Part I ended with Os Guinness’ words which call for individual Christians and the church “…to regain the courage of “prophetic untimeliness” and develop the art of “resistance thinking” and so become followers of Jesus who have the courage to become “untimely people” despite the mesmerizing lure of the present age and its fixation with the future.”[1] But resistance must be preceded by an accurate assessment of the condition of the church, recognition of the nature of the mesmerizing lure of the spirit of the age, and how that spirit has wheedled its way into the church.

The evangelical church in America and much of Western civilization is in a deplorable state and declining. George Barna[2] and the American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI)[3] recently surveyed the religious trends in America, and the results were shocking. The first survey was a nationwide random sample of one thousand adult respondents 18 or older whose demographic profile reflects that of the United States. The second was a national public opinion survey of a sample of five hundred clergy who are part of ACFI’s panel of theologically conservative pastors. Both surveys were conducted in February 2017, and the results revealed the following trends:

• Church attendance is down.
• Professions of faith are at low levels compared to the past.
• As a result the decline of professions of faith, there also is a declining percentage of born-again Christians.
• The number of people who label themselves Christians is falling.
• Participation in small groups has dropped by half in less than a decade.
• There is the same pattern of decline in adult Sunday School involvement.
• Bible reading is less common.
• The number of adults who pray to God has decreased significantly in recent years.[4]

Barna states that the likely reason for the above trends is that Christians, including many Bible-believing pastors, do not share the fundamental elements of their faith with non-believers. This lack of witness has occurred because the level of their faith and relationship with Jesus Christ is not sufficiently exciting to cause them to do so.[5]

The trends in the American church shown above are confirmed by a summary of the raw data from the surveys in the areas of (1) a Christian’s personal responsibility to share the gospel, (2) the Christian’s level of engagement in evangelism, and (3) the message shared with non-Christians.

Do Christians have a personal responsibility to share their faith in Christ with others who believe differently?

Only two of every ten adults surveyed (20%) believe they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently. This result is for all adults surveyed, not just Christians. But what was surprising, only 25% of those surveyed who call themselves Christian believe they have that responsibility. Within this sub-group of people who identify themselves as Christians, 31% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics believe they have the personal responsibility to share their faith.[6]

In a parallel survey among a national sample of theologically conservative Protestant pastors, 73% believe they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently.” The results of the survey of these pastors revealed some variations based on denomination: Baptist church pastors (90%), Pentecostal (69%), and Holiness (76%).[7]

Engagement in evangelism

The low percentage of Christians that believe they have a responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently is consistent with the low percentage of those who actually engage in evangelism. Only 23% shared their personal faith on a monthly basis. However, many of those sharing their faith were not Christians or professed to be Christians but shared a distorted gospel message not consistent with the Bible. The survey found that 71% of theologically conservative Protestant pastors shared the gospel at least once a month with others who believed differently.[8]

What message is given by those who share the gospel?

Based on the results of the survey, ACFI found that less than 10% of those who actually shared a message about their faith with other people at least once a month during the previous year actually presented a biblically accurate proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, only one in ten American adults has a biblical worldview.

Those who presented a faulty presentation of the gospel do not have a basic understanding of Christianity including the purpose and implications of Christ’s death and resurrection. The survey lists several divergent ideas about Christianity that were shared with unbelievers.

• People are basically good.
• Having faith is more important than the substance of that faith.
• God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient but that humankind has evolved from other life forms.
• God is aware of what happens in the universe and is involved with our lives.
• There is absolute moral truth but it is located in various places.
• Eternal security can be assured either through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ or by doing enough good deeds to earn God’s favor.
• A person’s life can be considered “successful” based upon the personal goals accomplished.
• The Bible is the reliable Word of God.
• Jesus understands our struggle because He sinned while on earth.
• Sin is real but Satan and the Holy Spirit are not.[9]

While 23% of those who shared their faith at least once a month, less than 10% presented a biblically accurate version of the gospel.[10]

Barna summarized the impact of the revelations of these surveys.

A large majority of non-Christians in the US do not hear the gospel during a typical year. Worse, when they do have the Christian faith verbally presented to them, shockingly few hear a biblical form of the gospel. Because of this, it is inevitable that the most common metrics of church life and personal spiritual maturity reflect rapid declines. When the fundamental message of Christianity is rarely communicated, and then it is distorted in those infrequent situations when it is communicated, the outcome is not likely to be positive…You cannot give away what you do not possess, and clearly most Americans do not possess even a basic understanding of the Christian narrative as well as the purpose and implications of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.[11]

Barna’s “You cannot give away what you do not possess” is a stinging indictment of a pervasive biblical illiteracy that is typical within most evangelical churches in America, and here once again we are reminded of the importance of a solid biblical worldview necessary to defend the faith from the infiltration of humanism into the church.

Worldview is important because it is the mental framework one uses to cope with and make sense of the world and identify truth or reality. These perceptions of truth or reality determines how they will decide what is right or wrong, good or evil, and distinguish the truth and the false.[12]

To determine worldview, the ACFI survey evaluated the respondent’s worldview by asking forty questions that dealt with their core spiritual beliefs and behavior. The questions did not deal with theological theories but centered on the respondents’ attitudes and behaviors regarding basic biblical concepts such as lying, cheating, stealing, pornography, nature of God, and the consequences of unresolved sin.[13]

The results of the survey revealed that although seven out of ten Americans claim to be Christian, only 46% of Americans claimed to have a biblical worldview. But, the results of the survey indicate that only about 10% of the general public were “integrated disciples” by which is meant that they had “a biblical worldview based on integrating their beliefs and behavior into a lifestyle that reflects foundational biblical principles.” Other results of the survey found that only 4% of the Millennials (18-29 years old) were “integrated disciples.” Almost one-third (32%) of all American adults claimed to be theologically conservative, but only one-fourth of that group qualified as “integrated disciples.”[14]

Barna states that if someone claims to be a Christian but their behavior does not reflect those beliefs, “it is doubtful that they believe what they really claim to believe.”[15] It would appear there are many reasons for this disconnection between beliefs and actions. One reason is that some people are “hereditary” Christians, e.g., “My mother was a Christian, so I identify myself as a Christian” or as many in other parts of the world assume, “You are an American. Therefore, you are a Christian.” A second group claims to be Christian because they are nominally members of a recognized church that for various reasons may not lead their adherents into becoming “integrated disciples.” Whatever the reasons for the disconnection between beliefs and actions, the American evangelical church as a whole has been woefully negligent in producing “integrated disciples” since the 1960s and which accounts for the declining trends in the health of the church including lack of biblical literacy among the congregants and the scarcity of “integrated disciples.”

Having recognized the damage caused by the mesmerizing lure of the present age that has significantly weakened the church, Part III will examine the causes that have led to the church’s powerlessness.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), p. 20.
[2] George Barna, “National Surveys Describe the State of Christian Evangelism,” American Culture Review, American Culture and Faith Institute, March 22, 2017.
https://www.culturefaith.com/national-surveys-describe-the-state-christian-evangelism/ (accessed March 23, 2017).
[3] Ibid., The American Culture and Faith Institute is a division of United in Purpose, a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The mission of United in Purpose is to educate, motivate and activate conservative Christians to engage in cultural transformation in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The organization does not support or promote individual political candidates or parties.
[4] Barna, “National Surveys Describe the State of Christian Evangelism,” March 22, 2017.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] George Barna, “Groundbreaking ACFI Survey Reveals How Many Adults Have a Biblical Worldview,” American Culture and Faith Institute, February 27, 2017.
https://www.culturefaith.com/groundbreaking-survey-by-acfi-reveals-how-many-american-adults-have-a-biblical-worldview/ (accessed March 28, 2017).
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

Satan hates God. Satan was cast out of heaven because of his pride in his position and his beauty rose to the point of placing himself on the level of God. As a result of his rebellion, Satan was not only demoted and stripped of every precious stone that was his covering, he was cast out of heaven. So Satan really hates God. It is a vicious, snarling, consuming hatred—something almost beyond our human ability to comprehend. But Satan had no power to strike back at God directly. His only alternative was to strike at God by robbing the Creator of His relationship with man—His special creation.

Humanism’s opposition to God’s plan for mankind encompasses all of human history. The humanistic spirit of the world is of satanic origin and has been present within human society since Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden. All through history, this humanistic spirit of the world is the spirit of rebellion of man against God. It is the essence of Original Sin that infects all of humanity.

