becomes irrelevant.

The new concepts of love and tolerance are expressed as unconditional acceptance with the hope that someday the sinner will get around to becoming a Christian if the church is nice enough and meets his felt needs. This way is presumed to be the superior, enlightened, and preferred method to evangelize as opposed to doctrinally sound and time-tested approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.

This new way appears to fit well with Brian Houston’s goal of not becoming a cultural pariah. But we must remember that Christ was an outcast, an exile in the culture of His day, and the cross became an offense to the world because it declares that there is no other way to salvation but death to sin and self. Those preaching that the church must become relevant to the culture attempt to bypass the cross by accommodating their preaching to the opinions of those who reject the cross and God’s judgement against sin.

But the issue of dealing with sin in a hostile culture has been faced by the church from its beginning. Hundreds of thousands have died over the course of twenty centuries because they chose not to compromise on the issue of sin. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of those.

In 1937, the Confessing Church in Germany was under severe persecution from Nazi rulers and that portion of the German church aligned with Hitler. Bonhoeffer was a brilliant theologian, pastor, and opponent of the Nazi regime. While many of his colleagues were being arrested and sent to concentration camps, Bonhoeffer wrote a dramatic paper in which he cautioned his fellow pastors in the Confessing Church with regard to sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…The promise of grace is not to be squandered; it needs to be protected from the godless. Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The world upon whom grace is thrust as a bargain will grow tired of it, and it will not only trample upon the Holy, but also will tear apart those who force it on them. For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[8]

Those in the church who stand against compromising biblical doctrine in the name of cultural relevance are called divisive and haters. But Paul commands the faithful to be aware of those who depart from sound doctrine and act accordingly.

I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. [Romans 16:17-18. RSV] [emphasis added]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] A. W. Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), p. 126.
[2] Jonathan Merritt, “TRANSCRIPT: Hillsong’s Brian Houston on same-sex issues,” Religion News Service, October 16, 2014. http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/10/16/transcript-hillsongs-brian-houston-sex-issues/ (accessed July 14, 2015).
[3] Jonathan Merritt, “Hillsong’s Brian Houston says church won’t take position on same-sex issues,” Religion News Service, October 16, 2015. http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/10/16/hillsongs-brian-houston-says-church-lgbt-issues/ (accessed July 14, 2015).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 22-23.
[7] Shane Lems, “The church’s collapse into worldliness,” The Aquila Report, July 5, 2013.
http://theaquilareport.com/the-churchs-collapse-into-worldliness/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[8] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.

John the Apostle began his gospel with these words, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God.” [John 1:1. KJV] From this single verse we can know that God and His word preceded creation. Thus, the word of God is eternal and His truth unchangeable. It reflects His holiness and commands. God’s word was given to the authors of the Bible through inspiration. Their inspired thoughts and verbalizations were recorded and man received revelation about the nature and character of God and man’s place in the story of creation, the Fall, and restoration. When we accept the Word we acquire wisdom and are given everlasting life with Him.

Because Satan is the enemy of God, he is also the enemy of God’s special created being—man. Satan is a liar and deceiver, and his first effort to break man’s relationship with God was the deception of Eve in the Garden. Words were his chosen weapon. First, question the meaning of what God had said, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” After meaning is brought into question, then the big lie can be accommodated, “Ye shall not surely die.”

We can judge an age by the way it treats language. In our modern age many have abandoned objective truth and therefore the fixities of language for that of a heightened interest in semantics. Semantics deal with the historical and psychological study and classification of changes in the meaning of words and their development. Within such a semantical concept of language, words no longer reflect unchangeable truth but only perceptions or qualities which are changeable over time. In effect, words have been stripped of their meaning and are separated from the thing it represents. In this theory of language, meaning becomes relativistic and pragmatic, and ideals become hallucinations.[1] In other words, the unchanging substance of words is replaced by the current, changeable, pragmatic meanings that can be made to fit the modernists’ humanistic understanding of the age. When their understanding of the age changes, so too must the meaning of words. But if words lose their meaning, truth also becomes meaningless, and there can be no ideal.

Words matter

The belief that the Bible is infallible (unfailing and by implication without error) arises from our understanding that the scriptures were God-breathed, that is, written by human hands but under the inspiration of God. However, humanists often attempt to undermine the authority of the Scripture by pointing to the many translations of the Bible through the centuries which they say results in an almost certain decline in accuracy when compared to the original versions. Even some Christians use such phrases as “the divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture as originally given” which implies that later translations are less than infallible and therefore not as reliable. In the less faithful translations, that assumption is true. However, in every age Christians have not only pointed to the inerrancy of the Scripture, they also point to God’s providential preservation of the Scripture. If we believe that God through divine inspiration and exact precision revealed His will and intent to mankind, may we not also rightly believe that God would not allow His Word to be corrupted and thereby in His infinite wisdom sustained the accuracy of his revelation through the centuries? The answer is an unqualified yes, and we can without hesitation know His truth through the usage of standard and long-accepted translations such as the Vulgate and King James as well as other faithful modern translations.

