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).

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.

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.

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.

Love of the Father

12.29.10
J.A. Matteson

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ:

1 John 2:15

The pilgrim of the Lord sojourns upon the earth, exiled in heart from the demonic siren call of the world system which is antithetical to the character of the Father. Daily the world system seeks to undermine the pilgrim's fidelity to the Father, but is continually frustrated in its quest. Here the Apostle underscores the object of devotion to which the pilgrim steadfastly adheres, for he cannot do otherwise for it is his new nature as one born again to desire to keep His commandments, and this willingly out of love and gratitude.

The world (κόσμος) has multiple meanings in the New Testament and the rendering of the word is known by its immediate context while considered in the broader context of its use in the whole of Scripture. This becomes obvious when the same word is considered, for example, in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have ever lasting life.” Unless context is considered as a rule for interpretation there would appear to be a glaring contradiction of the heart of God with regard to the world. For on the one hand the Lord Jesus Christ speaks of the Father's love of the world while His Apostle instructs pilgrims not to love the world. Taken in context world in John 3:16 cannot mean every human being on the planet, for that would be a direct contradiction of the Lord's use of world in the whole of John 17, “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours” (v. 9).

If the Father loves the world as meaning every human being, desiring that every human being be saved, then why would the Son of God specifically not pray for all of them, why does He exclude them and qualify the objects of His prayer to only “those whom You have given Me”? World, as employed in John 3:16 and John 17 references the unconditional elect of God where its context finds complete harmony with the Lord Jesus who qualifies them for whom He died, “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:14). And it for those whom He died that He intercedes in John 17.

Speaking to some unbelieving Pharisees Christ makes a remarkable statement underscoring the reality that faith is a gift from the Father and not something conjured up in the sinner, “...but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (Jn. 10:26). Here too the record of Luke in Acts finds total agreement, “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (13:48).

Luke makes an important distinction in the Ordo Salutis; viz., individuals are first unconditionally appointed to eternal life while unbelievers, which is why they at God's appointed time become believers through the activity of the Holy Spirit and the Word; they do not first believe within themselves and as a result become appointed to eternal life, as that is a conditional election that finds no consistent contextual support in Scripture; salvation is of the Lord. A conclusion of that type turns Luke's words on their head, not to mention other passages previously examined.

Not surprisingly the Apostle Paul employees the same language while reminding the Philippian Christian's of God's unconditional choice of them for a faith leading to salvation, “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him” (Phil. 1:29). The clear implication being that their expressed faith is a gift that had been unconditionally granted to them. And we find harmony in Paul's letter to the Ephesians whereby he refers to God's unconditional election resulting in faith as grace, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not the result of works lest any man should boast” (2:8-9). Therefore, we conclude that grace is the basis of salvation and faith is the means by which God's brings it to pass.

So in our passage under consideration we see that love for the world system and love for the Father are antithetical. For the nature of the Father is forbearance and mercy while that of the fallen world is impatience and vengeance. The nature of the Father within His child turns the heart of the pilgrim toward eternal things which are unseen, while the world system glorifies that which is visual and temporal. The nature of the Father within His child is to bring glory to His Son, while that of the world system is to seek the vain glory of man and usurp the rightful glory do the Son.

While in the world the pilgrim is not of the world--he is rightly an alien. And for this reason he is a paradox to those of the unregenerate world system, for they do not understand him, nor can they. For his desires and focus are on Christ Jesus and the glory to come, things which the world does not perceive, nor can it. As he sojourns upon the earth he eagerly awaits the redemption of his body of sin and death, wearily deflecting the daily onslaught of the world system that vainly seeks his destruction.

From time to time he stumbles and grieves at the feeble nature of his flesh, but he is not despondent and rather confident that He who began a good work in him with be faithful to complete it, supplying spiritual strength in time of need (2 Thess. 3:3). The Apostle John makes the statement, “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” may be understood two ways: 1) the new nature which God supplies to the regenerate is His nature—that which loves His Son—being antithetical to the world system which hates His Son, which is why the world hates him (Jn. 15:18); and, 2) the new nature within being the Father's nature is also His love of the Son who within the pilgrim in turn generates a love for or of the Father. It is for this reason that the Apostle concludes “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 Jn. 3:10). And righteousness finds its origin in God, being an imputed gift, and foremost manifest by faith in the Father's Son, Christ Jesus, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe....” (Rom. 3:21-22). The Apostle makes it plain, “the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious....”

