Archives for : Archives

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : September 9, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Truth, Worldview

The Apostle Paul’s second letter to Thessalonians speaks of the great falling away from the Christian faith in last days of the age just before the rapture of the church.

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 that 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]

As the end of the last days nears, great numbers of the professing church will depart from biblical truth in both word and deed. This departure is called apostasy and means to “fall away” which is characterized by rebellion and abandonment of truth. Within the church, the apostasy will take two forms. The first is theological apostasy in which false leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. Under these false leaders and teachers, a false salvation and cheap grace will replace salvation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, repentance, turning from sin, and adherence to God’s standards of living. The false leaders and teachers will offer a gospel centered on the self and its needs and desires. The second type is moral apostasy in which one severs his relationship with Christ and embraces sin and immorality. Although proclaiming right doctrine and New Testament Christianity’s teachings, they will abandon the moral standards as taught by the New Testament. These moral standards are exchanged for money, success, honor, and a large following.[1] Others ignore the Bible’s moral standards because they have been deceived into believing such compromise is necessary in the modern culture in order to accomplish Christ’s great commission of winning the lost.

The collective worldviews of the inhabitants of a civilization or a nation becomes the central cultural vision which informs and directs that civilization or nation with regard to ultimate questions of reality, truth, and right and wrong behavior. For fifteen hundred years the Christian worldview has been the foundation and central cultural vision of Western civilization. However, beginning about AD 1200, humanist ideologies began challenging the Christian worldview for supremacy in Western thought with regard to reality, truth, and concepts of right and wrong. America resisted the humanist onslaught far longer than Europe because of the biblical foundations for governance established by the early colonists and later Founders of the American republic. But by the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, humanism had displaced the once dominant Christian leadership in all spheres of American life.

The erosion of Western civilization’s Christian roots had been a gradual process until the twentieth century when the forces of humanism had gained critical mass in the various spheres of culture. The once powerful and culturally dominant Christian Church was rapidly displaced and subsequently abandoned the culture—one segment by surrender (the liberals) and the other by retreat from the culture (the fundamentalists-evangelicals).

The liberal church had become fully apostate by the 1930s, and much of the leadership of many once conservative evangelical churches was well on the road to apostasy by the end of the twentieth century. Elements of the Catholic Church have been apostate for much of its history (certain popes, universities, certain congregations, and other elements of the church hierarchy). These apostate elements have recently been joined in their apostasy by Pope Francis, the current Pope of the Catholic Church. Considering what has happened over the last two hundred years in Europe and America, Kevin Swanson called this period “the most significant Christian apostasy of all time. As measured by sheer numbers, there is no other apostasy so extensive in recorded history.”[2]

Christians who know God’s word should not be surprised at this raging apostasy in the church in our time because the Bible records numerous prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments that these events would occur just before the end of the last days. In their respective ministries, both Jesus and John spent considerable time warning against apostasy and impending judgement.[3] In Matthew 24, after Jesus and His disciples left the temple, they went to the Mount of Olives where the disciples asked questions with regard to the sign of His coming and the end of the world. In verses 4 through 14, Jesus gave them general signs and events leading up to the rapture which will be followed by the seven-year tribulation period that will bring about the end of the age. The signs that Jesus gave in these verses characterize the events preceding the rapture, and these events will intensify as that time approaches. In verse 4, Jesus warned His disciples to “Take heed that no man deceive you.” One of the signs of the end of the last days is found in verse 11, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” [Matthew 24:11. KJV] Because so many false prophets and religious compromisers have emerged in recent times, religious deception has become rampant throughout the planet.[4]

Apostasy may occur on a national scale where an entire nation may move away from the biblical foundations upon which their civilization was built. This has occurred in Europe and has substantially happened in America. Apostasy may also happen within segments of peoples within a nation, large denominations, local churches, and individuals. At whatever level apostasy occurs, it is the result of a shift in perspective and decrease in the commitment to a biblical understanding of reality, truth, and right and wrong. This ultimately causes large numbers of people to abandon their Christian faith entirely. Although they may retain some peripheral link with the church and Christian culture, the life sustaining connection with Christ has withered and died.[5]

The Bible has much to say about false prophets. Listed below is just a sampling of verses from both the Old and New Testaments that deal with false prophets and religious compromisers.

I have given heed and listened but they have not spoken aright; no man repents of his wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Every one turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle…How can you say, “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us”? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame, they shall be dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord and what wisdom is in them. [Jeremiah 8:5-6, 8-9. RSV]

Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles false and misleading. [Lamentations 2:14. RSV]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not associate with them. [Ephesians 5:6-7. RSV]

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves…Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many might works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” [Matthew 7:15, 20-23. RSV]

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [2 Corinthians 11:13-15. RSV]

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. [Matthew 24:24. RSV]

The Bible tells us that “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” [Hosea 4:6. KJV] One of the reasons for the ease with which false prophets and religious compromisers have gained great followings in the last days is a lack of knowledge of His people. Much of the modern church is being spiritually destroyed because of the deadly combination of a lack of knowledge of God’s word and a lack of knowledge of the humanistic spirit of the age that has infiltrated the church. Without a thorough knowledge of the word of God, people cannot have a worldview that gives a rightly-ordered understanding of reality, truth, and right and wrong. Apostasy arises and spreads within His church because of deception. Lack of knowledge becomes the breeding ground for deception and apostasy.

The principal conflict of worldviews is between humanism and Christianity. Where Christians, see God as the ultimate authority in truth, reality, law, man’s salvation, man’s life and worship, humanists see man himself as the ultimate authority. That is why there is a war of worldviews in which Christianity battles against humanism’s materialism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, abortion advocacy, evolution, socialism, and deviant sexuality.[6]

In this series we will look at specific instances of religious compromisers and false prophets that have risen to leadership within the church during these last days at the end of the age. To varying degrees they have become theologically and morally apostate. Their words, works, associations, and worldviews will be examined and compared to the unchangeable words and meaning of the Bible, and by their fruits we shall know them for what they are—apostates!

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 478.
[2] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 19.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Larry G. Johnson, “The Growing Apostasy in the Last Days– Part IV,” culturewarrior.net. June 3, 2016. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2016/06/03/growing-apostasy-in-the-last-days-part-iv/
[5] Swanson, p. 20.
[6] Ibid., p. 34-35.

The insidious nature of humanism

Posted by :webmaster On : September 2, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality, Humanism

The great majority of people who understand humanism and embrace its philosophies and worldview are atheists or at best non-theistic agnostics. They must be so for the Humanist Manifestos I and II state that they “…can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species…the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”[1] Yet, over the last several decades millions of people who believe in the Christian God and the biblical creation have quietly and unknowingly incorporated many of the tenets of humanism into their worldviews. This number includes a large number of evangelical leaders and church members in America who have accepted these tenants because of the insidious nature of humanism. It is a sinister, treacherous, and deceptive philosophy whose followers have risen to leadership levels in all spheres of American life. That is not to say that all leaders are humanistic in their worldviews. Also, many who have incorporated elements of the humanistic philosophy are not card-carrying advocates of the humanistic philosophy but have been deceived.

Humanism is the arch-enemy of Christianity, but few Christians understand humanism or its system of beliefs. Therefore, they blindly accept many cultural ideas, initiatives, and innovations because they have been saturated by decades of indoctrination in the humanistic philosophy. Many are ignorant of humanism’s ultimate goals and ignorant of their own Christian faith that stands in opposition to those goals.

Perhaps there is no greater issue that separates the two belief systems than their respective concepts of truth. Christians believe in objective, final, unchangeable truth as found in the Bible. The humanist conceptions of truth are as follows:

The humanistic worldview regarding truth is one of cultural relativism which requires a suspension of judgment since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all truth. For humanists, all social constructions are culturally relative as they are shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity. Thus, there can be no universal truths because all viewpoints, lifestyles, and beliefs are equally valid. As a result, no man or group can claim to be infallible with regard to truth and virtue. Rather, truth is produced by the free give and take of competing claims and opinions, that is, truth can be manufactured.[2]

But how do Christians separate truth from the lie and respond accordingly when constantly bombarded by humanistic concepts and ideas that have saturated every sphere of American life for several decades (including many churches and denominations)?

Separating the Christian and Humanistic worldviews?

First, the Christian must understand that Christ does not call His followers to win the war against Satan and his forces but to be faithful in fighting the battles he or she encounters in the everyday business of living life. To be an effective soldier in this battle, the average Christian does not have to have a degree in theology, be an articulate orator, or occupy an exalted position in society to defend one’s faith, family, and culture.

A Christian must listen and understand the beliefs, proposals, and concepts put forth by the various spheres of life in America. Although it is helpful to have knowledge of the general concepts and goals of humanism, it is more important that the Christian know what he or she believes, that is, one must know what the Bible says and why he or she believes it. It is only then that the Christian can know truth and respond appropriately. In summary, (1) listen to the beliefs, concepts, arguments, arguments, and proposals put forth, (2) restate them so you understand what is really being said, (3) rely on the Bible for guidance and direction in finding the truth, and (4) seek the Holy Spirit’s help in responding with authority and in a loving manner. As an example, let’s use this procedure in responding to a recent editorial in the Tulsa World.

In the Tulsa World Sunday edition (July 17, 2016), Associate Editor Mike Jones wrote an editorial on homosexuality titled “Love and hate.”[3] Jones states that the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is of recent origin and now used almost exclusively by those who disapprove of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. In this editorial Jones attempts to defend homosexuality by challenging the Christian’s interpretation of the meaning of the Bible as well as challenging the truth of the Bible itself with regard to homosexuality.

The complete truthfulness of the Bible is challenged

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” never appears in the New Testament. There are verses that can be applied or construed to prove that God or Jesus disapproved of homosexuality. Ignoring Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27 can be read to address men cavorting with men and women with women. But also, that chapter along with at least seven others, and arguably more, in the New Testament were written by Paul, and we can argue all day about whether Jesus told him what to write.[4] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that: (1) All scripture is not the inspired word of God. (2) Those portions of the scripture condemning homosexuality aren’t applicable because Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality.

There is no question that the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality in a very forthright and plain manner (Romans 1: 18, 24-27), and Jones does not dispute that Paul held this view of homosexuality. What Jones is challenging is the truthfulness or validity of portions of the Bible when he says that we can argue all day about whether Jesus told Paul what to write. By using Jones’ line of reasoning, we must ignore the divine inspiration of much if not all of scripture. Consequently, the Bible is not objective truth, contains errors, and is effectively reduced to a book of suggestions of mortal men except perhaps for the red letters depicting Christ’s words in the New Testament. However, Jones ignores the fact that the Bible itself speaks of its supreme authority in all matters of truth. Also, most Christians believe that Paul’s admonishment that homosexuality is a sin is 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.

