[As a recovering charismatic myself, I can attest that Arnaud has a keen insight into the movement and its effects on the souls of those trapped in it. Its unbiblical teachings are destructive to men, keeping them in spiritual bondage. False teachers and so called "prophets" employ a subtle (and at times firm) hand, lording their positions of authority over them. Through insidious spiritual and emotional abuse these purveyors of error shame the flock into submission. Breaking free of the charismatic deception truly requires the power of the Holy Spirit, and that power is released when those in bondage renew their minds through a prayerful, careful, and systematic examination of the Word of God to examine and determine whether or not what they have been taught by these teachers is, in fact, true. Once free and restored they can then return as guides to those brethren who remain trapped, and by God's grace be used as redemptive vessels to aid in their release--J.A. Matteson]
By Robin Arnaud
Decades ago when bible-based churches and denominations first examined and weighed the teachings and impact of the Charismatic movement, they largely deemed it to be a benign and relatively harmless popular movement toward informal liturgy and enthusiasm, with a few peculiar practices such as speaking in tongues tied on. It has only rarely been examined by church courts in all the years since, but in the intervening years the Charismatic movement has morphed into a shrouded form of renegade gnosticism that threatens not only the doctrines of the faith once delivered, but the spiritual well being of the people and churches in which it has been given room to flourish. Much of today’s Charismaticism bears little resemblance to biblical Christianity beyond the nominal employment of “Christian” identity and the use of historically Christian terms and organization.
Those of us who have been plucked from the storm and newly planted on the firm foundation of God’s infallible Word share a deep burden for those still caught in the seduction and superstition of the movement. Just as we once longed to see our non-Charismatic friends and loved ones who we felt were “caught in cold, dead orthodoxy” become “liberated” into the “move of God in the gifts and fullness” of the Charismatic movement, we now long to see them return with us to the certainty and stability of the faith once delivered to the saints. Having been ourselves once seduced by the illusion of signs and wonders like those known to the first century Church, we understand all too well why those still lost in that world would wish to stay.
Millions today are fleeing from Pentecostalism’s disastrous, lingering effects. The majority of those who finally see the hollowness and deception of Pentecostalism leave the movement and remain unchurched for the remainder of their lives. But there are many who turn back to the Bible, back to the roots of their Christian heritage in search of purity, simplicity, and genuineness in their faith. Historically orthodox churches have not ministered effectively to these “refugees.” It is not for any lack of love for them, nor because ex-Charismatics have not sought help from orthodox churches. Rather it is in large part because most non-Charismatic churches simply do not understand what today’s Charismatic teachers are meting out in the name of Jesus, nor why so many find Pentecostalism so appealing.
“Non-liturgical” appeal won’t help
“Contemporary” church services and “relaxed” liturgies do not offer a viable alternative to the Charismatic experience. Upbeat music and casual dress are seen as cheap substitutes for the very real thrill of expectancy that is characteristic of Charismatic gatherings. Knowing that the Spirit has liberty to move in any way He wishes; expecting to witness a “manifestation of the Spirit” rather than following a pre-printed script or having an informal sing-along and sermon, Charismatics and Pentecostals truly anticipate a close encounter with God when they gather together. Their non-Pentecostal counterparts really ought to do the same. We are there to meet God; and He has promised to disclose Himself to those who love Him (John 14:21). He is genuinely present among even two or three who gather in His name (Matthew 18:20). Yet all too often we gather as if to pay homage to a distant God, with no real expectation that He’ll actually show up, let alone show up and do what He has promised in the above verses. That sense of expectation and openness to whatever God might do is part of the appeal of Pentecostalism. That is what they think they’d be giving up if they come out of Pentecostalism. We must demonstrate that their fear is not justified! But all too often our churches appear to demonstrate just the opposite.
Reason Won’t Help
Charismatics are taught that logic and reason are “man’s wisdom” and are not to be employed or trusted by people who walk “by the Spirit.” Just as the ancient Gnostics drew a sharp line of division between soul and body (all that is of the body was thought to be temporary and inconsequential while all that is of the soul was said to be eternal and good), so many in Pentecostalism and its offspring maintain a distinction between “soul” (temporal reason, logic) and “spirit” (eternal and that which transcends human comprehension). And just as the Gnostics disregarded the body to pursue their secret knowledge, so also the Charismatics abandon reason to “experience life in the spirit.” Charismatics can point to Scriptures like 1st Corinthians 2:9-16 and 2nd Corinthians 3:6 to justify this abandonment of reason and to distort the plain meaning of the Scriptures that command us to “study to show yourself approved (2nd Timothy 2:15)” and to stand fast and continue in sound doctrine (1st Timothy 4:6, 6:3, 20; 2nd Timothy 1:13 and 3:14-17; 4:3; Galatians 1:8-9 and many more). “The letter kills,” they warn, “but the Spirit gives life!” The entire original context of that saying (2nd Corinthians 3:6) has nothing whatever to do with reason-versus-revelation, but rather lawkeeping-versus-faith! Faith is not an alternative to reason, as they would have us believe. Rather, faith is supposed to result from Spirit led reasoning from the Scriptures (Isaiah 1:18, Acts 17:2, 18:4), for “the law is our tutor to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).” Yet Charismatics have been taught to dismiss reason as “a hindrance to the spirit.”
Religious Addiction
What we are really dealing with in our Charismatic friends is religious addiction. It is every bit as real and as damaging as any other addiction. And like most addicts, only those who are brought low enough to see the truth finally seek help, or give up hope. It is only when the drink or the drug or the pleasure fails to deliver as promised — over and over again — that the addict is finally prepared to listen to reason. When a soul is seduced by the empty promises of Charismaticism and reason is dismissed as a hindrance, the grip of this heresy tightens incredibly. One trapped in its hold seldom is prepared to reemploy long-abandoned reason until real drought and famine have set in. A Charismatic has to want help before he or she can accept it. As long as they remain content in Pentecostal delusion and satisfied with the ear-tickling, soul-thrilling “high” it conveys, they will not hear our pleas to return to what they consider to be the bondage of “cold, dead orthodoxy.”
How can we help them?
Prayer is the most effective help we as Christians can offer to anyone — saved or lost, bound or free, sick or well, aware of the danger or seduced by its allure. At some point or another, the false teachings they cling to will fail them. Pentecostalism hedges its bets by blaming the victim; sometimes for “lack of faith,” sometimes for “hiding unconfessed sin,” and sometimes due to demonic oppression. Their prescriptions for these maladies always involve some equivalent of hypnosis, further feeding on subjective emotion and deepening the grip of cultish soul addiction. By keeping their captives seeking after that which they already have in Christ, these wolves attack the heart of the gospel; the fullness of Christ, and the sufficiency of His finished work. They claim that believers don’t “experience” what Christ has won for them because of some failure on their part — never on the failure of their own teachings! But at some point, often a point of utter despair, a broken Charismatic may actually be willing to question the doctrines of their teachers. It is at that point that they may be willing to reason from the Scriptures.
The Truth is Unchanging
The Bible never changes and is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. That simple fact becomes an anchor for the despairing Charismatic, who by now may be questioning everything they’ve ever been taught. The Bible is a bridge back, a reminder that though winds of doctrine change constantly, the plain teachings of God’s word have never changed. The simple disciplines of Bible study and catechism that so many of us take for granted are either completely foreign to Charismatics or were dismissed long before as unnecessary relics of “dead orthodoxy.” But having tried all the Charismatic remedies without success, even the most despairing ex-Charismatic who doesn’t abandon the faith altogether may be willing to revisit the old tried-and-true tools that have sustained the Church throughout the centuries. Their search for purity, simplicity, and rest may finally drive them back to the unchanging word of God as it is revealed in the Bible.
The Reformation Revisited
At a time centuries ago when the Bible was not available to most people, the gospel was buried in Roman Catholic malpractice, superstition, and corruption. So it is today in the Charismatic movement. The Bible is pushed aside except as a prop for “proof texting” popular teachings and for lending credibility to some “prophetic word.” The truth is obscured for the sake of keeping the sheep in bondage to the influence of corrupt wolves and hirelings who care not for the sheep, but for themselves (Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 23). Modern Charismaticism is exactly like Roman Catholicism was in the Middle Ages; steeped in unbiblical superstitions, false doctrines, and control over the flock.
The solution today is exactly the same as it was back then — a return to the Scriptures; a new reformation that absolutely insists upon the supremacy of the Scriptures in determining what is so and what is not. But now even as in those days, it is not to be a “just me and my Bible” approach! The Bible is to be interpreted according to “the analogy of faith” as the early fathers called it — the foundations laid by Christ and the Apostles. As inspired interpreters of the Old Testament, it is their interpretations of the Old Testament and their sayings and writings in the New Testament that formed the basis for all generations to follow. The Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” in 1st Timothy 3:15, and its “common confession” (verse 16) of the Christian faith appears over and over again in the “faithful sayings, worthy of acceptation (1st Timothy 1:15, 3:1, 4:9, 2nd Timothy 2:11, Titus 3:8, Revelation 22:6)” and elucidated in the ancient creeds of the Christian faith. Those “faithful sayings” that Paul and John refer to are the most ancient creeds! They were the “rule of faith,” the basis for all interpretation of Scripture. It is this rule of faith and the Scriptures alone that the Reformation restored to the Church. And it is exactly the same that must be restored to those emerging from modern-day Babylon.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Exercising a True Deliverance Ministry – A pastoral guide to helping believers who have left charismatic circles
from Sword & Trowel 2007, issue 3 by Dr. Peter Masters, Senior Pastor of London's Metropolitan Tabernacle (former congregation of Baptist Preacher C.H. Spurgeon in the mid 1800's).
The title of this article is obviously not meant in a charismatic sense. We offer no advice on how to cast out demons, rather on how to help true believers who have been heavily influenced by charismatic ideas, and who have come to see them as wrong. They have come away from the world of tongues, visions, prophecies, ecstasies, dancing, falling down slain, and all associated activities, and have sought fellowship among ‘traditional’ Bible-believing Christians.
These friends often have many problems, and pastors and church officers must be ready to help. Some former charismatics have made the transition so well and so speedily that one can scarcely believe they once thought and acted very differently. We readily acknowledge that some need little or no help in adapting to conservative, biblical Christianity.
Many, however, find that their time in the charismatic movement has left them troubled, unsure, and perhaps even scarred spiritually. They have wrested themselves away from a host of emotional props, and severed connections with numerous dear friends, and this has cost them much pain.
Doctrine, worship, fellowship and service now take a vastly different form. Their new environment has a way of thinking and looking at matters utterly unlike that of charismatic circles. Furthermore, in the back of the mind lies the nagging fear that these ‘traditionalists’ are indeed the cold, lifeless formalists they have been long warned about – people who have never tasted the Spirit, and who wilfully oppose his liberating power.
Broadly speaking, there are three causes for people leaving the charismatic move-ment. The first one mentioned here is the best, and most often leads to them adjusting wholly to orthodox evangelical teaching. The last two give rise to the least stable ‘converts’.
A first cause of leaving occurs when people experience some serious disappointment or disillusionment with the charismatic movement, and begin to evaluate its claims more carefully. Perhaps a relative or close friend has died and they have seen at close quarters the false promises and the failure of -healing prophecies. It may be that they have seen through some of the dishonesty and pride which stalks the citadels of charismatic activity, and have recoiled with shock.
Some years ago, for example, charismatics all over the world were shaken by the wild phenomena of the Toronto Blessing, and they turned to God’s Word in a new spirit of enquiry. Objective Bible study then caused the entire edifice of charismatic practice to crumble and fall before them.
A second cause of departure from charismatic activity is personal disaffection. While this may lead to people’s eyes being opened, it often does not. In charismatic house groups and cells an artificially high degree of emotional interdependence is fostered, and in such a climate offences can occur which drive people out. These may come over to the derided traditionalists almost as an act of protest. The real issue is one of personal disaffection, not doctrinal unease, and while these émigrés may criticise everything they have left, it may only be the outworking of hurt feelings.
Sometimes people leave because their ‘gifts’ have not been sufficiently recognised, or their own leadership hopes have been thwarted. Such leavers will probably return, if not to the same group, to another section of the charismatic camp. We may almost say that the more heated the invective, the sooner a person will go back. We certainly have an opportunity to help such disgruntled people see the real issues, and we pray that the Lord will open their eyes, but our efforts may well be in vain.
A third cause of departure which usually leads to people returning is that of a generally unstable temperament. This is not a comment on the mental stability of peo-ple, but on their inability to think clearly and to recognise foundational principles of biblical conduct. Because charismatic teaching is so subjective, experience-based, emotional and speculative, it produces this instability in certain people.
They take on a great mass of ideas and anecdotes, but possess no reliable way of verifying them. The mind trades so much in disconnected fragments, that it loses its capacity to get things in order of importance, and to judge clearly.
Helping friends in this state is almost impossible. As fast as you try to explain one matter, another dozen ideas leap into their minds. For such people, whether something is right or wrong is determined by the quantity of supporting claims which can be thrown into the discussion, not by the biblical validity of the claims. Unstable thinkers are likely to re-settle in the comfortable confusion of a charismatic group.
It is necessary to mention these last two categories because we must be ready for disap-pointment. However, the Lord is at work. Many of God’s children are being led out for wholesome and biblical reasons, and we trust that many more will be. We would like to rescue as many people as possible from the mass of mistakes that make up the charismatic movement, and from their exploitation by insincere and dishonest ‘top’ leaders.
Another caution is necessary. We should not assume that all who leave the charismatic fold are truly converted. We say this with care, for many are, but we remember that numerous people have been lured in by promises of healing, and even prosperity, rather than by the challenge to repent and yield to Christ. Once there, they have been sustained, not by doctrine, but by a diet of emotional thrills. In many charismatic meetings life is all about the feel-good-factor of entertainment and personal happiness, and the real issues of the Faith are obscured. When the Gospel is presented, it is often no more than a shallow form of ‘easy-believism’. Friendship and phenomena take the place of a real spiritual life. There will, therefore, be many who are not truly saved, and if they should leave and find their way to sound evangelical churches, their greatest need will be to hear the Gospel.
This caution must be balanced by a plea for respect for ex-charismatic people who most certainly are earnest believers. Some of these may even have been driven into the charismatic movement years ago by the lifelessness of a traditional evangelical church. There are numerous Bible-believing churches where so little is done for the Lord that one sympathises with members who defect to charismatic fellowships. They may be mistaken, but what an ordeal they have endured to keep their faith and love alive in an unenthusiastic ‘sound’ church! They have felt forced to leave that sound, but sound asleep, church. It has often been a hunger and thirst to please God which has led people (however mistakenly) into more lively charismatic churches. Their new teachers persuaded them that God wanted them to seek tongues and other phenomena, and their desire to obey God caused them to open their minds to these new experiences.
They were misled, but they were earnest, and this we must respect. They may have been more earnest than the sound fellowship they left behind.
We say this to inspire a due measure of respect for those who come back to us from charismatic groups. We, as traditional evangelicals, may have wronged them in the past through spiritual lethargy and coldness.
What are the problems or scars which continue to affect believers who have left the charismatic movement? The following pages review some of the difficulties encountered and highlight the areas of biblical teaching to be stressed by way of remedy.
TEN LINGERING PROBLEMS
1 Lordship of imagination
The first problem which may continue to trouble charismatic leavers arises from the lordship of imagination. For so many, imagination has worked overtime to create an artificial spiritual life in which God has spoken hour by hour through direct guidance and impressions. People have felt led to do this and that, and been ‘given’ knowledge of this and that. In many cases they have attributed every feeling to the direct impulse of the Spirit. They have been taught a religion very different from that of biblical Christianity, but they do not realise this.
They have been taught a system of thinking in which basic Christian beliefs are grafted on to a form of mysticism in which one may ‘know’ the touch of God, and receive in a direct, paranormal way knowledge unknowable by others. If someone is interpreting a tongue, whatever pops into the mind must be the correct meaning. For many, ordinary ideas and impressions must be elevated to ‘words of knowledge’. The list of imagined inspirations is long.
It comes as a shock to many ex-charismatic friends to learn the true biblical teaching about union with God, and the way this works. Without grasping this, they will be confused, dependent upon their feelings, and dependent upon imagined impressions sent from God.
We will need to explain, both by way of preaching and personal ministry, the ‘by faith’ passages of the New Testament, not only to explain the way of salvation, but to explain the ‘mechanics’ of our continuing union with God. We will need to explain that we do not know the Lord by any physical kind of sense or feeling, or by any other direct or ‘clairvoyant’ type of link. Human feelings are a response to what we understand. We know God by what is revealed in his Word. We believe all that it teaches of him, and we trust, and enjoy him. All our precious views of Christ and of his ways, come from the Word into our understanding, and there they are met and embraced by faith. God primarily links himself to us via our understanding and trusting response. Of course, we have much evidence, such as answered prayer, and we have assurance also, but the key link is by receiving the Word.
What about feelings? We will need to explain that in genuine spiritual experience they are stirred by way of response to what is seen by the mind. God hardly ever goes directly to our feelings. Whether the feeling is one of love, gratitude, assurance or shame and conviction, it wells up within us as the result of what is grasped by the mind.
Everything in the Christian life comes ‘by faith’, and this, of necessity, means by the understanding. If we do not think about something, we cannot believe it.
What is the role of the Holy Spirit in this? We will need to teach and explain that the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind, enabling the understanding to grasp the truths of God’s Word. He never imparts to the minds of believers spiritual truths which are not disclosed in the Bible. Rather, he sharpens our minds to see the things that are scripturally revealed.
Then, when we grasp these things and receive them by faith, the Spirit frequently touches our minds in such a way that we see them with even greater clarity, and then we are lifted up in great joy and love. An old Puritan phrase calls this ‘the embrace of the Spirit’. How kind the Spirit of God is!
The key point is that all true spiritual experience must be routed through the conscious mind, and received by faith. As soon as we are able to convey this fundamental fact of the Christian faith to former charismatics, the scales fall from their eyes and they see how they have been misled by a distorted form of Christianity. They are then no longer at the mercy of imagination.
Of course we will need to assure these friends that there is much tangible evidence of God’s work in our lives. We see it in the new nature we receive at conversion, and in the countless answers to prayer which follow. We have so often been strengthened for our duties, enabled to witness, and delivered from trials in answer to prayer. We have repeatedly seen our circumstances changed by the clear intervention of the Lord. In these things we see the Lord’s hand, but only in the Word do we hear, as it were, his authoritative voice, revealing doctrine and commands.
In summary, we know the Lord by what he has said (in the Word), and this is supplemented by what he does in answer to prayer. We do not have direct com-munication from God on authoritative matters.
How different this historic, biblical teaching is from the mystical and occultist ideas which have swept into modern charismatic teaching! ‘Switch off the mind,’ they say, ‘it is an obstruction and a nuisance. Raise your hands, close your eyes, sway to and fro, launch out into the deep, let your emotions go free, let your spirit take over, repeat the name of the Saviour, speak in a tongue, and as you do so, your direct, mystical link with God will be effected, and you will feel and see according to the movement of the Spirit.’
We repeat, God speaks from the Word to the mind, which is the organ of under-standing and the palace of faith. Here are some of the great passages we will refer to as we stress the pre-eminence of faith (which naturally presupposes understanding).
‘So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Romans 10.17).
‘That their hearts might be comforted . . . unto all riches of the full assurance of UNDERSTANDING’ (Colossians 2.2). ‘BY FAITH ye stand’ (2 Corinthians 1.24).
‘For we walk BY FAITH, not by sight’ (2 Corinthians 5.7).
‘Above all, taking the SHIELD OF FAITH, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked’ (Ephesians 6.16).
‘BY FAITH he [Moses] forsook Egypt . . . for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible’ (Hebrews 11.27). ‘That Christ may dwell in your hearts BY FAITH; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God’ (Ephesians 3.17-19).
2 Anecdotes & revelations
A second problem which afflicts many friends who leave charismatic circles is their past trust in non-biblical sources of doctrine and comfort, such as anecdotal experiences and new revelations. Most charismatics theoretically believe that anecdotes, visions and words of knowledge should be submitted to Scripture for verification, but in most circles this hardly ever happens. (When charismatic leaders do attempt to justify their visions by Scripture, these attempts range from the superficial to the absurd.)
The problem is that former charismatics often feel a great void once they leave behind the flow of anecdotal teaching and prophetic words. Some continue to be vulnerable and ready to believe anything and everything that they read in lightweight, anecdotal items of Christian literature.