In the eleventh century BC, King David wrote, “The fool hath said in his heart: there is no god.” [Psalm 14:1. KJV] But it was the Greeks of the fourth through sixth centuries BC that gave form and body to the man-made philosophy of humanism that would impact the world second only to Jesus Christ. Carried to its conclusion, humanism denies the existence of God for Nature is all there is. And all of life on earth including man is the product of Nature’s long evolutionary process that occurred by chance and was devoid of a supernatural Creator. Man is not fallen and in no need of a redeemer for man is master of his own destiny as he strives for happiness, freedom, and progress in this life for there is no life after death. Truth is whatever man wants it to be to address the needs of the moment. Truth is relative and is not some infallible standard beyond time by which man must be guided. As a result, moral values and concepts of right and wrong must be based on human experience and therefore are autonomous and situational.

The civilization of ancient Greece has fascinated mankind for 2,500 years. Philosophy, politics, much of arithmetic and geometry, and several categories of Western art were invented in an amazingly short four centuries by the Hellenes, the ancient Greeks.[1] In the early sciences, rhetoric, warfare, and grace of manners, the Greeks far excelled all civilized peoples who came before. The incalculable influence of those four centuries of Greek life and thought throughout the world has lasted to the present day where it spreads its tentacles throughout the modern Western world. Greek culture was divided into two periods: the Classical period which ended with Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC was preoccupied with the ideal. However, the succeeding Hellenistic period (323 BC – 146 BC) was concerned with reality, that is, “relating the exploits of gods, heroes, and common mortals to everyday life and familiar emotions.”[2]

The culture wars are not of recent origin but extend far back into man’s history. It is a battle of worldviews between Christianity and humanism expressed through the humanistic spirit of the world. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called humanism or the Greek spirit the greatest danger to Christianity since its beginning.[3]

The spread of the ideas, culture, customs, and philosophy of humanism of the ancient Greeks is called Hellenization. Much of the ancient Greeks’ early efforts to Hellenize the world were done at the point of a sword, and the Jewish people were not exempted. One of the most famous stories of resistance to Greek Hellenization was the Maccabean Revolt recorded in the writings of Eusebius and Clement and in the Septuagint within a few decades of the actual events. [The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha which is not a part of the Jewish Old Testament or Protestant New Testament. However, the Apocrypha is included in the Catholic Bible.]

The events of the Maccabean Revolt are recorded in the first book of the Maccabees. The story begins with Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid king whose empire was based in northern Syria and whose culture was primarily of Greek origin. He was one of the successors of Alexander the Great. Antiochus’ empire stretched southward into Judea which had been incorporated Judea as part of his empire when his father (Antiochus III) defeated the Egyptians in 198 BC.[4] Judea was important because it was the southern border of Antiochus’ kingdom and the front line with his Egyptian enemies that lay to the west.

Antiochus III attempted to Hellenize the Jews but eventually backed down. But his son reinstated his father’s program of Hellenization and outlawed the central tenets of Judaism including observance of the Sabbath and circumcision. Antiochus also defiled the Temple by opening it to non-Jews, erecting an altar to the god Zeus, and sacrificing swine.[5] Many Jews succumbed to the cultural imperatives of Greek Hellenism, but some chose to resist unto death.

The story begins when a local Greek official attempted to force Mattathias to make a sacrifice to a Pagan god. Following the murder of the Greek official, Antiochus directed many reprisals against the Jews, but many resisted. From their village of Modi‘in located a few miles northwest of Jerusalem, Mattathias and his five sons became leaders of the resistance against Antiochus and fought for the liberation of the Jews. Mattathias soon died, but the revolt continued under his son Judah called Maccabeus which means “the Hammer” in Hebrew. Antiochus responded by sending a powerful army to put down the insurrection. But after three years of this David versus Goliath battle, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Maccabees and the Temple purified in 164 BC.[6]

Some believe that early Christianity was essentially “Hellenized” at its birth, a product of the significant influence of the Hellenistic thought and culture on the newly arrived Christian faith.[7] Russell Kirk (writing from a Catholic perspective) stated that, “…Hellenic thought had been woven inextricably into the fabric of Christian teaching, so that it was next to impossible to distinguish Judaic threads from Greek…”[8] More correctly stated, it was elements of Platonic thought rightly understood that intersected and were consistent with Christian teaching and doctrine. This leads only to an appearance of integration between the two. Although one may accept the importance of Greek cultural influences on early Christianity (the New Testament was written in Greek), Christians vigorously defend the source for Christian tradition and doctrine as the inspired word of God revealed to the Hebrews and later to the Apostles. Christian faith and teaching is not an offshoot of Greek Hellenization whose philosophy of humanism is diametrically opposed to the revelation of God to the Hebrews and New Testament doctrines of the Christian church. This contrast is evident in Paul’s sermon to the Greeks at Mars’ Hill.

Although humanism was a constant enemy of Christianity from the first century, it became rooted within church doctrine during the thirteenth century. Just as he did with Eve, Satan began whispering in the ears of the Churchmen. His scheme was to redefine the condition of fallen man, and Satan used the philosophy of the ancient Greeks to do it. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) revered the 4th century B.C. Greek philosopher Aristotle. Through study of Aristotle’s writings, Aquinas believed that man revolted against God and was fallen but not completely. He believed man’s will was fallen but not the intellect. Therefore, in addition to the Bible, men could rely on human wisdom as well as the teachings of non-Christian philosophers.[9]

Through Aquinas’ efforts, elements of Aristotle’s non-Christian philosophy and other church traditions were accepted by the church as a source of authority alongside the Bible. Because Aquinas’s unfallen human reason was now autonomous and equal to scripture, more and more of the pronouncements of the church were based on pagan Greek and Roman philosophies. Eventually those pronouncements became more important than many teachings of the Bible. Human reason was now autonomous, but unhooking human reason from biblical revelation created a fundamental problem. If one starts with man’s ideas and reason as opposed to the absolutes found in the Bible, fixed standards for determining values, morals, law, and truth no longer have meaning and truth descends into relativism. This is pure, undiluted humanism.[10]
______

All through man’s time on planet earth, his story is awash with Satan’s attempts to destroy him by subverting the truth of the God’s Word through the humanistic spirit of the world as described above. But in every age there have been men of God who spoke truth and stood firm in the face of overwhelming opposition from apostate churches and pagan cultures of their age.

Os Guinness described these men as possessing a “prophetic untimeliness”—independent thinkers out of step with the conventional wisdom of their generation. These were men of great discernment, vision, having a different perspective and commitment, and not at home in the age in which they lived. Not all such men who possess independent thinking are guided by eternal truths as revealed by God. Where such occurs, the independence of their thinking will be misguided, flawed, and ultimately lead to failure or corruption. But for the man who follows God, the foundation for their independent thinking is anchored in the truth of the His eternal Word and not his or her “genius or social stubbornness.”[11]

Having succumbed to the siren song of the humanistic spirit of the age, the modern church has largely been overwhelmed with the quest for relevance and reinvention to accomplish Christ’s mission but at the cost of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. This has occurred because the church has failed to balance the twin commands of Christ—“go ye into all the world” and “be ye separate.” In most of today’s churches the “going” into the world has far surpassed “separation” from the world. For many, this “going” has come to mean being culturally relevant through accommodation of the spirit of the world within the church. In other words, the world has evangelized the church instead of the other way around.

But where are those prophetically untimely men and women in our present age? There are a few such men and women in Western civilization who are ringing the bell of truth, but not many are heard. Their messages are being muffled under the din emanating from an inward-turned modern world consumed with the moment while ignoring the eternal. Thus, these messengers of truth have been reduced to being a voice “crying in the wilderness” because Christian pacifists and false teachers in the culture wars hold the microphone and dominate the platform. Guinness believes there should be more Christians who develop the trait of prophetic untimeliness.