Homosexuality is not a sin

… many more passages can be found in the New Testament where Jesus was reported to have urged his followers to love everyone. Opting for the “sin” phrase is basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner. Of course, that also implies that their sexual preference is a chosen lifestyle. So, simply put, you are condemning to hell that person you say you really want to love.[5] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? (1) He makes no distinction between the person and their sin. (2) We must love the homosexual and ignore their lifestyle.

Jones argues that there are many more passages in the New Testament where Jesus urges his followers to love everyone. He says that opting for the sin portion of “love the sinner, hate the sin” phrase is “basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner.” But that is exactly what Paul is saying. Homosexuality is a sin along with other sins such as evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Homosexuality is not destructive to marriages, families, and to society in general

I will never understand why people are so afraid. I’ve heard their reasons: “Homosexuality destroys families!” “Homosexuality destroys marriage!” “We have to save these sinners from AIDS!” “It’s an abomination unto God!”

No one has ever explained to me how families or marriages are destroyed. There are far too many happy, solid families comprised of gay couples. And I think the straight community is doing a good enough job on its own in the destroying marriage and families department.

The claim of saving them from AIDS is another smokescreen. Gay men know how to save themselves from AIDS. We’ve learned a lot about that disease — one being it’s not a curse from God.[6]

What is Jones really saying: There is no evidence of the damage done by homosexuality to families, marriages, and the larger society.

However, there is abundant evidence throughout history that homosexuality does destroy marriages, families, and nations. Many current studies and statistics support this contention. Even without scientific studies and a truthful examination of history, we can know that homosexuality is undeniably damaging to individuals, families, and society in general. How do we know this? God deems homosexuality as a sin, and “The wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Biblical truth is non-negotiable, and no amount of conversation, argument, debate, and reasoning among men, however sincere and well-meaning, will change this.

Homosexuals were born that way and therefore cannot be morally condemned

Telling a gay couple that they are committing a sin is like telling a blue-eyed kid that he needs to change the color of his eyes because God hates blue-eyed people and having blue eyes is a sin. Of course you wouldn’t say such an outrageous and hurtful thing to a child or anyone. After all, they were born with blue eyes. Either genetics put them there or God did. That can’t be changed.[7]

What is Jones really saying? Homosexuality cannot be morally condemned because homosexuals were born that way.

Defenders of homosexuality argue that moral distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality are invalid because homosexuals were born that way. Christians can point out that sound scientific studies have not proven that homosexuality has a genetic basis (either causal or predispositional). Recent support for the Christian position came from one of the most unlikely sources. The New Atlantis is a journal of technology and society dedicated to the LGBT community. It published a newly released report co-authored by two psychiatric experts affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The report is titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences,” and states that “Born that way” is a myth.

The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biological fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that “—is not supported by scientific evidence… Genes constitute only one of the many key influences on behavior in addition to environmental influences, personal choices, and interpersonal experiences.[8] [emphasis added]

However, the Christian must never accept or surrender his biblical beliefs about homosexuality based on the findings of scientists. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexuality was not a choice but a genetic predisposition or even genetically caused. The Christian can show that humans are born with many scientifically determined predispositions or genetic factors that result in culturally unacceptable behavior such as alcoholism. One study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such scientific evidence of genetic links does not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices.

Condemning homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual

Finding someone you love and wanting to spend the rest of your life (or at least a good portion of it) with them is certainly not sinful. They aren’t wrecking families, killing the institution of marriage and they are not ruining kids’ lives.

Adopting and defending the word “hate” certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

You want to put someone’s life on your version of the straight and narrow, go find someone in your congregation and tell them to quit drinking so much or that dancing might place them on the road to degradation.

I think I know what the answer will be: Mind you own business.

Good advice.[9] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that hating the sin of homosexuality does not follow the teachings of Jesus. However, humanists who claim love is all that is necessary to merit the grace of God either ignore or dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world to make possible God’s forgiveness of sinful man, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow the Bible’s commandments. But, if love is all that is necessary, then Christ’s death on the cross becomes irrelevant because God’s holiness must then coexist with sin. Therefore, how men live their lives has no bearing on their eternal destination.

Jones is also saying that Christians should continue to do good works, that condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual as a person, that the Bible is wrong where is says that homosexuality is a sin, and that Christians should ignore homosexuality and focus on “real” sins. In essence, Jones is saying to the Christian, “Shut up and mind your own business!” Thus, Christianity and Christian beliefs are banned from influence in the public square. That is the recurrent message of humanism.

How is the Christian to respond? This writer has often quoted the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words to his fellow pastors who were being arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps in the late 1930s. As they faced persecution, imprisonment, and even death, he cautioned them to retain the biblical understanding of 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…Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.”[10]

______

There are millions of people in America like Mike Jones who champion the humanist worldview, twist the words and meaning of the Bible, and in the end challenge the truth of the Bible in order to advance the humanist agenda. Many of them are unaware of what they are doing or the consequences thereof. Yet, Christians must be alert, faithful, and persistent in presenting the truth of God’s word and defending their Christian faith. Because America is no longer a Christian-friendly nation, Christians must expect that their opposition to the humanist philosophy and agenda will subject them and their families to marginalization, ridicule, harassment, loss of educational and job opportunities, financial loss, imprisonment, and possibly even more severe forms of persecution. However, the Christian’s consolation is found in the New Testament book of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 16-17.
[2] 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), pp. 392-393.
[3] Mike Jones, “Love and hate,” Tulsa World, July 17, 2016, G1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Mary Rice Hasson and Theresa Farnon, “Report Debunks ‘Born That Way’ Narrative And ‘Transgender’ Label For Kids,” The Federalist, August 23, 2016.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/23/report-debunks-born-that-way-narrative-and-transgender-label-for-kids/ (accessed September 1, 2016).
[9] Jones, “Love and hate,” G-1.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : June 24, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

Two paradigms for cultural engagement: persuasion v. warfare

In his book Thriving in Babylon Larry Osborne describes two opposing paradigms of cultural engagement: persuasion and warfare. He has chosen Daniel of the Old Testament as the role-model for the persuasive, non-combative approach of Christians to a hostile culture. He describes those in the warfare paradigm as focusing on fighting the spread of sin on all fronts and who envision themselves as “frontline soldiers in a great spiritual battle between the forces of evil and those who uphold biblical values.”[1] Osborne believes that modern evangelicals who see the culture in terms of spiritual warfare have gotten it all wrong and should emulate Daniel.

When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, it’s always framed in the context of our personal spirituality. The warfare model focuses on the wrong enemy. Non-Christians are not the enemy. They’re the victims of the Enemy. Victims need to be rescued, not wiped out.”[2] [emphasis added]

Here we find the great error of Osborne and like-minded culturally pacifist Christians in engaging the culture. Spiritual warfare is not always framed in the context of personal spirituality. The Bible has a great deal to say about spiritual warfare, and Donald Stamps in “The Christian’s Relationship to the World” describes the cultural battlefield where this war is fought.

The term “world’ often refers to the vast system of this age which Satan promotes and exists independent of God…In this age Satan uses the world’s ideas, morality, philosophies, psychology, desires, governments, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, religions, sports, agriculture, etc., to oppose God, His people, His word and His righteous standards… Believers must be aware that behind all human enterprises there is a spirit, force, or power that moves against God and His Word, some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Finally, the “world” also includes all man-made religious systems and all unbiblical, worldly, or lukewarm “Christian” organizations and churches…In the world believers are strangers and pilgrims.[3]

The individual Christian and the Church (body of Christ) must stand in opposition to the world system. When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, they refer not only to personal spiritual preparation but also to being prepared to wage spiritual warfare in the larger culture as described by Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. [Ephesians 6:10-14. KJV]

If not in the culture, where are Christian supposed to war against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over the present darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places? Christians are Christ’s voice and legs in the spiritual battle against a “world” system ruled by Satan. Christians must not see spiritual warfare only in the “context of our personal spirituality” as claimed by Osborne. It is in the culture that we must stand firm in the evil day. The Apostle Paul had much to say about spiritual warfare in the culture, and the following are just three of his admonitions.

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:3-5. RSV] [emphasis added]

Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. [2 Timothy 4:2. RSV] [emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame to even speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible. [Ephesians 5: 6-7,11-13. RSV] [emphasis added]

The face of spiritual warfare in German culture of the 1930s

Martin Niemöller was a captain of a German U-boat during World War I and was awarded the Iron Cross for Bravery. Although a distinguished pastor in the German Lutheran Church, Niemöller supported the Nazis’ early efforts at restoring Germany’s dignity, ridding the country of communists, and restoring moral order. In a private meeting with Hitler in 1932, Hitler promised Niemöller that he would not interfere with the German churches and would not institute pogroms (persecutions and exterminations) against the Jews.[4]

But as the Nazi regime consolidated its power in early 1933, Niemöller saw the underlying agenda of Hitler. A small minority of pastors, churches, and individual Christians in Germany began opposing Hitler and the apostate German church that had capitulated to his ideas and agenda. The resistance centered within the new “Confessing Church” led by Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a few others. When Hitler heard of a potential church split because of objections to his policies, he summoned several dissenting church leaders including Niemöller to the Reich Chancellery. He lectured the assembled churchmen and said all he wanted was peace between Church and state and blamed them for obstructing his plans. Hitler warned them “…to confine yourself to the Church. I’ll take care of the German people.” Niemöller responded that the Church also had a responsibility toward the German people that was entrusted to them by God and that neither Hitler nor anyone else in the world had power to remove that responsibility. Hitler turned away without comment, but that same evening the Gestapo ransacked Niemöller’s rectory while searching for incriminating material. Within days a homemade bomb exploded in the hall of the rectory.[5]

As Nazi pressure was ratcheted up against the dissenting churchmen, Niemöller and Bonhoeffer were criticized by their fellow churchmen for opposing Hitler and his policies. Eventually over two thousand would choose the route of appeasement and safety and abandoned support of Bonhoeffer and Niemöller’s efforts in resisting the Nazis. “They believed that appeasement was the best strategy; they thought that if they remained silent they could live with Hitler’s intrusion into church affairs and his political policies.”[6] In the late summer of 1933, Niemöller wrote a letter to a friend about his opposition to Hitler.