We often refer to how the charismatic movement lowers the credulity threshold of people, and so it does. The welter of anecdotes of healings, extraordinary expe-riences and revelations must, in general, be believed, or the Christian life would be a nightmare of suspicion. Some solve the problem by believing everything (however unbiblical), and others by believing everything ‘slightly’. (See problem number 10 for further comment on this.)
It is not enough, however, only to direct to Scripture, because charismatic friends have had Scripture quoted to them to justify the most bizarre things. By their indifference to any rules of interpretation, charismatic teachers have robbed Scripture of its clarity, consistency and authority. We will need to encourage a new respect and a deeper reverence and love for Scripture, introducing friends to the Bible’s own interpretative rules. They must come to take the context seriously, and to compare scripture with scripture. They must learn about the ‘analogy of faith’ concept of the Reformers, which calls us to equip ourselves with a clear mental picture of all the major doctrines so prominent in the Bible, and then to test all our ideas about the meaning of any particular passage against these.
This article is not the place to rehearse the basic rules of interpretation, but ex-charismatics need the liberating experience of serious, logical Bible study. They need to see what they have been deprived of. Then they will rejoice in a Bible that really guides – not a chaotic mystery-book which depends upon the whims of personal revelation before one may know what it really says. We must therefore give time in our teaching programme for the subject of ‘Bible interpretation for all’.
We need to point friends to books such as Thomas Watson’s Body of Divinity, where they will rejoice to find the wonderful system of doctrinal Truth which has been kept from them. This will help them to have the anchor of sound doctrine, without which they will remain at the mercy of unbiblical, human ideas.
3 Reverent worship
A third problem troubling many former charismatics is that of adjusting to a reverent form of worship. In most charismatic communities worship is primarily designed to be subjective and arousing only at a human level. To achieve this, instrumental music and rhythm are used as major ingredients. Also, worship is usually informal in character, thus sacrificing awe and reverence. It has more to do with the feelings and the body than with the mind and the soul.
Those who leave charismatic groups will find themselves either in a Bible-believing church which holds to conservative wor-ship, or one that compromises by using charismatic songs. This second kind of church will obviously not be able to teach former charismatics the glories of true worship, for it has violated them.
Hopefully, former charismatics will find themselves in sounder places where the biblical objectives of worship can be explained. We will need to point out the most fundamental of all principles, that worship is to be ‘in spirit and in truth’. This includes the idea that it is to be intelligent, and in accordance with God’s revealed Truth.
It is crucial for believers to realise that worship must be capable of being put into words (whether thought, said or sung). Nothing else is true worship.
Worship is to be objective as well as subjective; and to be rich with praise and adoration of God and his attributes and works. It is to be humble and reverent. It is to include repentance (so often absent from charismatic songs). It is not to be subjected to the competition of elaborate music and instrumentalism, so that this is enjoyed more than the spiritual worship, and people show off their skills.
Worship must never borrow the rhythms and chord-forms associated with the secular entertainment industry, and its anti-God, anti-moral campaigns. The Word of God demands an unbridgeable gulf between sacred and profane.
These are the kind of principles we must present from such Bible passages as John 4 and Revelation 4-5. Former charismatics need to see that they have had foisted upon them a fleshly, worldly, self-centred form of worship, grievous to the Spirit. Human pleasure, derived from debased worldly styles, has eclipsed true spiritual activity, and all this must now be rejected as illegitimate and harmful. Only then will they be free to enter wholeheartedly and feelingfully into genuine, respectful, thoughtful worship, with true spiritual rejoicing.
4 Visible phenomena
A fourth problem troubling many former charismatics is a continuing thirst for phenomena such as healings and prophecies. If denied these things they often feel unstirred and unassured. Such supposed proofs of the Holy Spirit’s presence have long served as a substitute for faith, and now that they have been left behind, leavers may find it difficult to live by faith.
As Christians, however, we are not bereft of evidences of God’s work within us, and it is good to help troubled friends look at these evidences. Conversion, sanctification and preservation are the greatest evidences of all.
It is even more important to train friends to put their faith in what God says in his Word. Faith grows most of all when it is exercised, first by receiving and believing the teaching of the Word, and secondly by coming to the Lord in prayer in response to all the problems and needs of life.
Former charismatics need to be encouraged to exercise sober discernment, trusting only the Word, and assigning no significance to charismatic explanations of strange experiences. It may be helpful for them to learn that the very phenomena and ‘wonders’ they once relied on occur equally outside Christian circles. They are common even among pagan cults, and are not evidences or proofs of the work of the Spirit. Even within the charismatic movement many godless (even immoral and criminal) leaders have been able to produce all these so-called signs of God’s approval and power.
Former charismatics also need to appreciate that unrecognised hypnosis and psychological influences play a great part in producing surprising experiences. In summary, we must help these friends to embrace ‘Scripture alone’ as the rule of their Christian walk, and to get great pleasure out of the wonders of the Word. As for encouragement, are not the unmistakable evidences of God’s power in sustaining and blessing our witness enough?
For the strengthening of faith, it is vital that we show ex-charismatics how to lay hold on the promises rather than to look for earthly wonders which, in the event, are a mixture of theatrical tricks and psychological effects. An excellent book to ‘prescribe’ is Thomas Watson’s little volume A Divine Cordial, also published under the title All Things for Good. Equally superb is A W Pink’s Comfort for Christians. Such works show believers how to view trials of all kinds. The Christian life is a life of faith, not a life of sight, and to walk this road must be the new aim of former charismatic believers.
5 Lack of service
A fifth problem troubling some former charismatics arises from a lack of applica-tion and commitment to genuine service for the Lord. We are saved to serve the Lord and to be at his disposal. We are intended to pull together as congregations in the work of evangelism. The charismatic scene, however, is predominantly self-serving. Certainly there are exceptions, and some charismatics engage in strenuous activity for the Lord, including compassionate ministries. But generally the situation is quite different.
You do not often find charismatic fellowships toiling in evangelistic Sunday Schools and similar activities operated for the spiritual good of the community. You find considerable activity going on, but most of it is for the benefit of believers and for their excitement and fulfilment.
Charismatic church activities are labour-intensive in terms of instrumentalism, singing and all the practice involved. Giftedness, body-ministry, personal empowerment and so on are the all-important matters. ‘My walk…my health…my experience’ is the chief focus of life. House groups frequently constitute ‘love-ins’ where mutual coddling and sympathy are the order of the day. The ethos is that we are to be cared for. We are so important. All our energy is for us.
A believer who forsakes the atmosphere of charismatic Christianity is likely to feel painfully abandoned in a traditional fellowship. It is important that the real cause of this vacuum is understood, and we must show how life should be filled with a new kind of activity – unselfish, overflowing spiritual service for Christ.
We are forced to admit that some traditional Bible-believing churches now-adays are as bad as charismatic churches for self-serving, self-interested church programmes. Hopefully, however, ex-charismatics will find churches where the fun and pleasure of believers is not the primary objective, but rather the work of taking the Gospel to lost souls.
In these days so many labourers are needed. A new perspective and a new commitment will be the greatest help to the ex-charismatic, who will find true spiritual blessedness in this context. (The author’s booklet on the working church – Your Reasonable Service in the Lord’s Work – may help in this matter.)
6 Cessation of sign-gifts
A sixth problem troubling former charismatics is whether the gifts of the Spirit have or have not ceased. How could they possibly have ceased as the Scripture does not specifically say so? Lingering and recurring anxiety about the gifts can only be relieved when former charismatics gain a clear view of the reasons why cessationism was the view of the overwhelming majority of Christians until as recently as the 1960s. In this connection, beware of literature which warns against charismatic practices while at the same time refusing to teach the cessation of the sign and revelatory gifts.
Some writers have adopted the view that cessationism is not valid, and that instead we should judge the validity of every charismatic claim on its merits. The idea is a nightmare. From a practical point of view alone, it would take a thousand tribunals of seasoned judges sitting in permanent session to merely scratch the surface of the present scene. Claims to gifts and phenomena are to be numbered in their millions.
The truth is that the Bible is clear on this matter, and most former charismatics are very ready to examine the texts. Of course, we must help friends to see that only two kinds of gift are at issue: the revelatory gifts and the sign-gifts. All others, such as gifts of ministry and government, remain.
The writer has set out the texts teaching the cessation of the revelatory and sign-gifts in The Healing Epidemic, chapter 7 – ‘Proving the Gifts Have Ceased’. Without repeating all these texts and arguments here, it should be obvious that the sign-gifts were not intended to be permanent. They were specifically described as signs or pointers. The apostolic miracles pointed to the apostles, saying to the world, ‘these are the true witnesses and apostles of Christ, and the inspired channels of Holy Scripture.’ But now that their witness has been incorporated into the Bible, we possess the substance. The signs fell away once the substance to which they pointed was given to the Church.
It was the same with tongues-speaking. The miraculous tongues were a sign or pointer. God had said through Isaiah that the age of the Messiah would be validated by the phenomenon of gentiles preaching the Word of God to Jews. However, at the time of Pentecost, and for a short while afterward, there were no converted gentiles, and so God at first employed gentile tongues miraculously spoken by Jews. This was one of the signs that the new age, the Gospel Age, had dawned, when the Gospel would be preached in every language throughout the world. But soon the reality took over and real gentile converts were preaching the Gospel to both Jews and gentiles. Once this occurred the sign had fulfilled its duty. The reality to which the sign pointed had itself arrived, and the ‘shadow’ had given way to the substance.
This writer has found that most charismatics have been given the impression that in New Testament times healings were accomplished constantly by all believers. They are usually very surprised to hear that this is utterly contrary to the record, which shows only one case of a healing by someone not in the apostolic band – and that was the singular case of Paul healed by Ananias (at the Lord’s command).
We constantly need to make clear to ex-charismatic friends that we believe in miracles today, including healing. God can do anything, and he has promised to heal. What we reject is the notion that he channels his power through gifted miracle workers and healers. Apostles, with ‘signs of apostles’, have long since ceased, but the Lord continues to heal directly in answer to prayer (and according to his sovereign will). These are some of the issues which we need to make clear to former charismatics.
7 Prevailing worldliness
A seventh problem which frequently troubles those who leave charismatic circles stems from the degree of worldliness so often encouraged, and sometimes the level of lawlessness. Throughout the world the majority of charismatics have an approach to holiness that is quite different from anything previously seen in the history of the Christian Church. Separation from the world has little or no part in their holiness scenario. Nor (in most circles) does resistance to earthly wealth and comforts.
Affluence and pleasure are legitimate objectives. Fashion, self-expression, and close familiarity with the current pop and movie scenes are acceptable interests. Charismatic song performers look and sound just like worldly performers. The likeness is even deliberately cultivated.
Believers who leave the charismatic world will have to adapt to entirely different standards. They will have to appreciate that the Lord commands different attitudes in his people, and that the ethos of the world is offensive to him. For some, the doctrine of sanctification will sometimes need to be explained almost from scratch. A new commitment of life and stewardship will need to be embraced.
We referred to lawlessness in the introduction to this seventh point, because it is an undeniable truth that among professing Christians, charismatics are known to have by far the most cases of unacceptable behaviour. They experience the most occurrences of immorality, divorce, criminal fraud, and other serious misdemeanours.
This observation is not intended to taint thousands of more serious-minded charismatics who mortify the deeds of the body, and strive to lead lives pleasing to God. But the charismatic environment as a whole is not conducive to conscientious holiness, and that is painfully apparent.
Lawlessness may well be encouraged by the lack of repentance in the style of worship found in many charismatic churches. Services characterised by dancing, swaying, clapping, the singing of repetitive phrases to deafening rhythmic music, and working up the emotions are not occasions for genuine repentance and dedication to holiness.
There is no quietness before God; no sense of – ‘The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.’ In some charismatic circles the spiritual warfare is defined entirely in terms of challenging demons, rather than in fighting against personal sin and temptation. It is no great wonder that we have read of so many leading charismatic evan-gelists falling into immorality, and being brought before the courts for a variety of criminal offences.
It is important that we communicate to believers who come to us from charismatic fellowships that we act in all matters out of obedience to the Word, and not just from personal choice. We must show chapter and verse for every facet of our personal and church lifestyles. Christians are those who willingly conform to all the rules of the New Testament, including separation from worldliness. Only as the Spirit shows these friends the true nature of the Christian walk, will they be at peace. Many have been deprived by their former teach-ers of vast areas of Truth. These must now be embraced.
8 A Superior experience
An eighth problem likely to trouble former charismatics is a sensitive and dif-ficult one, but it must be mentioned. This will not necessarily apply to all such friends, but it will afflict some. It is the problem of pride. Charismatic teachers have probably convinced them that they have superior light and experience, while traditional Bible believers are spiritually ignorant, cold and unblessed. Many charismatic teachers adopt a boastful, triumphalistic style, encouraging a sense of spiritual superiority.
The lack of truly objective worship (which is humbling in its effect) may also contribute to pride. So also may the sense of specialness derived from the sup-posed possession of spiritual gifts. Even after leaving charismatic circles, some of this pride may stick.
All this puts one in mind of the many Exclusive Brethren who left their movement in the 1960s. They had seen that much was wrong, but unfortunately many of those who left took with them an unshakable belief that they were infinitely better taught than those in the traditional evangelical churches. Clothed with such confidence, what could they really learn? Some (but certainly not all) became misfits and serious thorns in the flesh to the churches they joined.
We shall need great grace as we try to help ex-charismatics realise that they do not tower above traditional Bible believers in spiritual understanding. We will need the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, and the gentleness of Barnabas as we show them that their former camp represents a radical departure from Scripture and its doctrine in many ways, and that they have much to re-learn.
It will be no use correcting just a few wrong notions. Charismatic pride rests on a dozen foundations. It is only as we knock all these away (but carefully) that the delusion of grandeur will fall, and the mind will open fully to the Word. The kindest way to do this is often by prescribing books, so that friends can think through the issues in privacy, checking the texts as they go, and calling upon the Lord for help.
9 Emphasis on fellowship
A ninth problem sometimes troubling the peace of former charismatics has to do with relationships. We have already referred to the artificially close fellowship fostered in house groups or cells. Charismatics usually excel at organising friendship-promoting activities, and this will inevitably lead to pain and loneliness when people leave.
Most traditional Bible-believing churches do not have this forced, hot-house approach to promoting friendship. They depend more on the natural process of ties forming as members worship and serve the Lord together.
Hopefully, former charismatics will find their way to churches where people are outgoing and welcoming. But it will be over time, and usually while working in some aspect of Christian service, that deeper ties will form. Real friendship is not usually manipulated into being.
We will need to extend a degree of special understanding and fellowship to those who come out of a system excessively dependent on friendship, remembering that they have probably left behind something that cannot be quickly replaced in their lives.
Another relationship difficulty may arise from the dominating, authoritarian leadership practised in many charismatic churches. If people have experienced a high degree of directive interference in their lives, some may feel lost without it. However much they may have resented it, they may still miss it. For some, this may reach ‘dependence’ proportions.
Pastors must be careful never to tell these friends what to do in personal decisions, however much they may ask for definitive direction. Always we must limit ourselves to counselling the biblical principles, and honour the individual’s responsibility to apply those principles carefully and prayerfully to the decision in hand.
10 Uncertain belief
A final problem sometimes encountered by former charismatics is that of weak and doubting belief, leading either to shallowness or cynicism. This is a product of their former intense loyalty to healings and other phenomena. The trouble arises from the simple fact that they never saw these wonderful things really happening in a certain, verifiable way. Even the miraculous signs have had to be taken on faith!
If we ask charismatic friends why the weekly run of healings never includes clear-cut, medically verifiable miracles, involving the cure of serious physical illnesses, they immediately talk about cases they know of from other churches, and which probably took place months or years ago. They seldom make any attempt to defend the regular healings of their own fellowship. This shows that within themselves they realise that these healings are more to do with charismatic culture than with reality.
A charismatic author (a doctor) once set out to validate charismatic healing in a book, and his book revealed the same tendency. To prove his case he wrote about healings that occurred years before, and in other countries. Inadvertently, he was admitting that he placed no credence on the regular healings that surrounded him week after week in his own charismatic assembly. He believed in them in a way, but not enough to use them as examples, preferring to draw his ‘proof’ from afar.
This writer has asked charismatic believers in five continents why their own local healings were either unsuccessful, or short-term, or minor, and why they could not perform healing of verifiable, major illnesses. Always their response has been to draw their confidence from healings reported from somewhere else.
The point is that charismatic friends must adopt either a stoical, unquestioning form of belief in these phenomena, or a vague, general belief. Either attitude is harmful to real Christian faith. In the case of the first, the mind closes to any new biblical and doctrinal challenge. The person says, ‘I know what I think, and am not open to further consideration.’ Such a friend must be helped to see that all our opinions must be verifiable from the Word of God. We must always be open to correction.
In the case of vague belief, the whole of our Christian walk may be damaged if we allow ourselves to believe vaguely and lightly in things we do not really see happen, and cannot be certain of. This kind of belief will infect our whole outlook. We may well develop a shallow view of many other aspects of the faith.
This undoubtedly happens to many Christians. They believe they should go to worship regularly and serve the Lord. But at the same time, like the healing miracles, the standards of God need not be taken too seriously. They are real, but they are not real. They are important, but not important.
Vague belief or light belief produces uncommitted and semi-sincere Christians, and even lawless Christians. The antidote and corrective is to help people to see that in God’s true plan for the Christian life everything is true and reliable; everything works just as it should.
The charismatic culture of working up miracles and signs which cannot be validated is harmful to true faith, producing either gullibility on the one hand, or submerged cynicism on the other.
God and his Word are to be taken very seriously, and believed with the whole heart. All his commands are to be obeyed; all his standards are to be diligently honoured.
These are the issues which trouble or handicap those who leave charismatic circles, and which pastors and spiritual shepherds will need to address, with gentleness, patience and understanding. They are all critical, key matters which, if ignored, will surface later, possibly with unhappy results.
The title of this article is obviously not meant in a charismatic sense. We offer no advice on how to cast out demons, rather on how to help true believers who have been heavily influenced by charismatic ideas, and who have come to see them as wrong. They have come away from the world of tongues, visions, prophecies, ecstasies, dancing, falling down slain, and all associated activities, and have sought fellowship among ‘traditional’ Bible-believing Christians.
These friends often have many problems, and pastors and church officers must be ready to help. Some former charismatics have made the transition so well and so speedily that one can scarcely believe they once thought and acted very differently. We readily acknowledge that some need little or no help in adapting to conservative, biblical Christianity.
Many, however, find that their time in the charismatic movement has left them troubled, unsure, and perhaps even scarred spiritually. They have wrested themselves away from a host of emotional props, and severed connections with numerous dear friends, and this has cost them much pain.
Doctrine, worship, fellowship and service now take a vastly different form. Their new environment has a way of thinking and looking at matters utterly unlike that of charismatic circles. Furthermore, in the back of the mind lies the nagging fear that these ‘traditionalists’ are indeed the cold, lifeless formalists they have been long warned about – people who have never tasted the Spirit, and who wilfully oppose his liberating power.
Broadly speaking, there are three causes for people leaving the charismatic move-ment. The first one mentioned here is the best, and most often leads to them adjusting wholly to orthodox evangelical teaching. The last two give rise to the least stable ‘converts’.
A first cause of leaving occurs when people experience some serious disappointment or disillusionment with the charismatic movement, and begin to evaluate its claims more carefully. Perhaps a relative or close friend has died and they have seen at close quarters the false promises and the failure of -healing prophecies. It may be that they have seen through some of the dishonesty and pride which stalks the citadels of charismatic activity, and have recoiled with shock.
Some years ago, for example, charismatics all over the world were shaken by the wild phenomena of the Toronto Blessing, and they turned to God’s Word in a new spirit of enquiry. Objective Bible study then caused the entire edifice of charismatic practice to crumble and fall before them.
A second cause of departure from charismatic activity is personal disaffection. While this may lead to people’s eyes being opened, it often does not. In charismatic house groups and cells an artificially high degree of emotional interdependence is fostered, and in such a climate offences can occur which drive people out. These may come over to the derided traditionalists almost as an act of protest. The real issue is one of personal disaffection, not doctrinal unease, and while these émigrés may criticise everything they have left, it may only be the outworking of hurt feelings.