There are numerous scriptures in the Old and New Testaments that make it clear that the Bible should not be tampered with even to the smallest degree. Moses (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32), Paul (Galatians 1:6-9), and John (Revelation 22:18-19) all warned that nothing should be added to or taken away from the word of God. Yet, we know that the Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages and many times within a single language. Is this a reason for concern among those relying on the Bible’s infallibility? As long as the Bible remains whole, there should be concern only when there is a change in meaning of the scriptures from that of original sources and faithful translations.

Over the centuries, attempts to corrupt the Bible have occurred in all three ways: the adding to, the taking away, and the corruption of meaning. The liberal church has been guilty of all three (See Chapter 13). For the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have tampered with the meaning of scripture and have ignored large portions of the Bible in their preaching and teaching of doctrine—a form of taking away.

A. W. Tozer wrote of the importance of the purity and soundness of doctrine.

It is the sacred task of all Christians, first as believers and then as teachers of religious beliefs, to be certain that these beliefs correspond exactly to truth.

The apostles not only taught truth but contended for its purity against any who would corrupt it.

In every field of human thought and activity accuracy is considered a virtue. To err ever so slightly is to invite serious loss, if not death itself. Only in religious thought is faithfulness to truth looked upon as fault…when they come to consideration of things heavenly and eternal they hedge and hesitate as if truth either could not be discovered or didn’t matter anyway.

We have gotten accustomed to the blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine in modernistic churches and expect nothing better, but it is a cause for real alarm that the fog has begun of late to creep into many evangelical churches.[2] [emphasis added]

In the remainder of this chapter we shall examine the ways in which the meaning of the Bible has been corrupted and how much of the Bible is being taken away by being ignored.

Corruption of the Bible through use of unfaithful translations

One source of doctrinal corruption that is creeping into evangelical churches occurs through the pervasive, careless use of unfaithful translations. This is particularly evident in the Church Growth movement. When Rick Warren wrote The Purpose Driven Life, he claims to have used a thousand quotations from scripture and lists fifteen translations used. He does so because he believes that all translations have their limitations.[3] Using this logic, it seems that somehow verses from these limited (and by implication “flawed”) translations can be combined to come up with truth superior to what any one of them might offer. However, the truth or falsity of his statement is not the point. The real question is how can the use of a substandard translation be justified over a translation proven faithful to the meaning and intent of the scriptures, particularly when the source is merely the written opinion of an individual in a questionable paraphrase as opposed to a translation by a committee of Bible scholars?

Warren also thinks that many readers have become so familiar with certain translations that familiar Bible verses lose their impact. However, the Bible does not need to be presented in “new, fresh ways.” Because it is the unchanging and powerful word of God, the impact on the attentive reader will not be lessened. To the contrary, many Christians often find new meaning and insights when reading long-familiar passages and wonder how those new meanings and insights were missed only to realize the Holy Spirit has opened their hearts and minds to something needed at that moment. Those revelations don’t come from fumbling between fifteen different translations.

Also, Warren often does not bother to quote the entire verse because “division and number were not included in the Bible until 1560 A.D.” It is interesting to note that eight of the fifteen translations used in The Purpose Driven Life have copyright dates in the 1990s, and all but the King James Version date from the late 1950s.[4] Little needs to be said here other than to point out that such scriptural text bites or sound bites are frequently divorced from the larger meaning and context of biblical passages, and they are often used merely to “prove” or prop up man’s opinions.

One of Warren’s favorite translations that he often uses is Eugene Peterson’s The Message[TM]. But Peterson’s work has serious flaws that fail the tests of what makes a faithful translation or even a good paraphrase. Colossians 1:16 is a significant test of Peterson’s work with regards to both faithfulness and comprehension.

For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. [Colossians 1:16. TM]

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. [Colossians 1:16. KJV]

“Rank after rank after rank of angels”

The King James Version, Modern Language, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version use the following words in verse 16: thrones, dominations, principalities (KJV); thrones, lordships, rulers, authorities (ML); kings, kingdoms, rulers, authorities (LB); thrones, dominations, principalities, authorities (RSV); and thrones, powers, rulers, authorities (NIV). However, only Peterson uses the phrase “rank after rank after rank of angels.” Compared to the five other versions, Peterson’s phrase is virtually incomprehensible and borders on gibberish. If the major test of a version’s reliability is to remain true to the meaning of the scriptures while being understandable, and if verse 16 is representative of the entire body of Peterson’s work, then The Message is an abject failure.

“As above, so below”

Although Peterson’s phrase in verse 16 is essentially meaningless, the phrase “above and below” is of far greater concern. Writing in Deceived on Purpose, Warren Smith presents a very compelling case that the phrase “as above, so below” contains strong New Age implications. All other versions mentioned in the preceding paragraph contain the words “heaven” and “earth” in verse 16. Only Peterson uses “above and below.” Peterson also uses this phrase in The Lord’s Prayer found in Matthew 6:10. The King James Version reads, “Thy kingdom come. They will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Message reads, “Do what’s best—as above, so below.”[5]

Peterson’s “as above, so below” is a commonly accepted New Age maxim which holds that the transcendent God outside of the physical universe and the immanent God within each one of us are one.[6] This is blatant pantheism which was discussed in Chapter 16 and is the central belief of the New Age movement discussed in Chapter 19.

“Permeated with oneness”

Another verse from The Message that is packed with New Age connotations is Ephesians 4:6 where Paul is speaking to the church at Ephesus.