Although I am working with all my might for the church opposition, it is perfectly clear to me that this opposition is only a very temporary transition to an opposition of a very different kind, and that very few of those engaged in this preliminary skirmish will be part of the next struggle. And I believe that the whole of Christendom should pray with us that it will be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.[7]

In early 1934 from the pulpit of his church in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem, Niemöller spoke of the coming trials that faced the German church.

We have all of us—the whole Church and the whole community—we’ve been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now become manifest whether we are wheat or chaff! Verily, a time of sifting has come upon us, and even the most indolent and peaceful person among us must see that the calm of a meditative Christianity is at an end…

It is now springtime for the hopeful and expectant Christian Church—it is testing time, and God is giving Satan a free hand, so he may shake us up and so that it may be seen what manner of men we are!…

Satan swings his sieve and Christianity is thrown hither and thither; and he who is not ready to suffer, he who called himself a Christian only because he thereby hoped to gain something good for his race and his nations is blown away like chaff by the wind of time.[8]

In 1937, Niemöller and more than eight hundred other churchmen were arrested and imprisoned for their opposition to the Nazis. Following release from prison after eight months, Niemöller was immediately arrested again as a “personal prisoner” of the Führer himself and spent the next seven years in Dachau, one the Nazis’ most infamous concentration camps. He was freed by the Allies in 1945.[9]

After the war, in his sorrow for not recognizing and speaking out in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, Niemöller penned this sorrowful message.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[10]

The face of spiritual warfare in American culture of the twenty-first century

The present course of American culture is much like that of Germany in the early 1930s. Although America’s Godly heritage and the protection of religious freedom built into the Constitution have been powerful deterrents to the agendas of humanism and pagan religions, those deterrents have been substantially weakened over the course of the last three generations as humanistic and pagan philosophies gained ascendance and critical mass in American society. But culturally pacifist Christians like Osborne tell us not to worry. We can thrive in Babylon if we will only have the right perspective and make friends with and serve the powers that be. However, that will require Christians to embrace new definitions of tolerance and perhaps compromise on some of the less important details of their faith.

But it is not a time for “chilling out” or attempting to “thrive” in an increasingly hostile culture. In his commentary on Ephesians 6:11, Donald Stamps paints a much different picture of the Christian’s calling and obligations of spiritual warfare in the culture.

In their warfare of faith, Christians are called upon to endure hardships as good soldiers of Christ, suffer for the gospel, fight the good fight of faith, wage war, be victorious, defend the gospel, strive for the faith, not be alarmed by opponents, put on the full armor of God, stand firm, destroy Satan’s strongholds, take captive every thought, become mighty in war, and contend for the faith.[11]

As it was in Germany of the early 1930s, the America church has been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now be revealed whether the church is wheat or chaff. As Niemöller admonished the German church to pray in the late summer of 1933, the American church should now pray that their resistance will also be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 161.
[2] Ibid., pp.162-163.
[3] “The Christian’s Relationship to the World,” The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990, pp. 578-579.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 177.
[5] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 19-20.
[6] Ibid., p. 21.
[7] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, p. 197.
[8] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, p. 32-32.
[9] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, pp. 293, 295.
[10] Ibid., p. 192.
[11]Stamps, Commentary on Ephesians 6:11, The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, p. 439.

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : June 17, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

“If you haven’t noticed, the culture wars are over. We lost.”[1] This was written by Larry Osborne, senior pastor of North Coast Church, a multi-campus megachurch of 11,000 members headquartered in Vista, a city in San Diego County, California. Osborne is one of a growing group of highly influential evangelical leaders and their followers who have abandoned the culture wars. Not only have these evangelical leaders and many of their followers abandoned the culture wars, many are trying to justify their actions by claiming overt resistance to an ungodly culture is non-biblical. Osborne’s book presents several ideas and arguments which ultimately become a pacifistic approach to cultural engagement by Christians. In Part I we shall examine four of these ideas and philosophies.

Some things aren’t worth dying for

Osborne titled Chapter 17 of Thriving in Babylon “Wisdom – Some Things Aren’t Worth Dying For.” In this chapter he states that lack of perspective is a sign of Christian immaturity.

Waiting is not an option. Compromise is a dirty word. Everything is equally important. There are no nuances. Everything is black and white. And immediate consequences are the only consequences that matter.[2]

Basically, Osborne is saying that immature Christians should “chill out” when it comes to many things in culture. Mature Christians must have perspective. To a limited degree Osborne is correct. Christians must pick their cultural battles wisely. They must know the difference between sin and things that are just personally offensive, and they must always keep the big picture in mind. This is good advice for the Christian culture warrior.

Osborne points to Daniel as a biblical example of someone with perspective. Unfortunately, Osborne doesn’t stop there. He called Daniel “a man of great forbearance” which he immediately defines at biblical tolerance. Using Osborne’s chain of reasoning, Christian maturity arises from having perspective which becomes tolerance in the “biblical sense of the word.” Osborne states that tolerance, rightly understood, is “allowing people the right to be wrong.” He also states that tolerance has wrongly come to mean that nobody is wrong.

Those who dare to claim that some behaviors are actually morally wrong are written off as intolerant bigots. And ironically, they become the one group nobody is tolerant of. While many bemoan the intolerance directed toward Bible-believing Christians, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas.[3]

Humanism’s definition of tolerance begins with the denial of absolutes because no man or group can claim ownership of truth which is often the product of the free give and take of conflicting opinions. The humanist stance towards toleration results in moral relativism which is the antithesis of Christian belief. But the practical outworking in culture of Osborne’s understanding of tolerance effectively silences the presentation of biblical truth by those holding the Christian worldview. The truth claims of pagan religions are left unanswered, and humanism is left unchallenged as the humanistic cultural tsunami spreads across the nation.

Osborne’s stance on tolerance leads to an equally faulty understanding of compromise which he believes isn’t necessarily a dirty word. As with tolerance, Osborne makes some good points with regard to compromise. Yet, he attempts to link compromise with things that have nothing to do with compromise. He states that the wise “know what battles they can win and what battles need to be fought later.”[4] Neither of these statements are indications of compromise. Knowing whether one can win a battle or not is not the deciding factor as to whether that battle ought to be fought. Delaying a battle is not compromise either. These decisions should be determined by prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Christians must remember that God is holy and will not tolerate sin. What passes for tolerance and compromise in many of today’s churches is nothing more than accommodation to the spirit of the world by churches and their leadership. A. W. Tozer described this tendency in Christianity more than sixty years ago.

Christianity is so entangled with the spirit of the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is whitewashed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers, and those same believers are everlastingly seeking to gain acceptance with the world. By mutual concessions men who call themselves Christians manage to get on with men who have for the things of God nothing but contempt.[5] [emphasis added]

Christian resistance to worldly leaders – Attempting to impose their will on non-Christians

Osborne likens the evangelical efforts to resist worldly leaders and their humanistic and pagan cultural influences flooding America as imposing Christianity on non-Christians. “We’re no longer trying to impose our will on non-Christians. We’re trying to keep non-Christians from imposing their will on us—and our churches.”[6]

Daniel also had the wisdom to understand that godless people live godless lives. He never forced his righteous lifestyle on others even as he rose to positions of power, he didn’t try to impose his walk with God on those who didn’t know God.[7]

Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas…We’d boycott non-Christian companies for making non-Christian decisions…I often wonder what would have happened if we’d had the wisdom of Daniel when we were in control…Whether Daniel was at the bottom of the food chain or near the top, he never tried to force his righteousness on others…and thus earned the right to be heard.[8]

It is apparent that Osborne is substantially ignorant of American history, the nation’s founding, and the role of Christianity in its culture until the mid-twentieth century. The Founders weren’t forcing anyone to accept a righteous lifestyle. The Constitution and laws of the land established boundaries and became a foundation for the nation’s central cultural vision.

From this misunderstanding of religion’s duties and rightful place in public square, Osborne and many other highly influential but pacifistic Christian leaders have generally withdrawn from any significant involvement in politics and government over the last three decades. To challenge this belief, Wayne Gruden published a pamphlet titled, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Gruden presents a strong biblical basis for Christian involvement to “significantly influence law, politics, and government …according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible.” At the same time Gruden cautions that Christians “…must simultaneously insist on maintaining freedom of religion for all citizens.”[9] How is this balance achieved?

…the overarching moral suasion (influence or persuasion) of Christian principles under which our nation was founded made possible religious freedom for all faiths. Such moral suasion of Christian principles is not coercive as humanists would have us believe. The moral suasion of Christian principles provided the nation with a central vision and resulted in stability and unity by working through the individual as he voluntarily chooses the manner in which he orders his soul.[10]

Engage the culture by winning friends and influencing people

Osborne attempts to repackage Daniel’s humble nature as “service” to his wicked captors and masters. Therefore, “service” becomes the essential ingredient in constructing the “persuasive” paradigm for engaging culture.

He served his captors and wicked masters so well and loyally that he kept getting promoted. And with every promotion, his influence in Babylon grew greater…Yet I’m afraid that a modern-day Daniel would be harshly criticized. Many Christians would see him as a spiritual compromiser…Instead of avoiding or attacking the godless leaders of our day, we’ll need to begin to engage them in the same way Daniel did, humbly serving whomever God chooses to temporarily place into positions of authority.[11]

Osborne erroneously attempts to define biblical humility as “…simply serving others by putting their needs and interest above our own. It’s treating others the same way we’d treat them if they were someone ‘important’.” But Osborne’s definition of humility is not to be found in the dictionary.

Noah Webster Dictionary of 1828: Humility: In ethics, freedom from pride and arrogance, humbleness of mind, a modest estimate of one’s own worth. In theology, a lowliness of mind, a deep sense of one’s own unworthiness in the sight of God. Self-abasement, penitence for sin, submission to the Divine will.[12]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 1963: Humility: Quality or state of being humble. Humble: Not proud or haughty. Spirit of deference, not arrogant or assertive, submission, ranking low in some hierarchy of scale.[13]

Osborne’s definition of biblical humility is manifestly false, but it appears to be the core of much of pacifist Christians’ reasons for avoiding the culture wars. It is the seeker-sensitive model of Church Growth designed to reach the lost but modified for the culture at large. However, the Bible commands Christians to speak truth (with love and true humility) into culture as opposed to attempting to influence it through a fawning ingratiation and toady servitude to gain favor with ungodly leaders in a wicked culture. Christians are supposed to be salt and light to a lost and dying world. Although we are required to show Christian love, charity, and bind up the wounds of the broken, such must not be a weak substitute for truth. Writing over sixty years ago, A. W. Tozer anticipated the end-product of modern but misguided pacifist Christian efforts at an ill-defined and misplaced humility.