Obvious (φανερά) as used here is to be easily recognized and used here is speaking to a persons profession of faith that finds agreement with his lifestyle. Genuine faith is accompanied by a heart desiring obedience to the Lord, “Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?” (Lk. 6:46), and a life seeking obedience to the Lord will be a righteous life of faith and conduct set on the eternal and not the temporal, “Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Col. 3:2).

So the world does not understand the pilgrim and hates him when he does not pursue temporal pleasures that are fading away. As Christ was hated by the world system which stood in opposition to His Kingdom, so too it hates His seed which remains in the world; i.e., His Church. The pilgrim finds himself caught between two realities, on the one hand he is heir to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who will soon appear in glory; on the other hand he sojourns daily in the mire of a world system opposed to the King and His children. For this reason he groans within and like the saints of old looks for a better city whose foundation and walls are not made by human hands, but by God. His love is turned upward to the call of God, eagerly awaiting the last trumpet call and the descent of the Lord Jesus Christ for His bride. Oh glorious Day, come hence Lord Jesus, Your bride awaits!

Copyright (c) 2010 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).

Consumer Christianity--Part 2

by T.A. McMahon

Consumerism was introduced to humanity in the Garden of Eden. Satan had a self-serving concept that he wanted to sell to a potential customer who had no need—one who, living in a perfect environment, had it all, materially and spiritually. His strategy (comparable to the prevailing methods of 21st-century marketing) was to create a desire where no real need existed, convincing Eve not only that she needed something more but that what she had was somewhat deficient. Moreover, in an effort to beat the Competition, Satan began his pitch by sowing doubt regarding God’s command and its resulting penalty for disobedience.

By calling God a liar, the adversary no doubt rattled Eve’s trust in Him: “And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?…And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.” Then, in the wake of further maligning the Lord’s character, came the irresistible “do it for you” sales pitch: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:1, 4,5).

Consumerism, being all about profit, must include a profit-oriented buyer as well as seller. Eve certainly had her own desires stirred, for without them, no sale could have been made: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat” (Gen 3:6). Thus, the cry of the soul of consumerism, “How will it profit me?” birthed itself in Adam and Eve and all their descendants.

Consumer Christianity is a mentality or methodology that attempts to enrich Christians both temporally and spiritually, as well as to attract converts to the faith, through ways and means that are true neither to the Word of God nor the work of the Holy Spirit. Whether introduced subtly or overtly, wittingly or unwittingly, it always involves what appeals to humanity’s fallen nature. Furthermore, consumer Christianity ultimately indulges and glorifies self rather than God.

History is replete with instances of man’s consumerism and selfism. Let’s briefly survey the history of God’s chosen people, the Jews (Deu 14:2), and His church (Titus 2:14), for a few such examples by those who should have known better. Sarai, Abram’s wife, attempted to solve her childless circumstance by coming up with her own way to have the son that God had promised (Gen 16:2-3); “her” child Ishmael by her servant Hagar became the son of grief for the Jews to this day. Centuries later, right after the Israelites had experienced God’s deliverance from the Egyptians in spectacular ways, they nevertheless formed a golden calf to worship in order to gratify their immediate spiritual desires. God’s response to Moses was that they had thereby “corrupted themselves” (Ex 32:4-7). Joshua was deceived and made peace with the Gibeonites, contrary to God’s command; his presumption of doing good for his people was in reality rank disobedience: “And the [Israelites] took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD” (Jos 9:14). The entire book of Judges characterizes God’s people during that time period as having a consumer mentality: “…every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 21:25). Later, David’s “eyes” for Bathsheba led him to satisfy his lustful felt needs in spite of what it would do to his personal relationship with God.

The New Testament gospels and epistles abound with examples of consumer “Christianity.” Peter’s objection to what Jesus said He would have to suffer for our salvation demonstrated more than just fleshly sympathy; Jesus intimated that it was disobedience of a satanic nature (Mat 16:21-23). Furthermore, Christ’s response to Peter defines what consumer Christianity is all about: “for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Our Lord’s other disciples were also given to the “what-could-best-benefit-me” mentality.