Sometimes people leave because their ‘gifts’ have not been sufficiently recognised, or their own leadership hopes have been thwarted. Such leavers will probably return, if not to the same group, to another section of the charismatic camp. We may almost say that the more heated the invective, the sooner a person will go back. We certainly have an opportunity to help such disgruntled people see the real issues, and we pray that the Lord will open their eyes, but our efforts may well be in vain.
A third cause of departure which usually leads to people returning is that of a generally unstable temperament. This is not a comment on the mental stability of peo-ple, but on their inability to think clearly and to recognise foundational principles of biblical conduct. Because charismatic teaching is so subjective, experience-based, emotional and speculative, it produces this instability in certain people.
They take on a great mass of ideas and anecdotes, but possess no reliable way of verifying them. The mind trades so much in disconnected fragments, that it loses its capacity to get things in order of importance, and to judge clearly.
Helping friends in this state is almost impossible. As fast as you try to explain one matter, another dozen ideas leap into their minds. For such people, whether something is right or wrong is determined by the quantity of supporting claims which can be thrown into the discussion, not by the biblical validity of the claims. Unstable thinkers are likely to re-settle in the comfortable confusion of a charismatic group.
It is necessary to mention these last two categories because we must be ready for disap-pointment. However, the Lord is at work. Many of God’s children are being led out for wholesome and biblical reasons, and we trust that many more will be. We would like to rescue as many people as possible from the mass of mistakes that make up the charismatic movement, and from their exploitation by insincere and dishonest ‘top’ leaders.
Another caution is necessary. We should not assume that all who leave the charismatic fold are truly converted. We say this with care, for many are, but we remember that numerous people have been lured in by promises of healing, and even prosperity, rather than by the challenge to repent and yield to Christ. Once there, they have been sustained, not by doctrine, but by a diet of emotional thrills. In many charismatic meetings life is all about the feel-good-factor of entertainment and personal happiness, and the real issues of the Faith are obscured. When the Gospel is presented, it is often no more than a shallow form of ‘easy-believism’. Friendship and phenomena take the place of a real spiritual life. There will, therefore, be many who are not truly saved, and if they should leave and find their way to sound evangelical churches, their greatest need will be to hear the Gospel.
This caution must be balanced by a plea for respect for ex-charismatic people who most certainly are earnest believers. Some of these may even have been driven into the charismatic movement years ago by the lifelessness of a traditional evangelical church. There are numerous Bible-believing churches where so little is done for the Lord that one sympathises with members who defect to charismatic fellowships. They may be mistaken, but what an ordeal they have endured to keep their faith and love alive in an unenthusiastic ‘sound’ church! They have felt forced to leave that sound, but sound asleep, church. It has often been a hunger and thirst to please God which has led people (however mistakenly) into more lively charismatic churches. Their new teachers persuaded them that God wanted them to seek tongues and other phenomena, and their desire to obey God caused them to open their minds to these new experiences.
They were misled, but they were earnest, and this we must respect. They may have been more earnest than the sound fellowship they left behind.
We say this to inspire a due measure of respect for those who come back to us from charismatic groups. We, as traditional evangelicals, may have wronged them in the past through spiritual lethargy and coldness.
What are the problems or scars which continue to affect believers who have left the charismatic movement? The following pages review some of the difficulties encountered and highlight the areas of biblical teaching to be stressed by way of remedy.
TEN LINGERING PROBLEMS
1 Lordship of imagination
The first problem which may continue to trouble charismatic leavers arises from the lordship of imagination. For so many, imagination has worked overtime to create an artificial spiritual life in which God has spoken hour by hour through direct guidance and impressions. People have felt led to do this and that, and been ‘given’ knowledge of this and that. In many cases they have attributed every feeling to the direct impulse of the Spirit. They have been taught a religion very different from that of biblical Christianity, but they do not realise this.
They have been taught a system of thinking in which basic Christian beliefs are grafted on to a form of mysticism in which one may ‘know’ the touch of God, and receive in a direct, paranormal way knowledge unknowable by others. If someone is interpreting a tongue, whatever pops into the mind must be the correct meaning. For many, ordinary ideas and impressions must be elevated to ‘words of knowledge’. The list of imagined inspirations is long.
It comes as a shock to many ex-charismatic friends to learn the true biblical teaching about union with God, and the way this works. Without grasping this, they will be confused, dependent upon their feelings, and dependent upon imagined impressions sent from God.
We will need to explain, both by way of preaching and personal ministry, the ‘by faith’ passages of the New Testament, not only to explain the way of salvation, but to explain the ‘mechanics’ of our continuing union with God. We will need to explain that we do not know the Lord by any physical kind of sense or feeling, or by any other direct or ‘clairvoyant’ type of link. Human feelings are a response to what we understand. We know God by what is revealed in his Word. We believe all that it teaches of him, and we trust, and enjoy him. All our precious views of Christ and of his ways, come from the Word into our understanding, and there they are met and embraced by faith. God primarily links himself to us via our understanding and trusting response. Of course, we have much evidence, such as answered prayer, and we have assurance also, but the key link is by receiving the Word.
What about feelings? We will need to explain that in genuine spiritual experience they are stirred by way of response to what is seen by the mind. God hardly ever goes directly to our feelings. Whether the feeling is one of love, gratitude, assurance or shame and conviction, it wells up within us as the result of what is grasped by the mind.
Everything in the Christian life comes ‘by faith’, and this, of necessity, means by the understanding. If we do not think about something, we cannot believe it.
What is the role of the Holy Spirit in this? We will need to teach and explain that the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind, enabling the understanding to grasp the truths of God’s Word. He never imparts to the minds of believers spiritual truths which are not disclosed in the Bible. Rather, he sharpens our minds to see the things that are scripturally revealed.
Then, when we grasp these things and receive them by faith, the Spirit frequently touches our minds in such a way that we see them with even greater clarity, and then we are lifted up in great joy and love. An old Puritan phrase calls this ‘the embrace of the Spirit’. How kind the Spirit of God is!
The key point is that all true spiritual experience must be routed through the conscious mind, and received by faith. As soon as we are able to convey this fundamental fact of the Christian faith to former charismatics, the scales fall from their eyes and they see how they have been misled by a distorted form of Christianity. They are then no longer at the mercy of imagination.
Of course we will need to assure these friends that there is much tangible evidence of God’s work in our lives. We see it in the new nature we receive at conversion, and in the countless answers to prayer which follow. We have so often been strengthened for our duties, enabled to witness, and delivered from trials in answer to prayer. We have repeatedly seen our circumstances changed by the clear intervention of the Lord. In these things we see the Lord’s hand, but only in the Word do we hear, as it were, his authoritative voice, revealing doctrine and commands.
In summary, we know the Lord by what he has said (in the Word), and this is supplemented by what he does in answer to prayer. We do not have direct com-munication from God on authoritative matters.
How different this historic, biblical teaching is from the mystical and occultist ideas which have swept into modern charismatic teaching! ‘Switch off the mind,’ they say, ‘it is an obstruction and a nuisance. Raise your hands, close your eyes, sway to and fro, launch out into the deep, let your emotions go free, let your spirit take over, repeat the name of the Saviour, speak in a tongue, and as you do so, your direct, mystical link with God will be effected, and you will feel and see according to the movement of the Spirit.’
We repeat, God speaks from the Word to the mind, which is the organ of under-standing and the palace of faith. Here are some of the great passages we will refer to as we stress the pre-eminence of faith (which naturally presupposes understanding).
‘So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Romans 10.17).
‘That their hearts might be comforted . . . unto all riches of the full assurance of UNDERSTANDING’ (Colossians 2.2). ‘BY FAITH ye stand’ (2 Corinthians 1.24).
‘For we walk BY FAITH, not by sight’ (2 Corinthians 5.7).
‘Above all, taking the SHIELD OF FAITH, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked’ (Ephesians 6.16).
‘BY FAITH he [Moses] forsook Egypt . . . for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible’ (Hebrews 11.27). ‘That Christ may dwell in your hearts BY FAITH; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God’ (Ephesians 3.17-19).
2 Anecdotes & revelations
A second problem which afflicts many friends who leave charismatic circles is their past trust in non-biblical sources of doctrine and comfort, such as anecdotal experiences and new revelations. Most charismatics theoretically believe that anecdotes, visions and words of knowledge should be submitted to Scripture for verification, but in most circles this hardly ever happens. (When charismatic leaders do attempt to justify their visions by Scripture, these attempts range from the superficial to the absurd.)
The problem is that former charismatics often feel a great void once they leave behind the flow of anecdotal teaching and prophetic words. Some continue to be vulnerable and ready to believe anything and everything that they read in lightweight, anecdotal items of Christian literature.
We often refer to how the charismatic movement lowers the credulity threshold of people, and so it does. The welter of anecdotes of healings, extraordinary expe-riences and revelations must, in general, be believed, or the Christian life would be a nightmare of suspicion. Some solve the problem by believing everything (however unbiblical), and others by believing everything ‘slightly’. (See problem number 10 for further comment on this.)
It is not enough, however, only to direct to Scripture, because charismatic friends have had Scripture quoted to them to justify the most bizarre things. By their indifference to any rules of interpretation, charismatic teachers have robbed Scripture of its clarity, consistency and authority. We will need to encourage a new respect and a deeper reverence and love for Scripture, introducing friends to the Bible’s own interpretative rules. They must come to take the context seriously, and to compare scripture with scripture. They must learn about the ‘analogy of faith’ concept of the Reformers, which calls us to equip ourselves with a clear mental picture of all the major doctrines so prominent in the Bible, and then to test all our ideas about the meaning of any particular passage against these.
This article is not the place to rehearse the basic rules of interpretation, but ex-charismatics need the liberating experience of serious, logical Bible study. They need to see what they have been deprived of. Then they will rejoice in a Bible that really guides – not a chaotic mystery-book which depends upon the whims of personal revelation before one may know what it really says. We must therefore give time in our teaching programme for the subject of ‘Bible interpretation for all’.
We need to point friends to books such as Thomas Watson’s Body of Divinity, where they will rejoice to find the wonderful system of doctrinal Truth which has been kept from them. This will help them to have the anchor of sound doctrine, without which they will remain at the mercy of unbiblical, human ideas.
3 Reverent worship
A third problem troubling many former charismatics is that of adjusting to a reverent form of worship. In most charismatic communities worship is primarily designed to be subjective and arousing only at a human level. To achieve this, instrumental music and rhythm are used as major ingredients. Also, worship is usually informal in character, thus sacrificing awe and reverence. It has more to do with the feelings and the body than with the mind and the soul.
Those who leave charismatic groups will find themselves either in a Bible-believing church which holds to conservative wor-ship, or one that compromises by using charismatic songs. This second kind of church will obviously not be able to teach former charismatics the glories of true worship, for it has violated them.
Hopefully, former charismatics will find themselves in sounder places where the biblical objectives of worship can be explained. We will need to point out the most fundamental of all principles, that worship is to be ‘in spirit and in truth’. This includes the idea that it is to be intelligent, and in accordance with God’s revealed Truth.
It is crucial for believers to realise that worship must be capable of being put into words (whether thought, said or sung). Nothing else is true worship.
Worship is to be objective as well as subjective; and to be rich with praise and adoration of God and his attributes and works. It is to be humble and reverent. It is to include repentance (so often absent from charismatic songs). It is not to be subjected to the competition of elaborate music and instrumentalism, so that this is enjoyed more than the spiritual worship, and people show off their skills.
Worship must never borrow the rhythms and chord-forms associated with the secular entertainment industry, and its anti-God, anti-moral campaigns. The Word of God demands an unbridgeable gulf between sacred and profane.
These are the kind of principles we must present from such Bible passages as John 4 and Revelation 4-5. Former charismatics need to see that they have had foisted upon them a fleshly, worldly, self-centred form of worship, grievous to the Spirit. Human pleasure, derived from debased worldly styles, has eclipsed true spiritual activity, and all this must now be rejected as illegitimate and harmful. Only then will they be free to enter wholeheartedly and feelingfully into genuine, respectful, thoughtful worship, with true spiritual rejoicing.
4 Visible phenomena
A fourth problem troubling many former charismatics is a continuing thirst for phenomena such as healings and prophecies. If denied these things they often feel unstirred and unassured. Such supposed proofs of the Holy Spirit’s presence have long served as a substitute for faith, and now that they have been left behind, leavers may find it difficult to live by faith.
As Christians, however, we are not bereft of evidences of God’s work within us, and it is good to help troubled friends look at these evidences. Conversion, sanctification and preservation are the greatest evidences of all.
It is even more important to train friends to put their faith in what God says in his Word. Faith grows most of all when it is exercised, first by receiving and believing the teaching of the Word, and secondly by coming to the Lord in prayer in response to all the problems and needs of life.
Former charismatics need to be encouraged to exercise sober discernment, trusting only the Word, and assigning no significance to charismatic explanations of strange experiences. It may be helpful for them to learn that the very phenomena and ‘wonders’ they once relied on occur equally outside Christian circles. They are common even among pagan cults, and are not evidences or proofs of the work of the Spirit. Even within the charismatic movement many godless (even immoral and criminal) leaders have been able to produce all these so-called signs of God’s approval and power.
Former charismatics also need to appreciate that unrecognised hypnosis and psychological influences play a great part in producing surprising experiences. In summary, we must help these friends to embrace ‘Scripture alone’ as the rule of their Christian walk, and to get great pleasure out of the wonders of the Word. As for encouragement, are not the unmistakable evidences of God’s power in sustaining and blessing our witness enough?
For the strengthening of faith, it is vital that we show ex-charismatics how to lay hold on the promises rather than to look for earthly wonders which, in the event, are a mixture of theatrical tricks and psychological effects. An excellent book to ‘prescribe’ is Thomas Watson’s little volume A Divine Cordial, also published under the title All Things for Good. Equally superb is A W Pink’s Comfort for Christians. Such works show believers how to view trials of all kinds. The Christian life is a life of faith, not a life of sight, and to walk this road must be the new aim of former charismatic believers.
5 Lack of service
A fifth problem troubling some former charismatics arises from a lack of applica-tion and commitment to genuine service for the Lord. We are saved to serve the Lord and to be at his disposal. We are intended to pull together as congregations in the work of evangelism. The charismatic scene, however, is predominantly self-serving. Certainly there are exceptions, and some charismatics engage in strenuous activity for the Lord, including compassionate ministries. But generally the situation is quite different.
You do not often find charismatic fellowships toiling in evangelistic Sunday Schools and similar activities operated for the spiritual good of the community. You find considerable activity going on, but most of it is for the benefit of believers and for their excitement and fulfilment.
Charismatic church activities are labour-intensive in terms of instrumentalism, singing and all the practice involved. Giftedness, body-ministry, personal empowerment and so on are the all-important matters. ‘My walk…my health…my experience’ is the chief focus of life. House groups frequently constitute ‘love-ins’ where mutual coddling and sympathy are the order of the day. The ethos is that we are to be cared for. We are so important. All our energy is for us.
A believer who forsakes the atmosphere of charismatic Christianity is likely to feel painfully abandoned in a traditional fellowship. It is important that the real cause of this vacuum is understood, and we must show how life should be filled with a new kind of activity – unselfish, overflowing spiritual service for Christ.
We are forced to admit that some traditional Bible-believing churches now-adays are as bad as charismatic churches for self-serving, self-interested church programmes. Hopefully, however, ex-charismatics will find churches where the fun and pleasure of believers is not the primary objective, but rather the work of taking the Gospel to lost souls.
In these days so many labourers are needed. A new perspective and a new commitment will be the greatest help to the ex-charismatic, who will find true spiritual blessedness in this context. (The author’s booklet on the working church – Your Reasonable Service in the Lord’s Work – may help in this matter.)
6 Cessation of sign-gifts
A sixth problem troubling former charismatics is whether the gifts of the Spirit have or have not ceased. How could they possibly have ceased as the Scripture does not specifically say so? Lingering and recurring anxiety about the gifts can only be relieved when former charismatics gain a clear view of the reasons why cessationism was the view of the overwhelming majority of Christians until as recently as the 1960s. In this connection, beware of literature which warns against charismatic practices while at the same time refusing to teach the cessation of the sign and revelatory gifts.
Some writers have adopted the view that cessationism is not valid, and that instead we should judge the validity of every charismatic claim on its merits. The idea is a nightmare. From a practical point of view alone, it would take a thousand tribunals of seasoned judges sitting in permanent session to merely scratch the surface of the present scene. Claims to gifts and phenomena are to be numbered in their millions.
The truth is that the Bible is clear on this matter, and most former charismatics are very ready to examine the texts. Of course, we must help friends to see that only two kinds of gift are at issue: the revelatory gifts and the sign-gifts. All others, such as gifts of ministry and government, remain.
The writer has set out the texts teaching the cessation of the revelatory and sign-gifts in The Healing Epidemic, chapter 7 – ‘Proving the Gifts Have Ceased’. Without repeating all these texts and arguments here, it should be obvious that the sign-gifts were not intended to be permanent. They were specifically described as signs or pointers. The apostolic miracles pointed to the apostles, saying to the world, ‘these are the true witnesses and apostles of Christ, and the inspired channels of Holy Scripture.’ But now that their witness has been incorporated into the Bible, we possess the substance. The signs fell away once the substance to which they pointed was given to the Church.
It was the same with tongues-speaking. The miraculous tongues were a sign or pointer. God had said through Isaiah that the age of the Messiah would be validated by the phenomenon of gentiles preaching the Word of God to Jews. However, at the time of Pentecost, and for a short while afterward, there were no converted gentiles, and so God at first employed gentile tongues miraculously spoken by Jews. This was one of the signs that the new age, the Gospel Age, had dawned, when the Gospel would be preached in every language throughout the world. But soon the reality took over and real gentile converts were preaching the Gospel to both Jews and gentiles. Once this occurred the sign had fulfilled its duty. The reality to which the sign pointed had itself arrived, and the ‘shadow’ had given way to the substance.
This writer has found that most charismatics have been given the impression that in New Testament times healings were accomplished constantly by all believers. They are usually very surprised to hear that this is utterly contrary to the record, which shows only one case of a healing by someone not in the apostolic band – and that was the singular case of Paul healed by Ananias (at the Lord’s command).
We constantly need to make clear to ex-charismatic friends that we believe in miracles today, including healing. God can do anything, and he has promised to heal. What we reject is the notion that he channels his power through gifted miracle workers and healers. Apostles, with ‘signs of apostles’, have long since ceased, but the Lord continues to heal directly in answer to prayer (and according to his sovereign will). These are some of the issues which we need to make clear to former charismatics.
7 Prevailing worldliness
A seventh problem which frequently troubles those who leave charismatic circles stems from the degree of worldliness so often encouraged, and sometimes the level of lawlessness. Throughout the world the majority of charismatics have an approach to holiness that is quite different from anything previously seen in the history of the Christian Church. Separation from the world has little or no part in their holiness scenario. Nor (in most circles) does resistance to earthly wealth and comforts.
Affluence and pleasure are legitimate objectives. Fashion, self-expression, and close familiarity with the current pop and movie scenes are acceptable interests. Charismatic song performers look and sound just like worldly performers. The likeness is even deliberately cultivated.
Believers who leave the charismatic world will have to adapt to entirely different standards. They will have to appreciate that the Lord commands different attitudes in his people, and that the ethos of the world is offensive to him. For some, the doctrine of sanctification will sometimes need to be explained almost from scratch. A new commitment of life and stewardship will need to be embraced.
We referred to lawlessness in the introduction to this seventh point, because it is an undeniable truth that among professing Christians, charismatics are known to have by far the most cases of unacceptable behaviour. They experience the most occurrences of immorality, divorce, criminal fraud, and other serious misdemeanours.
This observation is not intended to taint thousands of more serious-minded charismatics who mortify the deeds of the body, and strive to lead lives pleasing to God. But the charismatic environment as a whole is not conducive to conscientious holiness, and that is painfully apparent.
Lawlessness may well be encouraged by the lack of repentance in the style of worship found in many charismatic churches. Services characterised by dancing, swaying, clapping, the singing of repetitive phrases to deafening rhythmic music, and working up the emotions are not occasions for genuine repentance and dedication to holiness.
There is no quietness before God; no sense of – ‘The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.’ In some charismatic circles the spiritual warfare is defined entirely in terms of challenging demons, rather than in fighting against personal sin and temptation. It is no great wonder that we have read of so many leading charismatic evan-gelists falling into immorality, and being brought before the courts for a variety of criminal offences.