The Christian faith, based upon the New Testament, teaches the complete antithesis between the Church and the world…It is no more than a religious platitude to say that the trouble with us today is that we have tried to bridge the gulf between two opposites, the world and the Church, and have performed an illicit marriage for which there is no biblical authority. Actually, there is no real union…When the Church joins up with the world it is the true Church no longer but only a pitiful hybrid thing, an object of smiling contempt to the world and an abomination to the Lord.[14]

The American church of the 1950s was not a “spiritual Camelot”

Osborne believes that much of the perceived cultural deterioration that supposedly motivates today’s Christian culture warriors is a result of their looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

Consider how many Christians look back at the 1950s and the days of Leave It to Beaver as the golden era of family values and godly culture…While they were indeed good times if you were a white middle-class suburbanite, they were hardly the glory days of family values and godly culture if you were a black family living under the last vestiges of segregation and Jim Crow.[15]

For instance, the glory days of Father Knows Best, family values, and stay-at-home moms weren’t all they were cracked up to be…once again, as in Roman days, a powerful church is not always a faithful church. It draws people for the wrong reason.

Frankly, if those days were really a spiritual Camelot, someone needs to explain to me how they produced a generation of sex-crazed, free-love, dope-smoking hippies who grew up to be self-absorbed boomers.[16]

Much like the humanistic progressives of today, Osborne disparages the American church of the 1950s which he claims were not “the glory days of family values and godly culture.” Rather, he describes it as a powerful church but not a faithful church.

Here we have two classic examples of assumptive language in which it is taken for granted that the results are caused by what precedes the results. In the first example of assumptive language, Osborne claims that the glory days of family values and godly culture couldn’t have existed because there were other segments of society that were suffering. In the second example of Osborne’s assumptive language, the church was culturally powerful; therefore we must assume that it couldn’t have been spiritual. As evidence of the lack of spirituality of the 1950s church, Osborne’s assumptive language points to the rebellious Boomer generation as being caused by the 1950s church. But Osborne lost (or perhaps never had) his much coveted historical perspective as to the reasons for the rise of the Boomer generation.

The history of the 1950s church in America and the cause of the Boomer rebellion have been written about extensively. Those well-documented and authoritative histories emphatically do not support Osborne’s conclusions reflected by his assumptive statements.
______

In Part I we have examined four ideas and philosophies that foster Christian pacifism in the culture wars as championed by Osborne and others. In Part II, we shall glean the essences of the two opposing views of Christian cultural engagement and examine those in comparison to the role of the church in the German culture of the 1930s.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 136.
[2] Ibid., p. 169.
[3] Ibid., pp. 174-175.
[4] Ibid., p. 185.
[5] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 115.
[6] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 136.
[7] Ibid., p. 173.
[8] Ibid., pp. 175-176.
[9] Wayne Gruden, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Booklet adapted from Wayne Gruden, Politics – According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).
[10] 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. 224.
[11] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, pp. 150-151.
[12] “humility,” Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967, 1995 by Rosalie J. Slater), p. 12.
[13] “humble, humility,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), pp. 404-405.
[14] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, pp. 115-116.
[15] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 36.
[16] Ibid., pp. 195-196.

How much is your child worth?

Posted by :webmaster On : June 10, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Humanism

You’ve probably heard or read about Harambe of the Cincinnati Zoo. He was the 420 pound silverback gorilla that was shot and killed on May 28th by zoo officials to protect the life of a 3-year old child that managed to slip into Harambe’s domain. Such is the outrage at the killing by many in our humanistic society that the story has spun across several 24-hour news cycles as well as exploded in the internet and print media.

The preschooler managed to wiggle into zoo’s Gorilla World enclosure, walk through some bushes, and then fell down the 15 wall into a moat that separated the gorilla from onlookers. The gorilla went to the child and was reported to have been “violently dragging and throwing the child.” Within ten minutes zoo officials had been notified and responded. Zoo officials determined that it was too dangerous to attempt to use a tranquillizer gun because it might enrage the gorilla during the time it takes for the tranquilizing drug to take effect. Instead they made the decision to shoot and kill the gorilla.[1] Jack Hanna, the respected and renowned American zookeeper, fully agreed with the decision. Hanna said he saw video of the gorilla jerking the boy through the water and knew what would happen if the animal wasn’t killed. “I’ll bet my life on this, that child would not be here today.”[2]

It takes 5 to 10 minutes for a gorilla to lay down and go to sleep, so what’s that male going to do if all the sudden, “pow” he feels this thing hit him? He’s going to go back there, what is this thing? pull it out, and he’s got a child in his hand … We’re going to have a disaster. Within one split second. You wouldn’t even want to witness it.[3]

Rather than rejoice with saving the life of a 3-year old child, it seems that there are thousands if not millions in America culture that have made the killing of Harambe the center of the story. Jane Goodall, the world-renowned British primatologist and conservationist, sent an email to Cincinnati Zoo executive Thane Maynard. She expressed her sorrow for Maynard for “having to try to defend something which you may well disapprove of.”[4]

I tried to see exactly what was happening – it looked as though the gorilla was putting an arm round the child – like the female who rescued and returned the child from the Chicago exhibit…Anyway, whatever, it is a devastating loss to the zoo, and to the gorillas. How did the others react? Are they allowed to see, and express grief, which seems to be so important? Feeling for you.[5]

By “others,” Goodall appears to mean that the other gorillas at the zoo should be allowed to see and express grief at what had happened to Harambe.

One Cincinnati animal rights activist helped organize a vigil just outside the zoo gates “to honor Harambe who turned 17 the day before he was shot.[6] Another expression of this collective moral outrage was the initiation of a petition to hold the parents accountable for negligence and lack of supervision.

A sad incident at the Cincinnati Zoo has prompted this petition. On May 28, 2016 an unattended four-year-old boy [as originally reported] was able to crawl through a series of barriers at the Gorilla World enclosure. The child fell an estimated 10 to 12 feet into the moat surrounding the habitat. The 17 year-old male Western Lowland Gorilla named Harambe then got a hold of the boy. The gorilla was perceived as dragging and throwing the boy. The zoo made the last-resort decision to shoot Harambe because of the increased risk of aggression if a tranquilizer was used in such close proximity to a human. This heartbreaking decision was made in the best interests of keeping the child and the public safe. This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep a closer watch on the child. We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision. Witnesses claim that they heard the child state that he wished to go into the enclosure and was actively trying to breach the barriers. This should have prompted the parents to immediately remove the child from the vicinity. It is believed that the situation was caused by parental negligence and the zoo is not responsible for the child’s injuries and possible trauma. We the undersigned want the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life. We the undersigned feel the child’s safety is paramount in this situation. We believe that this negligence may be reflective of the child’s home situation. We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child’s home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.[7] [emphasis added]

As of June 7th the petition had received over one-half million signers.[8] The petitioners have already judged the parents guilty of neglect and lack of supervision. Why? Because something bad happened to a child. No one can deny that there are occasions of neglect or lack of supervision by parents or caregivers. But in the normal course of life bad things will happen to even the children of the most caring, attentive, and protective parents. But humanists must not bother with such distinctions in their rush to judgement and condemnation when bad things happen. One is guilty until they have proven their innocence.

This is one of the hallmarks of the modern humanistic society. Something bad happens. Therefore, someone was victimized and someone must be held accountable. For these cultural vigilantes, one is either a victim or a victimizer. There is no middle ground, and it is up to the powers of NGO activists (non-governmental organizations) and socialistically-minded governments to assess the situation, parcel out the requisite penalties, and dump another load of meaningless rules and regulations on Americans in a futile attempt to assure that nothing bad will ever happen again. No element of life is so small or insignificant into which they will not stick their long bureaucratic noses, be it sugary soft drinks, genderless bathroom facilities, or other such examples of demagoguery.

It is difficult to imagine that the signers of the change.org petition who had raised children of their own would never have had moments of inattention or distraction which may have resulted in a bad outcome for their child such as failing to prevent their child from falling from a bicycle, preventing a child from slipping out of a yard whose gate was left unlocked, becoming separated at a park or zoo, or allowing a child to jerk his hand from his parent’s hand and dash into traffic.

The social engineers of the humanistic world which they have created will argue that education is the key. Education leads to appropriate behavior modification in both children and parents which will minimize such unfavorable outcomes in life. However, there is a disconnection between humanism’s belief in the perfectibility of man and their means of achieving that perfection. For most of a century American children and their parents have been immersed in John Dewey’s democratized education model in which the teacher is merely the facilitator and must not impose fixed values or notions of right or wrong. Children are presumed to be inherently good and must be allowed to explore and develop their own relativistic versions of truth. But in the real world, bad actions and bad behavior have consequences that demand rigorous adherence to fixed standards of behavior. In other words children are taught to think one way but must act another way when they become adults. This is just one of the basic fallacies of the humanistic understanding of the world. It ignores the innate fallen nature of mankind but demands perfection without the fixed values and timeless objective truths of the God who created the universe and mankind. Such disconnection is one of the principal causes of the rapidly deteriorating social fabric at all levels of America life—government, marriage, family, economy, education, arts, and culture in general.
______

The massive moral outrage and hand-wringing at the unfortunate death of a single silverback gorilla is astonishing. Where is the moral outrage when approximately 3000 unborn babies are aborted each day of the year in America? Where is the moral outrage when in slightly less than two months the number of babies aborted in America equals the entire population of 175,000 silverback gorillas remaining in the world? What is the value of a child compared to a silverback gorilla? In the humanistic view of the world, it appears to be very little.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Alex Abad Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture, June 1, 2016. http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11813640/harambe-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo-killed (accessed June 7, 2016).
[2] Dan Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press, May 30, 2016. https://www.yahoo.com/news/vigil-planned-cincinnati-zoo-tribute-143125063.html?ref=gs (accessed June 7, 2016).
[3] Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture.
[4] Patrick Brennan, “Jane Goodall to Cincy zoo director: I’m so sorry’,” cincinnati.com, June 2, 2016. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/06/02/jane-goodall-cincy-zoo-director-feel-so-sorry/85285432/ (accessed June 7, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press.
[7] Sheila Hunt, “Justice for Harambe,” change.org. https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe (accessed June 7, 2016).
[8] Ibid.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part IV

Posted by :webmaster On : June 3, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

As described in Part I, the Yale Covenant was a response to an open letter signed by 130 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world to leaders of Christian churches everywhere. The Muslim scholars pointed to common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. The Yale Covenant was a response to the Muslim letter signed by over three hundred prominent Christian ministers, professors, and leaders from various organizations including Christian churches, ministries, seminaries, Christian publishers, and various quasi-Christian organizations. Most of the signers could be classified as coming from the liberal segment of those entities. However, there were several high-profile and highly influential representatives from major evangelical churches and organizations that signed the Yale Covenant but who are not typically thought of as being associated with liberal doctrines and causes. Those included:

Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals

David Yonggi Cho, Founder and Senior Pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea

Bill Hybels, Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and Founder of Willow Creek Association

Dr. Robert Schuller, Founder of Crystal Cathedral and Hour of Power television ministry

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, and author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.[1]

When these men affixed their names to the Yale Covenant, they effectively associated themselves with a false religion in direct violation of the Apostle Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians.