Blinded by self-interest to what Jesus told them of His impending suffering and death, James and John reacted by seeking an elevated position in His coming kingdom: “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mk 10:37). The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter, who, along with Barnabas, drew back from the Gentiles in order to accommodate those of the circumcision (Gal 2:11-14). Paul identified his own struggles, as well as ours, with putting self before God: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Rom 7:18-19). He then declared his solution, which is the believer’s only solution: the Spirit-led life in Christ (Rom 8:1).

Consumer Christianity, whether manifested in the early churches or in today’s assemblies (from mega-churches to home fellowships), is simply doing things man’s way rather than God’s way. The history of the church from the first century on is a distressing chronicle of true and false Christians deviating from the Word of God, doing what seemed right in their own minds while professing to be doing it in the name of Christ and to His glory. Although the results have often been spiritually devastating, God has been faithful, merciful, and longsuffering with His own. As we draw near to the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, however, consumer Christianity will so transform the professing church that it will be shocking to any true believer unless, of course, he or she has been desensitized by the gradual acceptance of many of the appealing “new products and processes” (i.e., unbiblical teachings, practices, and worship forms) being “sold” today.

Following the Rapture of the Bride of Christ to be with Him (1 Thes 4:16-18), a professing Christian church will remain that has been groomed to accept the Antichrist. This apostate church does not just appear overnight, but its preparation has been ongoing for two millennia and will increase with great intensity up until the Rapture of truly born-again Christians. The deception at that time will be like nothing humanity has ever experienced, including Hitler’s seduction of, and absolute control over, civilized, highly educated, and technologically sophisticated Germany. What will be the major difference? This deception will be worldwide and, more astonishingly, facilitated by God himself.

After giving information about the coming apostasy and the Antichrist, “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,” the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, further explains why the deception will be so pervasive and powerful: “…because they received not the love of the truth.” He then gives us reason to be astonished: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thes 2:9-11). This “strong delusion” affecting the lost is comparable to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. It neither induced sin nor subjugated Pharaoh’s will; yet it allowed circumstances to develop that his wicked heart could not resist.

There is no reason to assume that only “them that perish” (v. 10) will be caught up in the Last Day’s delusion. As we’ve noted from the Scriptures, many of the heroes and heroines of the faith at times opted for their own ways rather than God’s way. They let their own desires override God’s only antidote for spiritual delusion: a love for the truth. As it was then, so it is even more today, as the apostasy gathers unprecedented momentum.

In the third chapter of Second Timothy, Paul speaks prophetically, identifying some of the characteristics that we need to urgently heed concerning the end-times deception: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous…lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof….never able to come to the knowledge of the truth….[A]s Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth” (2 Tim 3:1-8).

Let’s consider these things in light of what is taking place in evangelical churches today. Humanistic psychology, with its emphasis on self-love and its brood of other selfisms, has become an accepted and promoted doctrine among pastoral counselors and “Christian” psychologists. Prosperity evangelists have turned covetousness into God’s foremost commandment for millions of professing Christians. Seeker-friendly churches are working at filling their pews with lovers of pleasure while discouraging (and in many cases dismissing) lovers of God. Purpose-driven churches are marketing formulas of godliness in place of the power and leading of the Holy Spirit. The growing adulteration of God’s Holy Scriptures in the form of subjective paraphrase and visual “translations” is creating both a resistance to the truth and an anemia regarding spiritual discernment. Finally, regarding the ingredients of apostasy, the magicians “wowed” those crowding Pharaoh’s court with their pagan showmanship, mystical presence, and counterfeit signs and wonders (Ex 7:11,12). So, too, are we seeing entertainment, experientialism, and contemplative (Catholic) mysticism seducing multitudes of churches that formerly majored in preaching, teaching, and sound doctrine.

Has “strong delusion” made inroads into the evangelical church? If you don’t think so, you may have difficulty finding another explanation for the following agenda and participation at the 2004 National Pastors’ Convention.

This event, sponsored by Youth Specialties (America’s most influential evangelical organization for youth pastors and leaders) and Zondervan (publisher of The Purpose-Driven Life, the NIV-Message Parallel Bible, and evangelical distributor for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ DVD) began its daily program with contemplative prayer (see “Please Contemplate This!” TBC Mar ’00) and “Yoga & Stretching” exercises. Emerging church liturgies based upon Roman Catholic and Orthodox rituals and sacramentals were introduced, including daily “labyrinth prayer” opportunities. The latter is a meditative prayer walk around a circular, maze-like pattern copied from a floor design found in Chartres Cathedral. This mystical Catholic ritual dates back to the Middle Ages, when it became a substitute for journeying to the dangerous, Muslim-controlled Holy Land in order to trace the “Passion route” of Jesus. As Catholics walked the labyrinth and meditated on the sufferings of Christ in their imagination, they obtained the same indulgences (pardons that would shorten their time of suffering in Purgatory to expiate their sins) for making the actual pilgrimage.