It is important that we communicate to believers who come to us from charismatic fellowships that we act in all matters out of obedience to the Word, and not just from personal choice. We must show chapter and verse for every facet of our personal and church lifestyles. Christians are those who willingly conform to all the rules of the New Testament, including separation from worldliness. Only as the Spirit shows these friends the true nature of the Christian walk, will they be at peace. Many have been deprived by their former teach-ers of vast areas of Truth. These must now be embraced.
8 A Superior experience
An eighth problem likely to trouble former charismatics is a sensitive and dif-ficult one, but it must be mentioned. This will not necessarily apply to all such friends, but it will afflict some. It is the problem of pride. Charismatic teachers have probably convinced them that they have superior light and experience, while traditional Bible believers are spiritually ignorant, cold and unblessed. Many charismatic teachers adopt a boastful, triumphalistic style, encouraging a sense of spiritual superiority.
The lack of truly objective worship (which is humbling in its effect) may also contribute to pride. So also may the sense of specialness derived from the sup-posed possession of spiritual gifts. Even after leaving charismatic circles, some of this pride may stick.
All this puts one in mind of the many Exclusive Brethren who left their movement in the 1960s. They had seen that much was wrong, but unfortunately many of those who left took with them an unshakable belief that they were infinitely better taught than those in the traditional evangelical churches. Clothed with such confidence, what could they really learn? Some (but certainly not all) became misfits and serious thorns in the flesh to the churches they joined.
We shall need great grace as we try to help ex-charismatics realise that they do not tower above traditional Bible believers in spiritual understanding. We will need the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, and the gentleness of Barnabas as we show them that their former camp represents a radical departure from Scripture and its doctrine in many ways, and that they have much to re-learn.
It will be no use correcting just a few wrong notions. Charismatic pride rests on a dozen foundations. It is only as we knock all these away (but carefully) that the delusion of grandeur will fall, and the mind will open fully to the Word. The kindest way to do this is often by prescribing books, so that friends can think through the issues in privacy, checking the texts as they go, and calling upon the Lord for help.
9 Emphasis on fellowship
A ninth problem sometimes troubling the peace of former charismatics has to do with relationships. We have already referred to the artificially close fellowship fostered in house groups or cells. Charismatics usually excel at organising friendship-promoting activities, and this will inevitably lead to pain and loneliness when people leave.
Most traditional Bible-believing churches do not have this forced, hot-house approach to promoting friendship. They depend more on the natural process of ties forming as members worship and serve the Lord together.
Hopefully, former charismatics will find their way to churches where people are outgoing and welcoming. But it will be over time, and usually while working in some aspect of Christian service, that deeper ties will form. Real friendship is not usually manipulated into being.
We will need to extend a degree of special understanding and fellowship to those who come out of a system excessively dependent on friendship, remembering that they have probably left behind something that cannot be quickly replaced in their lives.
Another relationship difficulty may arise from the dominating, authoritarian leadership practised in many charismatic churches. If people have experienced a high degree of directive interference in their lives, some may feel lost without it. However much they may have resented it, they may still miss it. For some, this may reach ‘dependence’ proportions.
Pastors must be careful never to tell these friends what to do in personal decisions, however much they may ask for definitive direction. Always we must limit ourselves to counselling the biblical principles, and honour the individual’s responsibility to apply those principles carefully and prayerfully to the decision in hand.
10 Uncertain belief
A final problem sometimes encountered by former charismatics is that of weak and doubting belief, leading either to shallowness or cynicism. This is a product of their former intense loyalty to healings and other phenomena. The trouble arises from the simple fact that they never saw these wonderful things really happening in a certain, verifiable way. Even the miraculous signs have had to be taken on faith!
If we ask charismatic friends why the weekly run of healings never includes clear-cut, medically verifiable miracles, involving the cure of serious physical illnesses, they immediately talk about cases they know of from other churches, and which probably took place months or years ago. They seldom make any attempt to defend the regular healings of their own fellowship. This shows that within themselves they realise that these healings are more to do with charismatic culture than with reality.
A charismatic author (a doctor) once set out to validate charismatic healing in a book, and his book revealed the same tendency. To prove his case he wrote about healings that occurred years before, and in other countries. Inadvertently, he was admitting that he placed no credence on the regular healings that surrounded him week after week in his own charismatic assembly. He believed in them in a way, but not enough to use them as examples, preferring to draw his ‘proof’ from afar.
This writer has asked charismatic believers in five continents why their own local healings were either unsuccessful, or short-term, or minor, and why they could not perform healing of verifiable, major illnesses. Always their response has been to draw their confidence from healings reported from somewhere else.
The point is that charismatic friends must adopt either a stoical, unquestioning form of belief in these phenomena, or a vague, general belief. Either attitude is harmful to real Christian faith. In the case of the first, the mind closes to any new biblical and doctrinal challenge. The person says, ‘I know what I think, and am not open to further consideration.’ Such a friend must be helped to see that all our opinions must be verifiable from the Word of God. We must always be open to correction.
In the case of vague belief, the whole of our Christian walk may be damaged if we allow ourselves to believe vaguely and lightly in things we do not really see happen, and cannot be certain of. This kind of belief will infect our whole outlook. We may well develop a shallow view of many other aspects of the faith.
This undoubtedly happens to many Christians. They believe they should go to worship regularly and serve the Lord. But at the same time, like the healing miracles, the standards of God need not be taken too seriously. They are real, but they are not real. They are important, but not important.
Vague belief or light belief produces uncommitted and semi-sincere Christians, and even lawless Christians. The antidote and corrective is to help people to see that in God’s true plan for the Christian life everything is true and reliable; everything works just as it should.
The charismatic culture of working up miracles and signs which cannot be validated is harmful to true faith, producing either gullibility on the one hand, or submerged cynicism on the other.
God and his Word are to be taken very seriously, and believed with the whole heart. All his commands are to be obeyed; all his standards are to be diligently honoured.
These are the issues which trouble or handicap those who leave charismatic circles, and which pastors and spiritual shepherds will need to address, with gentleness, patience and understanding. They are all critical, key matters which, if ignored, will surface later, possibly with unhappy results.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Abomination of Abortion
01.21.11
J.A. Matteson
"Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." Psalm 139:16
The second sentence to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The quintessential right granted by God is that of Life. Infanticide was made the legal law of the land on January 22, 1973 by the United States supreme court. While it may be legal it is not morally right. Since that time in excess of 40 million human beings have been murdered, clinically exterminated, and thus legally. The atrocity of the United States judicial system which is directly responsible for the enormous loss of innocent human life over the last 38 years dwarfs the evils committed by Adolf Hitler.
A society that does not defend the defenseless is barbarian. A culture that considers murder a rational "choice" over personal responsibility for ones actions is deplorable. A people who, for the sake of convenience, thoughtlessly discard their own children for selfish purposes is utterly depraved beyond description. That the Lord of heaven has not rained down judgment upon this land is a testimony to His grace. But the Word of the Lord is sure and God will not be mocked and will visit retribution upon a people blinded by sin, giving them over to the lusts of their flesh.
The abortion industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and many stand to loose fortunes should Roe. vs. Wade be overturned. Follow the money trail and it leads to many doors, foremost being Planned Parenthood. Twentyfirst century science has verified what the Scripture previously declared; viz., that the child in the womb is a child a not a mere glob of cells. The child has a distinct DNA from its parents and, contrary to the protest of pro-abortion women, it is not part of her body; rather, it is a unique human being made in the image of God who just happens to be sharing its mothers body while developing. This scientific fact cannot be discredited.
On the anniversary of this horrific legal opinion rendered 38 years ago, let the people of God raise their voice around the world in defense of the most vulnerable among us, the defenseless and voiceless. If we do not champion their cause on earth, who will?
Copyright (c) 2011 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).
J.A. Matteson
"Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." Psalm 139:16
The second sentence to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The quintessential right granted by God is that of Life. Infanticide was made the legal law of the land on January 22, 1973 by the United States supreme court. While it may be legal it is not morally right. Since that time in excess of 40 million human beings have been murdered, clinically exterminated, and thus legally. The atrocity of the United States judicial system which is directly responsible for the enormous loss of innocent human life over the last 38 years dwarfs the evils committed by Adolf Hitler.
A society that does not defend the defenseless is barbarian. A culture that considers murder a rational "choice" over personal responsibility for ones actions is deplorable. A people who, for the sake of convenience, thoughtlessly discard their own children for selfish purposes is utterly depraved beyond description. That the Lord of heaven has not rained down judgment upon this land is a testimony to His grace. But the Word of the Lord is sure and God will not be mocked and will visit retribution upon a people blinded by sin, giving them over to the lusts of their flesh.
The abortion industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and many stand to loose fortunes should Roe. vs. Wade be overturned. Follow the money trail and it leads to many doors, foremost being Planned Parenthood. Twentyfirst century science has verified what the Scripture previously declared; viz., that the child in the womb is a child a not a mere glob of cells. The child has a distinct DNA from its parents and, contrary to the protest of pro-abortion women, it is not part of her body; rather, it is a unique human being made in the image of God who just happens to be sharing its mothers body while developing. This scientific fact cannot be discredited.
On the anniversary of this horrific legal opinion rendered 38 years ago, let the people of God raise their voice around the world in defense of the most vulnerable among us, the defenseless and voiceless. If we do not champion their cause on earth, who will?
Copyright (c) 2011 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Doctrine of the New Testament The Church
by Pastor Bob Burridge
I. All genuine believers together make up the Body of Christ. To the individual this massive Body of believers is not completely visible. Those who make up the Body of Christ are those "called out" by the Holy Spirit to salvation. Those called out consist of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. This assembly of God's elect is translated Church which in Greek is kaleo which simply means the "called out" ones. An individual believer can consider all the other believers in the world but cannot see than at one time, so in that sense they make up the invisible or universal church of which he is a part.
II. The visible church, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true faith; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God,out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
III. Unto this visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
IV. This universal church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
The church is both Invisible and Visible
God eternally knows all he will redeem and gather into his spiritual family. We don't. There is no published list of the elect and no perfectly reliable indicator that identifies which humans will be among the redeemed after the final judgment. Local church membership, baptism, even credible professions of faith in Christ are not infallible indicators that a person is in that number. In this sense we speak of a church that is invisible to us. It is not invisible to God who knows his people eternally.
The Bible speaks clearly of an Invisible Church which consists of all the elect from all ages which are known with certainty only to God.
Ephesians 1:4-5--"...as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will."
Ephesians 1:11--"...also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 4:4-6--"...there is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
John 10:27-28--"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. I give eternal life to them; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
John 17:9--"I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."
Deuteronomy 29:29--"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
John 10:14--"I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and my own know me."
2 Timothy 2:19--"... the Lord knows those who are His."
The Bible also speaks of a church that is very visible to the human race. It's made up of those who profess faith in God's promises of redemption, by striving to be gratefully obedient to what pleases God, and willingness to respect the organization of the church established on earth by God's word. These are members of specific local congregations. In this sense we speak of a church that is visible to us.
Sometimes people are members of the visible church on earth but are not in the number of God's elect. Since they are not truly redeemed they are not members of the invisible church, though they may not evidence this in ways that would justify removal from the visible body.
Therefore the visible church may include some who are not in the number of God's elect and therefore are not members of the Church Invisible.
The visible covenant community spans both Testaments
In the time prior to Abraham, there was no outward sign or organization of the earthly visible church aside from the evidences of a credible faith, sincere repentance of sin and a desire to be obedient to God's moral principles. The oversight of the visible church appears to have rested with the male heads of each family.
After the covenant was specially revealed to Abraham, circumcision was introduced as the outward sign of the covenant. Since male headship of the family represented the future revealing of the federal headship of Christ over his church, only males received that sign and continued to oversee the spiritual life of families and tribes of families. Those who came to profess the true religion from outside of the descendants of Jacob were obligated to submit to the covenant by receiving the sign of circumcision. This believer's circumcision (Genesis 34:15) not only brought in these professing converts to the visible church, it also brought in their children, the males of which were also to be circumcised, even before they were able to evidence faith on their own.
Under the organization of the nation in the time of Moses, a tribe of priests was appointed by God to oversee the gathering of believing families in the visible church.
During the entire time between Abraham and Jesus the visible church was composed of mainly Jews and of some professing Gentiles. Within that visible church, the covenant community of Israel, was the invisible church, the body of those who were truly the elect of God.
After the coming of Jesus Christ, the visible church was no longer represented by the oversight of priests within the families that descended from Jacob. The church continued to be shepherded by qualified and duly ordained Elders, but they were no longer limited to the tribe of the Levitical Priests. The sign of covenant membership was no longer to be circumcision but was changed to baptism (Acts 2:38-39).
With the fulfillment of the federal headship of Christ males were no longer the only ones who received the sign of covenant membership. In the early days of the church Jews still made up the majority of the visible church on earth. Within that church were the elect which are known with certainty only to God. They make up the invisible church.
As the gospel spread beyond the Jewish people, God evidenced that the era of the prefiguring of the church by the descendants of Jacob had ended. Its purpose had been completed. More Gentiles entered the church by profession of faith. The shift in the ethnic make-up of the visible church eventually made the Gentiles the majority of the body of professing believers on earth. This is the composition seen in the church as it continues today. The division of Jew and Gentile is no longer significant spiritually. We no longer recognize any biblical distinction by descent or ethnicity. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 5:6, 6:15).
There is clearly a distinction between the visible body of God's people and the invisible body which is only known to God. Joining a church is not the same as regeneration. Therefore the entry requirements into each of these ways of viewing the church are different.
The visible church has always been and always will be a mixed church. Ancient Israel and the New Testament Church (Matthew 7:13-23, 1 John 2:19) have both included some who are not true believers and who have not endured in their faithfulness to the Lord.
The confession and the Apostles' Creed speak of a universal Church.
The invisible church is universal in that it is one body of all the elect of God in all ages. There is also an outward universal church which is made up of all who profess the Christian faith, submit to the authority of the church, and receive biblical Baptism as a sign and seal of belonging to that covenant community.
The universal nature of the visible church transcends denominational boundaries. It includes all local congregations which conform to the biblical definitions of a true church.
The term Catholic means "universal" and in no way should it be confused with the Roman Catholic Church. The church under the authority of the Pope is not the universal church of Jesus Christ and therefore is not properly called Catholic. It is more accurately distinguished as the Roman church.
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church
VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
Though the visible church is organized under the human authority of ordained pastors and elders, there is only one head of the church. Jesus Christ alone is our great Shepherd and Lord. He rules by his word as administered through his officers and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. The headship of Jesus Christ over his church is directly stated in Scripture.
Colossians 1:18--"He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything."
Recognizing the True Church
With so many differences among churches which claim to be Christian, how can we recognize a true church of Christ? What can we do to ensure that our own church remains true?
The universal church is made visible through the individual local churches. This is how the New Testament writers addressed God's people. (see the examples in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; Galatians 1:2, 22 and Revelation 1:4, 11)
Therefore the only way a person can become a member of the visible church of Jesus Christ is through being a member of a particular local congregation. It's a serious duty and should not be taken lightly. Many choose churches for the outward benefits they offer or for social services they provide. Some like the style of worship, the music or the way the pastor preaches. Some assume that if a church is large in numbers or has a large budget that it must be a good church blessed of God. Still others choose a church because it is conveniently close to home or has an appealing looking facility. These are very poor standards for determining if the church is good as God sees it.
What are the biblical marks of a true church?
We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the ordinances as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when, having received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the ordinances as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holy according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
The question we deal with in this section is different from our consideration of the visible and invisible church. That has to do with the individual members, some of which may not be true children of God but may belong to the visible body illegitimately by pretense, ignorance or hypocrisy.
Here we look at the organized body which calls itself a local church or the union of local congregations. The standards we use for classifying them as true or false, good or bad, must be derived from God's word alone.
A true church professes the doctrines revealed in Scripture
As the Berean believers diligently compared the teachings of the Apostle Paul with the message of Scripture (Acts 17:10-12), we should also compare everything we hear in a church against the same standard.
When we hear something presented that does not seem to fit with what God has revealed in his word it is our duty to go to the teacher or pastor and ask him about it lest we have misunderstood him or perhaps our own understanding of the Bible is incorrect and we need his instruction. A humble and respectful attitude should be maintained when we approach a teacher or officer of the church with a question of that type.
A true church will not knowingly hold to any teaching that is contrary to the Scriptures. If it does, then it cannot be a true church because it rests in some authority for truth other than what God has made known to us. But no church should be expected to be perfect in its understanding in this imperfect age. When believers disagree about what the Bible teaches they study the matter not to prove themselves right, but to improve their understanding of what God has revealed. If a church, its members, its teachers or officers conclude that they have been in error, a church that truly loves Christ will confess its past error and joyfully embrace the better understanding, teach it, and put it into practice. This is a mark of a true church.
A true church will attempt to teach the whole scope of what is taught by God in his word. It will not suppress any doctrine for fear of its not being well received by those who come to worship. It will also practice to the best of its ability and understanding all that the Bible teaches is right and true. It will not let pragmatic reasoning direct it into questionable practices. There will be no open compromise of God's ways to please the expectations of men or to increase its numbers.
Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus are a good study regarding the dangers of false teachers who creep into a church. They also help in understanding how believers should deal with the imperfections that inevitably creep into the best of churches on earth.
A true church maintains the pure administration of the ordinances
Those churches which are true in God's eyes will seek to follow the instructions of Jesus Christ who instituted the ordinances, and they will honor and obey the inspired teachings of all of Scripture concerning them. It is the duty of the elders of the church to oversee and guard these important parts of worship. If they are loosely practiced, not practiced at all, or take on clearly unbiblical forms, an important mark of a true church is lacking. Most offensive are those churches which deny one or both of the ordinances or which add more ordinances than those instituted by Christ himself. Some even attribute to the ordinances powers and expectations which are directly contrary to the teachings of Scripture.
There are differences among true believers about some issued relating to the ordinances. These reflect our imperfect understanding of the Bible rather than a rejection of its sufficiency or authority in these matters. Those who are faithful to Christ will seek to conform all they believe and practice to the Scriptures alone. They will not build their view on human philosophy, cultural changes, invented symbolisms, or unbiblical traditions. When they discuss their differences it is with a brotherly attitude of submission to the Bible and a deep love for learning to better understand what our Lord, the Head of the Church, has spoken.
A true church maintains faithful biblical discipline of its members
Those who are members of a church are by definition under the spiritual authority of its elders. As good shepherds they will take up the duty of oversight for the good of the members and to uphold God's teachings.
This means that they are willing to obey the process of discipline set forth in Matthew 18 and in other portions of the Bible. They encourage the members to follow the advice of Matthew 18:15 and 16 in their handling of suspected sin among themselves. And they take seriously the final stages of discipline summarized in Matthew 18:17-20.
If a church does not deal with sin among its members and officers seriously and in a biblical manner, it lacks this mark of a true church.
In a true church the final authority in all of its teachings and practices is the pure Word of God. All things contrary to it are rejected and Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.
The Elders have a great responsibility in maintaining these marks of the true church. They have the authority to carry out this task because it is given to them by the word of God and by the judgment of those who rightly ordained them. The true church will make sure that its officers are well trained in the word of God and meet the qualifications set for them in Scripture.
The members of the church also have many responsibilities. One of them is to show support and respect for those God has placed over them. Hebrews 13:17 commands every Christian to place themselves under the oversight of elders and to submit to their spiritual leadership.
Hebrews 13:17--"Obey your leaders and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."
The members of a church are not like the members of a civic club. They do not simply join or quit when they feel like it. They are a spiritual family united by Christ in a covenant bond. They have a sincere love for one another and for their spiritual duties. But not all members will attain to the same level of understanding regarding God's word, nor will they all be equally mature in their spiritual growth. The marks of a true Christian are not the same as that of a true church.
Members are admitted to the church based upon the judgment of the elders regarding their profession of faith. They must confess that they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone as their Savior from sin. Their lives should show that their professed faith is credible by striving to live a holy and God-honoring life, by repenting sincerely when they sin, by gladly making restitution for any correctable harm they cause, by submitting to the laws of Christ regarding the ordinances and submission to particular elders whom they love as their spiritual leaders. They are willing to take part in the congregation as a member of a spiritual family doing the work of Christ's kingdom on earth.
To confess to be a Christian but not to be a member of a local church is inconsistent. The Bible speaks of Christ's church in terms of its local work, not in terms of an undefined mass of individuals who refuse to come under the authority God has vested in the Elders who are called the shepherds of God's people.
Those who imagine that they will find a perfect church are assured of disappointment. True churches are made up of and led by imperfect sinners saved by grace. If we believe we are without sin or error, we call God a liar. In his word our Lord tells us that, until our final union with Christ, we all need to grow in sanctification.