The answer…is to regain the courage of “prophetic untimeliness” and develop the art of “resistance thinking” and so become followers of Jesus who have the courage to become “untimely people” despite the mesmerizing lure of the present age and its fixation with the future.[12]

The church needs many more faithful Christians with the art of “resistance thinking.” Such thinking correctly balances the “go ye” with the “be ye separate” and requires a stubborn awareness of the elements of the contemporary age that don’t fit with the Christian message. Where the gospel is easy, comfortable, and a natural fit with the prevailing self-centered humanistic spirit of the age, then its demands for self-denial and sacrifice are not present and neither is the true gospel of Jesus Christ.[13]

In the remainder of this series on resistance thinking, we will examine the current dismal state of evangelicalism, the causes, and the cure through development of the art of resistance thinking.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 85.
[2] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 211.
[3] Marcus Cowper, History Book-An Interactive Journey, (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2010), pp. 20-21.
[4] Steven H. Werlin, “The Maccabean Revolt: Between Tradition and History,” Society of Biblical Literature, https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/TB5_Maccabees_SW.pdf (accessed March 27, 2017).
[5] “The Maccabees/Hasmoneans: History and Overview (166-129 BCE),” Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-maccabees (accessed March 27, 2017).
[6] Ibid.
[7] John Herman Randall, Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927, 1940), p. 46.
[8] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 74.
[9] Francis A Schaffer, How Then Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1976), pp. 51-52.
[10] Ibid., pp. 52, 55.
[11] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), pp. 19-20.
[12] Ibid., p. 20.
[13] Ibid.

In Part I, Dr. Charles Crabtree identified three causes of the crisis of discipleship in the Assemblies of God. These causes have affected virtually all denominations. The causes have been profoundly debilitating to the liberal mainline denominations for most of a century, but the causes have also invaded non-mainline evangelical churches in varying degrees since the 1960s.

Dr. Crabtree identified the three causes of the crisis in discipleship as preaching another gospel, the failure to count the cost of discipleship, and a failure to continue in the Word.[1] These are not the only causes of the demise of biblical Christianity but account for much of the humanistic spirit of the world that has invaded the church. This invasion into the modern evangelical churches of America will be examined.

Preaching another gospel

When preaching no longer focuses on the cross of Christ, it becomes another gospel. And it is this other gospel that is preached and practiced by the pervasive Church Growth movement and which has been embraced by many evangelical churches in America over the last quarter century. Crabtree called this other gospel “good news for the ego” which is at the heart of the seeker-sensitive church’s message. This other gospel focuses on adding value to the temporal life of the seeker with no confrontation of seeker’s sin. This focus on the felt needs (often the product of a desperately wicked heart) produces a tendency toward universalism which requires only confessing Jesus with one’s words but does not require a change of heart or a change from a sinful life style (for everyone is going to heaven anyway). As Crabtree put it, the focus is on “making a nice person, not a new person.”[2]

The whole of the seeker-sensitive movement’s dedication to meeting the felt needs of people taps into the humanistic spirit of the world and its devotion to self. In the seeker-sensitive churches, felt needs are assumed to be legitimate but are often merely diversionary measures used by Satan and his forces to defeat the human soul. Not only does the seeker-sensitive church attempt to meet the felt needs of their audience, they also attempt to meet their felt wants. Udo W. Middelmann reveals the heart of the matter in his stinging indictment of many evangelical churches in America.

In the course of a very few decades much of the church has embraced the way of mass culture in its drive to reduce everything to play and attractive entertainment. It has bowed to the demands of a consumer society and offers a message that more often distracts for the moment than comforts for the long run. Adjustments in content and form to match the perceived needs of future possible converts eat away at the content necessary to understand God, the fall of man, and redemption. Marketing priorities preside. The product is matched to the customer’s expectations. There is little room for the doctor to prescribe the medicine or for God to set forth judgment and conditions for redemption.[3]

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

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

When preaching the cross, it is well to remember that the Word not only accuses and cuts but comforts and dresses wounds as well.

In the seek-sensitive church world, saccharine superficial messages attempt to massage and caress felt needs without the necessity of spiritual surgery. But the Word rightly applied cuts deeply beneath felt needs to the secret sin buried in the heart of man which Jeremiah called desperately wicked and deceitful (see Jeremiah 17:9).[4]

According to Crabtree, moving from preaching another gospel back to preaching the cross of Christ will require a move of the Holy Spirit that “will bring divine revelation concerning the power of the Cross along with the resurrected Jesus, so people will say, ‘The pearl of great price is worth all the junk, all the stuff, all material riches. God is worthy.’”[5]

Failure to count the cost of discipleship

It would appear that there can be little argument that the American evangelical church has grown soft on a diet of soft-soap evangelism that tickles the ears; provides comfort, ease, and entertainment; and demands little in the way of contrition, repentance and turning from sin.

One of the brightest stars in the Church Growth movement is a purveyor of such soft-soap evangelism. He has said, “Sometimes you need to give the unbeliever some slack in order to reel them in.”[6] “Slack” in the seeker-sensitive model of doing church means attempting to entice the sinner through the church’s doors and then focusing on meeting his or her felt needs. It is hoped that over time the importance of being a Christian and its associated benefits will convince the seeker that they should “make a decision for Christ.” Thereafter, sanctification will come through listening and responding to a series of therapeutic messages designed to make them better people and thereby partake of the popularized view of Christianity known as “the good life.” The only problem with this method is that many preachers never get around to presenting the unadulterated powerful message of the cross nor allow time for the Holy Spirit to do His office work of convicting the sinner of his sin without which no man can come to Christ.[7]

This is called grace on the cheap, but it is a counterfeit grace that is leading millions to an eternity in hell. The real cost of serving Jesus is high, and a great multitude in evangelical churches across America haven’t paid the price. The high cost of following Jesus Christ always centers on the cross and is confirmed by the words of Luke and the Apostle Paul.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:27. KJV]

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. [Galatians 2:20. KJV]

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. [Romans 13:14. KJV]

Christ’s call to discipleship is not doing better but embracing the message of the cross, dying to self, and living the resurrection life which will result in true sanctification.

Failure to continue in the Word

Luke described the necessity of continuing in the Word. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” [Acts2:42. NIV]
Many people truly find Christ as their Savior and Lord, are baptized in the Holy Spirit, and become part of a local fellowship of believers. However, they never truly live productive, fruitful, and victorious lives. Crabtree believes that the third cause of ineffective discipleship is a failure to continue in the Word.[8]

The evangelical church has exhibited a marked decline in biblical literacy in the last decades of the twentieth century which continues to the present day. As used here, biblical literacy means familiarity with the Bible and its central themes and teachings. There are several reasons consistent with the humanistic spirit of the age that account for the decline of biblical literacy.

• Significant abandonment of devotional reading and Bible study among evangelicals of all ages.
• De-emphasis or complete elimination of a weekly Sunday morning Sunday school.
• Discontinuance of children and youth organizations within the church that promote scripture memorization and biblical knowledge.
• Significant decline in expository preaching as preachers began emphasizing the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings. The decline in expository preaching has also led to a drift away from constant and thematic biblical preaching and teaching of the great organizing themes of the Bible such as the nature and character of God; the creation, fall, and redemption; the historical narratives of the Old and New Testaments; the Christian walk in a hostile world, and prophetic and end-time events.
• Decline in number of sermons that Christians hear from the pulpit. Thirty or forty years ago, the average evangelical church member would hear three or more messages preached each week compared to perhaps one each week at present. The church has replaced many regular preaching services with small group meetings and other religious activities that do not provide a consistent exposition of the Bible.
• Decline in regular attendance of church members at services where a message is preached.
• Replacement of hymns with their explicit doctrine-laced biblical themes with more contemporary, personalized themes.[9]

Ten years ago, Crabtree express great hope for the implementation of small groups that would change the direction of the Assemblies in curing the crisis of discipleship. Crabtree’s words from Part I are repeated here.

We will set up model churches around the country that are doing small groups within the guidelines of a Pentecostal church. We will promote our own small-group models…Sunday School will continue to be the fundamental discipleship ministry in the Assemblies of God. I am a fervent believer that Sunday School, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in the American culture. Small groups and Sunday School will feed off each other.[10] [emphasis added]

The imposition of small groups has largely been a failure in accomplishing its intended purposes. It is not because small groups are not biblical by nature. Rather, the nature of the first century small group has been perverted by the seeker-sensitive ministry mindset. Small groups often abandon the guidelines of a Pentecostal church of which Crabtree spoke. Such groups have made fellowship and the breaking of bread their primary focus and failed to devote themselves to the Apostles’ doctrine and prayer. Many small groups have not followed the biblical pattern, but more importantly they have severely damaged other elements of the church which continues to undermine biblical literacy.

Crabtree fervently believes that Sunday school, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in American culture. Yet, many adult Sunday school classes are replaced by small groups meeting at other times. Young couples whose Sunday school classes are eliminated because they are herded into small groups meeting at other times also do not bring their children to Sunday school.