The Convention’s evening programs included Christian comedy acts, The Jesus Painter (who “paints portraits of Christ in under 20 minutes”), “Tribe Church Drumming Experience,” “Personal Emotional Health Discussion,” an “emergent Pub with Live Music,” and “Late Night Contemplative Prayer Services.”

The greater percentage of speakers were practitioners of mystical Christian prayer and worship forms (referred to as “authentic faith”), and the rest appeared to be advocates of, or at least encouragers for, the development of new methodologies and liturgies for the emerging culture of the 21st century. One topic was titled “A New Theology for a New World.” The double-location conference attracted thousands and featured many influential church leaders, including Gordon MacDonald, Henry Cloud, Brennan Manning, Dallas Willard, Joseph Stowell, Howard Hendricks, Gary Thomas, Tony Campolo, and Rick Warren. The 2005 convention promises to be more of the same, with Christian contemplative, experiential, and emerging church headliners such as Richard Foster, Calvin Miller, Philip Yancy, Ruth Haley Barton, Doug Pagitt, and Dan Kimball.

Most of Christianity, according to the Scriptures, will progress into an apostate church as the return of the Lord draws near. Jesus said to His disciples, “It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” (Lk 17:1). He later posed this question: “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8) The implied answer is no.

How could this happen? The essential “love of the truth” is being extinguished by “all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 Jn 2:16). The professing church, consisting of true and false believers, increasingly turns to the world’s ways–its hedonistic philosophy, its evolutionary pseudoscience, its self-oriented psychology, its consumer-driven business methodologies, its religious ecumenism, and its pagan spirituality. Ironically, some have turned to these things in sincerity as a means of enriching and spreading “Christianity.” Nevertheless, the result is consumer Christianity in any and all of its self-serving forms, when “every man [does] that which [is] right in his own eyes” (Jdg 17:6).

As for the signs that would adversely affect the generation at His Coming, Jesus warned that His disciples should “take heed that no man deceive” them (Mat 24:4). If we are not the generation that is living in the time of “strong delusion” in preparation for that day, how much worse can it get? Pray that His Body of believers will increase in their love for His way, His Word, and His truth. TBC

Consumer Christianity--Part 1

by McMahon, T.A.

What do I mean by consumer Christianity? Generally, it is any attempt to build the kingdom of God or build up the individual Christian (or attract the potential convert to Christianity) by means and methods that appeal to the flesh, i.e., the deceitful and self-serving heart of man. It had its beginning in the Garden of Eden when Satan manipulated Eve into disobeying God while believing she was enriching herself (Gen 3:1-6).

More specifically related to what’s taking place today, consumer Christianity is an endeavor to help Christian churches grow in size and become more effective through the application of business principles, marketing strategies, and management concepts. It characterizes the most popular venture in Christendom today, which should seem rather odd, if not disturbing, to anyone who has an understanding of both “consumerism” and “Christianity.” Why? Because these terms are antagonistic to one another.

Consumerism in the business sense is a concept based upon customer satisfaction, which is the key to any successful commercial enterprise. The product or service must be tailored to the wants and perceived needs of the customer, or there is no sustainable profit. The consumer rules, because where there is no customer, there is no profit and, therefore, no business. God rules in biblical Christianity. It is His revelation to humanity regarding “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pt 1:3). Simply put, biblical Christianity encompasses all that is necessary for man-kind to know and do in order to be reconciled to Him, to please Him daily, and to live with Him for all eternity. It is not a business endeavor and, in fact, has no relationship to business or its associated marketing concepts.

Any attempt to enhance the practice of biblical Christianity by means of business principles is, at best, adding futile methodologies to God’s Word. At worst, such an attempt rejects the sufficiency of the Scriptures in favor of works of the flesh, quenches the Holy Spirit, and subjects one to the deceptions of, the service of, and in the end, the bondage of the god of this world. In any case, it leads to spiritual destruction in the church and has eternal consequences.