Every believer ought to seek a church that is true and humbly become a part of its growth in grace.
I. All genuine believers together make up the Body of Christ. To the individual this massive Body of believers is not completely visible. Those who make up the Body of Christ are those "called out" by the Holy Spirit to salvation. Those called out consist of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. This assembly of God's elect is translated Church which in Greek is kaleo which simply means the "called out" ones. An individual believer can consider all the other believers in the world but cannot see than at one time, so in that sense they make up the invisible or universal church of which he is a part.
II. The visible church, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true faith; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God,out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
III. Unto this visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
IV. This universal church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
The church is both Invisible and Visible
God eternally knows all he will redeem and gather into his spiritual family. We don't. There is no published list of the elect and no perfectly reliable indicator that identifies which humans will be among the redeemed after the final judgment. Local church membership, baptism, even credible professions of faith in Christ are not infallible indicators that a person is in that number. In this sense we speak of a church that is invisible to us. It is not invisible to God who knows his people eternally.
The Bible speaks clearly of an Invisible Church which consists of all the elect from all ages which are known with certainty only to God.
Ephesians 1:4-5--"...as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will."
Ephesians 1:11--"...also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 4:4-6--"...there is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
John 10:27-28--"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. I give eternal life to them; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
John 17:9--"I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."
Deuteronomy 29:29--"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
John 10:14--"I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and my own know me."
2 Timothy 2:19--"... the Lord knows those who are His."
The Bible also speaks of a church that is very visible to the human race. It's made up of those who profess faith in God's promises of redemption, by striving to be gratefully obedient to what pleases God, and willingness to respect the organization of the church established on earth by God's word. These are members of specific local congregations. In this sense we speak of a church that is visible to us.
Sometimes people are members of the visible church on earth but are not in the number of God's elect. Since they are not truly redeemed they are not members of the invisible church, though they may not evidence this in ways that would justify removal from the visible body.
Therefore the visible church may include some who are not in the number of God's elect and therefore are not members of the Church Invisible.
The visible covenant community spans both Testaments
In the time prior to Abraham, there was no outward sign or organization of the earthly visible church aside from the evidences of a credible faith, sincere repentance of sin and a desire to be obedient to God's moral principles. The oversight of the visible church appears to have rested with the male heads of each family.
After the covenant was specially revealed to Abraham, circumcision was introduced as the outward sign of the covenant. Since male headship of the family represented the future revealing of the federal headship of Christ over his church, only males received that sign and continued to oversee the spiritual life of families and tribes of families. Those who came to profess the true religion from outside of the descendants of Jacob were obligated to submit to the covenant by receiving the sign of circumcision. This believer's circumcision (Genesis 34:15) not only brought in these professing converts to the visible church, it also brought in their children, the males of which were also to be circumcised, even before they were able to evidence faith on their own.
Under the organization of the nation in the time of Moses, a tribe of priests was appointed by God to oversee the gathering of believing families in the visible church.
During the entire time between Abraham and Jesus the visible church was composed of mainly Jews and of some professing Gentiles. Within that visible church, the covenant community of Israel, was the invisible church, the body of those who were truly the elect of God.
After the coming of Jesus Christ, the visible church was no longer represented by the oversight of priests within the families that descended from Jacob. The church continued to be shepherded by qualified and duly ordained Elders, but they were no longer limited to the tribe of the Levitical Priests. The sign of covenant membership was no longer to be circumcision but was changed to baptism (Acts 2:38-39).
With the fulfillment of the federal headship of Christ males were no longer the only ones who received the sign of covenant membership. In the early days of the church Jews still made up the majority of the visible church on earth. Within that church were the elect which are known with certainty only to God. They make up the invisible church.
As the gospel spread beyond the Jewish people, God evidenced that the era of the prefiguring of the church by the descendants of Jacob had ended. Its purpose had been completed. More Gentiles entered the church by profession of faith. The shift in the ethnic make-up of the visible church eventually made the Gentiles the majority of the body of professing believers on earth. This is the composition seen in the church as it continues today. The division of Jew and Gentile is no longer significant spiritually. We no longer recognize any biblical distinction by descent or ethnicity. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 5:6, 6:15).
There is clearly a distinction between the visible body of God's people and the invisible body which is only known to God. Joining a church is not the same as regeneration. Therefore the entry requirements into each of these ways of viewing the church are different.
The visible church has always been and always will be a mixed church. Ancient Israel and the New Testament Church (Matthew 7:13-23, 1 John 2:19) have both included some who are not true believers and who have not endured in their faithfulness to the Lord.
The confession and the Apostles' Creed speak of a universal Church.
The invisible church is universal in that it is one body of all the elect of God in all ages. There is also an outward universal church which is made up of all who profess the Christian faith, submit to the authority of the church, and receive biblical Baptism as a sign and seal of belonging to that covenant community.
The universal nature of the visible church transcends denominational boundaries. It includes all local congregations which conform to the biblical definitions of a true church.
The term Catholic means "universal" and in no way should it be confused with the Roman Catholic Church. The church under the authority of the Pope is not the universal church of Jesus Christ and therefore is not properly called Catholic. It is more accurately distinguished as the Roman church.
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church
VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
Though the visible church is organized under the human authority of ordained pastors and elders, there is only one head of the church. Jesus Christ alone is our great Shepherd and Lord. He rules by his word as administered through his officers and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. The headship of Jesus Christ over his church is directly stated in Scripture.
Colossians 1:18--"He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything."
Recognizing the True Church
With so many differences among churches which claim to be Christian, how can we recognize a true church of Christ? What can we do to ensure that our own church remains true?
The universal church is made visible through the individual local churches. This is how the New Testament writers addressed God's people. (see the examples in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; Galatians 1:2, 22 and Revelation 1:4, 11)
Therefore the only way a person can become a member of the visible church of Jesus Christ is through being a member of a particular local congregation. It's a serious duty and should not be taken lightly. Many choose churches for the outward benefits they offer or for social services they provide. Some like the style of worship, the music or the way the pastor preaches. Some assume that if a church is large in numbers or has a large budget that it must be a good church blessed of God. Still others choose a church because it is conveniently close to home or has an appealing looking facility. These are very poor standards for determining if the church is good as God sees it.
What are the biblical marks of a true church?
We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the ordinances as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when, having received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the ordinances as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holy according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
The question we deal with in this section is different from our consideration of the visible and invisible church. That has to do with the individual members, some of which may not be true children of God but may belong to the visible body illegitimately by pretense, ignorance or hypocrisy.
Here we look at the organized body which calls itself a local church or the union of local congregations. The standards we use for classifying them as true or false, good or bad, must be derived from God's word alone.
A true church professes the doctrines revealed in Scripture
As the Berean believers diligently compared the teachings of the Apostle Paul with the message of Scripture (Acts 17:10-12), we should also compare everything we hear in a church against the same standard.
When we hear something presented that does not seem to fit with what God has revealed in his word it is our duty to go to the teacher or pastor and ask him about it lest we have misunderstood him or perhaps our own understanding of the Bible is incorrect and we need his instruction. A humble and respectful attitude should be maintained when we approach a teacher or officer of the church with a question of that type.
A true church will not knowingly hold to any teaching that is contrary to the Scriptures. If it does, then it cannot be a true church because it rests in some authority for truth other than what God has made known to us. But no church should be expected to be perfect in its understanding in this imperfect age. When believers disagree about what the Bible teaches they study the matter not to prove themselves right, but to improve their understanding of what God has revealed. If a church, its members, its teachers or officers conclude that they have been in error, a church that truly loves Christ will confess its past error and joyfully embrace the better understanding, teach it, and put it into practice. This is a mark of a true church.
A true church will attempt to teach the whole scope of what is taught by God in his word. It will not suppress any doctrine for fear of its not being well received by those who come to worship. It will also practice to the best of its ability and understanding all that the Bible teaches is right and true. It will not let pragmatic reasoning direct it into questionable practices. There will be no open compromise of God's ways to please the expectations of men or to increase its numbers.
Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus are a good study regarding the dangers of false teachers who creep into a church. They also help in understanding how believers should deal with the imperfections that inevitably creep into the best of churches on earth.
A true church maintains the pure administration of the ordinances
Those churches which are true in God's eyes will seek to follow the instructions of Jesus Christ who instituted the ordinances, and they will honor and obey the inspired teachings of all of Scripture concerning them. It is the duty of the elders of the church to oversee and guard these important parts of worship. If they are loosely practiced, not practiced at all, or take on clearly unbiblical forms, an important mark of a true church is lacking. Most offensive are those churches which deny one or both of the ordinances or which add more ordinances than those instituted by Christ himself. Some even attribute to the ordinances powers and expectations which are directly contrary to the teachings of Scripture.
There are differences among true believers about some issued relating to the ordinances. These reflect our imperfect understanding of the Bible rather than a rejection of its sufficiency or authority in these matters. Those who are faithful to Christ will seek to conform all they believe and practice to the Scriptures alone. They will not build their view on human philosophy, cultural changes, invented symbolisms, or unbiblical traditions. When they discuss their differences it is with a brotherly attitude of submission to the Bible and a deep love for learning to better understand what our Lord, the Head of the Church, has spoken.
A true church maintains faithful biblical discipline of its members
Those who are members of a church are by definition under the spiritual authority of its elders. As good shepherds they will take up the duty of oversight for the good of the members and to uphold God's teachings.
This means that they are willing to obey the process of discipline set forth in Matthew 18 and in other portions of the Bible. They encourage the members to follow the advice of Matthew 18:15 and 16 in their handling of suspected sin among themselves. And they take seriously the final stages of discipline summarized in Matthew 18:17-20.
If a church does not deal with sin among its members and officers seriously and in a biblical manner, it lacks this mark of a true church.
In a true church the final authority in all of its teachings and practices is the pure Word of God. All things contrary to it are rejected and Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.
The Elders have a great responsibility in maintaining these marks of the true church. They have the authority to carry out this task because it is given to them by the word of God and by the judgment of those who rightly ordained them. The true church will make sure that its officers are well trained in the word of God and meet the qualifications set for them in Scripture.
The members of the church also have many responsibilities. One of them is to show support and respect for those God has placed over them. Hebrews 13:17 commands every Christian to place themselves under the oversight of elders and to submit to their spiritual leadership.
Hebrews 13:17--"Obey your leaders and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."
The members of a church are not like the members of a civic club. They do not simply join or quit when they feel like it. They are a spiritual family united by Christ in a covenant bond. They have a sincere love for one another and for their spiritual duties. But not all members will attain to the same level of understanding regarding God's word, nor will they all be equally mature in their spiritual growth. The marks of a true Christian are not the same as that of a true church.
Members are admitted to the church based upon the judgment of the elders regarding their profession of faith. They must confess that they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone as their Savior from sin. Their lives should show that their professed faith is credible by striving to live a holy and God-honoring life, by repenting sincerely when they sin, by gladly making restitution for any correctable harm they cause, by submitting to the laws of Christ regarding the ordinances and submission to particular elders whom they love as their spiritual leaders. They are willing to take part in the congregation as a member of a spiritual family doing the work of Christ's kingdom on earth.
To confess to be a Christian but not to be a member of a local church is inconsistent. The Bible speaks of Christ's church in terms of its local work, not in terms of an undefined mass of individuals who refuse to come under the authority God has vested in the Elders who are called the shepherds of God's people.
Those who imagine that they will find a perfect church are assured of disappointment. True churches are made up of and led by imperfect sinners saved by grace. If we believe we are without sin or error, we call God a liar. In his word our Lord tells us that, until our final union with Christ, we all need to grow in sanctification.
Every believer ought to seek a church that is true and humbly become a part of its growth in grace.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Kindred Spirits
01.14.11
J.A. Matteson
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ.
1 John 3:14
The foremost Teacher of the child of God is the Spirit of Christ abiding within. Prior to conversion the child of God is adrift upon the sea of the world system, in bondage to sin, being under the sway of the prince of darkness, possessing a disposition opposed to the heirs of the King of glory. Given over to the desires of his flesh, the world, and Satan he is by nature at odds with the Seed abiding within exiles upon the earth, the Church of God. In this regard he scarcely allows opportunities to pass where he does not consciously or unconsciously wish or inflict ill will upon the children of God. For they are are confusing to him, troubling to his sensibilities with their persistent attention to that which is transcendent, and their apparent lack of deep interest for what is tangible in this world strikes them as odd. To the natural man the children of God appear to live their lives focused on something beyond the realm of this world, unseen and immaterial, yet just as real, delightful, and hopeful in their eyes as the setting sun on a clear summers night.
At the same time the man of the world cannot understand why the ambassador of Christ inserts his nose into the affairs of the world, those whom he knows not personally, measuring and decrying specific worldly attitudes and deeds as unrighteous when evaluated against the transcendent standard of the King of kings. And so this dogged inclination toward and pursuit of the King's righteousness by the children of God is greeted with disdain by the world system given over to unrighteousness, under the sway of the prince of darkness.
Subsequent to his conversion, aided by the Holy Spirit, the child of God ponders these realities and is reminded by the Spirit that prior to the call of grace he was, as the rest, a product of the world system at enmity toward the King of kings and his children. Echoing the teaching of Christ the Apostle offers a simple and profound self test for his readers to know if in fact they are regenerate and abiding in Christ; viz., love of the brethren. For the unregenerate man does not love the brethren; indeed, quite the opposite. At best he tolerates them and at worst openly persecutes them. They are an irritant to him like a sliver of wood under a toe nail or an eye lash in the eye. Instinctively the natural man undertakes to remove or in some fashion quell the voice of these irritants of his existence.
Therefore, the pilgrim marvels at that which the Spirit of God has performed in him, acknowledging that the circumcision of his heart, the cutting away of his old natural tendencies of enmity towards the children of God, has birthed a love for the Savior and His church. The new pilgrim joyfully considers his new disposition with wonder, being perplexed as to how those whom he once looked upon with confusion and grim disdain are now be regarded in his heart as kindred spirits. He now not only loves them but desires to spend time with them, partnering with them to champion the mission of the King and His Kingdom. For the new child of the King everything is different. His perspective or the picture of this earthly existence has taken on a vividness nor early present, for it is the same world as before his conversion but prior to being visited by the grace of God he experienced it in black and white, but now as a regenerate child of God in exquisite color.
He now knows that he loves the brethren by his new disposition that finds expression by his willing association with them and their enterprises, energetically embracing their cause of the proclamation of the Gospel of peace, and in worship of Jesus Christ the Savior and the daily edification of his soul by the Word of God. He knows that he loves the brethren by his new inclination to intercession on their behalf, desiring their physical and spiritual protection, deliverance and sanctification. He knows that he loves the brethren by his mercy towards them, supplying as able needed food, clothing, and whatever else they may be in need of, willingly sharing the goods of this world which the Lord has providentially given to him.
There remains, therefore, a serious spiritual caution to any so called brother or sister who expresses an open dislike for Christ's church. It is common today for some to claim that they love the Savior but don't like His church, avoiding fellowship with the saints and the mutual participation in the ministries of the church. Woe unto them! These are false brethren, deceived and deceiving. For whom was it that Christ died, was it not the church? For whom does the Savior express His love, is it not the church? For whom does the church represent, is it not the spiritual body of our blessed Lord? For whom will the Lord rapture to glory at His return, is it not the church? For whom will be given Christ's authority to judge the nations and affairs of men, is it not the church? And to whom has it been granted to spend eternity in the new Jerusalem in worship of the Savior, is it not the church? Beloved, it is impossible to lay claim to love the Savior while at the same time holding disdain for His church as the two are inseparably linked together, and this by His design.
Blessed is the church of God whom the Father will present to the Bridegroom without spot or wrinkle on that Day. And blessed is he who knows within his heart that he has passed out of death unto life, not merely by his expressed love for the Savior, but by his genuine love of the brethren who are the church of the living God.
Copyright © 2011 Immutable Word Ministries (“...the word of our God stands forever.” Isa. 40:8).
J.A. Matteson
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ.
1 John 3:14
The foremost Teacher of the child of God is the Spirit of Christ abiding within. Prior to conversion the child of God is adrift upon the sea of the world system, in bondage to sin, being under the sway of the prince of darkness, possessing a disposition opposed to the heirs of the King of glory. Given over to the desires of his flesh, the world, and Satan he is by nature at odds with the Seed abiding within exiles upon the earth, the Church of God. In this regard he scarcely allows opportunities to pass where he does not consciously or unconsciously wish or inflict ill will upon the children of God. For they are are confusing to him, troubling to his sensibilities with their persistent attention to that which is transcendent, and their apparent lack of deep interest for what is tangible in this world strikes them as odd. To the natural man the children of God appear to live their lives focused on something beyond the realm of this world, unseen and immaterial, yet just as real, delightful, and hopeful in their eyes as the setting sun on a clear summers night.
At the same time the man of the world cannot understand why the ambassador of Christ inserts his nose into the affairs of the world, those whom he knows not personally, measuring and decrying specific worldly attitudes and deeds as unrighteous when evaluated against the transcendent standard of the King of kings. And so this dogged inclination toward and pursuit of the King's righteousness by the children of God is greeted with disdain by the world system given over to unrighteousness, under the sway of the prince of darkness.
Subsequent to his conversion, aided by the Holy Spirit, the child of God ponders these realities and is reminded by the Spirit that prior to the call of grace he was, as the rest, a product of the world system at enmity toward the King of kings and his children. Echoing the teaching of Christ the Apostle offers a simple and profound self test for his readers to know if in fact they are regenerate and abiding in Christ; viz., love of the brethren. For the unregenerate man does not love the brethren; indeed, quite the opposite. At best he tolerates them and at worst openly persecutes them. They are an irritant to him like a sliver of wood under a toe nail or an eye lash in the eye. Instinctively the natural man undertakes to remove or in some fashion quell the voice of these irritants of his existence.
Therefore, the pilgrim marvels at that which the Spirit of God has performed in him, acknowledging that the circumcision of his heart, the cutting away of his old natural tendencies of enmity towards the children of God, has birthed a love for the Savior and His church. The new pilgrim joyfully considers his new disposition with wonder, being perplexed as to how those whom he once looked upon with confusion and grim disdain are now be regarded in his heart as kindred spirits. He now not only loves them but desires to spend time with them, partnering with them to champion the mission of the King and His Kingdom. For the new child of the King everything is different. His perspective or the picture of this earthly existence has taken on a vividness nor early present, for it is the same world as before his conversion but prior to being visited by the grace of God he experienced it in black and white, but now as a regenerate child of God in exquisite color.
He now knows that he loves the brethren by his new disposition that finds expression by his willing association with them and their enterprises, energetically embracing their cause of the proclamation of the Gospel of peace, and in worship of Jesus Christ the Savior and the daily edification of his soul by the Word of God. He knows that he loves the brethren by his new inclination to intercession on their behalf, desiring their physical and spiritual protection, deliverance and sanctification. He knows that he loves the brethren by his mercy towards them, supplying as able needed food, clothing, and whatever else they may be in need of, willingly sharing the goods of this world which the Lord has providentially given to him.
There remains, therefore, a serious spiritual caution to any so called brother or sister who expresses an open dislike for Christ's church. It is common today for some to claim that they love the Savior but don't like His church, avoiding fellowship with the saints and the mutual participation in the ministries of the church. Woe unto them! These are false brethren, deceived and deceiving. For whom was it that Christ died, was it not the church? For whom does the Savior express His love, is it not the church? For whom does the church represent, is it not the spiritual body of our blessed Lord? For whom will the Lord rapture to glory at His return, is it not the church? For whom will be given Christ's authority to judge the nations and affairs of men, is it not the church? And to whom has it been granted to spend eternity in the new Jerusalem in worship of the Savior, is it not the church? Beloved, it is impossible to lay claim to love the Savior while at the same time holding disdain for His church as the two are inseparably linked together, and this by His design.
Blessed is the church of God whom the Father will present to the Bridegroom without spot or wrinkle on that Day. And blessed is he who knows within his heart that he has passed out of death unto life, not merely by his expressed love for the Savior, but by his genuine love of the brethren who are the church of the living God.
Copyright © 2011 Immutable Word Ministries (“...the word of our God stands forever.” Isa. 40:8).
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Listen to the Man Who Listens to God
[The Lord Jesus warns his followers to be careful how they hear. In chapter four of his book "The Root of the Righteous" A.W. Tozer warns Christians to take heed as to whom they hear--J.A. Matteson]
by A. W. Tozer
IF WHILE HEARING A SERMON we can fix on but one real jewel of truth we may consider ourselves well rewarded for the time we have spent.
