“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me”…..Matthew 5:11
As I answered my phone today, I received a rather unexpected call. A lady was calling me to inquire about some services that I provide. As we talked, she began to tell me that she was healed…and that she received a word of knowledge from someone on TBN. Immediately a flag went up in my spirit.
As our conversation continued we began to talk about the Lord and she asked me some pretty specific questions regarding “gifts” – particularly speaking in tongues. I told her that her thoughts are unbiblical and I proceeded to explain to her from scripture what the Bible says about such things. I began to give examples such as TBN, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyers, and Paula White being heretics. The lady was not at all happy to hear my confrontation about Joel and my comment that he was as endowed with the devil as they come. Moving on to Paula White, she became even more angry and asked me where I concoct such ideas. I told her ‘from Paula’s own mouth.’ She instantly defended Paula and her decision for divorce while I refuted it and reminded her of Malachi 2:16 “For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel.” She asked me who I was to judge, calling me a name and hung up on me.
A minute later, my phone rang again. It was her telling me that I am not being gentle and that I am being judgmental which the Bible speaks against. I responded that as a believer I am infact to judge with a righteous judgment (John 7:24). Again she became hostile, said some things, and then hung up.
I can tell you that after that encounter, I was extremely happy and blessed. Truth Matters has been an intricate tool in aiding me to discover the truth of God’s word. I appreciate their bold stance in confronting the heretics of this world. The truth must be told and false teaching must be exposed. I praise God for opening my blind eyes and bringing resources such as Truth Matters into my life that I may utilize yet another means of God’s grace in my life.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Yes, They Said It -- Revealing Comments By Dr Al Mohler
Those wondering what has made orthodox believers in mainline Protestant denominations so upset need look no further than two very revealing comments offered by leading figures in these denominational conflicts.
Exhibit A -- Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson
The 2003 election and consecration of Gene Robinson as the first openly-homosexual bishop of the Episcopal Church USA set the stage for the separation of orthodox believers from the denomination that is now reaching fever pitch. Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire even as those investing him in office were aware that he had years earlier divorced his wife and was then (as now) cohabitating with another man.
Keep that in mind as you read this comment Bishop Robinson made in recent days as he was speaking to students at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. Here is how Religion News Service reported the comment:
"I always wanted to be a June bride." -- Openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, telling students at Nova Southeastern University in Florida of his wedding plans. Robinson and his partner Mark Andrew plan to enter into a civil union in New Hampshire in June. Robinson was quoted by University of Miami News Service (Dec. 4).
Well, how will the leadership of the Episcopal Church USA respond to that? Undoubtedly with the same acceptance of the unacceptable that has marked the church's leadership for decades.
Exhibit B -- Lutheran Pastor Bradley Schmeling
Bradley Schmeling, pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church [ELCA] in Atlanta, was removed from the denomination's clergy roster earlier this year after a church court found him in violation of church policy for being found in a same-sex relationship. Schmeling has not been caught in the relationship; he had disclosed the relationship to church leaders.
Subsequent to that action the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA] --the most liberal branch of American Lutheranism -- voted in Chicago to retain the current policy, but to encourage "restraint" from any punitive action if ministers were found to be in violation. The Atlanta church has refused to relieve Pastor Schmeling of his duties.
The December 11, 2007 edition of The Christian Century features an interview with Pastor Schmeling in which he makes this comment:
In my early preaching there was a lot of traditional Lutheran language. I saw every lectionary text as a means to preach about "justification by grace through faith, not by works of the law." Over time, I began to see that people weren't worried whether they were going to heaven or not; they were afraid that they would finish life and find that there hadn't been any heaven in it.
If the issue of the 20th century was the experience of existential dread, the issue for the 21st century seems to be community. People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational.
Few statements are more revealing. Pastor Schmeling is convinced that people do not come to church because they are worried about heaven or the forgiveness of their sins. No, all they want is connection.
Thus, Pastor Schmeling -- Lutheran Pastor Schmeling -- has abandoned preaching about "justification by grace through faith, not by works of the law" -- the very heart of Lutheran theology. Indeed, the very heart of the Gospel itself. This pastor has exchanged the Gospel for a more "incarnational and relational" theology.
Martin Luther, we are reminded, was constantly concerned about heaven, hell, and sin. As the late historian Heiko Oberman explained, Luther always saw himself, and all sinners, as caught in a battle between God and the Devil. Heaven and Hell are always in the balance and the forgiveness of sins is our greatest need. Luther understood "justification by grace through faith (alone), not by works of the law" to be the only truth that secures our salvation.
Of course, we might surmise that a pastor unconcerned with the forgiveness of sin is likely to draw a congregation equally unconcerned about sin. No need for the forgiveness of sin . . . no need for justification, no need for the Gospel, no need for a Savior. In the end, this statement explains everything.