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] [emphasis added]

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?[2]

These men and others in evangelicalism that embrace and promote anti-biblical efforts such as the Yale Covenant bring great reproach and damage to the cause of Christ through their efforts. They cannot separate their pronouncements, actions, and example from those of others in the church (evangelical or liberal) such as the Reverend Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Pastor Campbell permitted the Episcopal Church to host a Muslim prayer service at the Cathedral on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was conducted at the Cathedral by Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim and the South African ambassador to the U.S., in cooperation with various Muslim societies and organizations and The Nation’s Mosque. Widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham prompted Reverend Campbell to vigorously defend her decision. She stated that the National Cathedral was a

…place of prayer for all people. Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God…We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us.[3] [emphasis added]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God as has been unequivocally demonstrated in Parts I through III of this series. Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building in which His people “…who are called by my name…” worship the God of the Bible [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Third, as Matthew Henry wrote, religious communion between the light and darkness is a great absurdity, not bridge building as Reverend Campbell would have us believe.

In his outreach efforts to the Muslim faith, Rick Warren did much more than just sign his name to the Yale Covenant in 2007. In 2006 Warren and his wife received an invitation to visit and share an Ifar meal from the leader of the Mission Viejo mosque near Saddleback Church. Iftar is the evening meal Muslims eat after fasting all day during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Following several such visits, Warren began accepting invitations to address Muslim conferences in Long Beach, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.[4]

On July 4, 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capitol during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

I will tell you that I am not interested in interfaith dialogue. I am interested in interfaith projects. There is a big difference. Talk is very cheap. You can talk and talk and talk and never get anything done. Love is something you do. It is something we do together…You know what I discovered is when you walk down the middle of the road you get hit coming and going…Actually, it is easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you. But if you actually try to build relationships, like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering, you’ll get criticized for it, so will I. But that is not what matters.[5]

Although Warren strongly asserts that he has maintained his religious differences with Islam, he says that Muslims and Christians can work together for “the common good.” He encouraged the Muslim audience to not compromise their convictions.[6]

In 2011 Warren invited Muslims to share Christmas dinner with the members of his church. At the dinner Warren and the leader of a Los Angeles mosque introduced King’s Way as “a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.” The document co-authored by Warren and the Muslim leader outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam that centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The document stated that Muslims and Christians believed in “one God” and that the religions shared two fundamental commandments: “love of God” and “love of neighbor” and quoted side-by-side verses from the Bible and the Koran to support their claims. The “King’s Way” document committed both faiths to: “Making friends with one another, building peace and working on shared social service projects.” Echoing Warren’a statements, the mosque’s leader stated that, “We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other. We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”[7]

The Orange County Register reporting on the event stated that, according to polls by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “evangelicals are 30 percent more likely than other Christians to hold a negative view of Islam…[and] that evangelicals overwhelmingly favor converting Muslims to Christianity and are more likely to believe that Islam encourages violence.” The newspaper also stated that Warren “has repeatedly encouraged evangelicals to set aside such views, arguing that Christians are obliged to treat everyone with love and respect, regardless of faith.”[8] Christians should treat individual Muslims with love and respect, but one must ask where in the Bible does it give Warren the authority to tell Muslims to not compromise their convictions and to suspend efforts at conversion for “the common good”?

How does Warren’s words and actions align with the Apostle Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians: “…what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” Henry’s commentary on this verse is abundantly clear when he states that “It is wrong for good people to join in affinity with the wicked and profane.” Although Warren claims that he is working for “the common good,” Henry states that “There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad…We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them.”

The words and actions of Campbell and Warren are clearly contrary both to the letter and the spirit of Paul’s instructions to Christians. This is theological apostasy described in Part I in which deceitful leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. They and others in the evangelical church who follow their examples bring great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weaken the authority of the Bible, and give legitimacy to a false and violent religion.
______

In Matthew 24, after Jesus and His disciples left the temple, they went to the Mount of Olives where the disciples asked questions with regard to the sign of His coming and the end of the world. In verses 4 through 14, Jesus gave them general signs of events leading up to rapture which occurs just before the end the last days which culminate with the seven-year tribulation period. The signs that Jesus gave in these verses characterize the events preceding the rapture, and these events will intensify as that time approaches. One of those signs was the increase of false prophets and religious compromisers within the visible church. They will deceive many as religious deception becomes rampant throughout the planet (v.4-5, 11). Other events of our present day mirror those spoken of by Christ and unmistakably signal the nearness of the rapture: the increasing prevalence of war and threats of war, famine, pestilences, and natural disasters (vv. 6-7); the increase and severity of hatred for and persecution of God’s people (v. 9) resulting in large numbers that will forsake their loyalty to Christ (v.10); and the rapid increase in immorality, violence, and crime while natural love and family affection decrease (v. 12).[9]

In Matthew 24:11 Christ states, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Given that we are primarily addressing theological apostasy, the extensive Commentary and Study Notes of Donald Stamps written for the Full Life Study Bible and published over twenty-five years ago give great clarity as it paints a prescient picture of the condition of today’s contemporary American evangelical church.

As the last days [before the rapture] begin to close, false teachers and preachers will be exceedingly prevalent. Much of Christendom will be in an apostate condition. Loyalty and total commitment to the truth of God’s Word and Biblical righteousness will be in the minority. [emphasis added]

(1) Professing believers will accept “new revelation” even though it conflicts with the revealed Word of God. This will lead to opposition to Biblical truth within the churches. Those who preach a distorted gospel may even gain strategic leadership positions in denominations and theological schools of Christendom, enabling them to deceive and mislead many within the church.

(2) Throughout the world millions will be in the occult, astrology, witchcraft, Spiritism, and Satanism. The influence of demons and evil spirits will multiply greatly.

(3) Protection against being deceived is found in an enduring faith and love for Christ, in a commitment to the absolute authority of His Word and a thorough knowledge of that Word.[10] [emphasis added]

______

The Yale Covenant is just one example of apostasy in the church. One might argue that the number of evangelicals among its three hundred signers was relatively insignificant and does not reflect the true condition of the evangelical church. But the magnitude and extent of the influence of these men and others of like minds are extremely significant in the evangelical world, and their words and actions in this and other matters have contributed greatly to the rapid increase and spread of a general apostasy in these last days.

Leith Anderson is President of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents more than 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.[11]

David Yonggi Cho was the Founder and Senior Pastor [now Emeritus pastor] of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea, the world’s biggest congregation[12] estimated by several sources as being in excess of eight hundred thousand.

Bill Hybels founded Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and has been the senior pastor of the multi-campus mega church for over forty years. Since 1992, Hybels also had indoctrinated twelve thousand churches and their leaders with his message, methods, and practices through their membership in the Willow Creek Association, also founded by and led by Hybels.[13]

Dr. Robert Schuller founded what eventually became the Crystal Cathedral, a California mega church that for many years had a world-wide television audience through Schuller’s Hour of Power television ministry. Schuller died in 2015.

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, is often called America’s pastor. The mega church pastor’s reach extends far beyond his own congregation through his Purpose Driven empire which includes his multi-million bestselling books (The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life). The Purpose Driven Church is listed in “100 Christian Books That Changed the 20th Century.” Warren’s Purpose Driven Network of churches is a global coalition of congregations in 162 countries that have trained more than 400,000 ministers and priests worldwide. Additionally, almost 157,000 church leaders subscribe to the Ministry’s ToolBox, Warren’s weekly newsletter.[14]

These five men have had an incredibly powerful influence on evangelicalism not only in America but around the world. Yet, these men have through their words and actions boldly aligned themselves with doctrines of darkness in direct contradiction to the Bible’s commands. For Schuller, Hybels, and Warren, their departures from sound doctrine and practice of New Testament Christianity are not new and not limited to the Yale Covenant. In spite of the power, influence, popularity, and strategic leadership positions of these men, Bible-believing Christians must adhere to Christ’s warning to His disciples found in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture,
http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[3] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[4] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register, August 21, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html (accessed December 5, 2014).
[5] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 53-54.
[10] Ibid., p. 54.
[11] “About NAE,” National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/about-nae/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[12] “World’s Biggest Congregation,” PBS – Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, August 10, 2012.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/08/10/august-10-2012-worlds-biggest-congregation/10162/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[13] Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal – Where Are You? (Barrington, Illinois: Willow Creek Association, 2007), pp. 3-4, 111.
[14] “About Rick Warren,” Pastor Rick’s Daily Hope, http://rickwarren.org/about/rick-warren (accessed May 2, 2016).

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part III

Posted by :webmaster On : May 27, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

The second area that must be examined to determine if there is hope for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity is love. If there are fundamental differences in the concepts and practices of love between Islam and Christianity, then love cannot provide a common ground.

Are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same?

As they did in addressing questions presented in Part II, the Yale Covenant authors point to the difficulties in identifying the similarities between the Islamic and Christian understandings of love. These difficulties include several issues. A major difference noted was whether God’s love was conditional or non-conditional. The Bible says that God’s love is unconditional whereas in the Quran it appears that Allah’s love is conditional. Another concern raised by the covenant authors was the difficulty of translating the meaning of words between Arabic and other languages which leads to difficulty in comparing the conceptions of love in the two religions. Other areas identified for further study and discussion were the meanings of the names for God with respect to love and whether God’s love is self-giving. The authors provide no answers to these questions but once again stress the need “for conversations and interactions on these crucial matters of love of God and of neighbor.[1]

Here again the covenant authors get caught up in details (important though they may be) but step away from the fundamental question as to the natures of the two Gods revealed by the Bible and the Quran. However, answers will not come from mere discussions about God’s titles, translations, interpretations, and definitions of love. Answers can be found only in an examination of the fundamental natures of the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran in relation to love and its application between God and man and man to man. Put another way, are the understandings and practices of love expressed by the nature of God described in the Bible and the Quran essentially the same or radically different?