Small groups have been used as a replacement for the irreplaceable Sunday night service which Crabtree states “is time for the church to gird itself…to rise up Monday morning…” But the New Testament pattern for small groups was never designed as a replacement for church services where preaching and teaching of the Apostles’ doctrine and prayer occurred.
______

If the church is to successfully address the causes and provide a cure for the crisis in discipleship, it must have revival. But revival will not come if the church does not forsake all by keeping one foot in the world. Revival must be preceded by the church’s contrition, repentance, and turning from sin and coupled with prayer and petition for revival. When seeking revival, A. W. Tozer’s words of six decades ago give further guidance. He said that we should look to the Bible and the great saints of the past for our directions in this modern age.

Take nothing for granted…Go back to the grass roots. Open your hearts and search the Scriptures. Bear your cross, follow your Lord and pay no heed to the passing religious vogue. The masses are always wrong. In every generation the number of the righteous is small. Be sure you are among them.[11]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure,” Supplement to the Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007, p. 2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Udo W. Middelmann, The Market Driven Church, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 124.
[4] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 193.
[5] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God,” p. 2.
[6] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 216.
[7] Johnson, Evangelical Winter, p. 216.
[8] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God,” p. 3.
[9] Johnson, Evangelical Winter, p. 189.
[10] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God, p. 4.
[11] A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 1986), p. 5.

Dr. Charles Crabtree served as the Assistant General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God for fourteen years. Following his tenure at the Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, he became the president of Zion Bible College in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and served until 2013. Dr. Crabtree published an article in the Enrichment Journal, Winter Quarter, 2007, titled “The Crisis of Discipleship in the American Church.”[1] This article was condensed and published as a supplement titled “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure.”[2] This was an abridgement of a message delivered the previous August at a weekly chapel service for the headquarters employees of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

In 2007, Dr. Crabtree wrote of the crisis he saw in the Assemblies of God with regard to the three-fold purpose laid down by the fellowship’s founders.

Evangelism – 2007

Crabtree said that the state of evangelism in the Assemblies was “unremarkable.” In support of his conclusion he stated that for the period 1995-2005, the Assemblies had 5.3 million stated decisions for Christ but the growth from those conversions was just under 222,000 over ten years (4.2% conversion growth rate). Crabtree responded to those who would minimize the importance of Sunday morning attendance because it is not proof of salvation. He said, “I tell you that if a baby is not in the care of the home, that baby is either dead, lost, or in deep trouble.”[3]

Discipleship – 2007

Crabtree also saw a crisis in discipleship in the Assemblies which he called “ineffective.” He stated that within the fellowship in 2005, only one in four who decided for Christ followed up with water baptism and only one in five received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “If we continue this trend, I project that in ten years (2017) we will have a small minority of Pentecostals in the Assemblies of God.”[4] [emphasis added]

Worship – 2007

“I believe the state of worship in the Assemblies of God has become incidental rather than pervasive.” Crabtree explained that worship is a life style. It is not a Sunday morning “incident” but “a constant, humble obedience to the Lord in all areas of life” that must occur in the life of a disciple seven days a week.[5]

Like a skilled surgeon, Dr. Crabtree cut to the heart of the crisis within the Assemblies of God in accomplishing its three-fold purpose. Next, he identified the causes.

Preaching another gospel

The reason for ineffective evangelism and discipleship in the American Protestant church including the Assemblies of God “…is the preaching of another gospel—good news for the ego. The Cross is not the central focus in a great deal of preaching.”[6]

It seems the American church says to those who pass through the doors, “You’re a good person, and the church can give you added value to the temporal life.” And it will. But this is not the primary reason the church exists. The church exists to get people ready for eternity, not for tomorrow. It is not a temporal gospel; it is an eternal gospel, and at the heart of that gospel is the Cross and true repentance.

What we have is a culture that says, “If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, that is all we are going to ask. We are not asking for a behavioral change; we want a doctrinal change. We want you to believe the way we believe, but how you act is up to you. And when you come to this church, we promise we will not confront you with sin. We will not make you feel the least bit convicted.”

I see this more and more. It is the philosophy of universalism: Confess Jesus, God will take care of the rest. Everybody is eventually going to heaven anyway. So, do not get excited. All you need to do is to be a nice person, not a new person.[7]

Failure to count the cost of discipleship

Christ said, “And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:27. NIV] Crabtree described what carrying one’s cross was and was not. He wrote, “Your cross is living in a hostile world and standing up to the filth, rottenness, and sin in homes, families, and workplaces, and say, ‘No sir, I am a Christian; I am a follower of Christ.’” He states that if the church soft-soaps the gospel and attempts to get by with lackadaisical discipleship, young people are not going to be drawn to something that is not challenging and worthwhile. Crabtree argues that if the church’s message presents the high cost of serving Christ, millions will respond because they are looking for something far more important that their own temporal lives.[8]

Crabtree attributes the anemic condition of the church to its work is being done by professionals and “not spirit-filled portable temples” between Sundays. “It is time for the church to gird itself on Sunday night to rise up Monday morning, and say, ‘We are going to be a strong, healthy church, and we are going to change this world through our faithfulness to God and our obedience to the Lord.’” Crabtree believes the answer to the church’s dilemma is revival which means “bringing the church back to healthy productivity” and not just being blessed.[9] [emphasis added]

Failure to continue in the word

Even though people may be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, they never become productive Christians by which is meant they never reproduce themselves in the kingdom. According to Crabtree, this is result of a failure to continue in the word, the third cause of the crisis in discipleship within the church.

Crabtree outlined what the church must do to cure the crisis of discipleship. He states that the cure must rest on being prepared for discipleship. This is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all for individual churches will prepare for and conduct discipleship in many different ways and will be effective when the church “takes babes in Christ and disciple them into productive spiritual adults.”[10] Crabtree states that small groups should be one element of the cure.

We will set up model churches around the country that are doing small groups within the guidelines of a Pentecostal church. We will promote our own small-group models…Sunday School will continue to be the fundamental discipleship ministry in the Assemblies of God. I am a fervent believer that Sunday School, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in the American culture. Small groups and Sunday School will feed off each other.[11] [emphasis added]

Crabtree concludes by stating that the heart of the cure for the crisis in discipleship must always be love…“every convert loved by somebody, not just everybody.”[12]
______

To properly assess the direction of the Assemblies of God in the United States since Charles Crabtree’s article in 2007, statistics for the period 1996-2005 has been compared with the period 2006-2015.[13}

Growth from Conversions declined from an annual average of 495,509 to 454,208 or a 41,301 decline compared to the previous ten years, a decline of 8.34%.

Sunday Morning Attendance increased from an annual average of 1,664,079 to 1,860,691 or a 196,613 increase compared to the previous ten years, an increase of 11.82%.

Water Baptisms increased from an annual average of 122,84l to125,325, an increase of 2,484 compared to the previous ten years. This represents an increase of 2.02%.

Holy Spirit Baptisms declined from an annual average of 93,097 to 84,747, a decline of 8,921 compared to the previous ten years, a decline of 8.9%.

A brief examination reveals that the Assemblies of God has not resolved their crisis of discipleship. Growth from conversions and Holy Spirit Baptisms have declined between 8% and 9% for the 2006-2015 period compared with the 1996-2005 period. And the Water Baptisms category is just barely in the black. Ten years have passed since Dr. Crabtree’s prediction that Pentecostals will be a small minority in the Assemblies of God in ten years. That decline has continued, and in 2017 it appears that in many Assemblies of God churches the Pentecostals have become the small minority.

Even though there are concerns about the direction of the Assemblies of God in recent years as identified by Charles Crabtree, its record is far superior to the great majority of evangelical denominations in the United States. A report published in March 2015 compared long-term growth of various denominations from the mid-1960s to 2012 and 2013. Of the eight primary mainline denominations, all had declining memberships, and the loss of membership in seven of the eight denominations ranged from 27% to 67%. Six of the seven primary non-mainline denominations had increases in membership ranging from the Southern Baptist Convention at 46% growth to the Church of God in Christ with 1,194%. The Assemblies of God grew from 572,000 adherents in 1965 to 3,031,000 in 2013, an increase of 430%. The report stated that although the growth of the more conservative non-mainline churches was slowing, the liberal mainline denominations were on a path to inevitable demise because of their progressive departure from biblical Christianity.[14] This observation should be a wake-up call for the non-mainline denominations with slowing growth.