When you hear folks wondering why orthodox believers are so heartbroken and concerned about the travail of their churches, keep these revealing comments in mind. They reveal the problem in a tragic nutshell.
________________
Professor Heiko Oberman's biography of Martin Luther, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, remains in print from Yale University Press. The interview with Pastor Bradley Schmeling is not available online, but can be found as "Ministry and Mission: An Interview with Bradley Schmeling," The Christian Century, December 11, 2007, pages 10-11.
Exhibit A -- Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson
The 2003 election and consecration of Gene Robinson as the first openly-homosexual bishop of the Episcopal Church USA set the stage for the separation of orthodox believers from the denomination that is now reaching fever pitch. Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire even as those investing him in office were aware that he had years earlier divorced his wife and was then (as now) cohabitating with another man.
Keep that in mind as you read this comment Bishop Robinson made in recent days as he was speaking to students at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. Here is how Religion News Service reported the comment:
"I always wanted to be a June bride." -- Openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, telling students at Nova Southeastern University in Florida of his wedding plans. Robinson and his partner Mark Andrew plan to enter into a civil union in New Hampshire in June. Robinson was quoted by University of Miami News Service (Dec. 4).
Well, how will the leadership of the Episcopal Church USA respond to that? Undoubtedly with the same acceptance of the unacceptable that has marked the church's leadership for decades.
Exhibit B -- Lutheran Pastor Bradley Schmeling
Bradley Schmeling, pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church [ELCA] in Atlanta, was removed from the denomination's clergy roster earlier this year after a church court found him in violation of church policy for being found in a same-sex relationship. Schmeling has not been caught in the relationship; he had disclosed the relationship to church leaders.
Subsequent to that action the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA] --the most liberal branch of American Lutheranism -- voted in Chicago to retain the current policy, but to encourage "restraint" from any punitive action if ministers were found to be in violation. The Atlanta church has refused to relieve Pastor Schmeling of his duties.
The December 11, 2007 edition of The Christian Century features an interview with Pastor Schmeling in which he makes this comment:
In my early preaching there was a lot of traditional Lutheran language. I saw every lectionary text as a means to preach about "justification by grace through faith, not by works of the law." Over time, I began to see that people weren't worried whether they were going to heaven or not; they were afraid that they would finish life and find that there hadn't been any heaven in it.
If the issue of the 20th century was the experience of existential dread, the issue for the 21st century seems to be community. People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational.
Few statements are more revealing. Pastor Schmeling is convinced that people do not come to church because they are worried about heaven or the forgiveness of their sins. No, all they want is connection.
Thus, Pastor Schmeling -- Lutheran Pastor Schmeling -- has abandoned preaching about "justification by grace through faith, not by works of the law" -- the very heart of Lutheran theology. Indeed, the very heart of the Gospel itself. This pastor has exchanged the Gospel for a more "incarnational and relational" theology.
Martin Luther, we are reminded, was constantly concerned about heaven, hell, and sin. As the late historian Heiko Oberman explained, Luther always saw himself, and all sinners, as caught in a battle between God and the Devil. Heaven and Hell are always in the balance and the forgiveness of sins is our greatest need. Luther understood "justification by grace through faith (alone), not by works of the law" to be the only truth that secures our salvation.
Of course, we might surmise that a pastor unconcerned with the forgiveness of sin is likely to draw a congregation equally unconcerned about sin. No need for the forgiveness of sin . . . no need for justification, no need for the Gospel, no need for a Savior. In the end, this statement explains everything.
When you hear folks wondering why orthodox believers are so heartbroken and concerned about the travail of their churches, keep these revealing comments in mind. They reveal the problem in a tragic nutshell.
________________
Professor Heiko Oberman's biography of Martin Luther, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, remains in print from Yale University Press. The interview with Pastor Bradley Schmeling is not available online, but can be found as "Ministry and Mission: An Interview with Bradley Schmeling," The Christian Century, December 11, 2007, pages 10-11.
"The Gap Has Only Widened" -- The Anglican Separation Begins By Dr Al Mohler
For the first time since 1860 a diocese of the Episcopal Church has seceded from the national body. The vote came Saturday as delegates to the annual convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin in central California voted 173 to 22 to remove all mention of the Episcopal Church USA from its ruling documents.
"We are now clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church," declared Bishop John-David Schofield.
Press reports underlined the importance of the move. The Los Angeles Times explained that the California diocese "became the first in the nation to secede from the Episcopal Church, taking the historic, risky step as part of a years-long struggle within the U.S. church and global Anglican Communion over homosexuality and biblical authority." The Fresno Bee reported: "Saturday's unprecedented votes set the stage for possible further disintegration of the U.S. church, which is now left with 109 dioceses. The dioceses in Pittsburgh and Fort Worth, Texas, are scheduled to vote next year on whether they also will leave."