The Christian’s God is love, not just a loving God (John 4:8). God’s love is unconditional which is revealed throughout the great meta-narrative of the creation, the Fall, and redemption. For the Christian, we must again return to the Trinity. In the Christian worldview, God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. It was a sacrificial love because rebellious man did not deserve it. But man’s rebellion was not a surprise to God for He knew the cost of His supreme love before he created man (see Revelation 13:8). No man was worthy or deserving of God’s love or capable of doing anything to gain His love. Therefore, God sent His incarnate Son to die on a Roman cross that made possible the redemption of mankind. God willingly gave his begotten Son’s life so that all of mankind through their individual freewill would have the opportunity to accept the gift of forgiveness and redemption.

God’s nature is love, and He commanded His followers to unconditionally reflect His love to others in this world. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” [Luke 6:35-36, RSV]

Contrast the love of the Christian’s God with Allah’s love as described in the Quran. The Quran states that God is Al-Wadud meaning that he is full of loving kindness. This loving kindness is well-demonstrated by many Muslims in the loving way they treat their children and in the great hospitality and kindness bestowed on those that visit their homes. But Allah’s loving kindness is limited to only a part of mankind. Islam does not love its enemies nor does it love the unlovable, and the Quran is very specific in its directives as to the harsh and violent treatment of infidels, the disobedient, and evil-doers. The Quran[2] specifically states in numerous verses that Allah’s love is restricted to those that deserve it, a concept that mirrors the very human reaction to love only those who love us.[3] Listed below are just three examples.

Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [Sura 2:276. Quran]

Say: “obey Allah and His Apostle”: but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. [Sura 3:32. Quran]

As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong. [Sura 3:57. Quran]

A personal or an impersonal God?

As important is our understanding the different natures of God and Allah with regard to love, we must take one step beyond to determine the reasons for the differences and why those reasons matter to mankind.

In Islam, it is not possible to separate or differentiate Allah’s mind, will, and actions. He is described as absolute oneness in his nature and personhood. The distinguishing characteristic of Islam is the unity of Allah.[4] One of the most revered chapters in the Quran is Sura 112 which commands, “Say: He is Allah, the One, the Only; The Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”

When Mohammad was asked to describe Allah, Sura 112 was supposedly given to him by Allah. Islamic tradition states that Mohammad considered Sura 112 as worth one-third of the entire Quran. The verses weld together two fundamental doctrines of Islam: (1) Allah is an absolute, undifferentiated unity and (2) “in his unity, is utterly independent of anything. He is self-subsisting and self-sufficient.” But this conception of Allah’s greatness makes it impossible for man to relate to him and impossible for the human heart and mind to understand anything about him apart from the superficial. Allah is personal in that he is described as a conscious being with a will, but his personality is hidden and cannot be known to any meaningful degree by mankind. Therefore, it is not possible for his followers to have a personal, loving relationship with him.[5]

Because of this description of Allah as a self-subsisting and self-sufficient entity absolutely independent of anything, it is impossible for Allah to express or give love because his nature will not allow such. Therefore, Allah is unipersonal and his ultra-unified, self-contained, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and self-centered being removes any hope of love flowing from his nature in spite of Mohammad’s claims in the Quran. Given Allah’s self-described nature in the Quran as an absolute oneness and independence from anything, to say that Allah loves or does not love is an oxymoron at best or a false claim shrouded in an incomprehensible, unexplainable enigma that demands blind faith from his followers.

In Christianity, the central theme of the entire Bible focuses on relationship and confirms the importance of His Trinitarian nature. Perichoresis is a word used to describe the triune relationship between the members of the Godhead. It explains the close inter-relatedness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of which is clearly distinct but at the same time “…one in their own eternal and intense love for each other.”[6] Expressed another way, it is one heart beating within three persons.

Perichoresis shares its etymological roots with the word “choreography.”[7] With this in mind, Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, wonderfully adds to our understanding of this relationship which he calls the Dance of God. The dance is about love and relationship which implies constant movement or flowing in which a “…self-giving love is the dynamic currency of the Trinitarian life of God. Three persons within God exalt, commune with, and defer to one another…a dynamic pulsating activity, a life, a kind of drama…a kind of dance…”[8]

And God has allowed man to share in this Trinitarian relationship. How can we know this? John’s gospel gives us the answer in Christ’s own words: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one.” [John 17: 22-23a. RSV] Historian George Marsden summarized Jonathan Edwards’s explanation of this passage. “The ultimate reason that God creates, said Edwards, is not to remedy some lack in God, but to extend that perfect internal communication of the triune God’s goodness and love…” Keller refines Edward’s statement when he said, “God did not create us to get the cosmic, infinite joy of mutual love and glorification, but to share it. [9] [emphasis added]

Is there common ground between Islam and Christianity with regard to love and relationship between man and God and man to man? When we examine the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, the answer is an indisputably no. In the areas of love and relationships, the differences between the unipersonal Allah of the Quran and the loving, personal God of the Bible are enormous and provide no basis for common ground between Islam and Christianity.

In the first three parts of this series we have discussed the end time apostasy that is engulfing many in the evangelical church, the Yale Covenant, and two areas identified as supposedly providing a basis for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity. In Part IV we shall examine how this modern apostasy of attempting to find common ground between Islam and Christianity has been embraced and promoted by some leaders in the evangelical church.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[3] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), pp. 231-232.
[4] Ibid., p. 159.
[5] Ibid., pp. 159-161.
[6] Glenn T. Stanton and Leon C. Wirth, The Family Project, (Coral Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2014), pp. 82-83.
[7] Ibid., p. 82.
[8] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (New York: Dutton, 2008), pp. 214-215.
[9] Ibid., pp. 218-219.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : May 20, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

The Muslim scholars in their 2007 open letter to the Christian world (“A Common Word between Us and You”) and the response (the Yale Covenant) signed by three hundred Christian leaders identified two areas that were supposed to be common ground between Muslims and Christians: the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbor.[1] However, the truth or falsity of this claimed common ground can only be determined after a thoughtful examination of the nature of the Islam’s Allah and the Christian God of the Bible and their respective teachings and commandments with regard to love.

In other words, the evidence of any common ground between the two religions must ultimately be found in the natures of the respective Gods. If there are essential similarities in the most important aspects of the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, it would appear that there may be areas of common ground in the religions of Islam and Christianity. Likewise, if their natures are radically different, no common ground can exist.

Muslims claim that what can be known of Allah is found in the Quran written by Mohammad in the seventh century. Christians claim that God revealed himself through the divinely inspired writings of a number of men in both the Old and New Testaments recorded over a 1600-year period. Christians also claim that God can be known through His creation and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men and women. However, the written record of the Quran and the Bible will serve as our basis for determining the existence of common ground.

In examining the nature of God and the meaning and application of love as expressed by these natures, two questions must be answered in the affirmative if we are to determine there is common ground between Islam and Christianity. First, do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Second, are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same? The second question will be addressed in Part III.

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Many claim that Islam’s Allah and the Christian God are really the same God. As one well-known television talk show hostess infamously claimed, all roads lead to the same God. In addressing this question, the Yale Center for Faith and Culture responded to a number of questions and criticisms following the publication of the Yale Covenant. Their response to the question as to whether Allah and the Christian God are the same was presented in two parts.

First, the authors of the Yale Covenant assert that the God of the Bible may also be called “Allah” because it is merely the Arabic word for God. The second part of the response addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The signers of the Yale Covenant identify what they believe to be many similarities in the two religions’ views about God. Each claims to worship the one true God, that he is the creator of the heavens and the universe, is merciful and compassionate, rules the universe, and guides the affairs of mankind. They both believe that their God will judge all people at the end of history, that God sent prophets into the world to guide God’s people, and that both the Quran and the Bible were written by men who were divinely inspired. But the Yale Covenanters also acknowledge the two Gods are unlike with regard to the Trinity and the “Person of Jesus Christ whom Christians see as God’s ultimate self-revelation.”[2]

Ultimately, the Yale Covenant’s responders do not answer the question as to whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, they claim that in spite of important differences, those differences are “similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and few Christians today would assert that Jews are worshipping a different god or an idol.”[3] But to compare the differences between Islam and Christianity as being similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity is ludicrous. Christians almost universally do not view the Old Testament as hostile to the teachings of the New Testament which is a record of the completion of story of God’s plan for mankind following the creation and the Fall found in the Old Testament. The Bible and the Quran could never be bound together as one book because they describe two completely different Gods and two different blueprints for mankind on this earth and in eternity.

The God of the Quran and the God of the Bible are superficially similar in certain ways but vastly different in the most fundamental and important aspects of their natures. Perhaps the most important differences are determined by an understanding of the very essence of who they say they are. The Bible reveals God in His Trinitarian form in the first chapter of Genesis, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” [Genesis 1:26. KJV] [emphasis added] Where verse 26 establishes the plurality of the Deity, verse 27 reinforces the unity of His divine essence. God is three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) but one divine being having a single divine nature. The Trinitarian nature of God will be discussed in greater detail in Part III.

Islam denies that God (Allah) is Triune but an “absolute unity, utterly without differentiation within himself” as such differentiation would diminish his greatness. In Islam, to suggest there is differentiation is to commit the greatest possible blasphemy.[4] “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”[5] [Sura 5:76, Quran]

Islam also denies that God became incarnate because Allah would never stoop to the level of his creation by becoming human.[6] Islam teaches that those who claim that God became incarnate are blasphemers. “They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins other gods with Allah,—Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.” [Sura 5:75] But the gospel of John states that, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6. KJV] In Islam, Jesus is not God but a prophet.

These verses from the Quran and the Bible have unquestionably presented a starkly different image of the true natures of the two Gods. If they have such vastly different natures, there can be no common ground of any significance between Islam and Christianity. One must be the ultimate Supreme Being that transcends all of creation and the other a false God, and the religion of the false God leads to pain and despair in this life and eternal damnation thereafter.