Consumer Christianity is at the heart of the church-growth movement, and its deadly effect is found among all denominations (as well as pseudo-Christian cults). Many evangelical churches have committed themselves wholeheartedly to a marketing approach aimed primarily at attracting the lost, who are viewed as potential customers. As unbelievers attend the church and mix with new and long-standing members, the consumer concept unavoidably spreads to the entire congregation. This inevitably effects the preaching, music, Sunday School programs, etc., which in turn produces a biblical shallowness throughout the congregation.

More often than not, the business approach has been successful in adding numbers to a church. Tens of thousands of pastors across the U.S., and thousands more internationally, have been influenced by high-profile ministries and have put to use their various marketing methodologies for soul-winning and church growth.

Is that the biblical way to win souls and effect growth in the church?

To some biblical Christians the answer is an obvious “No!” But to increasing numbers who also claim to hold to the Bible as their authoritative and all-sufficient source of God’s truth, “No” has given way to “Possibly…Perhaps…,” or “Let’s be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water!” Well, let’s strain the water to see if there is indeed a baby to rescue.

Is consumerism supported by the Scriptures? Did God shape His Gospel to gratify the worldly desires of humanity? Are there some things in the Bible that should be strategically avoided in order not to put off “potential” believers? Does God’s Word reflect a concern that people might take their “business” elsewhere if their felt needs aren’t being met? Does the Bible tell us to make the truth more acceptable by feeding it to the lost in diluted or entertaining forms? And is it really the gospel that saves if it’s altered to cater to non-Christians? If any believer even remotely thinks so, I fear that the thinking of the world has grievously influenced his understanding of the Bible.

Certainly, pastors ought to know better, yet in most cases where consumerism has infected a church, they have been instrumental in implementing it. The pastors to whom I am referring here, and am most concerned about, are those who consider themselves to be biblical, who sincerely want to see souls saved, and who honestly want to fulfill their calling and ministry in a way that is pleasing to God. How could such a shepherd of the sheep be drawn into consumer Christianity?

The process often develops subtly. Let’s say a pastor loves his church members and wants them to be happy. He also wants them to grow spiritually, and he is always looking for ways for new sheep to be added to his flock. When conflicts arise or growth expectations are not realized, solutions to such problems are often sought from others who have been seemingly successful regarding those issues. The recommended remedies almost always involve some form of accommodation.

For example, a very common church conflict today is that of different tastes in music, which is usually resolved by establishing separate services—one with traditional hymns and one featuring contemporary songs. As that alteration seems to satisfy most members, many pastors are encouraged to add more souls to their church by combining the attraction of contemporary music with seeker-sensitive (appealing and non-threatening) messages presented in a convenient and casual Saturday evening service. Innovative programs are then formulated to sustain the interest of would-be converts and motivate the rarely active church members, with particular emphasis on entertaining activities to attract the youth and keep them coming.

Pastors tell me that they reluctantly glean ideas from the world in order to compete with the world that they might reach the lost in order to save them from the world. They’re aware of the irony of that approach but argue that it’s the only way to avoid preaching to empty pews. The preaching, by the way, is often shortened and supplemented by visuals, skits, and music productions.

This is a path that, though seemingly harmless at first, leads to the broad road of consumer Christianity. Although we empathize with pastors who feel compelled (some even coerced by church politics) to go down that thoroughfare, it is paved with biblical compromises and headed for a spiritual dead end.

This church-growth enterprise is hardly new to Christianity. It is a chronicle of doing things man’s way rather than God’s way. Fourth century Emperor Constantine has yet to be equaled in successful strategies for “growing the church.” He professed to have become a Christian and induced half of the Roman Empire to do likewise. This era of compromises made by the Emperor (the self-appointed “Vicar of Christ”/“Bishop of bishops”) in order to draw in new converts is characterized by Will Durant in The Story of Civilization as a time in which “the world converted Christianity.”1 Another historian writes, “Far from being a source of improvement [over the persecution the Christians previously suffered], this [political] alliance was a source of ‘greater danger and temptation’….[I]ndiscriminately filling the churches [with pagans]…simply washed away the clear moral landmarks that separated the ‘church’ from the ‘world.’”2

One millennium later, Martin “Luther saw and felt [religious] Rome utterly abandoned to money, luxury, and kindred evils,” writes Edwin Booth. “He was stunned and unable to understand it.”3 Nevertheless, he and others did something about it. The clarion call of the Reformation was “Sola Scriptura!” and, although “Scripture alone” wasn’t followed entirely, God’s Word and His way were restored as the authority and rule of life for millions deceived by the devastating compromise that became the Roman Catholic Church.