The Message reads, “…one God and Father of all, who rules over all, works through all, and is present in all. Everything you are and think and do is permeated with Oneness.” [Ephesians 6:4. TM]

The King James Version reads, “One God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [Ephesians 6:4. KJV]

Peterson calls God by the name of Oneness. Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within, but they are not permeated by Oneness. Again, we look to the King James and the four other versions previously mentioned. None call God anything but God and Father.

Oneness is a New Age foundational doctrine and “is inextricably linked to the understanding that god is ‘in’ everything.” Smith cites two specific quotes from A Course in Miracles that have obvious similarities to The Message’s version of Ephesians 6:4. “God is in everything I see… The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.” One New Age false Christ says that, “My name is Oneness.”[7]

“Immanent”

Warren flirts with the New Age not only through various New Age-friendly translations but also in his own teaching materials at Saddleback Church. Smith quotes from one of the Foundations courses taught at Saddleback in which Warren appears to hold a New Age view of immanence.

The fact that God stands above and beyond his creation does not mean he stands outside his creation. He is both transcendent (above and beyond his creation) and immanent (within and throughout his creation).[8] [parentheses in original, emphasis added]

Immanent means inherent, intrinsic, innate, and internal. As previously noted, pantheism teaches that God is (immanent) in everything and everyone (See Chapter 16). In spite of Saddleback’s teaching materials, the Bible tells us that God does not reside in those who are not His children.

But are we picking nits and being too hard on Warren for occasionally bumping or stepping over the line where doctrinal truth ends because his audience really knows what he means? If Tozer were alive today, he would most certainly say otherwise and include Warren among those that emit “blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine.”

Taking away from the Bible by ignoring large portions

In the previous chapter it was stated that in seeker-sensitive preaching, there is an inherent conflict between preaching some themes, topics, and doctrines of the Bible and the goal of the Church Growth movement of being sensitive to the feelings and needs of the unchurched. This conflict is the principal reason many evangelical churches ignore serious exposition of major portions of the Bible that appear to not be seeker-friendly.

One example of those major themes seldom addressed with any depth by preachers in the Church Growth movement is the prophetic second coming of Christ and the end of the world. In The Purpose Driven Life, Warren cautions his readers that we should not waste time on figuring out prophecy because it was really none of their business.

Today there’s a growing interest in the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. When will it happen? Just before Jesus ascended to heaven the disciples asked him the same question, and his response was quite revealing. He said, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” [Acts 1:7-8. NIV]

When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission in the world. He said in essence, “The details of my return are none of our business. What is your business is the mission I’ve given you. Focus on that!”…

If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy…

He (Satan) will do all kinds of good things as long as you don’t take anyone to heaven with you. But the moment you become serious about your mission, expect the Devil to throw all kinds of diversions at you. When that happens, remember the words of Jesus: “Anyone who lets himself be distracted from the work I plan for him is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”[9] [Luke 9:62. LB]

Did Jesus really tell the disciples that it was none of their business to know the details of His return and that they should get on with the mission? In order to forestall a subject that may not fit the seeker-sensitive mindset, Warren knowingly and wrongly commingles the disciples question about the signs of his coming and the end of the world with when those events would happen in order to dismiss the importance of prophecy. A complete reading of Matthew 24 leads to a conclusion that is the complete opposite of what Warren has said in The Purpose Driven Life.

And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, say, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world? [Matthew 24:3. KJV]

First, the disciples’ question has two parts. Jesus spent the remaining thirty-nine verses of Matthew 24 answering those questions. All but one verse dealt with the signs of His return and the end of the world. In verse 36, He answered the first part of their question as to “when” the events would occur, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” There was no rebuke of the disciples for asking when He would return nor did He say that the details of His return and the end of the world were none of their business. To the contrary, in verse 42 Jesus told His disciples to “Keep watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doeth come.” How could the disciples keep watch without knowing the signs of His coming and the end of the world? They could not.

This is one example of Warren’s use of multiple translations (version shopping) to prove a point but cloud the meaning of Scripture. He used a verse from Living Bible in an attempt to link interest in prophecy with being distracted from the work of evangelism. “Anyone who lets himself be distracted from the work I plan for him is not fit for the Kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:62. LB] However, the King James reads, “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:62. KJV] Verses 57-62 are principally a teaching about discipleship (following Christ and not looking back to the worldly life) and not evangelism as Warren would have us believe.
______

Writing over a half century ago, Tozer’s words appear to be an apt and prophetic description of many in today’s evangelical churches.

The human mind is capable of plenty of mischief without any help from the devil. Some persons have a positive genius for getting confused and will mistake illusion for reality in broad daylight with the Bible open before them.[10]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 150-152.
[2] A. W. Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), pp. 181-182, 184.
[3] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life – What Am I Here For? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002, 2011, 2012), pp. 345-346.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Warren Smith, Deceived on Purpose, (Magalia, California: Mountain Stream Press, 2004), pp. 30-31.
[6] Ibid., p. 29.
[7] Ibid., p. 84.
[8] Ibid., p. 157.
[9] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life – What Am I here For? pp. 283-284.
[10] Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, p. 133.