In Part II, Dr. Crabtree’s causes for the crisis in discipleship in the Assemblies of God will be examined in light of the disturbing trends in all evangelical churches in the United States.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “The Crisis of Discipleship in the American Church,” Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200801/200801_022_Discipleship.cfm (accessed February 22, 2017).
[2] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure,” Supplement to the Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007.
[3] Ibid., pp. 1-2.
[4] Ibid., p. 2.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., p. 3.
[9] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13]The data presented was derived from statistical reports published by the Assemblies of God on its website. See: “Statistics of the Assemblies of God (USA) 2015 Reports,” General Council of the Assemblies of God.
Table: AG USA Conversions 1978-2015
Table: AG USA Major Worship Service Attendance 1978-2015
Table: AG USA Baptisms 1979-2015
http://ag.org/top/About/statistics/index.cfm (accessed February 22, 2017).
[14] Joe Carter, “Fact Checker: Are all Christian Denominations in Decline?” The Gospel Coalition, March 17, 2015. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline (accessed February 22, 2017).

In Part I we traced the beginnings of the ecumenical movement between the various branches of Christianity and within those churches embroiled in the liberal-fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century. In Part II we examined the conflicts and controversies in the 1950s and 1960s surrounding ecumenicalism’s push into evangelicalism in an effort to achieve reconciliation and unity among evangelical, non-evangelical, and liberal churches in America and England. As was stated in the conclusion of Part II, the 1950s and 1960s were a major turning point for evangelical churches as they embraced ecumenicalism which determined their course for decades to follow.

The evangelical church’s pursuit of ecumenicalism over the last half century has blurred the once sharp line that distinguished the Christian from the non-Christian. When that line was sharp and clear, the church the church was holy, powerful, and effective in its mission of impacting culture and winning the lost to Christ. When the line between what is Christian and non-Christian became blurred, the meaning of Christianity and evangelicalism also became blurred. Iain Murray described what form this blurring took.

“…liberalism was ‘Christianity’ harmonized with the moral aspirations of all men. It was truth modified to give offence to none…it assumed the goodness of human nature and portrayed Christianity in terms of doing rather than of believing. In so far as it spoke of hope after death, it was with a promise of universal comfort—heaven not as the exclusive home of the redeemed but as the ultimate destination for all who pass through this world. It denied (along with the false prophets) that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it.”[1] [Matthew 7:13, 15] [emphasis added]

Remember the words of Michael Ramsey in Part II when he spoke to the evangelicals in England who wanted acceptance within the larger body. He warned them that they must accept those confessing Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” as Christians in good standing. Therefore, evangelicals had to “turn their back on their old exclusiveness.” That is what has happened in America. A large part of Evangelicalism has turned its back on its old exclusiveness.

Following the 1950s and 1960s, the ecumenical movement was effectively advanced by incorporation into the church’s message the themes of the humanistic spirit of the world: relativism, tolerance, and inclusion. This compromise and accommodation led to ignoring, changing, abandoning, or adding doctrines, beliefs, and activities in ways that conflicted with two hundred and fifty years of evangelical thought, belief, and practice that mirrored first-century New Testament Christianity.

The great fault of fundamentalism’s past was its periodic failure to consider the weak and inconsistent Christian. This occurred because they left the straight and narrow path resting on a fervent adherence to the uncompromised truth found in the Bible and fell into the ditch of legalism. But in the modern age which has encompassed the church for most of a century, the great danger has been compromise and accommodation rather than legalism. Ecumenicalism’s compromise and accommodation has brought multitudes into the church membership and leadership who have not repented of their sin and bowed in submission to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Iain Murray called it a “popularized definition of Christian with no biblical authority at all.”[2]

But Satan is not content with a just a popularized definition of Christian and a Christianity that only demands a hollow confession of Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” devoid of the meat of doctrine. The outworking of Satan’s Trojan Horse of ecumenicalism requires that the church recognize the priority of unity without limit. The acceptance of this further apostasy within the church has become the norm rather than the exception, and this limitless ecumenicalism is promoted at the highest levels of leadership in the both evangelical and non-evangelical churches. If one doubts this last statement, five examples will confirm the truth that ecumenicalism now reaches far beyond the borders of the church however one may define Christianity.

• On July 4, 2009, Rick Warren spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capital during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America. His message was that Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising their respective convictions.[3]

• Reverend Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., permitted the Episcopal Church to host a Muslim prayer service at the Cathedral on November 14, 2014.[4]

• On August 11-12, 2016, Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church broadcast his annual Global Leadership Summit by live telecast to over three hundred thousand participants worldwide. He recruited Melinda Gates as one of the main speakers for the event.[5] Gates is co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood of America and other organizations around the world that have aborted millions of babies.[6]

• In 2007, Leith Anderson signed the infamous Yale Covenant. Anderson was President of the National Association of Evangelicals which represented more than 45,000 local churches from nearly forty denominations with a constituency of millions.[7] The Yale Covenant was the signors’ agreement in response Muslim religious leaders’ call for unity and understanding between Christianity and Islam that would serve as a basis for dialogue and reconciliation. The Yale Covenant was signed by over three hundred prominent Christian ministers, professors, and leaders from various organizations including Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, David Yonggi Cho, and NAE’s Anderson.[8]

• In May 2013, Pope Francis stated that all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven. The pope stated that the Lord has redeemed all of us with the Blood of Christ. Not just Catholics but everyone including atheists. The Pope said that all have a duty to do good, and if we “…do good, we will meet one another there.”[9] Pope Francis is preaching universalism which is a hyper-ecumenicalism in which all roads lead to God whether it is humanism’s Nature, a host of pantheistic Gods, Allah of the Koran, or the Christian God of the Bible.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16a, the Apostle Paul cautions that Christians should not be mismatched with unbelievers.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? [2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. NIV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps explained Paul’s use of being unequally yoked as a word picture for describing human relationships. In God’s accounting, there are only two types of people—Christians and non-Christian.

…those that know Christ must not be in voluntary close partnership or association with unbelievers because such relationships can compromise and corrupt their relationship with Christ. Paul was likely attempting to discourage the Corinthians from cooperating with the false teachers who had infiltrated the church and gained influence with their persuasive words. But this principle certainly applies to dating, marriage, business partnerships, secret orders (lodges) and close friendships. A Christian’s relationships with unbelievers should center on what is necessary and appropriate for the social and economic purpose of daily life and to show people the way to spiritual salvation, and a personal relationship with Christ. But a Christian’s closest relationships should be with other followers of Christ with whom they can relate on a spiritual level.[10]

Given the plain words of Paul to the Corinthians, should the rise of ecumenicalism and the subsequent decay of evangelicalism in Western civilization come as a surprise to Christians? It should not for the Apostle Paul also told us that this must come. In his letter to Timothy he wrote of the coming apostasy in the last days in which men and women who once knew Christ would reject or abandon their faith. Paul described these Christians-in-name-only of the last days as “holding the form of religion but denying the power of it…” [2 Timothy 3:5. RSV]
______

Without a doubt there is occurring a rapid cultural decline in America 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 cultures. At the same time the church has entered the time of the Great Apostasy which is engulfing many of the once faithful.

The inevitability of the trials facing the true church and the culture within which it resides does not release the church from Christ’s mandate to speak the truth in spite of cultural opposition and to share the gospel until the end of the age when He shall return. Those that remain true to the faith should not be shaken in mind, distraught, or troubled in heart. The consolation for the suffering of the faithful is found 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] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 295.
[2] Ibid., p. 297.
[3] 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).
[4] 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).
[5] “Faculty,” The Global Leadership Summit, https://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/#about (accessed September 16, 2016).
[6] Susan Berry, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations says it will no longer fund abortion,” Brietbart, June 12, 2014. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/12/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-says-it-will-no-longer-fund-abortion/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[7] “About NAE,” National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/about-nae/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[8]“‘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).
[9] “Pope at Mass: Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace,” Vatican Radio, May 22, 2013. http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_ encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 (accessed September 14, 2016).
[10]Donald Stamps, Commentary, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, Gen. Ed. Donald Stamps, (Published by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, Peabody, Massachusetts; Copyright 2009 by Life Publishers International, Springfield, Missouri), p. 2207.