Yet, the Yale Covenanters state that, “We believe that Muslims and Christians share enough in their perspectives about God to serve as the foundation for a meaningful and constructive dialogue between them.” Apparently, the responders are not concerned with objective and eternal truth but merely “perspectives” that will lead to dialogue because “…we share enough common understanding of the true God to sit down at the table and discuss both our areas of agreement and disagreement in regard to God.”[7]

But we must look to the pithy writings of A. W. Tozer for wisdom and clarity regarding the motives and mindset of the defenders of the Yale Covenant. “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.”[8] [emphasis added]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), p. 166.
[5] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[6] Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, pp. 166-167.
[7] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
[8] A. W. Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), p. 126.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : May 13, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

The Apostle Paul’s second letter to Timothy speaks of the last days.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. [2 Timothy 3:1-5. KJV]

Before we discuss the growing apostasy of the church, we must place it in context with the end times. The last days spoken of by Paul include the entire Christian era that began with Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and the establishment of the Church. But at the end of the those last days (the church age) things will become ever-increasingly worse in the world including a rapid disintegration of moral standards and a great increase in false believers and churches within God’s kingdom.[1]

In the last days great numbers of the professing church will depart from biblical truth in both word and deed. This departure is called apostasy and means to “fall away” or abandonment and rebellion. Within the church, the apostasy will take two forms. The first is theological apostasy in which false leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. Under these false leaders and teachers, a false salvation and cheap grace will replace salvation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, repentance, turning from sin, and adherence to God’s standards of living. The false leaders and teachers will offer a gospel centered on the self and its needs and desires. The second type is moral apostasy in which one severs his relationship with Christ and embraces sin and immorality. Although proclaiming right doctrine and New Testament Christianity’s teachings, they will abandon the moral standards as taught by the New Testament in exchange for money, success, honor, and a large following.[2]

When this general apostasy (often called the Great Apostasy) will occur is described by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

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 that 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]

In his first letter, Paul had assured the Thessalonians that the true follower of Christ would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and be delivered from the coming wrath of God that was to fall upon the earth. Christians call this the rapture which also signals the beginning of the seven years of tribulation in which God’s wrath will be poured out upon the world. Paul’s continued assurances in the second letter were necessary because certain false teachers claimed that God had already begun to pour out His final wrath on the earth. Paul explained that before God’s final wrath would be loosed, two things must occur: there must be a specific falling away and the “man of sin” will be revealed. These two events signal that day when God’s wrath will be loosed. But we must remember that there is a sequence of events leading up to this time. During the entire church age, iniquity has been at work, but as the last days of the age draw to a close, evil becomes progressively worse. As the flood tide of evil swells as the end of the age nears, apostasy within the church will grow to startling proportions. Following the rapture of the true church, the Holy Spirit will no longer restrain the man of lawlessness (the Antichrist) who will then be revealed. Following the rapture of the true church, the remaining apostate church enters into a total rebellion against God and His Word.[3]

Evidence of a generalized apostasy within the church

Between 1870 and 1930 there was a great surge of apostasy within the church. Most of it was centered on the liberal church that eventually dominated the American church. Fundamentalists of the era who stayed true to New Testament Christianity were demeaned and marginalized. They had largely abandoned the culture until the mid to late 1940s when some fundamentalists emerged. Those fundamentalists became known as neo-evangelicals who once again engaged the culture while remaining true to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. But as America progressed through the remainder of the century and into the twenty-first century, a large portion of the evangelical church had succumbed to spirit of the age and slid into apostasy.

The apostasy that was embraced by the liberal church in the early part of the twentieth century has now entered much of the evangelical church in the last half of the twentieth century and first two decades of the twenty-first century. The extent to which this escalating apostasy has grown is evident in many quarters of the evangelical church and is symbolized by a recent occurrence of significant importance.

The Yale Covenant

On October 7, 2007, 138 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world, representing every major school of the Islamic faith, sent an open letter “to leaders of Christian churches, everywhere.” The Muslim scholars pointed to the common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. With reconciliation as their goal, the Muslim scholars proposed that these common grounds would serve as the basis for a dialogue between the two religious faiths. This invitation was titled “A Common Word between Us and You.” In response to the Muslim “Common Word,” the Reconciliation Program at Yale University and several members of the Yale Divinity School community responded on November 13, 2007 with a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. Titled “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’,” the Yale response was signed by 130 Christian leaders and scholars and subsequently by an additional 180 prominent signatories.[4] This response has become known as the Yale Covenant.

The Yale response to the Muslim’s “A Common Word” contained a preamble, statements about world peace and religious peace, common ground, love of God, love of neighbor, and “The Task Before Us.” The document begins by asking Muslims to forgive Christians for their guilt in sinning against “our Muslim neighbors” in the past (the Crusades) and in the present (e.g., excesses of the “war on terror”).[5]

There are two essential questions that must be answered to determine the legitimacy of the Christian response to “A Common Word.” First, is Allah the same God that Christians worship? Second, is the Christian concept of love the same as that of Islam? If the answers to one or both of these questions is no, then it is apparent that no common ground exists and that those Christians who promote such commonality have departed from biblical truth and have become apostate.

In Parts II and III we shall examine the so-called common ground between Islam and Christianity as identified by the Muslim scholars and signers of the Yale Covenant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 500.
[2] Ibid., p. 478.
[3] Ibid., pp. 474-475.
[4] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[5] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).

The American Church – 36 – Restoring New Testament Christianity

Posted by :webmaster On : May 6, 2016
0

Category: American Church, Archives

If the church (the body of Christ) desires to restore New Testament Christianity, it must first understand what the term encompasses and requires. Where better to find that understanding than the New Testament itself. The history of Christianity begins with the life of Jesus and His ministry as recorded in the four gospels. The history of the church begins with Christ’s ascension and the beginning of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Luke, the beloved physician, gave an account of the former in the Gospel of Luke and the latter in the Acts of the Apostles. What better account than that of a close friend and traveling companion of Paul. With precision, clarity, and thoroughness befitting an educated man of medicine, Luke’s inspired account spans the broad panoply of the beginnings of Christianity and the early church, both Jewish and gentile, and whether in Jerusalem or in the far reaches of most of the known world. From Luke’s writings we gain a comprehensive understanding of New Testament Christianity that appears at odds with the teachings and practices of many evangelical churches of today. Although we must not neglect nor subordinate the other books of the New Testament, many Christians consider Luke’s two long books (approximately 28% of the New Testament) are the most comprehensive and understandable presentation of New Testament Christianity.

Luke’s writings in the Acts of the Apostles present two major themes. First, Luke reveals that the gospel had spread far beyond its origins in a tiny outpost of the Roman Empire and its Jewish religion and had done so in spite of severe opposition and persecution of its messengers. Second, even a cursory reading of the Acts of the Apostles reveals the centrality and importance of the Holy Spirit and His empowerment of the early church.[1] These two themes were evident at the close of Luke’s gospel.

And [Jesus] said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to Suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. [Luke 24: 46-49. KJV]

The words later written in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles echo those written at the end of Luke’s gospel. Those dual themes ripple not only throughout the Acts of the Apostles but the remainder of the New Testament.

But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. [Acts 1:8. KJV]

The essence of the entire book of Acts (and New Testament Christianity) is found in this single verse. The theological message was that His disciples were to continue to do and teach all that Jesus did while on the earth, but their witness could only be accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through them. The geographical location of their witnessing was to be the entire world.[2] Jesus instructed His followers to wait and not begin their ministry until they had received the promise of the Father. This promise was fulfilled at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The assignment that Jesus had given to these mortal men and women could not be accomplished in the natural realm. But with the arrival of the promised supernatural power from on high they would accomplish all that Jesus commanded.

As these themes guided those first century Christians whose lives and works were recorded by the inspired writers of the New Testament, we gain a comprehensive and integrated understanding of New Testament Christianity. In light of this understanding, we can determine the critical departures from New Testament Christianity by many in modern evangelicalism.

Hallmarks of New Testament Christianity

There are several norms or hallmarks that give shape, definition, and context to New Testament Christianity. All of its distinguishing elements that were found in the early church (except for the writing of the New Testament Scripture) are available to the twenty-first century church. But they are only attainable when the church moves and operates in the full power of the Holy Spirit.[3]

Several of these hallmarks are no longer found in many evangelical churches. The following is a summary of the more significant observations and findings with regard to the modern evangelical church in America. These are not meant to be an all-inclusive list and are certainly not a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the evangelical church. But correction must be preceded by recognition of those missing elements which have led to a most wintry season in evangelicalism at a time when American culture is in desperate need of a clear, authoritative, truthful, and Holy Spirit-directed response from the church.

• Ignoring the presence and work of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 26)

The Holy Spirit will not allow Himself to be merely an item on a church’s agenda. He is either the center, or He will have no part of the program. Christ instructed His disciples to first “tarry” and then after they had been endued with power from the Holy Spirit they would be ready to do the work of the church. Many modern churches have dispensed with the irreplaceable power and presence of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of church life which accounts for their powerlessness, spiritual poverty, and shallowness.

As a result there are millions of Christians in America that long for the deeper spiritual life found in the pages of the New Testament. To address this hunger, many in the body of Christ and well-intentioned church leaders assemble various ingredients, measure, and then mix them in the prescribed quantities, much as one would do in baking a cake, in an effort to replicate the deeper life found in New Testament Christianity. Because many in the body of Christ and its leaders are more interested in doing church than being the church, they fail to wait upon the Holy Spirit and His enduement of power. His absence is the missing ingredient that leaves the church’s efforts a dry and tasteless imitation of the real thing.

• The message of the new cross (Chapter 29)

The cross upon which the Son of God was crucified stands at the crossroads of history and the story of mankind. Its stark and demanding message is an irritant in the soul of sinful man. For many its message is too confrontational, an agitant, inconvenient, an offense, something to be mocked or shunned. In modern times the way in which the cross is perceived by many who profess allegiance to Christ has also changed. The message of the cross has been muted if not altogether silenced to minimize its offensiveness in churches filled with people trying to decide if Christianity is right for them. Others have rewritten its message to smooth its abrasiveness and soften its demands by making it a thing of comfort and beauty instead of an instrument of death to self and hope of life eternal. The old message, having been modernized and adapted, seamlessly blends with the world’s fascination with humanistic concepts of self-esteem instead of the reality of the fallen nature of man. The new cross at its core rests on ego and selfishness and is the great enemy of the old cross of Christ.

The message of the cross found in Matthew’s gospel has reverberated across two thousand years of Christianity and still means today what those words meant when first written. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV] Beginning at Pentecost, a small group of Jesus’ followers believed this message, preached the cross, and turned the world upside down.