The foolishness of preaching

Writing to the Corinthians, Paul described his calling as an apostle of Jesus Christ. “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” [1 Corinthians 1:17. KJV] In the next verse Paul explained that how preaching was received by the hearers depended on whether they were saved or lost. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” [1 Corinthians 1:18. KJV]

Matthew Henry wrote that the power and success of Paul’s preaching was not based on the wisdom of man’s words

…lest the success should be ascribed to the force of art, and not of truth; not to the plain doctrine of a crucified Jesus, but to the powerful oratory of those who spread it. He preached a crucified Jesus in plain language…This truth needed no artificial dress…it shone out with the greatest majesty in its own light, and prevailed in the world by its divine authority without any human helps. The plain preaching of a crucified Jesus was more powerful than all the oratory and philosophy of the heathen world.[1]

Henry went on to say that because worldly-wise men are puffed up by their own learning and imaginary knowledge, they despised the message brought by a few lowly fishermen. They considered such preaching foolishness, but it pleased God to save those who believed by such presumed foolishness.[2]

But is the foolishness of preaching the same as foolish preaching? Remember, Paul said that preaching the cross is considered by the lost as foolishness. Therefore, we may also say that preaching anything other than the cross is a contradictory message and may be called silly or foolish preaching and not the foolishness of preaching to which Paul referred. But herein we find a dilemma. How do those that perish and consider preaching foolishness become saved? The answer is found in the work of the third member of the Trinity—the Holy Spirit. This will be examined more fully later in this chapter.

The purpose and methods of preaching

The nature of the message that God has given in the Bible is essentially declarative. The declarative nature of the Bible’s message confers on preaching its importance. Preaching reflects the fundamental means by which the Word of God is declared to a gathering of His people. Through those gatherings we encounter Jesus and fellowship with Him through his word. “It is the chief function of the sermon to unleash the word of the Lord in the midst of his people. It is the chief means by which the Lord directs, rebukes, sustains and invigorates his people.”[3] [emphasis added]

There are several methods by which one may preach or unleash the word of the Lord. We look to E. M. Bounds (1835-1913) for direction in this matter. His eleven published books center on the importance of prayer. But he talked of other spiritual things in his books which he knew to be inseparable from prayer. One of those was preaching by which he meant expository preaching.

That was true preaching—preaching of a sort which is sorely needed, today, in order that God’s word may have due effect on the hearts of the people…

No one having any knowledge of the existing facts, will deny the comparative lack of expository preaching in the pulpit effort of today. And none, we should, at least, imagine, will do other than lament the lack. Topical preaching, polemical (disputation) preaching, historical preaching, and other forms of sermonic output have, one supposes, their right and opportune uses. But expository preaching—the prayerful expounding of the World of God is preaching that is preaching—pulpit effort par excellence.[4] [emphasis in original]

If Bounds lamented the lack of expository preaching in his day, he would be appalled by the near nonexistence of it in many evangelical churches today. The absence of expository preaching is particularly notable in seeker-sensitive, Purpose Driven services.

Although expository preaching must be the center piece of preaching in the church, the intent here is not to judge preaching based on whether it encompasses entire books, just a few verses, or focuses on only one verse, whether by expository, topical, or other forms of preaching. As Nancy Pearcey points out, the problem arises when the Bible is treated as a collection of “facts” which produce a superficial interpretation of scripture devoid of metaphorical, mystical, and symbolic meanings.[5]

…by treating the Bible verses as isolated, discrete “facts,” the method often produced little more than proof-texting—pulling out individual verses and aligning them under a topical label, with little regard for literary or historical context, or the larger organizing themes in Scripture.[6]

The sharp rise in Bible illiteracy over the last half century is due in large part to at least five causes. The abandonment of expository preaching for other types, particularly topical preaching, is the major reason. A second reason is the decline in number of sermons that Christians hear from the pulpit. Thirty or forty years ago, the average evangelical church member would hear three or more messages preached each week compared to perhaps one each week at present. The church has replaced many regular preaching services with small group meetings and other religious activities that do not provide a consistent exposition of the Bible. A third contributing factor is a decline in regular attendance of church members at services where a message is preached. The fourth reason is the de-emphasis or complete elimination of a weekly Sunday morning Sunday school. The fifth reason is the replacement of hymns with their explicit doctrine-laced biblical themes with more contemporary, personalized themes. When all of these reasons are reduced to a mathematical examination, it is easy to suppose that thirty or forty years ago an average evangelical church attender may over the course of a year have heard 160 or more sermons preached and Sunday school lessons taught, all with a significant amount of Bible exposition and doctrinally-centered teaching. Today, the average church attender may hear as few as 25 or 30 sermons per year, most of which will have a much lighter, topical message with significantly less Bible exposition, doctrine, and teaching.

With this understanding of the true nature, purpose, and methods of preaching from the foregoing discussion, we shall examine the preaching that dominates modern evangelicalism in America.

Seeker-sensitive preaching

Rick Warren faults most traditional church services because he believes their messages are unpredictable in that they alternate erratically between evangelism and edification. He also believes that traditional services are poorly designed for unbelievers because they are not understandable. According to Warren, designing a seeker-sensitive service will address these deficiencies. As a result Christians will want to invite their friends which will produce a steady stream of unchurched visitors from which the church will be grown.[7]

Warren eliminates the supposed confusion of the unbeliever caused by messages of edification directed at the redeemed by designing and directing a substantial majority of his sermons as evangelical efforts to reach the crowd of unbelievers. Warren described the characteristics and construction of seeker-sensitive services and preaching.