In Part I we traced the beginnings of the ecumenical movement among the various branches of Christianity and within those churches embroiled in the liberal-fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century. It was noted that the great difficulty in achieving ecumenicalism was the result of differences between the fundamental beliefs between Roman Catholicism and Protestant churches and also the doctrinal differences between the evangelical and liberal wings of the Protestant churches themselves. Part II will primarily address the efforts to achieve reconciliation and unity between the liberal churches and neo-evangelical churches which were mostly from denominations oriented toward the fundamentals of the Christian faith as found in the Bible.

By the mid-1930s, the intra-church doctrinal differences that roiled over the previous three decades had subsided as churches had taken on the character and beliefs of the victorious wing in the liberal-fundamentalist conflict. Generally, the losing parties were the conservatives who usually left to form new denominations. By the mid-1940s there was a clear line of demarcation that separated liberal churches from the more conservative evangelical churches, both in matters of doctrine and cultural engagement.

Following the end of World War II in 1945, evangelical Protestantism emerged from the shadow of their fundamentalist forebears, and these neo-evangelicals became a substantial force in American life. As a result of this new cultural engagement, the period from 1945 to the early to mid-1960s was an era of great promise for the evangelical churches. Even Catholic writer Ross Douthat, a severe critic of much of Protestantism, called evangelical Protestantism a “…postwar revival of American Christianity, which ushered in a kind of Indian summer for orthodox belief.”[1] Nancy Pearcey in her book Total Truth stated that these neo-evangelicals still held to fundamentalist views of the Bible but sought to escape form their separatism and engage the culture with a “redemptive vision that would not only embrace individuals but also social structures and institutions.”[2]

Rise of ecumenicalism in Protestant America

There were several key players that led the revival of American Christianity during this period, but the most important of all was Billy Graham. Launched by an eight-week tent meeting revival in Los Angeles in 1949 that attracted 350,000, Graham’s meteoric rise in the nation’s consciousness had begun. By the time he conducted his now famous 1957 New York City crusade that reached millions, Graham had become the most celebrated evangelist in America, a title he would retain through most of the remainder of the 20th century.[3] Douthat described the magnitude of Graham’s accomplishment.

…by the early 1940s revivalism itself seemed to be on the verge of dying out…But Graham almost singlehandedly revitalized the form, using it to carry an Evangelical message from the backwoods tent meetings to the nation’s biggest cities and arenas—and then overseas as well, to Europe and the Third World and even behind the Iron Curtain…Billy Graham had done the near-impossible; he had carried Evangelical Christianity from the margins to the mainstream, making Evangelical faith seem respectable as well as fervent, not only relevant but modern.[4]

By 1957 there had been a marked change in Graham’s fundamentalist thinking. Graham accepted an invitation to hold a Manhattan crusade, but the invitation was from the Protestant Council of New York City which meant “cooperation with a group that was predominantly non-evangelical and even included out-and-out modernists. It also meant sending them back to their local churches, no matter how liberal these churches might be.”[5]

On the surface, Graham’s decision to accept the invitation appears to have followed the example of C. S. Lewis who also engaged the culture of the unchurched world through his World War II radio broadcasts later published as Mere Christianity.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian ‘denominations’…I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted (in writing Mere Christianity). But it is in the room, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in…

You must keep on praying for light; and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?’[6]

As I wrote in Evangelical Winter, “Like Lewis, Graham was engaging the culture and bringing them into the hall…His mission was to win the hearts of his audience to Christ and deliver them to the door of a local church.”[7] But upon further reflection, this conclusion appears to be at odds with one point of C. S. Lewis’ stated purpose which was to get them into the hall but not to the door of a particular church. It is understood that Graham’s methods of mass evangelism were different than Lewis’ model because Graham’s crusades had been working with fellow evangelical laborers in the vineyard. However, in the New York City crusade and thereafter Graham wrongly departed from Lewis’ model at one key point—the agreement with his hosts required Graham to deliver respondents to Graham’s truthful presentation of the gospel back to the doors of their local churches which included many whose fidelity to biblical truth did not exist.

The answer to the seeming paradox of “be ye separate” and “go unto all the world” is often not easy to decipher. As we consider the seeming conflict in Graham’s actions and fidelity to biblical truth, we see the larger conflict between the demands of ecumenicalism and evangelicalism’s faithfulness and loyalty to biblical truth. The answers are not always clear and simple. But there are answers, and on occasion Christians must use an exceedingly fine scalpel to rightly divide the Word while their hands are guided by the steadying influence of the Holy Spirit. Given the advantage of hindsight over six decades since the 1957 Manhattan crusade, Graham’s inclusion of non-evangelicals and liberals in the Manhattan crusade promoted ecumenicalism in America and lessened the resistance of evangelicals to its corrupting influence.

The rise of ecumenicalism in the Church of England

The larger conflict between ecumenicalism and evangelicalism was also occurring in England in the Anglican Church and other mainline churches. Although Graham had not had crusade alliances with non-evangelical and liberal churches in North America until 1957, he had done so in 1954 when he held the hugely successful London crusade. The division among evangelicals over ecumenicalism that developed after the 1957 Manhattan crusade had already developed in the United Kingdom following the 1954 London crusade.[8]

Graham’s greater London crusade received large support from the Church of England. Many in the small evangelical faction within the Church of England were shocked that evangelical Graham could join with the leadership of the liberal Anglican Church in conducting the crusade. The evangelicals’ smallness of influence and comparative isolation within the church caused them to re-examine their opposition to ecumenical influences. These men had long felt it necessary to remain apart from the larger denominational influences and fellowship only with like-mined evangelicals within and without the Anglican Church.[9] Thirteen years after the 1954 London crusade, the Anglican evangelicals were ready to abandon their aloofness at the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress which met at Keele in April 1967. Prior to the Congress, this change of tactics was expressed by John Stott, chairman of the Congress.

It is a tragic thing, however, that Evangelicals have a very poor image in the Church as a whole. We have acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism. We have to acknowledge this, and for the most part we have no one but ourselves to blame. We need to repent and change.[10]

Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey was invited to give the opening address to the Congress. Murray wrote that in Ramsey’s address, he “…reminded his hearers that ‘experience’ goes before ‘theology’, and he made it clear to the congress that if evangelicals were really prepared to play a full part in the life of the Church of England they must turn their back on their old exclusiveness…” Effectively, the head of the Church of England was laying down the marching orders for evangelicals, and the essence of those orders was that unity must come before truth. The evangelicals at the Keele Congress went on to affirm Ramsey’s ground rules for ecumenical dialogue which in essence was that those confessing Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” must be accepted as Christians in good standing. In other words, all who were engaged in ecumenism “have a right to be treated as Christians.”[11]

Looking back on what he considered was the main cause of the change of mind among the English evangelicals, ecumenism advocate John Lawrence wrote that, “…the Conservative Evangelical movement in Britain crossed the ecumenical watershed at Dr. Billy Graham’s Crusade at Harringay in 1954” [the London Crusade].[12] Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was an opponent of ecumenism but agreed with Lawrence that Graham’s London Crusade was the pivotal moment when England’s evangelicals succumbed to ecumenism.[13]

Dr. Lloyd-Jones was the only senior evangelical voice that sounded the alarm with regard to the dangers of ecumenism. Speaking at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966 (only months before the Keele Congress), Lloyd Jones warned of the consequences of ecumenism on evangelicalism. Iain Murray summarized the heart of Lloyd-Jones arguments.

…for evangelicals to gain ecumenical and denominational acceptance they would have to pay a price which would imperil the very legitimacy of their distinctive beliefs. If evangelical belief is, in essence, gospel belief, how can Christian fellowship exist independently of any common commitment to such belief? How can a right belief on fundamentals retain the primary importance which Scripture gives to it if, after all, it is not necessary to salvation? How can evangelicalism be said to represent biblical essentials if one regards as Christians and works alongside those who actually deny these essentials?…for evangelicals to be consistent with their doctrine, they should give higher priority to the unity which that doctrine entailed than to denominational relationships which required no such allegiance to Scripture.[14] [emphasis in original]

Also in 1966, Francis Schaeffer was a main speaker at the World Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin. Like Lloyd-Jones was to do in October of that year, Schaeffer warned of the dangers of ecumenism.