One such gem was uncovered during a sermon which I heard some time ago. From the sermon I got one worthy sentence and no more, but it was so good that I regret that I cannot remember who the preacher was, that I might give him credit. Here is what he said, "Listen to no man who fails to listen to God."
In any group of ten persons at least nine are sure to believe that they are qualified to offer advice to others. And in no other field of human interest are people as ready to offer advice as in the field of religion and morals.
Yet it is precisely in this field that the average person is least qualified to speak wisely and is capable of the most harm when he does speak. For this reason we should select our counselors carefully. And selection inevitably carries with it the idea of rejection.
David warns against the counsel of the ungodly, and Bible history gives examples of men who made a failure of their lives because they took wrong advice. Rehoboam, for instance, listened to men who had not listened to God and the whole future of Israel was affected adversely as a consequence. The counsel of Ahithophel was an evil thing that added greatly to the iniquities of Absalom.
No man has any right to offer advice who has not first heard God speak. No man has any right to counsel others who is not ready to hear and follow the counsel of the Lord. True moral wisdom must always be an echo of God's voice. The only safe light for our path is the light which is reflected from Christ, the Light of the World.
It is especially important that young people learn whose counsel to trust. Having been in the world for such a short time they have not had much experience and must look to others for advice. And whether they know it or not, they do every day accept the opinions of others and adopt them as their own.
Those who boast the loudest of their independence have picked up from someone the idea that independence is a virtue, and their very eagerness to be individualistic is the result of the influence of others. They are what they are because of the counsel they have followed.
This rule of listening only to those who have first listened to God will save us from many a snare. All religious projects should be tested by it. In this period of unusual religious activity we must keep calm and well poised. Before we follow any man we should look for the oil on his forehead.
We are under no spiritual obligation to aid any man in any activity that has not upon it the marks of the cross.
No appeal to our sympathies, no sad stories, no shocking pictures should move us to put our money and our time into schemes promoted by persons who are too busy to listen to God.
God has His chosen men still, and they are without exception good listeners. They can hear when the Lord speaks. We may safely listen to such men. But to no others.
by A. W. Tozer
IF WHILE HEARING A SERMON we can fix on but one real jewel of truth we may consider ourselves well rewarded for the time we have spent.
One such gem was uncovered during a sermon which I heard some time ago. From the sermon I got one worthy sentence and no more, but it was so good that I regret that I cannot remember who the preacher was, that I might give him credit. Here is what he said, "Listen to no man who fails to listen to God."
In any group of ten persons at least nine are sure to believe that they are qualified to offer advice to others. And in no other field of human interest are people as ready to offer advice as in the field of religion and morals.
Yet it is precisely in this field that the average person is least qualified to speak wisely and is capable of the most harm when he does speak. For this reason we should select our counselors carefully. And selection inevitably carries with it the idea of rejection.
David warns against the counsel of the ungodly, and Bible history gives examples of men who made a failure of their lives because they took wrong advice. Rehoboam, for instance, listened to men who had not listened to God and the whole future of Israel was affected adversely as a consequence. The counsel of Ahithophel was an evil thing that added greatly to the iniquities of Absalom.
No man has any right to offer advice who has not first heard God speak. No man has any right to counsel others who is not ready to hear and follow the counsel of the Lord. True moral wisdom must always be an echo of God's voice. The only safe light for our path is the light which is reflected from Christ, the Light of the World.
It is especially important that young people learn whose counsel to trust. Having been in the world for such a short time they have not had much experience and must look to others for advice. And whether they know it or not, they do every day accept the opinions of others and adopt them as their own.
Those who boast the loudest of their independence have picked up from someone the idea that independence is a virtue, and their very eagerness to be individualistic is the result of the influence of others. They are what they are because of the counsel they have followed.
This rule of listening only to those who have first listened to God will save us from many a snare. All religious projects should be tested by it. In this period of unusual religious activity we must keep calm and well poised. Before we follow any man we should look for the oil on his forehead.
We are under no spiritual obligation to aid any man in any activity that has not upon it the marks of the cross.
No appeal to our sympathies, no sad stories, no shocking pictures should move us to put our money and our time into schemes promoted by persons who are too busy to listen to God.
God has His chosen men still, and they are without exception good listeners. They can hear when the Lord speaks. We may safely listen to such men. But to no others.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Expository Preaching in a Postmodern World
by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr.
A doctoral student recently interviewed John MacArthur for a dissertation about preaching in a postmodern world. The following is a transcript of that interview.
Over the course of your ministry, why have you remained committed to expository preaching over other preaching paradigms?
Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures.
Secondly, expository preaching familiarizes people with the Scripture itself instead of simply giving them a speech, as true and as reflective of biblical teaching as that speech may be. With expository preaching, people become familiar with the Scripture. They can go back to the passages that have been addressed, and they can be reminded by the text itself of what it means. So you give people the Word of God in a way that has long-term impact, because it makes them familiar with Scripture.
Thirdly, it makes the authority unequivocal, and that authority is the Scripture. That’s very clear no matter how powerful or gifted the preacher might be. In consistent, expository preaching, the people always know what the authority is. It’s not about homiletics. It’s not about personal viewpoints and insights. It’s about relentlessly affirming the true authority of Scripture, which is the most critical thing that anybody can ever learn. It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great sermon?” It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great outline? Wasn’t that clever?” It’s always about, “What did the Word of God say?” And that makes it truly authoritative, because the Word is from God. No other preaching paradigm does this.
What are the unique challenges or difficulties of preaching to a postmodern culture?
First of all, you have to understand that when you talk about a postmodern culture, that’s an academic assessment of the culture. The average Joe doesn’t have any idea what that means. All he knows is he’s pretty much free to think and do whatever he wants. That’s how postmodernism filters down to the guy in the pew. It’s not a philosophy—it’s a lifestyle. The average guy just knows that the culture doesn’t care what he does. The movies he sees don’t make a moral judgment on anything except racism or somebody’s intolerance. So he’s free to do whatever he wants in the society, and nobody can tell him what to be or what to do, and the bottom line is that he should feel good about himself. That’s what filters down.
But all this goes completely against the grain of his conscience and his reason, and ultimately what he knows to be true. The unbeliever’s conscience is a reality, and even reason tells him that there have to be some absolutes.
The bottom line is that expository preaching confronts the amorality of postmodernism with an authoritative message of absolute truth. It’s not a question of debating. It’s not a question of trying to find some way to sneak that in. It’s an issue of confronting this kind of thinking with the absolute authority of Scripture and then letting the Spirit of God make the application to the heart.
What are the advantages of expository preaching in a postmodern culture?
Expository preaching is the only thing that is going to change anything. There isn’t any other way to affect people positively aside from hitting them with that kind of authority. In my own preaching, my objective is not to court the postmodern mind. My objective is to confront it—to hit it stone cold in the face with truth. It’s irrelevant to me how the person thinks. It’s only relevant to me how they need to think. So I’m not going to play around with their sensitivities to postmodernism.
At a recent Bible conference, I spoke on the exclusivity of the gospel, and I set forth the distinctiveness of Christianity. And afterward some guys who were seminary students and philosophy majors came up to me and said, “What’s really interesting about your message is that you gave us a philosophy of thinking, a worldview. But we’ve never heard anyone give that kind of worldview without a very intricate philosophical defense.” And I said I didn’t need to give an intricate philosophical defense, because this is exactly what Scripture says, and there is no need to defend it. You just proclaim it. See these guys were struck by the fact that what they heard was an absolute authoritative statement of a worldview that takes on postmodernism, without having to fuddle around and make all kinds of philosophical and rational arguments, and without having to answer every objection that arises.
So the advantages of preaching expositorily and authoritatively in a postmodern culture are the same as they are in any environment where there is error—you bring an authoritative word to bear upon how people think.
In a lot of today’s literature on preaching, the idea exists that preaching should impact culture and culture should shape the style of preaching. How does that land with you?
I don’t think either of those things is true. I don’t think preaching is going to impact culture—I think preaching is going to impact people. And indirectly, if the Lord determines to save a mass of people, it’s going to have some social impact on the country or the nation or the world. You have the Great Awakening in America having some short-term—and maybe even some long-term—cultural impact, but unbelievers are always going to behave like unbelievers. The culture may be more or less influenced by Christianity, but I don’t think the objective should be impacting culture, if by that you mean anything less than conversion.
As far as the culture shaping preaching, I would say it shapes preaching only in the sense that you address the issues. If you want to define what’s wrong with a society, you need to know something about the society. In different cultures there are different dominant sins or kinds of behavior or belief systems that need to be addressed. If you are preaching the gospel in a third-world country, for example, the things that dominate their lives would be different than ours. They might not include materialism and the kinds of things that are unique to an affluent Western society. So when you’re talking about the sins of the age or the dominant influences in the culture, they vary from place to place, and it is helpful to know what they are. But that doesn’t say anything about what style of preaching you use. That only says how you enter into the dialogue with the culture.
Paul says, if I speak to Jews I speak a certain way, and if I speak to Gentiles I speak a certain way. But that’s only at the point of entry. That has nothing to say about the style. In other words, people today are used to watching sitcoms on TV, but that doesn’t demand that you preach in a narrative style. I would say you ought to avoid that style, because people are so used to it. People are used to plays and theatrics and movies, and so avoid all of that in your preaching, and your message will come in a very unfamiliar package. There will be a starkness to it, and it will be distinct and contrary to what they are used to hearing. That’s one reason I prefer the expository and authoritative sermon—it’s so contrary to what people are used to that it’s riveting and compelling.
Apart from the gifting of God and His unique work through you, what have been the keys to the effectiveness of your preaching ministry over the years?
The first thing is interest. I think it’s interesting. I don’t know why it’s interesting. I’ve tried to understand and assess that, but I really don’t know. People are not going to come Sunday after Sunday, year after year, and listen to me for an hour in the morning and another hour at night if they’re not interested in what I’m saying. And that has nothing to do with outlines or illustrations. Outlines serve a purpose and some illustrations capture the moment, but over the long haul in order for people to listen to expository preaching week-in week-out, there has to be a compelling interest to it.
Some of it has to do with the element of surprise. Preachers who are interesting say things that people don’t expect them to say. As a preacher, you cannot simply say those things that are obvious to everyone and expect to create interest. There must be an element of surprise. It may not be that you’re introducing a surprising doctrine, but you’re saying it in a captivating way.
If you’re boring in a personal conversation, you’re probably going to be boring in a sermon. Some people are just interesting people—and interesting to talk to—because they have interesting insights and an interesting way to express things. Some of that is innate, but you can also become interesting if you can get interesting material. So I think the challenge is to be interesting, and the way to be more interesting than you would normally be is to have interesting information. And that demands that you be an extensive reader.
In addition to being interesting, a preacher must also be profound. And when I talk about profound, I’m not talking about being thick and heavy and obscure—I’m talking about being deep. In other words, there’s something underneath the surface, something under the popular radar that’s in the text and that you’re able to give to the people. You’re able to go down into the passage and pull up the treasure that they—no matter how many times they go over it on their own—are not going to get. And it’s not just for the sake of interest—it comes with some weight, because it deals with the question, “What is God really saying here?”
On the surface there are certain things that people can see, but by the time I get done with a passage, there is a depth of understanding of what God is communicating in the text that is surprising to them because they couldn’t see it. And it’s weighty to them, because it brings the force of truth to bear on their lives.
Another thing that makes preaching effective is creating the original setting of the text so it becomes a living event. Whether it’s Paul writing to a church or Jesus with the Pharisees, you want to bring your people there, so that they are in the environment, living it and seeing it unfold. And that means you have to do a lot of background and context work—you’ve got to create the context as a living context.
Rather than trying to take the Bible and bring it into the modern day, I try to take the modern day and bring it back to the Bible. And that’s a distinction you want to make. This stuff about culture shaping preaching is taking the Bible and redefining it in modern terms. My goal is to take modern culture and the people of that culture and redefine them in biblical terms so that they are living back in the Scriptures.
Along with living a life of integrity and being prayerful and dependent on the Lord, those are the keys to effective preaching.
A doctoral student recently interviewed John MacArthur for a dissertation about preaching in a postmodern world. The following is a transcript of that interview.
Over the course of your ministry, why have you remained committed to expository preaching over other preaching paradigms?
Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures.
Secondly, expository preaching familiarizes people with the Scripture itself instead of simply giving them a speech, as true and as reflective of biblical teaching as that speech may be. With expository preaching, people become familiar with the Scripture. They can go back to the passages that have been addressed, and they can be reminded by the text itself of what it means. So you give people the Word of God in a way that has long-term impact, because it makes them familiar with Scripture.
Thirdly, it makes the authority unequivocal, and that authority is the Scripture. That’s very clear no matter how powerful or gifted the preacher might be. In consistent, expository preaching, the people always know what the authority is. It’s not about homiletics. It’s not about personal viewpoints and insights. It’s about relentlessly affirming the true authority of Scripture, which is the most critical thing that anybody can ever learn. It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great sermon?” It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great outline? Wasn’t that clever?” It’s always about, “What did the Word of God say?” And that makes it truly authoritative, because the Word is from God. No other preaching paradigm does this.
What are the unique challenges or difficulties of preaching to a postmodern culture?
First of all, you have to understand that when you talk about a postmodern culture, that’s an academic assessment of the culture. The average Joe doesn’t have any idea what that means. All he knows is he’s pretty much free to think and do whatever he wants. That’s how postmodernism filters down to the guy in the pew. It’s not a philosophy—it’s a lifestyle. The average guy just knows that the culture doesn’t care what he does. The movies he sees don’t make a moral judgment on anything except racism or somebody’s intolerance. So he’s free to do whatever he wants in the society, and nobody can tell him what to be or what to do, and the bottom line is that he should feel good about himself. That’s what filters down.
But all this goes completely against the grain of his conscience and his reason, and ultimately what he knows to be true. The unbeliever’s conscience is a reality, and even reason tells him that there have to be some absolutes.
The bottom line is that expository preaching confronts the amorality of postmodernism with an authoritative message of absolute truth. It’s not a question of debating. It’s not a question of trying to find some way to sneak that in. It’s an issue of confronting this kind of thinking with the absolute authority of Scripture and then letting the Spirit of God make the application to the heart.
What are the advantages of expository preaching in a postmodern culture?
Expository preaching is the only thing that is going to change anything. There isn’t any other way to affect people positively aside from hitting them with that kind of authority. In my own preaching, my objective is not to court the postmodern mind. My objective is to confront it—to hit it stone cold in the face with truth. It’s irrelevant to me how the person thinks. It’s only relevant to me how they need to think. So I’m not going to play around with their sensitivities to postmodernism.
At a recent Bible conference, I spoke on the exclusivity of the gospel, and I set forth the distinctiveness of Christianity. And afterward some guys who were seminary students and philosophy majors came up to me and said, “What’s really interesting about your message is that you gave us a philosophy of thinking, a worldview. But we’ve never heard anyone give that kind of worldview without a very intricate philosophical defense.” And I said I didn’t need to give an intricate philosophical defense, because this is exactly what Scripture says, and there is no need to defend it. You just proclaim it. See these guys were struck by the fact that what they heard was an absolute authoritative statement of a worldview that takes on postmodernism, without having to fuddle around and make all kinds of philosophical and rational arguments, and without having to answer every objection that arises.
So the advantages of preaching expositorily and authoritatively in a postmodern culture are the same as they are in any environment where there is error—you bring an authoritative word to bear upon how people think.
In a lot of today’s literature on preaching, the idea exists that preaching should impact culture and culture should shape the style of preaching. How does that land with you?
I don’t think either of those things is true. I don’t think preaching is going to impact culture—I think preaching is going to impact people. And indirectly, if the Lord determines to save a mass of people, it’s going to have some social impact on the country or the nation or the world. You have the Great Awakening in America having some short-term—and maybe even some long-term—cultural impact, but unbelievers are always going to behave like unbelievers. The culture may be more or less influenced by Christianity, but I don’t think the objective should be impacting culture, if by that you mean anything less than conversion.
As far as the culture shaping preaching, I would say it shapes preaching only in the sense that you address the issues. If you want to define what’s wrong with a society, you need to know something about the society. In different cultures there are different dominant sins or kinds of behavior or belief systems that need to be addressed. If you are preaching the gospel in a third-world country, for example, the things that dominate their lives would be different than ours. They might not include materialism and the kinds of things that are unique to an affluent Western society. So when you’re talking about the sins of the age or the dominant influences in the culture, they vary from place to place, and it is helpful to know what they are. But that doesn’t say anything about what style of preaching you use. That only says how you enter into the dialogue with the culture.
Paul says, if I speak to Jews I speak a certain way, and if I speak to Gentiles I speak a certain way. But that’s only at the point of entry. That has nothing to say about the style. In other words, people today are used to watching sitcoms on TV, but that doesn’t demand that you preach in a narrative style. I would say you ought to avoid that style, because people are so used to it. People are used to plays and theatrics and movies, and so avoid all of that in your preaching, and your message will come in a very unfamiliar package. There will be a starkness to it, and it will be distinct and contrary to what they are used to hearing. That’s one reason I prefer the expository and authoritative sermon—it’s so contrary to what people are used to that it’s riveting and compelling.
Apart from the gifting of God and His unique work through you, what have been the keys to the effectiveness of your preaching ministry over the years?
The first thing is interest. I think it’s interesting. I don’t know why it’s interesting. I’ve tried to understand and assess that, but I really don’t know. People are not going to come Sunday after Sunday, year after year, and listen to me for an hour in the morning and another hour at night if they’re not interested in what I’m saying. And that has nothing to do with outlines or illustrations. Outlines serve a purpose and some illustrations capture the moment, but over the long haul in order for people to listen to expository preaching week-in week-out, there has to be a compelling interest to it.
Some of it has to do with the element of surprise. Preachers who are interesting say things that people don’t expect them to say. As a preacher, you cannot simply say those things that are obvious to everyone and expect to create interest. There must be an element of surprise. It may not be that you’re introducing a surprising doctrine, but you’re saying it in a captivating way.
If you’re boring in a personal conversation, you’re probably going to be boring in a sermon. Some people are just interesting people—and interesting to talk to—because they have interesting insights and an interesting way to express things. Some of that is innate, but you can also become interesting if you can get interesting material. So I think the challenge is to be interesting, and the way to be more interesting than you would normally be is to have interesting information. And that demands that you be an extensive reader.
In addition to being interesting, a preacher must also be profound. And when I talk about profound, I’m not talking about being thick and heavy and obscure—I’m talking about being deep. In other words, there’s something underneath the surface, something under the popular radar that’s in the text and that you’re able to give to the people. You’re able to go down into the passage and pull up the treasure that they—no matter how many times they go over it on their own—are not going to get. And it’s not just for the sake of interest—it comes with some weight, because it deals with the question, “What is God really saying here?”
On the surface there are certain things that people can see, but by the time I get done with a passage, there is a depth of understanding of what God is communicating in the text that is surprising to them because they couldn’t see it. And it’s weighty to them, because it brings the force of truth to bear on their lives.
Another thing that makes preaching effective is creating the original setting of the text so it becomes a living event. Whether it’s Paul writing to a church or Jesus with the Pharisees, you want to bring your people there, so that they are in the environment, living it and seeing it unfold. And that means you have to do a lot of background and context work—you’ve got to create the context as a living context.
Rather than trying to take the Bible and bring it into the modern day, I try to take the modern day and bring it back to the Bible. And that’s a distinction you want to make. This stuff about culture shaping preaching is taking the Bible and redefining it in modern terms. My goal is to take modern culture and the people of that culture and redefine them in biblical terms so that they are living back in the Scriptures.
Along with living a life of integrity and being prayerful and dependent on the Lord, those are the keys to effective preaching.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Robert Schuller and The Seeker Sensitive Church
[DeWaay correctly summarizes the origins of the modern Seeker Sensitive Church Movement. Robert Schuller's prize students, Bill Hybles and Rick Warren, who at early stages in their ministries sat at Schuller's feet and have taken his dream to new levels of "success" he could not have dreamed of. A worthwhile read for all interested in the origins of this bankrupt theological malignancy.--J.A. Matteson]
The Roots and Fruits of Robert Schuller's Version of Theological Liberalism
by Bob DeWaay
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1Corinthians 1:21-24
Two men met another man as they were walking down a road. They were having a private discussion when the third man began questioning them. The third man soon dominated the conversation. Throughout the rest of their journey, the man began with the books of Moses and proceeded to explain to them, verse by verse, all of the Old Testament passages that pertained to the Jewish Messiah. It turned out the third man was Jesus the Messiah. The resurrected Jewish Messiah had joined them on their journey and preached a sermon from Old Testament messianic prophecy. Here is how the two described their experience of this talk on the road to Emmaus: "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).