Each week at Saddleback, we remind ourselves who we’re trying to reach: Saddleback Sam and his wife Samantha. Once you know your target, it will determine many of the components of your seeker service: music style, message topics, testimonies, creative arts, and much more.

Most evangelical churches conclude their worship service with an altar call. But many do not realize that it is a self-defeating strategy to focus the first fifty-eight minutes of the service on believers and suddenly switch to unbelievers in the last two minutes. Unbelievers are not going to sit through fifty eight-minutes of a service that isn’t in the slightest way relevant to them. The entire service, not just the invitation, must be planned with the unchurched in mind.[8] [emphasis added]

But Warren and the other Church Growth advocates have wrongly redirected the purpose of preaching from being primarily focused on the body of Christ to a weekly seeker-sensitive message aimed at the unchurched. This redirection has had a profound impact on the long-time faithful in many of those churches following the Purpose Driven model. The results of one study commissioned by a well-known mega church shocked its leadership when they discovered a widespread spiritual discontent among its most faithful members within or near what they considered to be their core group. This study will be discussed in a later chapter.

Warren claims that both book exposition (which supposedly works best for edification) and topical exposition (which works best for evangelism) are important in growing a healthy church.[9] Yet Warren plainly says that the thrust of his preaching is to the unchurched on a weekly basis. As a consequence, he rarely does expository preaching, and his topical preaching cannot be expository by its very nature.

In spite of assurances to the contrary, many evangelicals lack confidence in the Bible. Bible exposition from the pulpit has been replaced by meatless but entertaining and therapeutic messages with a biblical facade. Although they may be initially interesting and temporarily comforting, such messages will over time dull the senses of the listener who develops a deep hunger for God’s word and impatience with the inconsequential and light-hearted fare which they are regularly fed.[10]

Warren’s incessant focus on getting the unchurched into the church to hear a weekly evangelistic-topical message not only perverts the primary purpose and method of preaching to the church but also fails on three other counts: content, enlisting the power of the Word, and reliance upon the work of the Holy Spirit.

Preaching the cross

At its heart, all preaching must be a preaching of the cross. Preaching must not be separated into a special set of sermons for sinners and another set for Christians. It is readily admitted there are salvation messages and messages that edify, but to segregate or pigeonhole preaching into edification or evangelism is to limit or shackle the breadth of application and power of the scriptures.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [2 Timothy 3:16-17. KJV] [emphasis added]

It is the Holy Spirit that prepares the heart of the listener to receive the message, whether he is saved or a sinner. Through the divine work of the Holy Spirit, a single sermon has the power to touch a multitude of people on a multitude of levels. One may need salvation, another edification, others encouragement for a variety of reasons, some for peace, and the list goes on. The preacher that through prayer has sought and is led by the Holy Spirit in preparing and delivering his message need not fret as to whether or not he has correctly assessed and targeted his audience and delivered an understandable message.

The power of God’s word v. the power of man

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. [Isaiah 55:11. KJV]

Warren’s belief that traditional messages are not understandable by the unbeliever devalues the power of the Word to draw the sinner to Christ. The sinner may not understand every scripture used by the minister, but the scriptures are not ordinary words but God-inspired and have power to accomplish its purposes beyond a preacher’s limited ability to articulate what he thinks God is trying to convey and the listener’s ability to comprehend.

Too often, new paradigm churches dumb down the message of the Bible and therefore make it a husk without the life sustaining core from which spiritual nourishment is found. Words, illustrations, stories, and loose interpretations are often used inappropriately and excessively to such an extent as to make the clear meaning and intent of the Bible completely distorted. Because of the cultural demand for microwaved, abridged, Cliff Notes-styled preaching that flows from modern intellectual laziness, there is a general belief among many evangelical leaders that rigorous study and expository preaching of the Bible and its doctrines is no longer necessary in our enlightened seeker-friendly age.

In seeker-sensitive preaching, there is an inherent conflict between preaching the cross and their goal of being sensitive to the feelings and needs of the unchurched. We find the correct answer to this conflict revealed in the book of Hebrews.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12. KJV]

Matthew Henry explains the work of the sword. “It is quick; it is very lively and active, in seizing the conscience of the sinner, in cutting him to the heart, and in comforting him and binding up the wounds of the soul.”[11] [emphasis added] Here we see that the Word not only accuses and cuts but comforts and dresses wounds. In the seek-sensitive church world, saccharine superficial messages attempt to massage and caress felt needs without the necessity of spiritual surgery. But the Word rightly applied cuts deeply beneath felt needs to the secret sin buried in the heart of man which Jeremiah called desperately wicked and deceitful (see Jeremiah 17:9).

The work of the Holy Spirit

Warren’s brand of evangelism effectively makes salvation a matter of works on the part of the preacher and merit on the part of the sinner. Both tend to ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner. The Holy Spirit can quicken or bring alive any message, be it of an evangelical or an edifying type, and use it to cut to the heart of a sinner. Paul said in Ephesians 2:1, “And you he hath quickened, who were dead in Trespasses and sins.” The “you” is the sinner who is spiritually dead because of trespasses and sin. The “he” refers to the Holy Spirit. By “quickening” is meant to be made alive.