Let us never forget that we who stand in the historic stream of Christianity really believe that false doctrine, at those crucial points where false doctrine is heresy, is not a small thing. If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth as truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel. And twenty years from now, men will point their finger back at us and say of us, this is the result of the flow of history…[15]

The 1950s and 1960s were crucial points in history in which much of the evangelical church embraced a false doctrine that gave priority to ecumenicalism over the truth of the Scriptures. As a result, efforts to achieve reconciliation through ecumenicalism continued unabated in the great majority of evangelical denominations and organizations through the remainder of the twentieth century and to the present day. Schaffer’s prophetic warning has come to pass. A wall has been built between succeeding generations and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The evidence is all around us and will be examined in Part III.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion – How We Became a Nation of Heretics, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 21.
[2] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth – Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004, 2005), p. 18.
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997), p. 839.
[4] Douthat, Bad Religion, pp. 35, 37.
[5] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), pp. 28-29.
[6] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity from The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 1952, 2002), pp. 5, 11.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 107.
[8] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 40.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., p. 42.
[11] Ibid., pp. 42-43.
[12] Ibid., p. 43.
[13] Ibid., footnote 4, p. 43.
[14] Ibid., p. 45.
[15] Ibid., pp. 79-79.

Most modern American evangelicals have never heard of Iain H. Murray. And if by chance they had heard of him, it is just as doubtful that they will have read any of this Scottish pastor’s writings. But they should. Murray’s writings provide valuable insights into both theological reasons and historical events of the last half of the twentieth century that account for the abysmal conditions in the evangelical church in both America and the United Kingdom.

Murray was born in Lancashire, England, in 1931 and educated at King William’s College in the Isle of Mann. He later read Philosophy and History at the University of Durham in preparation for ministry in the Presbyterian Church. Following a year of private study, he became an assistant to Sidney Norton at St John’s Free Church, Oxford in 1955–56. While at Oxford, Murray established The Banner of Truth magazine and became its first editor. During the years 1956-1959, Murray became the assistant to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who pastored Westminster Chapel in London for thirty years. While at Westminster Chapel, Murray and the late Jack Cullum founded the Banner of Truth Trust in 1957. Like Dr. Lloyd-Jones, Murray was strongly opposed to liberal Christianity. During his career, Murray pastored churches in England and Australia as well as managing the worldwide ministry of the Banner of Truth Trust.[1]

In 2000, Murray published Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950 to 2000. In his book Murray explores the reasons why Christian unity has become such a divisive topic in church of Jesus Christ. Over the course of events in the last half of the twentieth century, Murray chronicles the decline of evangelicalism during its long flirtation with ecumenism. [Ecumenicalism and ecumenism are generally considered as having the same meaning and are used interchangeably in this article.]

In the 1950s two movements – evangelicalism and ecumenism – offered differing paths to unity in the church. But as the decades have passed, the influence of ecumenism has exposed a fault line in evangelicalism. Questions of critical importance have been brought to the surface: Is the gospel broader than evangelicals have historically insisted? Can there be unity with non-evangelicals in evangelism and church leadership? Does the gospel have priority over denominational loyalty?[2]

We begin by defining ecumenicalism and identifying the prominent players in the struggle for church unity. Ecumenical is defined as being “…of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches. Promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.”[3] The difficulty in achieving ecumenicalism is found in the differences between the fundamental beliefs of the evangelical and liberal wings of the Protestant churches that have sought to achieve unity within and between their churches. Liberal churches generally embrace many if not all of the following beliefs:

• The Bible has errors.
• The virgin birth of Christ is myth.
• Jesus did not rise again in bodily form after his crucifixion.
• Although Jesus was a good moral teacher, the gospels do not accurately depict his life on the earth (such as miracles he was supposed to have performed).
• Most of the authors of the Old and New Testaments are not who they are presented to be because the events written about in the Bible were written many years after the generation present during the events described.
• Hell is a myth.
• Man is not fallen and does not need redemption. Therefore, Christ’s death on the cross was not needed to provide redemption for mankind. Love is all that is needed.
• Liberals reject the doctrine of premillennialism – second coming of Christ that will take place before the establishment upon earth of Christ’s thousand year reign (the millennium).

These liberal beliefs had been growing for centuries and had been aided by the Renaissance (1300s-1500s) and Enlightenment philosophies (late 1600s and all of the 1700s). During the nineteenth century, a significant number in the church abandoned many long held doctrinal understandings of the Bible because of the growth of higher criticism (the Bible is flawed) and the rise of a humanistic worldview propelled by the writings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, John Dewey, and others.

The evangelical arm of the church had its beginnings in the late 1600s and early 1700s. The beliefs of evangelicals held since their beginnings were published in 1910 during the early turmoil between the liberal and conservative camps within the various Protestant denominations. These essential doctrines were published in twelve small volumes titled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The books listed the five fundamental doctrines that were vital to being an evangelical:

• The Bible is free from error in every respect.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The substitutionary work of Christ on the cross (Christ suffered and died as a substitute for man to satisfy God’s wrath against sin).
• The physical resurrection of Christ following His crucifixion.
• The physical second coming of Christ.

By 1916, the publication and circulation of 2.5 million copies of The Fundamentals had led to sharp controversies between the modernists and the evangelicals in many mainline churches.[4]

Ecumenical movement to 1950

The movement toward worldwide unity among the Christian churches in modern times had its beginnings in the latter part of the nineteenth century. For the first time in four hundred years since the Protestant Reformation and its separation from the Roman Catholic Church that began in 1517, there was talk of a “reunion of Christendom.”[5]

A second push toward unity and cooperation was also occurring within the Protestant realm in latter part of the nineteenth century. This was brought on by the substantial widening of the gap between the theological liberalism of those dominating the mainline churches and the more conservative elements who still wanted to stay in their denominations. Leaders on both sides of the riff sought to preserve denominational unity. The more conservative evangelicals saw this as being possible if there was agreement that the formal constitutions of their respective churches were not changed.[6] Therefore, unity was very much on the minds of the Protestants, perhaps more so than their Catholic counterparts.

The World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh, Scotland, held in 1910 is thought to be the beginning of the ecumenical movement. But from the very beginning, the price of admission to this supposedly wonderful world of Christian unity and cooperation was the abandonment of separate church structures and doctrinal distinctives. For evangelicals, this was a monumental problem, the insoluble Gordian knot that could not be untied through the give and take of conversation and negotiation. It must be cut, and the cutting would require loss of doctrinal purity that made them evangelical.

In 1948, the World Council of Churches was formed, and at its first assembly the WCC invited into membership all “churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.”[7] In 1962, the WCC amended its constitution to describe their organization as “…a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The WCC goes on to say that, “Since the WCC is not itself a church, it passes no judgment upon the sincerity or firmness with which member churches accept the basis or upon the seriousness with which they take their membership.”[8] Verbal acceptance was all that was necessary, and there was to be no judgement or creedal test to determine what the applicant organization meant by acceptance of Jesus as God and Savior. In effect, what the denominational leaders of member churches in the WCC are declaring is that they want to be part of an organization whose members’ beliefs do not matter so long they affirm Jesus as God and Savior regardless of what that means.

But Murray states that this departure from fidelity to the Bible and long-held doctrinal understandings is not of recent origin but has direct links with the dogmas from the age of unbelief, better known as the Enlightenment. As an example, Murray points to Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the son of a German Reformed Church minister. Schleiermacher studied at the Moravian centers where piety, faith in the Bible, and its divine revelation were taught. However, Schleiermacher eventually abandoned the Moravians’ teachings and adopted the rationalism of Enlightenment philosophers. Eventually, he came to believe that religion is primarily a matter of feeling, intuition, and experience rather than doctrine.[9]

Summarizing the beginning of Schleiermacher’s first book, Murray wrote that “…true religion belongs essentially to the realm of experience—religion is a matter of a well-disposed heart and devout feelings…It matters not what we believe so long as our hearts our right…”[10] [emphasis added]

Murray stated that this teaching that unbelief does not exclude anyone from heaven was welcome news in a country where the great men of culture had no pretense of being orthodox.[11] This same attitude that beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God had become pandemic in Protestant evangelical churches during the course of the last half of the twentieth century. Many leaders of these Protestant churches will deny this and self-righteously point to their doctrinal statements. But again, it is not what they say or what their doctrinal statements proclaim, it is the outworking of this attitude that dictates what actually is occurring within those churches.