We do not have a transcription of the exact passages Jesus cited or how He explained them. Yet we have enough information in the New Testament about Messianic prophecy to reconstruct a similar sermon. Did you know that in many of the largest so-called "evangelical” churches in America such a sermon would never be tolerated? Hundreds of thousands of professed Christians go to churches where Jesus’ sermon on the road to Emmaus would considered "irrelevant” to the "felt needs” of the congregation. The hearts of church-goers no longer "burn” in conviction, joy, or intense devotion to God and His Word, because it is seldom heard. If the pastor of one of these churches announced a sermon that would outline all of the Old Testament prophecies about Messiah, the likely result would be yawns, moans, and bewilderment over how the church lost its "vision,” or mass exodus to a church that understood the "needs” of modern "seekers.”
How did we get to this situation? I credit Robert Schuller as the key person to have orchestrated this previously unimaginable change in evangelical Christianity. It was Schuller’s bold move, beginning in 1955, to integrate the positive thinking philosophy of Norman Vincent Peale with savvy, business oriented marketing techniques that brought thousands into what eventually became the Crystal Cathedral. In the process he also developed his hugely successful television broadcast. Though he did not coin the phrase "seeker-sensitive,” his success and ideas have inspired many of the most successful "seeker” churches in America.
Robert Schuller and Old Fashioned Liberalism
Robert Schuller does not claim to be a liberal. He still is affiliated with a Reformed denomination1 and willingly calls himself "evangelical.” Yet when Schuller appeared on Larry King Live just before Christmas 1999, I heard him proclaim, "I am not trying to convert anyone from another religion, I am only try to reach people who have no religion.” If so, he has just ruled out billions of people as possible recipients of the gospel. The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christian and most of the rest claim some religion. So also the majority of the people throughout the world have some religious affiliation. The idea that one ought not try to convert others to the Christian faith is liberal to the core.
Dr. Schuller has other things in common with religious liberalism. In 1982, Schuller wrote a book claiming that the church needed to be reformed based on the psychological theory of self-esteem.2 He has often been quoted as suggesting that Christian theology ought to be more man-centered rather than God-centered. As we shall show, Schuller’s teachings have their roots in early twentieth century liberalism. Many people know that Norman Vincent Peale was a key person in the development of Robert Schuller’s ministry, but most do not know the roots of Peale’s and after him Schuller’s approach to Christianity.
In his book, Your Church Has a Fantastic Future,3 Dr. Schuller describes how he started with $500 and a dream. Eventually he built the Crystal Cathedral and his multimillion dollar Television ministry. He rented a drive in theater in 1955 and began to take Dr. Norman Vincent Peale’s message of positive thinking to the people. He writes:
Then I proceeded to spend about $50 for brochures. Hoping to impress unchurched people, I wrote to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote back a marvelous statement with his permission to quote extensively. So I grabbed hold of his coattails.4
In 1957 he persuaded Peale to speak at his drive in church.5 From Peale he learned a key lesson about appealing to the "unchurched.” The lesson was, "Jesus never called a person a sinner.”6 This insight led to Schuller’s philosophy of possibility thinking and self-esteem. Schuller writes: "[P]ossibility thinking and self-esteem theology can both be summarized in this single sentence: The ‘I am’ determines the ‘I can.’”7 His idea was that the key to making positive thinking work out practically was to develop high self-esteem. He imagines that people to not realize their full potential because of low self-esteem.
Dr. Schuller usually does not come out and deny any key evangelical beliefs. He says that he believes in the various points of orthodoxy. He even interacts with his critics who claim he skips essential aspects of the gospel. For example, when someone questions him on not preaching that we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Jesus, he is ready with an explanation that possibility thinking is doing just that: "To deny yourself means daring to ask God, ‘What do you want me to do’?”8 This sets in motion God’s answer. Eventually the question leads to this: "[Y]ou’re going to get a dream. And anytime a dream comes from God, it is going to be humanly impossible to accomplish.”9 This all leads to his version of "faith” and success through possibility thinking and self-esteem. So through this clever process, taking up one’s cross and denying self actually means letting God make you more successful than you ever thought possible and having high self-esteem. He then goes on to scold those of us who still think that Jesus’ point is that the cross is an instrument of death and that we must die to our old sinful self. He claims such preaching produces "sick people.”10
Similarly, Dr. Schuller is ready with versions of the 10 Commandments and other Biblical issues that fit his theology. This is Schuller’s nice, user friendly version of the decalogue: "The answer is simple. The Ten Commandments are given to us in order to show us how to live in such an ethical behavioral pattern that we will feel good about ourselves. The Ten Commandments are not 10 negative restrictions.”11 The sin nature gets a similar treatment. While not denying its existence, Dr. Schuller defines sin as a lack of faith. Our sin is that, "We’re conceived and born without faith, without any belief.”12 So we need faith, and most importantly we need to believe in ourselves (and God of course). Since Dr. Schuller publicly claims to not seek the conversion of people from other religions, obviously faith in God need not be described in Christian terms. So whatever issue comes along, possibility thinking and self-esteem have the answer.
The Legacy and Roots of Dr. Schuller’s Ideas
Having settled these issues, the rest of the book tells us how to be successful and concludes with testimonies of dozens of successful pastors who got their church growth ideas from Dr. Schuller. C. Peter Wagner, a key promoter of modern church growth theory, sings the praises of Dr. Schuller in the preface of the book.13 Bill Hybels, the pastor of the now famous Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, is among many notables who claim to at least partially owe their success to Schuller’s principles. According to Hybels’ testimony, he got his inspiration from one of Dr. Schuller’s church growth seminars.14
It is undeniable that Robert Schuller started a trend that grew into a huge movement that is now engulfing much of evangelicalism. I know from personal experience that evangelical seminaries are promoting the latest seeker-sensitive approaches to church growth as if it were a do or die situation. During the last seven years, I sat through many classes and seminars promoting this approach. In preparation for this article I ran a search on the seminary library computer and found 400 books on the topic. As I paged through dozens of these books I encountered a confusing array of opinions. One book said that one should never call the church "the family of God” since families are closed units and people will not feel welcome. Then another said that young wandering souls are looking for a sense of family. Another suggested that if a church is going to ever have over 200 members, the pastor must make it clear from the beginning that he will do no hospital visitation, personal counseling, or personal, pastoral care of the members. His role is to build a team, with him as the manager.
Though confusing, there is a unifying theme: in America, nothing succeeds like success. When I was in Bible college in the 1970’s, the visiting speakers were often the latest successful pastors whose churches grew to 2,000. Many at that time succeeded by buying a fleet of old school buses and going around town offering to bring people’s kids to Sunday School so the parents could sleep in. We were expected to listen in envy of the glorious success of these contemporary church growth heroes. Soon the whole bus ministry thing became passé and something else took its place. When I went back to seminary, eighteen years after graduating from Bible college, I was confronted with a whole new generation of super-star pastors to emulate. These new heroes have found a new key, the "unchurched” are "seekers” who will come if the service is "relevant.”
The year I graduated from seminary (1999) I heard a young pastor in chapel who had managed to start a new congregation from scratch and had come back to tell us of his success. His message was entitled "Thinking Outside the Box.” Supposedly Jesus was good at thinking outside the box (notice the similarity to "possibility thinking”). The way this young man practiced his theory, was that he had a Sunday morning service with coffee tables and coffee. Those who come to the meeting view clips of Hollywood movies and discuss what point they think the movie is trying to make. Schuller got his start in a drive in movie theater preaching possibility thinking and look at his success. Maybe this young man is on to something!
What I think is this: most of those jumping on this modern bandwagon do not realize that this is simply old-fashioned liberalism. Sadly, some probably do know this and simply do not care. We shall see this by examining the roots of the movement.
The Harry Emerson Fosdick Connection
After the modernist controversy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a huge upheaval in American Christianity. The modernists denied the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Those who opposed them were called "Fundamentalists,” so named after a document called "The Fundamentals.” These were simply the basics of the Christian faith that had been believed since the time of the apostles. Creation versus evolution was a key issue, but not the only one. Even the deity and resurrection of Christ were questioned. What emerged from this was the birth of many denominations we now know as "evangelical.” On the other hand, liberals took control of the seminaries and headquarters of most of the older, main-line denominations.
A key modernist of the early twentieth century who was perhaps the most successful of all liberals (at that time) in gaining a national audience was Harry Emerson Fosdick. Fosdick was able to take his liberal message to the masses at a time when most modernists were fighting behind the scenes battles to control denominations and their seminaries. Several historians have commented on this. For example, Leonard Sweet writes, "Suffice it to say that while a few modernist preachers like Harry Emerson Fosdick, Norman Vincent Peale, Ralph Sockman, and Robert Schuller pioneered in the use of mass communications media (radio, television, publishing ventures, computer mailings, etc.), by and large modernist clergy were content to remain inky-fingered, acting as if the communications revolution had never taken place.”15
Fosdick strongly believed in his modernism and was willing to battle for it. He fought battles in the Presbyterian and Northern Baptist denominations on behalf of modernism against fundamentalism.16 In the midst of the modernist controversy in the Presbyterian church, Fosdick wrote an article in the New York Times rebutting a previous article by William Jennings Bryan that had called evolution "unscientific and irreligious.”17 Fosdick promoted the theory of evolution. He soon after preached his most famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”18 Fosdick’s point was to say that the fundamentalists could not "drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration.”19 This was a key shot fired in the fundamentalist-modernist war. Fosdick was eventually driven out of the Presbyterian pulpit, but this was merely the beginning of his successful career. After other battles, and with the considerable financial help of John D. Rockefeller, Fosdick established the interdenominational Riverside Church in New York.20
A key question that comes to mind is: if you no longer believe in the inspiration of Scripture, what do you preach? Fosdick had no problems with finding sermon topics. For one thing, he did not deny everything in the Bible. He had his own way of believing it. As is typical with liberalism, rather than believing the Bible is the word of God, he believed it contained the word of God.21 So the Bible is still useful, but the preacher evidently decides which parts are useful. Fosdick believed in the resurrection, for he wrote "I believe in Christ, his deity, his sacrificial saviorhood, his resurrected and triumphant life, his rightful Lordship. . .”22 This sounds good, until one finds out that he did not believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection which the New Testament writers so steadfastly affirmed as necessary to the faith. Fosdick said, "I believe in the persistence of personality, but I do not believe in the resurrection of the flesh.”23 The following explanation by Fosdick’s biographer is enlightening:
Fosdick could not believe that Jesus was virgin born. He did not ridicule those who did, but he was adamant that such belief was not essential to acceptance of Christian faith. . . . Fosdick doubted whether Jesus ever thought of himself as the Messiah; perhaps he did, but more probably "Jesus’ disciples may have read this into his thinking. . . .”24
The modernist can still preach about God, Christ, faith, and even make use of the Bible. The key is to center the message on human needs and understand Christian ministry as a "helping profession.”
To this end, psychology is a key aspect of Christian ministry for the liberal or modernist preacher. Historian Glenn T. Miller sees religious liberalism as one source of the professional approach to religious education. He writes, "American religious liberalism was dissatisfied with traditional pastoral care.”25 This led to the, "understanding of the minister as an advisor on life’s way. . . .”26 Glenn Miller provides the following insight into Fosdick’s role in this:
Harry Emerson Fosdick in the North, and Theodore Adams in the South, incorporated counseling into their ministries. Both Adams and Fosdick consulted psychologists and psychiatrists, served their churches as counselors, and, more importantly, used psychological insights in their widely imitated preaching.27
So for modernists, helping people along the way with whatever means are available through the culture is a key to preaching and ministry. As for Fosdick and the Fundamentalists, Fosdick wrote "We won our battle.”28 His biographer, Robert Moats Miller shares an interesting insight on this matter:
[He] was correct only in the limited sense that the liberals were not driven from the churches. I may very well be that for tens of millions in every era Fosdick’s liberalism could never adequately answer the terrors of human existence. Nevertheless, when he added, "it was one of the most necessary theological battles every fought,” he was right on the money, for millions found in his evangelical liberalism the only religious answer possible for them.29
Robert Moats Miller wrote his biography on Fosdick from the perspective of an admirer. His understanding that there were many who needed Fosdick’s approach as "the only religious answer possible” is a key point. It likely is based on the fact that once one accepts a supposedly true theory of evolution and a historically and scientifically flawed Bible, one must either reject Christian religion or find a way to change its essence so that is no longer conflicts with the modernist understanding of the "facts.” Fosdick provided a way to simultaneously hold to liberal assumptions and still have a version of the Christian religion. Norman Vincent Peale, whom Fosdick knew and admired,30 carried on a similar version of liberalism geared for the mass media. Peale’s profound influence on Schuller is often attested by Dr. Schuller himself.
Robert Schuller has followed in the footsteps of Peale and Fosdick and provided a religious approach for those who normally would reject traditional Christian theology. He often has said (when asked about his version of church and Christianity) that he is a last stop for those for whom all other approaches have not worked. People will come to his church who have given up on church (or as he recently said on religion). Of course, the unspoken assumption is that the reason Biblical Christianity does not "work” for many, is that they refuse to believe its message. Schuller’s approach puts aside the message that is so undesirable to many modern religious consumers and replaces it with self-esteem and possibility thinking. This is squarely in the liberal tradition of having little to say about eternal judgment, the blood atonement, or the bodily resurrection of Christ, but having loads to say about how one can have a better life in this world.
What is Gained?
If Robert Moats Miller was right that Fosdick’s liberal approach is the "only religious answer possible” for some, then Schuller and the his new legions of pastoral followers are the current providers of that answer. Others have noticed this. For example, David Wells writes:
His [Harry Emerson Fosdick’s] theology of the person was built on the ideas of the immanence of God in human personality and the perfectibility of human nature. He spoke enthusiastically of the unlimited inner potential that only had to be found and cultivated. . . . From Fosdick the ideas traveled to Norman Vincent Peale and then to Robert Schuller, and now they have become commonplace throughout much of the evangelical world.31
The reason that the modernist approach is deemed the last ditch, possible answer for those who flock to what are now called "seeker sensitive” churches, is that so many contemporary people refuse to accept the Biblical answers to their questions.
Human potential as understood in Schuller’s twin foundations of self-esteem and possibility thinking is an alternative to the cross, not an expression of it as Schuller’s theological legerdemain would make us think. The Biblical message of the cross speaks of human depravity, the wrath of God against sin, the need for substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection from the dead unto either eternal life or eternal damnation. This is not a message of the unlimited potential of humans through positive thinking. "Seekers” as they are now mislabeled, are those who, according to Schuller himself, are not going to accept the two millennia old message of Biblical Christianity. But they will come to church under the right conditions.
This is what ties the modern seeker movement to historical liberalism. The goal is to get people to be "churched” even though the inspiration of Scripture and the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) are set aside. The Bible only "contains” the word of God and the preacher is at liberty to ignore any Scripture that does not fit his purpose of church growth and religious success. Dr. Schuller has adamantly rejected any idea that he is obligated to preach everything in the Bible. Does he believe in a literal hell? This is very difficult to determine because one never hears him preach about it. At least Fosdick came out in public with all his beliefs and stood by them. Schuller is more of a politician, keeping a smile and a handshake always ready while skirting controversial questions. Schuller’s approach to his modernism has done what Fosdick’s could never do: brought evangelicals and liberals together.
The liberals of the 1920’s never thought of Schuller’s brilliant move. Rather than deny any Biblical doctrines and thus rile the ranks of the traditionalists and believers in Biblical inerrancy, let the doctrines die the death of neglect. Keep the congregation so enamored with brilliant homilies on "Five Ways to Deal with Stress in the Workplace” and "Nine Ways to Envision a Brighter Future” and they will never think about such matters as the wrath of God, eternal judgment, atonement, or heaven and hell. Does anyone seem to care whether Dr. Schuller and his hordes of evangelical copy cats really believe any of these doctrines? For decades liberals have claimed that most New Testament doctrines are irrelevant. Judging by how many modern evangelicals go to churches where doctrine is considered passé, contemporary evangelicals must have decided the liberals were right.
Conclusion
The greatest problem with all of this is that we have radically changed the key categories in the minds of the contemporary evangelical church. For example, previous generations of evangelicals thought the key categories were "saved and lost.” Now they are "churched and unchurched.” When I came to Christ in Iowa in 1971, nearly everyone in our community was "churched.” At that time Bible believing Christians understood there to be two categories of people, the saved and the lost. Whether or not one was in church was immaterial. I grew up in a church that gave lip service to the facts of Christianity, but was told by a pastor when I was 16 years old that these were in fact false. There was no creation of the world out of nothing, no miracles, no virgin birth, and no bodily resurrection from the dead. Christianity and the Bible were there to help us live a better life. Not realizing what the categories were, I found myself in the middle of modernism and liberalism. My response was to exit the church immediately. Being "churched,” in my mind was quite worthless if none of the things churches supposedly existed to promote were true.
So as a new Christian four years later, I realized that the problem was that we had churches full of lost people who would go to hell if they did not hear the gospel, believe and repent. Nothing could be clearer. Many churches were pastored by individuals who were themselves unregenerate. That is the legacy that the fundamentalist/modernist battle had left. As Fosdick pointed out, the modernists stayed in most of the churches and controlled the seminaries. They won the battle in most old line denominations. Consequently, when people like I was in 1971 came to Christ, we never considered going back to those denominations. We were hungry for God’s word and wanted to be challenged week by week to grow into conformity to Christ’s purposes.
Thus it is with great alarm and sorrow that I write this article. Masses of churches and denominations who once were proud to have left the modernists behind and went out on their own to promote Biblical orthodoxy have now either wittingly or unwittingly joined the modernists. The categories that I now hear, not occasionally, but constantly in evangelical circles, are "churched and unchurched.” Evidently it is assumed that since we call ourselves "evangelical” (like Schuller) we have something to offer. If people are in our churches they are imagined to be better off than if they are not, regardless of whether or not they are being confronted with God’s word and His holy claims on their lives. This assumption is false. As in my personal experience, unregenerates are often further from the gospel when they are "churched” but not hearing God’s word than when they are "unchurched.” At least in the later condition they know they are not Christian. False assurance is worse than no assurance. "Seekers” are really unsaved sinners who may never find out they are unsaved sinners because they are becoming so adept at dealing with stress in the workplace through the help of the savvy, therapeutically oriented pastor. When life seems to be getting better with a little help from the church, who needs to concern oneself with heaven and hell, especially if one is never told they exist.
We must return to the only means that God has ordained for bringing salvation to the lost. It is outlined in the verses cited at the beginning of the article. It is the message of the cross: "But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1Corinthians 1:23,24).
1. The Reformed Church of America
2. Robert Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, (Waco, Word Books, 1982). See Bob DeWaay, Self-esteem, the New Christian "Virtue” Part 2, in Critical Issues Commentary, Issue 18, November, 1993; for a critique of this book and Schuller’s self-esteem philosophy.
3. Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986).
4. Ibid. 29.
5. Ibid. 30.
6. Ibid. 115.
7. Ibid. 117.
8. Ibid. 122.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid. 123.
11. Ibid. 124.
12. Ibid. 120.
13. Ibid. 15-17.
14. Ibid. 227,228.
15. Leonard I. Sweet, "The Modernization of Protestant Religion in America” in Altered Landscapes, David W. Lotz ed., (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1989) 28.
16. Robert Moats Miller, "Harry Emerson Fosdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) see chapters 8 and 9, 112-173.
17. Ibid. 115.
18. Ibid.
19. Quoted by Miller, Ibid. 115.
20. Ibid. 211-222.
21. Ibid. 403.
22. Quoted by Miller, Ibid.129.
23. Quoted by Miller, Ibid. 411.
24. Ibid. 409.
25. Glenn T. Miller, "Professionals and Pedagogues: A Survey of Theological Education,” in Op.Cit. Lotz, 196.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. 196, 197.
28. Quoted from Fosdick, Robert Moats Miller, 173.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid. 560.
31. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 178.