But too often the sinner’s spiritual corpse is mistakenly diagnosed as being merely sick, faint, dispirited, calloused, hardened, or burnt-out. All suggest a spark of life still remains that will allow the sinner to do something to merit God’s forgiveness and return to His good graces. If only the minister can entice the sinner with the right presentation, illustrations, stories, and understandable words, he will admit to a mental awareness of his sinful condition, rededicate himself, turn over a new leaf, and try harder. But such is foolish preaching and inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit without which both the minister and the sinner are utterly powerless to lead the sinner from death to life. It is only through a clear presentation of the gospel and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit followed by repentance and abject surrender can the sinner find unmerited favor which is called the grace of God.

God’s ways cannot be reduced to a formula

Francis Schaeffer was one of the most widely recognized Christian thinkers of the last half of the twentieth century. He has said that God uses different ways in different moments of history, but he cautions that this freedom to use various ways in accomplishing His work has limits. First, in doing His work, we must live only in the circle of scripture and do what it says. We must not go outside of scripture and do what it says is sin. Second, in doing God’s work, His ways cannot be reduced to a formula. When we attempt to confine God’s ways to a formula, we rob Him of His personality, diversity, and sovereignty.[12] On the surface this would appear to be the same message as preached by Warren. However, a closer look reveals that Warren goes beyond the boundaries of this freedom within which the church and individual Christians must operate. Warren too often crosses the line with regard to accommodating and even encouraging the spirit of the world in the church. Second, and contrary to biblical commands, he had developed and maintained associations and relationships with the leadership of false and strongly anti-Christian religions. Third, in spite of all his assurances to the contrary, he has reduced God’s work and ways to a formula that has been extensively described and documented in this chapter and the last.

It would appear that Paul’s foolishness of preaching that was abandoned by the liberal church a hundred years ago is also being abandoned by many in evangelical churches today. In its place we see foolish preaching because it has little or nothing to say about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the cross, sin, forgiveness, death to self, and life eternal.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1803.
[2] Ibid., p. 1804.
[3] Peter F. Jensen, “A Vision for Preachers,” Doing Theology for the People of God, (Eds., Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 219.
[4] E. M. Bounds, The Necessity of Prayer, from The Complete Works of E. M. Bounds on Prayer, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990), p. 78.
[5] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004, 2005), p. 301.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, pp. 251-253.
[8] Ibid., pp. 253-254.
[9] Ibid., p. 296.
[10] Jensen, pp. 219-220.
[11] Henry, p. 1914.
[12] Francis Schaeffer, “Interview with Francis & Edith Schaeffer – God’s Leading in L’Abri & Our Lives,” How Then Should We Live?, DVD – Gospel Communications International, Inc., (Worchester, Pennsylvania: Vision Video, 1977).

Doing church

To achieve the goal of balance among the five purposes (fellowship, discipleship, worship, ministry, and evangelism), Rick Warren organized the Purpose Driven church around two concepts. According to Warren, the Life Development Process is the “what we do” at Saddleback. Circles of Commitment illustrate the “who we do it with.” Circles of Commitment contain four concentric circles surrounding a core. The goal is to move low commitment/maturity people from the outer circle to high commitment/maturity people at the core.[1]

In this concept of “who we do it with,” the outer circle represents the community or unchurched where the purpose of evangelism occurs. This is a pool of lost people that occasionally attend but have made no commitment to Jesus Christ or the church.[2]

The second circle just inside the outer circle is the crowd or regular attenders and who may be believers or nonbelievers. Their commitment extends only to attendance of a weekly worship service and fulfills the worship purpose of the church.[3]

The third circle is comprised of official members, called the congregation, that are committed to fellowship. To move into this circle, one must have received Christ, been baptized, attended the membership class, and signed a membership covenant.[4]

In the fourth circle as we move inward are the committed that take their faith seriously but are not actively serving in ministry within the church. They are dedicated to growing in discipleship which includes prayer and giving. To be in this group, one must take a spiritual maturity class and sign a maturity covenant card which requires a daily quiet time, tithing ten percent of their income, and being active in a small group.[5]

The central area surrounded by the four outer circles is the core group that is considered as having the deepest level of commitment to ministering to others. The requirements for admission to this group include a third level of training; completion of a personality, skills, and gifts assessment; having a personal ministry interview; being commissioned as a lay minister at Saddleback; and attending a monthly meeting of the core group.[6]

The Life Development Process (“what we do”) is designed to lead people from the outer circle to the core through education and assimilation. The process is visually described as a baseball diamond. Each base represents a level of commitment: first base is membership, second is maturity, third is ministry, and home plate is missions. Warren described the goal of his Life Development Process.