• The doctrine of divided Christ (Chapter 28)

New Testament Christianity’s concepts of sin and salvation have been replaced in many modern churches by the discredited doctrine of a divided Christ—Christ the Savior and Christ the Lord. According to this doctrine, a sinner may accept Jesus Christ as Savior without surrendering to Him as Lord.[4] But even without acceptance of Christ as Lord, this freewill acceptance of Christ as Savior often degenerates to a man-centered “making a decision for or commitment to Christ” as though man chooses the time, place, and manner of his salvation.

To highlight the fallacy of a divided Christ, the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer bear repeating.

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 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.[5]

The sinner who accepts Christ as Savior and walks away without accepting Christ as Lord perseveres in his sin. Many evangelical preachers may rightly deny their adherence to the doctrine of a divided Christ, but the practices of some say otherwise in their words or actions. They emphasize the acceptance of Christ as Savior and de-emphasize acceptance of Him as Lord. For many, the “Lord” part of one’s commitment to Christ comes later but before church membership because it is a process that takes time. In other words, the “saved” Christian must at some point also decide to make Jesus Christ the Lord of his life. But Tozer states that, “It is altogether doubtful whether any man can be saved who comes to Christ for His help but with no intention to obey Him.”[6]

Some will counter that the newly saved often don’t know enough about the Bible and the Christian life to make an informed decision as to His Lordship. But it is through this doctrine of the divided Christ that the church is filling its pews with half-covenant Christians. Paul said, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…” [Romans 10:9. KJV] [emphasis added] He must always be both Lord and Savior. Therefore, Christians must not lead a sinner to believe that he is saved by committing to Christ as Savior and then allow him to subsequently consider the matter of Christ’s Lordship over his life when he is more informed or it is more convenient or he has had time to calculate the cost.

• Nonjudgmental love without repentance (Chapters 28 and 32)

The fallacious doctrine of a divided Christ is aggravated if not promoted by many in the church because of a misunderstanding or misapplication of Christ’s nonjudgmental love. This occurs because the world’s definitions of love and tolerance have invaded the church and compromised the gospel message. As a result the message of many churches is that God’s nonjudgmental love is so vast that He will overlook sin for a season if not altogether ignore it if one will only acknowledge Him. The new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[7] But the world’s definitions of love and tolerance are contrary to the very nature of God because He cannot tolerate sin. God is both loving and just, and if His love is conformed to the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance, then He is cannot be both loving and just.

Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love. But cheap grace does not transform by washing away one’s sin but merely provides a transparent, temporal, and defective covering for man’s sin which stands in sharp contrast to the words of an old hymn: “What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”[8] Cheap grace attempts to hide sin or redefine it as a disease, but it does not eradicate it. Rather, it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. Cheap grace makes the shedding of His blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

A person who willfully continues in his sin cannot be excused for their heart remains unconverted and they are not open to growing in virtue. If the church does not make this distinction clear, it is guilty of misleading people as to their eternal destination.

• Doctrinal heresies (Chapters 27 and 32)

Paul warned of a time when many in the church would not endure sound doctrine but seek teachers of fables instead of truth (See 2 Timothy 4:3-4). As a result doctrinal heresy occurs because the truth of the Scriptures and its meaning have been diminished or abandoned by many in the church. Over the centuries, attempts to corrupt the Bible have occurred in three ways: adding to, taking away, and the corruption of meaning. The liberal church is guilty of all three.

For the last several decades many in American evangelical churches have tampered with the meaning of scripture. One source of this doctrinal corruption is the pervasive and careless use of unfaithful translations and even less reliable paraphrases. Also, the corruption of the meaning of scriptures is worsened by stringing together various Scripture verses found in several translations and paraphrases.

With the demise of serious expository preaching, doctrinal mischief is encouraged by an over-reliance on topical messages that tend to cherry-pick verses which are inappropriately divorced from the larger meaning and context of the biblical passages in which they are found in order to “prove” a point or prop up man’s opinion.

Also, many evangelical churches ignore serious preaching of major themes of the Bible (e.g., prophecy and end time events) that are seen as not being culture-friendly and therefore a hindrance in growing the church. As a result large portions of the Bible are not included in their preaching and teaching—a form of taking away.

The belief that the Bible is infallible and inerrant arises from our understanding that the scriptures are God-breathed, that is, written by human hands but under the inspiration of God. Without this unalterable foundation, New Testament Christianity is a myth.

• Accommodating the spirit of the world (Chapters 25 and 32)

At the close of the Last Supper with His disciples, Jesus prayed for them.

I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. [John 17:14-18. RSV]

This is the dynamic tension in which the individual Christian and the church must live—being in the world but not of it. We cannot avoid this tension for it is an inherent part of every Christian’s walk and every church’s ministry. To attempt to lessen the tension is to fall into the ditch of worldliness or to disobey Christ’s command to share His message by separating ourselves from the world. In spite of the best of motives, many in the modern evangelical church appear to have fallen into the ditch of worldliness because they have accommodated the spirit of the world within the church. When the world’s value system invades the church, the church becomes worldly.

There is an old adage that the church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for the hurting. This sentiment has an element of truth but is often abused. In its effort to reach out to the sinner, the modern church too often has replaced both the museum and hospital and made it a cruise ship for the saint and sinner alike. The sinner is made comfortable and enjoys the perks of Christianity in congenial fellowship with a good and solicitous people. His hosts are never so rude as to ask him to check his worldly baggage at the door and change his ways. With enough time the sinner will see the value of making a decision for Christ. Unfortunately, this analogy fits a great many evangelical churches in America.

Never hearing a truthful presentation of sin and their eternal damnation, a large number of sinners inhabit the church and over time bring corruption to that which they inhabit. As a result, differences between the lives of those who profess to be Christians and those that are unrepentant sinners become indistinguishable because the church was left unprotected from the spirit of the world. This was the great sin of the church at Thyatira. It contained many wicked people who caused many of God’s people to be drawn into sin (see Revelation 2:18-29).

The great tragedy is not only that a great many sinners are left in their sin, the church itself is left unprotected. This occurs because 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.

• Failure to adequately and effectively proclaim the gospel (Chapter 26)

“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.”[9] [emphasis added] As discussed in Chapter 26, the foolishness of preaching is the fundamental means by which the Word of God is declared to a gathering of His people. Through those gatherings Christians encounter Jesus and fellowship with Him through His word.

If the chief function of preaching is to unleash the word, then we should be concerned with how that word is to be unleashed. The most important means is the prayerful expounding of the word itself (expository preaching). Topical preaching, polemical (disputation) preaching, historical preaching, and other forms of preaching have their rightful places. But these (especially topical preaching) have replaced expounding the Word of God to a substantial degree in many of today’s evangelical churches and has greatly contributed to a rapidly growing biblical illiteracy within the church. The message of the Bible has been dumbed down and therefore is made a husk without the life sustaining core from which the Christian finds spiritual nourishment. But such is foolish preaching and also inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, both the minister and the sinner are utterly powerless to change the sinner’s condition from death to life.

• Yoked with the world (Chapters 25 and 32)

Under duress from a culture heavily saturated with humanistic concepts of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion, many evangelical leaders and Christian organizations have embraced an ecumenicalism that reaches beyond the boundaries of the Christian faith. In their efforts to be ecumenical and culturally relevant, they have attempted to find common ground with organizations and false religions that stand in opposition to God’s word.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16a, the Apostle Paul cautions that Christians should not be mismatched with unbelievers. In his commentary, Matthew Henry expounds on Paul’s admonition.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane…We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers…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?[10]

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. However, individual Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in the hope of sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ.[11]

Paul’s charge to not be mismatched with unbelievers does not prevent a Christian from speaking to groups and organizations which are non-Christian when presenting the message of Christ. Here we follow the examples of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke publicly against Nazism and Paul himself when he spoke to the Greeks at Mars Hill. This type of encounter is essential to engage the culture as discussed in Chapter 35, and it is not the same as being in communion with unbelievers and false religions.

The evangelical church and the end of the age

Because the term “evangelical” has such a broad usage and has become so inclusive, it has been rendered meaningless as an identifier of truth and has produced an evangelical winter. As a result there is occurring in American evangelicalism a fundamental realignment among evangelicals as the various players coalesce around either a mainstream secularism or return to evangelicalism’s roots found in New Testament Christianity. This realignment will divide the evangelical church whose two branches are symbolized by the ancient churches at Laodicea and Philadelphia.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians with regard to this division in which a great number of the once faithful will renounce, desert, or become traitors to their faith (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). The rebellion of many in the church is called the Great Apostasy. But Paul told us that this must come. Those that remain true to the faith should not be shaken in mind, distraught, or troubled. Even as the Great Apostasy spreads and engulfs many of the once faithful, there is also a corresponding general cultural decline caused by the abandonment of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built, the ascendance of humanistic and secularized influence over the institutions of American life, and the general decline of morality within Western culture. But the inevitability of the trials facing the church and the culture within which it resides does not release the church from Christ’s mandate to share the gospel until the end the age when He shall return.

Many Christians are praying for a national spiritual awakening similar to the one God conditionally promised Solomon. “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Notice that God required His people to turn from their wicked ways, not the culture at large. This promise was to Israel, not to America. But it is a biblical principle that, when adhered to, has been proven to dramatically change the course of cultures and mankind’s history for the better. It was proven in America with the birth of evangelicalism in the First Great Awakening during the early and mid-1700s as well as in two subsequent Great Awakenings. Whether or not America will receive a healing of its land we cannot say.

No person can predict the end of the age and Christ’s return, but the signs of the times speak loudly of His soon coming. For some decades America has been incessantly drawn toward the center of the spiraling vortex of world-wide wickedness during the last days as described by the Apostle Paul. Given the rapid ascendance of secularism and growing hostility to Christianity, America may already be at the brink of plunging into that vortex. As this occurs, the branch of the American evangelical church that embraces New Testament Christianity will become part of the suffering church which has been the symbol of a faithful Christian witness for two thousand years. But the suffering church’s consolation and hope lies in the words of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Introduction: Acts,” The Full Life Study Bible, King James Version, The New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 239.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p. 240.
[4] A. W. Tozer, “No Saviorhood without Lordship,” The Root of the Righteous,” (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 2006), p. 95.
[5] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[6] Tozer, “No Saviorhood without Lordship,” The Root of the Righteous, pp. 96-97.
[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] Robert Lowry, “Nothing but the Blood,” Hymns of Glorious Praise, (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1969), p. 208.
[9] 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.
[10] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[11] 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/