In the modern evangelical world this attitude that one’s doctrinal beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God fits extremely well with the prevailing humanistic relativism of the culture and the Church Growth movement’s seeker-sensitive prescriptions for doing church in which the most important aspect of one’s Christianity is to have a “well-disposed heart and devout feelings.”

As the church lost cultural power and authority during the six decades of 1870 to 1930, the growth and eventual dominance of its liberal beliefs led to a corresponding loss of fidelity to the Bible and long-held doctrinal beliefs of the church. Because of the liberal church’s indifference to doctrine, opposition to the unity movement became less difficult which allowed it to gain momentum. In Part II we shall examine the history of the ecumenical movement between 1950 and 2000 and the consequences of the evangelical church’s devastating loss of faithfulness to the Bible and its doctrines.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth, https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/iain-h-murray/ (accessed February 3, 2017).
[2] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), Book Jacket.
[3] “ecumenical,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), p. 263.
[4] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: CSI Publications, 1951, 1964), p. 388.
[5] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 2.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, p. 3.
[8] “The basis of the WCC,” World Council of Churches, https://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-us/self-understanding-vision/basis (accessed February 3, 2017).
[9] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, pp. 3-5.
[10] Ibid., p. 7.
[11] Ibid., p. 9.

Down through the ages these words have been the almost universal advice given to those attempting to make decisions and find direction for one’s life. Borrowing from the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, William Shakespeare wrote, “This above all, to thine own self be true.”[1] More recently Steve Jobs wrote, “Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”[2]

Follow your dream, listen to your inner voice, get in touch with your inner self, and follow your intuition or hunches are various ways of expressing the more universal exhortation to “follow your heart.” The reason for the attractiveness and eager acceptance of this phrase is that it is an appeal to self. After all is said and done, following one’s heart is really doing what one really loves and wants to do anyway. This sentiment is expressed by the words of Jalaluddin Rumi, a 13th-century Persian poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic, “Let yourself be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray.”[3] But will following your heart lead you in to making right decisions in life? In other words, can we trust the pull and direction to which our heart leads when seeking the best answers and direction for our lives?

The prophet Jeremiah writing in the sixth century B.C. condemned the nation of Israel for its extreme wickedness because their hearts were turned away from God.

This is what the Lord says, “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord…The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17: 5, 9. KJV]

Jeremiah is telling us that the self-centered wisdom of man often fails because of his unregenerate heart which is deceitful above all things and can’t be fixed apart from God. What is this heart of which Jeremiah speaks?

The heart

The heart contains one’s desires, feelings, and thoughts which are a person’s inner being, but let’s be more specific in our examination of the three parts of man’s heart. The intellect (thoughts) involves the mind. Emotions (feelings) are expressed in a wide range from feelings of love, anger, anguish, delight, grief, humility, excitement, and passion to name just a few. The third compartment of the heart is the human will (desires) which contains a person’s motivation, purpose, and determination, all operating at the command of man’s freewill (his ability to choose which was implanted by God at the time of man’s creation).[4]

Alien philosophies and worldviews are contrary to biblical truth and the nature and character of God in whose image man was created. These false worldviews and philosophies appeal to the sinful, selfish nature of man through his heart (i.e., desires, feelings, and thoughts).[5] Therefore, the unregenerate heart of man is corrupt and cannot give truthful answers to life’s fundamental questions. If a person’s heart is corrupted which means that it is not rightly ordered or oriented toward God, how can that heart provide guidance and direction in obtaining truthful answers to all other questions in his or her life? It cannot.

The heart of man is the battleground for the ages-old conflict between the God of Creation and Satan and his followers. Every man is born with a corrupt heart and wears the sin-stained badge of Satan’s dominion. Man’s allegiance to Satan determines the condition of his heart and all that flows from it. Mark’s gospel describes contents of the hearts of men because of the inheritance of sin from their original ancestor.

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.” [Mark 7:20-23. RSV]

Said another way, the heart of a defiled man continually spews forth corrupted thoughts, feelings, and desires. Can we trust and follow such a heart to guide us through life? If not, where do we find guidance?

The Bible, God’s revealed word, provides the prescription for the redeeming the unregenerate heart. Regeneration occurs when man truly repents, turns to God, and accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. They are spiritually born again and in the process receive a new spiritual heart which comes with a desire to love and obey God. Spiritual rebirth results in a complete transition from the old sinful life in which man rebels again God and goes his own way to a new life evidenced by love and obedience to Jesus Christ. Attitudes and lifestyles are changed because man has been freed from the bondage of sin which allows him to fulfill God’s purposes for his life. Love replaces the vile things that once flowed out of an unregenerate heart.[6]

A purified heart allows man to come into an eternal relationship with his Creator. Because of the spiritual rebirth, man is empowered to pursue God’s purposes through the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Donald Stamps gives an excellent insight to one facet of the role and work of the Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life.

When Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples on the day he rose from the dead, he was not “baptizing” them in the Spirit as they would later experience at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2-4). Rather, it was the first time the disciples actually received the spiritually renewing presence of the Holy Spirit…The Spirit now lived within them. The inner presence of the Holy Spirit is part of the new life that all Christ’s followers now receive at the time they accept Christ’s forgiveness and surrender their lives to him…This “receiving” of new life from the Spirit was a prerequisite to their receiving the authority of Jesus and their baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost…All believers receive the Holy Spirit at the time of their spiritual birth…when they first accept God’s gift of forgiveness and eternal life through faith in Christ. After this, they can and should experience the baptism in the Holy Spirit for supernatural power to be Jesus’ witnesses and to spread his message.[7] [emphasis added]

Can a Christian follow his heart?

To answer this question we must examine how God directs and guides His followers. First, it must be said that God’s speaks to and guides all of His followers through His revealed word (the Bible) and the inner-workings of the Holy Spirit. When a Christian willfully or in a moment’s weakness disobeys God (sin), it is the power of God’s word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit that speaks to the Christian by convicting him of sin through his conscience (i.e., man’s innate sense of right and wrong which exposes sin and calls for repentance and correction). If this convicting power is not heeded and repentance made, at some point the Christian returns to a life of sin and is once again separated from God.

God has a unique purpose and plan for every believer’s life. However, only His followers can fully achieve those plans and purposes which have their wellspring in a right relationship with the Creator. But there are many questions, decisions, and uncertainties in the lives of individual Christians which are not matters of overt sin or disobedience and which are not specifically addressed by God’s word. Here we turn again to the third member of the Trinity – The Holy Spirit.

Many excellent books have been written to explain and give understanding to the work and character of the Holy Spirit. But they reveal only a fleeting glimpse of the vastness of His divine nature and character. But for our purposes, we can turn to the Bible to glean an understanding of the many roles assigned to the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ’s resurrection. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer at the time of his spiritual renewal and sanctifies him. When the Holy Spirit sanctifies a believer, it is meant that He blesses, consecrates, purifies, approves, dedicates, and makes him holy. Although sanctification is immediate, it is also an ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer as he lives and grows in his Christian walk. In summary, the Holy Spirit cleanses, helps, leads, guides, and motivates the believer to a holy life; delivers him from the bondage of sin; teaches and guides him to all truth; and gives him comfort, joy, and help in all matters.[8]
______

We now return to our question, “Can a Christian follow his heart?” The answer must contain an “if-then” clause. If a man is born again, obeys God’s Word, lives a Godly life, and seeks guidance through prayer, God will speak to and direct that man through all three chambers of his regenerate heart – his mind, emotions, and will. Then, and only then, may a Christian trust and follow his heart.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “To thine own self be true,” eNotes. https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/thine-own-self-true (accessed January 9, 2017).
[2] Steve Jobs, “Quotation #38353- Quotation Details,” The Quotation Page. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38353.html”Steve Jobs (accessed January 9, 2017).
[3] Jalaluddin Rumi “Quotes about follow your heart,” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/follow-your-heart (accessed January9, 2017).
[4] Donald Stamps, Commentary-Jeremiah 17:9, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, Gen. Ed. Donald Stamps, (Published by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, Peabody, Massachusetts; Copyright 2009 by Life Publishers International, Springfield, Missouri), pp. 1062-1063.
[5] Stamps, Commentary-Jeremiah 17:9, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1306-1307. pp. 1306-1307.
[6] Stamps, Study Notes -“Regeneration: Spiritual Birth and Renewal,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1915-1916.
[7] Stamps, Study Notes-“The Spiritual Rebirth of the Disciples,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1966-1967.
[8] Stamps, Study Notes-“The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 210-212.