Our goal is to help people develop a lifestyle of evangelism, worship, fellowship, discipleship, and ministry. We want to produce doers of the Word, not hearers only—to transform, not merely inform…Our ultimate goal at Saddleback is to turn an audience into an army.[7]

To describe the Purpose Drive church and its methods, Warren is fond of using military metaphors such as army, target, strategies, front line, and mission, all of which are intended to connote activity, action, and movement. Driven is an action verb whose synonyms include pushed, propelled, urged, goaded, shoved, thrust, forced, coerced, maneuvered, and constrained. When driven is inserted between purpose and church, it is here we begin to see that the restless Purpose Driven march to do church is a reflection of the humanistic spirit of the world that values and exalts the Enlightenment ideal of progress. Progress implies movement, and in one sense it implies the importance of doing as opposed to being. But the frenetic doings of the Purpose Driven church pale in comparison to the serenity and communion with Christ found in the Christian walk even when that walk may take us into the valley of the shadow of death.

Being the Church

Over sixty years ago A. W. Tozer wrote insightfully and perhaps prophetically of the deep inner confusion caused by the antagonism between being and doing. He wrote that modern civilized society, particularly in the West, was firmly entrenched in doing as opposed to being.

We Christians cannot escape this question. We must discover where God throws the stress and come around to the divine pattern.

The tendency to accept without question and follow without knowing why is very strong in us. For this reason whatever the majority of Christians hold at any given time is sure to be accepted as true and right beyond a doubt.

This is why being has ceased to have much appeal for people and doing engages almost everyone’s attention. Modern Christians lack symmetry. They know almost nothing about the inner life. They are like a temple that is all exterior without any interior.

“The accent in the Church today,” says Leonard Ravenhill, the English evangelist, “is not on devotion, but on commotion.”…Externalism has taken over. God now speaks by the wind and the earthquake only; the still small voice can be heard no more. The whole religious establishment has become a noisemaker…The old question, “What is the chief end of man?” is now answered, “To dash about the world and add to the din thereof.” And all of this is done in the name of Him who did not strive nor cry nor make His voice to be heard in the streets (Matthew 12:18-21).

We must begin the needed reform by challenging the spiritual validity of externalism. What a man is must be shown to be more important than what he does.

We must show a new generation of nervous, almost frantic, Christians that power lies at the center of life. Speed and noise are evidences of weakness, not strength…The desire to be dramatically active is proof of our religious infantilism; it is a type of exhibitionism common to the kindergarten.[8] [emphasis added]

What is the divine pattern that God emphasizes? It is being his child, loving and being loved, and sharing the inner life of the Trinity forever. We have status as a member of God’s family. Status implies being, not becoming. Being is for eternity. Doing is time-bound and only for a season that is likened to a vapor. Therefore, the emphasis must be on being to which doing must always defer. The Church Growth movement became fixated on the doing to the diminishment or exclusion of being. As a result it became excessively one-sided and therefore lacked symmetry. It has become unbalanced, the exact opposite of what it so vigorously demands. As a result much of the Bible is not taught nor even given much thought. Here we see the fundamental flaw in the Purpose Driven model.

In spite of assurances and protestations to the contrary, the Church Growth movement’s teachings and methods do compromise the biblical message by ignoring or giving scant attention large sections of the biblical narrative, twisting biblical doctrines to fit the Church Growth movement’s philosophies and methods, and an over or under emphasizing of many aspects of the biblical record. Although of great importance, the outworking of the Great Commission has been molded and massaged to justify the teachings and methods of the Church Growth movement. As a result, the focus has moved from Christ’s atoning work on the cross to the felt needs and desires of Warren’s iconic target—Saddleback Sam and Samantha.

The seeker-sensitive formula

As noted in previous chapters, the orthodoxy of the Church Growth movement and its seeker-sensitive model for doing church were inspired by the writings of George McGavran during the 1950s (See Chapters 21 and 24). Its guiding principle is that sociological research and scientific principles can be blended with biblical truths to achieve numerical growth in American congregations. These scientific principles dominate and “selected” Bible verses are used to support those principles. Invariably, as we are told, these properly applied scientific principles will produce numerical growth in any type of organization including churches. But little if any thought is given to the kind of growth that is being achieved. The type of growth desired in businesses and other organizations is not necessarily desirable in the church.[9] We need merely to return to Chapter 3 to see that the kind of growth a church experiences is exceedingly important for its long-term survival. Because of Roman Emperor Constantine’s legalization of Christianity in 313 and its elevation to the official religion of the Western Roman Empire in 381, thousands joined the church, but many were Christians in name only as the narrow gate was made wide which allowed a flood of corruptions to flow into the church.[10]

In the end, Church Growth practitioners see numerical church growth as merely a product of effective marketing. Give the customer what he wants. Customer-sensitive in the business world became seeker-sensitive in the Church Growth world. Robert Schuller’s slogan became the mantra of the seeker-sensitive church, “Find a need and fill it. Find a hurt and heal it.” Being seeker-sensitive is the heart of Warren’s Purpose Driven model and essentially drives all of its activities. To be a seeker-sensitive, a church must survey the community so as to identify its needs. Next the church organizes all of its efforts around meeting the “felt needs” of its target audience.[11]

Warren justifies the satisfaction of people’s “felt” needs by which he means their “heart” needs because it can attract large crowds. He is correct. Churches do grow by appealing to and feeding people’s felt needs. He claims Jesus ministered to the felt needs of the people in order to attract large crowds. However, Jesus’s purpose was not to attract large crowds, but when crowds came anyway, he certainly did not preach a seeker-sensitive message. Jesus’ focus was on the will of God and not numerical growth.