The Roots and Fruits of Robert Schuller's Version of Theological Liberalism
by Bob DeWaay
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1Corinthians 1:21-24
Two men met another man as they were walking down a road. They were having a private discussion when the third man began questioning them. The third man soon dominated the conversation. Throughout the rest of their journey, the man began with the books of Moses and proceeded to explain to them, verse by verse, all of the Old Testament passages that pertained to the Jewish Messiah. It turned out the third man was Jesus the Messiah. The resurrected Jewish Messiah had joined them on their journey and preached a sermon from Old Testament messianic prophecy. Here is how the two described their experience of this talk on the road to Emmaus: "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).
We do not have a transcription of the exact passages Jesus cited or how He explained them. Yet we have enough information in the New Testament about Messianic prophecy to reconstruct a similar sermon. Did you know that in many of the largest so-called "evangelical” churches in America such a sermon would never be tolerated? Hundreds of thousands of professed Christians go to churches where Jesus’ sermon on the road to Emmaus would considered "irrelevant” to the "felt needs” of the congregation. The hearts of church-goers no longer "burn” in conviction, joy, or intense devotion to God and His Word, because it is seldom heard. If the pastor of one of these churches announced a sermon that would outline all of the Old Testament prophecies about Messiah, the likely result would be yawns, moans, and bewilderment over how the church lost its "vision,” or mass exodus to a church that understood the "needs” of modern "seekers.”
How did we get to this situation? I credit Robert Schuller as the key person to have orchestrated this previously unimaginable change in evangelical Christianity. It was Schuller’s bold move, beginning in 1955, to integrate the positive thinking philosophy of Norman Vincent Peale with savvy, business oriented marketing techniques that brought thousands into what eventually became the Crystal Cathedral. In the process he also developed his hugely successful television broadcast. Though he did not coin the phrase "seeker-sensitive,” his success and ideas have inspired many of the most successful "seeker” churches in America.
Robert Schuller and Old Fashioned Liberalism
Robert Schuller does not claim to be a liberal. He still is affiliated with a Reformed denomination1 and willingly calls himself "evangelical.” Yet when Schuller appeared on Larry King Live just before Christmas 1999, I heard him proclaim, "I am not trying to convert anyone from another religion, I am only try to reach people who have no religion.” If so, he has just ruled out billions of people as possible recipients of the gospel. The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christian and most of the rest claim some religion. So also the majority of the people throughout the world have some religious affiliation. The idea that one ought not try to convert others to the Christian faith is liberal to the core.
Dr. Schuller has other things in common with religious liberalism. In 1982, Schuller wrote a book claiming that the church needed to be reformed based on the psychological theory of self-esteem.2 He has often been quoted as suggesting that Christian theology ought to be more man-centered rather than God-centered. As we shall show, Schuller’s teachings have their roots in early twentieth century liberalism. Many people know that Norman Vincent Peale was a key person in the development of Robert Schuller’s ministry, but most do not know the roots of Peale’s and after him Schuller’s approach to Christianity.
In his book, Your Church Has a Fantastic Future,3 Dr. Schuller describes how he started with $500 and a dream. Eventually he built the Crystal Cathedral and his multimillion dollar Television ministry. He rented a drive in theater in 1955 and began to take Dr. Norman Vincent Peale’s message of positive thinking to the people. He writes:
Then I proceeded to spend about $50 for brochures. Hoping to impress unchurched people, I wrote to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote back a marvelous statement with his permission to quote extensively. So I grabbed hold of his coattails.4
In 1957 he persuaded Peale to speak at his drive in church.5 From Peale he learned a key lesson about appealing to the "unchurched.” The lesson was, "Jesus never called a person a sinner.”6 This insight led to Schuller’s philosophy of possibility thinking and self-esteem. Schuller writes: "[P]ossibility thinking and self-esteem theology can both be summarized in this single sentence: The ‘I am’ determines the ‘I can.’”7 His idea was that the key to making positive thinking work out practically was to develop high self-esteem. He imagines that people to not realize their full potential because of low self-esteem.
Dr. Schuller usually does not come out and deny any key evangelical beliefs. He says that he believes in the various points of orthodoxy. He even interacts with his critics who claim he skips essential aspects of the gospel. For example, when someone questions him on not preaching that we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Jesus, he is ready with an explanation that possibility thinking is doing just that: "To deny yourself means daring to ask God, ‘What do you want me to do’?”8 This sets in motion God’s answer. Eventually the question leads to this: "[Y]ou’re going to get a dream. And anytime a dream comes from God, it is going to be humanly impossible to accomplish.”9 This all leads to his version of "faith” and success through possibility thinking and self-esteem. So through this clever process, taking up one’s cross and denying self actually means letting God make you more successful than you ever thought possible and having high self-esteem. He then goes on to scold those of us who still think that Jesus’ point is that the cross is an instrument of death and that we must die to our old sinful self. He claims such preaching produces "sick people.”10
Similarly, Dr. Schuller is ready with versions of the 10 Commandments and other Biblical issues that fit his theology. This is Schuller’s nice, user friendly version of the decalogue: "The answer is simple. The Ten Commandments are given to us in order to show us how to live in such an ethical behavioral pattern that we will feel good about ourselves. The Ten Commandments are not 10 negative restrictions.”11 The sin nature gets a similar treatment. While not denying its existence, Dr. Schuller defines sin as a lack of faith. Our sin is that, "We’re conceived and born without faith, without any belief.”12 So we need faith, and most importantly we need to believe in ourselves (and God of course). Since Dr. Schuller publicly claims to not seek the conversion of people from other religions, obviously faith in God need not be described in Christian terms. So whatever issue comes along, possibility thinking and self-esteem have the answer.
The Legacy and Roots of Dr. Schuller’s Ideas
Having settled these issues, the rest of the book tells us how to be successful and concludes with testimonies of dozens of successful pastors who got their church growth ideas from Dr. Schuller. C. Peter Wagner, a key promoter of modern church growth theory, sings the praises of Dr. Schuller in the preface of the book.13 Bill Hybels, the pastor of the now famous Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, is among many notables who claim to at least partially owe their success to Schuller’s principles. According to Hybels’ testimony, he got his inspiration from one of Dr. Schuller’s church growth seminars.14
It is undeniable that Robert Schuller started a trend that grew into a huge movement that is now engulfing much of evangelicalism. I know from personal experience that evangelical seminaries are promoting the latest seeker-sensitive approaches to church growth as if it were a do or die situation. During the last seven years, I sat through many classes and seminars promoting this approach. In preparation for this article I ran a search on the seminary library computer and found 400 books on the topic. As I paged through dozens of these books I encountered a confusing array of opinions. One book said that one should never call the church "the family of God” since families are closed units and people will not feel welcome. Then another said that young wandering souls are looking for a sense of family. Another suggested that if a church is going to ever have over 200 members, the pastor must make it clear from the beginning that he will do no hospital visitation, personal counseling, or personal, pastoral care of the members. His role is to build a team, with him as the manager.
Though confusing, there is a unifying theme: in America, nothing succeeds like success. When I was in Bible college in the 1970’s, the visiting speakers were often the latest successful pastors whose churches grew to 2,000. Many at that time succeeded by buying a fleet of old school buses and going around town offering to bring people’s kids to Sunday School so the parents could sleep in. We were expected to listen in envy of the glorious success of these contemporary church growth heroes. Soon the whole bus ministry thing became passé and something else took its place. When I went back to seminary, eighteen years after graduating from Bible college, I was confronted with a whole new generation of super-star pastors to emulate. These new heroes have found a new key, the "unchurched” are "seekers” who will come if the service is "relevant.”
The year I graduated from seminary (1999) I heard a young pastor in chapel who had managed to start a new congregation from scratch and had come back to tell us of his success. His message was entitled "Thinking Outside the Box.” Supposedly Jesus was good at thinking outside the box (notice the similarity to "possibility thinking”). The way this young man practiced his theory, was that he had a Sunday morning service with coffee tables and coffee. Those who come to the meeting view clips of Hollywood movies and discuss what point they think the movie is trying to make. Schuller got his start in a drive in movie theater preaching possibility thinking and look at his success. Maybe this young man is on to something!
What I think is this: most of those jumping on this modern bandwagon do not realize that this is simply old-fashioned liberalism. Sadly, some probably do know this and simply do not care. We shall see this by examining the roots of the movement.
The Harry Emerson Fosdick Connection
After the modernist controversy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a huge upheaval in American Christianity. The modernists denied the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Those who opposed them were called "Fundamentalists,” so named after a document called "The Fundamentals.” These were simply the basics of the Christian faith that had been believed since the time of the apostles. Creation versus evolution was a key issue, but not the only one. Even the deity and resurrection of Christ were questioned. What emerged from this was the birth of many denominations we now know as "evangelical.” On the other hand, liberals took control of the seminaries and headquarters of most of the older, main-line denominations.
A key modernist of the early twentieth century who was perhaps the most successful of all liberals (at that time) in gaining a national audience was Harry Emerson Fosdick. Fosdick was able to take his liberal message to the masses at a time when most modernists were fighting behind the scenes battles to control denominations and their seminaries. Several historians have commented on this. For example, Leonard Sweet writes, "Suffice it to say that while a few modernist preachers like Harry Emerson Fosdick, Norman Vincent Peale, Ralph Sockman, and Robert Schuller pioneered in the use of mass communications media (radio, television, publishing ventures, computer mailings, etc.), by and large modernist clergy were content to remain inky-fingered, acting as if the communications revolution had never taken place.”15
Fosdick strongly believed in his modernism and was willing to battle for it. He fought battles in the Presbyterian and Northern Baptist denominations on behalf of modernism against fundamentalism.16 In the midst of the modernist controversy in the Presbyterian church, Fosdick wrote an article in the New York Times rebutting a previous article by William Jennings Bryan that had called evolution "unscientific and irreligious.”17 Fosdick promoted the theory of evolution. He soon after preached his most famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”18 Fosdick’s point was to say that the fundamentalists could not "drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration.”19 This was a key shot fired in the fundamentalist-modernist war. Fosdick was eventually driven out of the Presbyterian pulpit, but this was merely the beginning of his successful career. After other battles, and with the considerable financial help of John D. Rockefeller, Fosdick established the interdenominational Riverside Church in New York.20
A key question that comes to mind is: if you no longer believe in the inspiration of Scripture, what do you preach? Fosdick had no problems with finding sermon topics. For one thing, he did not deny everything in the Bible. He had his own way of believing it. As is typical with liberalism, rather than believing the Bible is the word of God, he believed it contained the word of God.21 So the Bible is still useful, but the preacher evidently decides which parts are useful. Fosdick believed in the resurrection, for he wrote "I believe in Christ, his deity, his sacrificial saviorhood, his resurrected and triumphant life, his rightful Lordship. . .”22 This sounds good, until one finds out that he did not believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection which the New Testament writers so steadfastly affirmed as necessary to the faith. Fosdick said, "I believe in the persistence of personality, but I do not believe in the resurrection of the flesh.”23 The following explanation by Fosdick’s biographer is enlightening:
Fosdick could not believe that Jesus was virgin born. He did not ridicule those who did, but he was adamant that such belief was not essential to acceptance of Christian faith. . . . Fosdick doubted whether Jesus ever thought of himself as the Messiah; perhaps he did, but more probably "Jesus’ disciples may have read this into his thinking. . . .”24
The modernist can still preach about God, Christ, faith, and even make use of the Bible. The key is to center the message on human needs and understand Christian ministry as a "helping profession.”
To this end, psychology is a key aspect of Christian ministry for the liberal or modernist preacher. Historian Glenn T. Miller sees religious liberalism as one source of the professional approach to religious education. He writes, "American religious liberalism was dissatisfied with traditional pastoral care.”25 This led to the, "understanding of the minister as an advisor on life’s way. . . .”26 Glenn Miller provides the following insight into Fosdick’s role in this:
Harry Emerson Fosdick in the North, and Theodore Adams in the South, incorporated counseling into their ministries. Both Adams and Fosdick consulted psychologists and psychiatrists, served their churches as counselors, and, more importantly, used psychological insights in their widely imitated preaching.27
So for modernists, helping people along the way with whatever means are available through the culture is a key to preaching and ministry. As for Fosdick and the Fundamentalists, Fosdick wrote "We won our battle.”28 His biographer, Robert Moats Miller shares an interesting insight on this matter:
[He] was correct only in the limited sense that the liberals were not driven from the churches. I may very well be that for tens of millions in every era Fosdick’s liberalism could never adequately answer the terrors of human existence. Nevertheless, when he added, "it was one of the most necessary theological battles every fought,” he was right on the money, for millions found in his evangelical liberalism the only religious answer possible for them.29
Robert Moats Miller wrote his biography on Fosdick from the perspective of an admirer. His understanding that there were many who needed Fosdick’s approach as "the only religious answer possible” is a key point. It likely is based on the fact that once one accepts a supposedly true theory of evolution and a historically and scientifically flawed Bible, one must either reject Christian religion or find a way to change its essence so that is no longer conflicts with the modernist understanding of the "facts.” Fosdick provided a way to simultaneously hold to liberal assumptions and still have a version of the Christian religion. Norman Vincent Peale, whom Fosdick knew and admired,30 carried on a similar version of liberalism geared for the mass media. Peale’s profound influence on Schuller is often attested by Dr. Schuller himself.
Robert Schuller has followed in the footsteps of Peale and Fosdick and provided a religious approach for those who normally would reject traditional Christian theology. He often has said (when asked about his version of church and Christianity) that he is a last stop for those for whom all other approaches have not worked. People will come to his church who have given up on church (or as he recently said on religion). Of course, the unspoken assumption is that the reason Biblical Christianity does not "work” for many, is that they refuse to believe its message. Schuller’s approach puts aside the message that is so undesirable to many modern religious consumers and replaces it with self-esteem and possibility thinking. This is squarely in the liberal tradition of having little to say about eternal judgment, the blood atonement, or the bodily resurrection of Christ, but having loads to say about how one can have a better life in this world.
What is Gained?
If Robert Moats Miller was right that Fosdick’s liberal approach is the "only religious answer possible” for some, then Schuller and the his new legions of pastoral followers are the current providers of that answer. Others have noticed this. For example, David Wells writes:
His [Harry Emerson Fosdick’s] theology of the person was built on the ideas of the immanence of God in human personality and the perfectibility of human nature. He spoke enthusiastically of the unlimited inner potential that only had to be found and cultivated. . . . From Fosdick the ideas traveled to Norman Vincent Peale and then to Robert Schuller, and now they have become commonplace throughout much of the evangelical world.31
The reason that the modernist approach is deemed the last ditch, possible answer for those who flock to what are now called "seeker sensitive” churches, is that so many contemporary people refuse to accept the Biblical answers to their questions.
Human potential as understood in Schuller’s twin foundations of self-esteem and possibility thinking is an alternative to the cross, not an expression of it as Schuller’s theological legerdemain would make us think. The Biblical message of the cross speaks of human depravity, the wrath of God against sin, the need for substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection from the dead unto either eternal life or eternal damnation. This is not a message of the unlimited potential of humans through positive thinking. "Seekers” as they are now mislabeled, are those who, according to Schuller himself, are not going to accept the two millennia old message of Biblical Christianity. But they will come to church under the right conditions.
This is what ties the modern seeker movement to historical liberalism. The goal is to get people to be "churched” even though the inspiration of Scripture and the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) are set aside. The Bible only "contains” the word of God and the preacher is at liberty to ignore any Scripture that does not fit his purpose of church growth and religious success. Dr. Schuller has adamantly rejected any idea that he is obligated to preach everything in the Bible. Does he believe in a literal hell? This is very difficult to determine because one never hears him preach about it. At least Fosdick came out in public with all his beliefs and stood by them. Schuller is more of a politician, keeping a smile and a handshake always ready while skirting controversial questions. Schuller’s approach to his modernism has done what Fosdick’s could never do: brought evangelicals and liberals together.
The liberals of the 1920’s never thought of Schuller’s brilliant move. Rather than deny any Biblical doctrines and thus rile the ranks of the traditionalists and believers in Biblical inerrancy, let the doctrines die the death of neglect. Keep the congregation so enamored with brilliant homilies on "Five Ways to Deal with Stress in the Workplace” and "Nine Ways to Envision a Brighter Future” and they will never think about such matters as the wrath of God, eternal judgment, atonement, or heaven and hell. Does anyone seem to care whether Dr. Schuller and his hordes of evangelical copy cats really believe any of these doctrines? For decades liberals have claimed that most New Testament doctrines are irrelevant. Judging by how many modern evangelicals go to churches where doctrine is considered passé, contemporary evangelicals must have decided the liberals were right.
Conclusion
The greatest problem with all of this is that we have radically changed the key categories in the minds of the contemporary evangelical church. For example, previous generations of evangelicals thought the key categories were "saved and lost.” Now they are "churched and unchurched.” When I came to Christ in Iowa in 1971, nearly everyone in our community was "churched.” At that time Bible believing Christians understood there to be two categories of people, the saved and the lost. Whether or not one was in church was immaterial. I grew up in a church that gave lip service to the facts of Christianity, but was told by a pastor when I was 16 years old that these were in fact false. There was no creation of the world out of nothing, no miracles, no virgin birth, and no bodily resurrection from the dead. Christianity and the Bible were there to help us live a better life. Not realizing what the categories were, I found myself in the middle of modernism and liberalism. My response was to exit the church immediately. Being "churched,” in my mind was quite worthless if none of the things churches supposedly existed to promote were true.
So as a new Christian four years later, I realized that the problem was that we had churches full of lost people who would go to hell if they did not hear the gospel, believe and repent. Nothing could be clearer. Many churches were pastored by individuals who were themselves unregenerate. That is the legacy that the fundamentalist/modernist battle had left. As Fosdick pointed out, the modernists stayed in most of the churches and controlled the seminaries. They won the battle in most old line denominations. Consequently, when people like I was in 1971 came to Christ, we never considered going back to those denominations. We were hungry for God’s word and wanted to be challenged week by week to grow into conformity to Christ’s purposes.
Thus it is with great alarm and sorrow that I write this article. Masses of churches and denominations who once were proud to have left the modernists behind and went out on their own to promote Biblical orthodoxy have now either wittingly or unwittingly joined the modernists. The categories that I now hear, not occasionally, but constantly in evangelical circles, are "churched and unchurched.” Evidently it is assumed that since we call ourselves "evangelical” (like Schuller) we have something to offer. If people are in our churches they are imagined to be better off than if they are not, regardless of whether or not they are being confronted with God’s word and His holy claims on their lives. This assumption is false. As in my personal experience, unregenerates are often further from the gospel when they are "churched” but not hearing God’s word than when they are "unchurched.” At least in the later condition they know they are not Christian. False assurance is worse than no assurance. "Seekers” are really unsaved sinners who may never find out they are unsaved sinners because they are becoming so adept at dealing with stress in the workplace through the help of the savvy, therapeutically oriented pastor. When life seems to be getting better with a little help from the church, who needs to concern oneself with heaven and hell, especially if one is never told they exist.
We must return to the only means that God has ordained for bringing salvation to the lost. It is outlined in the verses cited at the beginning of the article. It is the message of the cross: "But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1Corinthians 1:23,24).
1. The Reformed Church of America
2. Robert Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, (Waco, Word Books, 1982). See Bob DeWaay, Self-esteem, the New Christian "Virtue” Part 2, in Critical Issues Commentary, Issue 18, November, 1993; for a critique of this book and Schuller’s self-esteem philosophy.
3. Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986).
4. Ibid. 29.
5. Ibid. 30.
6. Ibid. 115.
7. Ibid. 117.
8. Ibid. 122.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid. 123.
11. Ibid. 124.
12. Ibid. 120.
13. Ibid. 15-17.
14. Ibid. 227,228.
15. Leonard I. Sweet, "The Modernization of Protestant Religion in America” in Altered Landscapes, David W. Lotz ed., (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1989) 28.
16. Robert Moats Miller, "Harry Emerson Fosdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) see chapters 8 and 9, 112-173.
17. Ibid. 115.
18. Ibid.
19. Quoted by Miller, Ibid. 115.
20. Ibid. 211-222.
21. Ibid. 403.
22. Quoted by Miller, Ibid.129.
23. Quoted by Miller, Ibid. 411.
24. Ibid. 409.
25. Glenn T. Miller, "Professionals and Pedagogues: A Survey of Theological Education,” in Op.Cit. Lotz, 196.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. 196, 197.
28. Quoted from Fosdick, Robert Moats Miller, 173.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid. 560.
31. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 178.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)