Consumer Christianity has never been a one-way affair. It takes both a deal maker and a deal taker. Tetzel, the sixteenth-century Dominican monk and the “P.T. Barnum” of the sale of Indulgences, was a master manipulator. Even so, his job was made all the easier by “indulging” the self-serving natures of his Catholic customers. Both rich and poor alike were willing to pay anything to avoid the flames of Hell and Purgatory.

Protestantism has had its own share of both spiritual rip-off artists and consumers ripe for the picking. Whereas Tetzel’s “fund raising” was instrumental in building St. Peter’s in Rome, the “health and prosperity” evangelists of the twentieth century (many still going strong today) helped build Trinity Broadcasting Network into the largest religious television network in the world. By distorting and turning the biblical doctrine of faith into a power anyone can use to obtain wealth and healing, these con men and women have personally amassed fortunes at the expense of the biblically feeble and illiterate, as well as from those “...whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things” (Philippians 3:19).

During the last fifty years, those most susceptible to the schemes of religious charlatans were professing Christians who had an affinity for spiritual experiences rather than sound doctrine. They were usually found among the Pentecostals and Charismatics. Most thoughtful, doctrine-conscious Christians seemed to be immune to the “seed faith” come-ons of an Oral Roberts or the blasphemous “Holy Spirit” power displays of a Benny Hinn, two leaders among a host of other “signs and wonders” promoters.

However, spiritual gullibility has found fertile soil—or, more pointedly, a widening swamp—among those who traditionally have fostered biblical discernment. Although the seductive methodologies are slightly different, the basis for an effective spiritual deception is the same: no Christians, evangelical or otherwise, are impervious to “…all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life…” (1 Jn 2:16). Furthermore, the only safeguard against such deception—the reading of and obedience to the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit—is being systematically diluted throughout the evangelical church.

Church history has demonstrated the necessity of adhering to God’s Word; when that takes place, holiness and fruitfulness follow. When biblical Christianity is adulterated (by adding the methods of men) or abandoned altogether, man’s religious distortions prevail, leading the professing church into spiritual anemia and blindness: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro 14:12). There is also a correlation between the depth of a church’s reliance upon the Scriptures and its acceptance of heretical beliefs and practices. As a church reaches a shallow state with regard to biblical understanding, the ability of its members to discern false teaching becomes practically impossible.

Consumer Christianity’s most deadly effect is what it does to the presentation of the gospel of salvation, the only hope a person has to be reconciled to God. It is nearly always a subtle sales pitch featuring all the wonderful things God has for mankind: He loves them so much and desires to have them spend eternity with Him, and they are significant and of infinite worth. This then becomes the reason for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That mixture of truths and self-indulging distortions is followed by a brief “sinner’s prayer” being repeated by those who were persuaded by the enticing offer. This method has become so commonplace that it’s difficult for some Christians to recognize any problem, let alone realize how misleading it is with regard to a person truly being saved.

How so? Let’s start with someone who is genuinely saved and work backwards. Everyone who is born again by the Spirit of God has a new heart, one filled with God’s love, for Him and for others, as well as for His teachings. He or she is a new creation, and although not perfect in these things, there resides within that person a heart that desires to please God rather than self.

One explicit example of this is found in Luke 7:36-50, involving the woman of sinful reputation who entered the home of Simon the Pharisee, where Jesus was invited to dine. She washed His feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and kissed them repeatedly. Jesus declared of her that she loved much because she was forgiven much.

These passages teach how essential conviction of sin is in coming to Christ. The self-righteous and self-serving Pharisee had little or no conviction of sin and therefore sought no forgiveness. The woman, on the other hand, gave no thought to herself or the disdain with which she was regarded by the dinner guests. Her thankfulness that Jesus would and did cleanse her of her sins compelled her to die to self and live for Him.

The gospel according to consumer Christianity, on the other hand, must make its appeal to self, emphasizing things (both true and distorted) that meet the felt needs of the lost. This seriously restricts all but a hint of any biblical doctrines that would bring about conviction of sin. What’s the problem? Jesus came to save sinners, not consumers.