In the seeker-sensitive churches, felt needs are assumed to be legitimate but are often merely diversionary measures used by Satan and his forces to defeat the human soul. As previously noted, the source of man’s felt needs comes from his heart, but the heart is a most unreliable source. As Jeremiah recognized, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” [Jeremiah 17: 9. KJV] This is contrary to the cry of humanistic psychologists, “Get in touch with yourself. Follow your heart.” Aren’t seeker-sensitive churches encouraging the same mindset by focusing on every hurt and whim of the audience?

The seeker-sensitive mindset of church leaders has effectively embraced the humanistic psychology movement of which Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was one of the principal founders. Maslow developed a hierarchy of human needs to which man must ascend to achieve purpose and happiness in life. According to Maslow, the pinnacle of human needs is reached and satisfied when one becomes self-actualized by achieving a maximum degree of their inborn potential. The next lower need is self-esteem which connotes confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others. It is only when we descend to the third level do we see any mention of relational needs such as love, belonging, friendship, family, and sexual intimacy.[12] But his hierarchy of human needs fundamentally conflicts with the human universal of the primacy of relationships in motivating human beings.

Maslow’s theories of human motivation are based on the humanistic worldview. They fail as human motivators because they dramatically diminish the importance of relationship in favor of self. Apart from physiological and safety needs which are creational givens, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is upside down as it reflects human nature and leads to a false worldview. The societal disorder that permeates the entire planet is a result of this widely held humanistic worldview which has elevated self above relationship. The whole of the seeker-sensitive movement’s dedication to meeting the felt needs of people taps into the humanistic spirit of the world and its devotion to self.

The great god of entertainment

Not only does the seeker-sensitive church attempt to meet the felt needs of their audience, they also attempt to meet their felt wants. Udo W. Middelmann cuts to the heart of the matter in his stinging indictment of many evangelical churches in America.

In the course of a very few decades much of the church has embraced the way of mass culture in its drive to reduce everything to play and attractive entertainment. It has bowed to the demands of a consumer society and offers a message that more often distracts for the moment than comforts for the long run. Adjustments in content and form to match the perceived needs of future possible converts eat away at the content necessary to understand God, the fall of man, and redemption. Marketing priorities preside. The product is matched to the customer’s expectations. There is little room for the doctor to prescribe the medicine or for God to set forth judgment and conditions for redemption.[13]

In his book Storm, Jim Cymbala echoes much of what Middelmann said with regard to the reasons for the decline of the American evangelical church. Many blame the decline on forces outside the church including failed political solutions and a decaying secular culture that is increasingly hostile to the message of Christ and His followers.[14] Certainly these are contributing influences, but the Church has survived far worse in its 2000 year history. Therefore, the modern evangelical church cannot blame the world for the church’s failures because

…we simultaneously mimic the ways of the world in hopes of packaging our faith into “Christianity Lite”—a spiritual candy we can toss at nonbelievers rather than confronting the hostile reactions that can occur when we proclaim the real gospel of Jesus Christ. Pandering to the culture with prepackaged truth nuggets hasn’t made us more effective; it has made us ineffective. [15] [emphasis in original]

Tozer recognized this trend in the early 1950s and wrote that religious entertainment is in many places is rapidly replacing the serious things of God with the “full approval of evangelical leaders who can even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency.”[16] Tozer compared these carefully-programmed services with the New Testament model.

So the fast-paced, highly spiced, entertaining service of today may be a beautiful example of masterful programming—but it is not a Christian service. The two are leagues apart in almost every essential. About the only thing they have in common is the presence of a number of people in one room.[17]

The battle between Christianity and the forces of Satan is described in Ephesians 6:12. It is a spiritual conflict with an army of evil spirits headed by their commander Satan. They are the spiritual rulers of the world who energize the ungodly, oppose the will of God, and attack the believers of this age. They are a vast and highly organized empire of evil. [18] With cultural decay abounding in every facet of society, there never has been a period in American history when there has been such a desperate need for mature Christians to do battle with the forces of Satan. But to our great harm and dismay, a vast number of believers have reverted “to spiritual childhood and clamor for religious toys.”[19]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1995), pp. 130-131.
[2] Ibid., p. 131.
[3] Ibid., pp. 131-132.
[4] Ibid., pp. 132-133.
[5] Ibid., pp. 133.
[6] Ibid., p. 134.
[7] Ibid., pp. 143, 145.
[8] A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 1986), pp. 83-86.
[9] Marshall Davis, More Than A Purpose, (Enumclaw, Washington: Pleasant Word, 2006), pp. 23-24.
[10] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 27.
[11] Davis, pp. 28-29.
[12] Neel Burton, M.D., “Our Hierarchy of Needs,” Psychology Today, May 23, 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs (accessed September 18, 2014).
[13] Udo W. Middelmann, The Market Driven Church, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 124.
[14] Jim Cymbala with Jennifer Schuchmann, Storm – Hearing Jesus for The Times We Live In, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014), pp. 14-15.
[15] Ibid., p. 15
[16] Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, p. 33.
[17] Ibid., pp. 105-106.
[18] Commentary on Ephesians 6:12, The Full Life Study Bible, King James Version, ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 439.
[19] Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, p. 34.