For years now, Episcopalians opposed to the increasingly liberal trajectory of the national body have warned that a separation would come. The 2003 election and consecration of an openly homosexual bishop set the stage for the final conflict that would, over just four years, produce the separation.
Conservatives, determined to remain within the Anglican Communion, have pressed for corrective action from the Episcopal Church USA. Instead, the church has refused to repent of its actions contrary to Scripture. Soon after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the national church elected a liberal woman, the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori, as its Presiding Bishop. As Bishop of Nevada, Bishop Jefferts-Schori had supported the election of Gene Robinson and was considered in favor of normalizing homosexuality within the church.
Meanwhile, the larger Anglican Communion expressed its grave concern through a document known as the Windsor Report and through repeated efforts to call the American church to correct its actions that violated the tradition and consensus of the global communion.
Meanwhile, conservative Episcopalians grew increasingly frustrated at the refusal of their church to accept correction. Indeed, it became clear that no correction would come. Conservative organizations and networks sought to find a way for orthodox believers to remain within the church with integrity, but to no avail. As Bishop Schofield told his convention, "the gap has only widened."
The gap is fully evident now as more evangelical and conservative Anglicans have begun to affiliate with provinces of the so-called "Global South." Even as churches in North America and Britain have moved leftward, bishops in Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Uganda, and Kenya have accepted churches formerly identified as Episcopal within their jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield told his diocese that more than 360 congregations have already come under the protection of these bishops.
The Diocese of San Joaquin voted to align with the Province of the Southern Cone (in South America) under the protection of Archbishop Gregory Venables. In response to the diocese's action, Archbishop Venables offered this greeting to his new churches in San Joaquin: "Welcome Home. And welcome back into full communion with the Anglican Communion."
Bishop Schofield told reporters that the alignment with the South American province was a temporary and emergency measure. It seems likely that the eventual future alignment of the Diocese of San Joaquin and other churches and dioceses likely to secede will have to await the determination of legal issues and other matters. The Episcopal Church USA has indicated that it intends to claim ownership of church properties held by the departing churches and dioceses.
In his address to the annual convention, Bishop Schofield offered this powerful reflection, citing Anglican theologian J. I. Packer:
For twenty years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way: straying, at first, from Scripture... to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances, as mere historical documents – of value, perhaps in bygone eras – but no longer applicable to us, to appropriating powers to itself through the General Convention it had never had and, finally, on to unilateral decisions about theology, sexuality, and ordination potentially cutting itself off from the Anglican Communion. J. I. Packer, the eminent British Theologian now living in Canada, puts this in clear perspective when he says: "Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverence, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the culture pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the "in thing" at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss."
At this crucial time in the history of this church, we must pray for those offering brave leadership and biblical witness. The separation has begun.
______________________
From other voices
David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
The Episcopal Church's rejection of 2,000 years of church history and biblical exegesis on human sexuality is the final straw for orthodox Episcopalians. (The Anglican Church of Canada is also breaking up for the same reasons.)We will now see a huge exodus from The Episcopal Church exposing what will become an enormous public relations nightmare, a disaster that it cannot possibly reverse, despite the fiction put out by homosexual leaders like Louie Crew and Bishop Robinson that an inclusive church would see an enormous influx of Roman Catholic homosexuals and other closeted homosexuals who want a place to worship. That hasn't happened. Robinson's consecration four years ago has only emptied churches.An ecclesiastical blood-bath is clearly in the making. Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of [The Episcopal Church], has made it abundantly clear, in less than reconciling language, that there will be "potential consequences", code for lawsuits, now that Bishop John-David Schofield and the majority of his diocese have voted to leave the national church.
_______________________
A massive thread of media reports is available from TitusOneNine, the weblog of The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon.
_______________________
From EpiscopalLifeOnline [official ECUSA publication]:
Nancy Key, a co-founder of 'Remain Episcopal,' said those who wished to remain in the Episcopal Church have felt marginalized and maligned.
"It feels like spiritual violence," said Key, a parishioner at Holy Family Church in Fresno, which has chosen to remain within the Episcopal Church. "All we want to do is be in the Episcopal Church that actively ordains women and is inclusive," she said. San Joaquin is among three dioceses that refuse to ordain or deploy women priests. The others are Fort Worth and the Peoria, Illinois-based Diocese of Quincy.
"We are now clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church," declared Bishop John-David Schofield.
Press reports underlined the importance of the move. The Los Angeles Times explained that the California diocese "became the first in the nation to secede from the Episcopal Church, taking the historic, risky step as part of a years-long struggle within the U.S. church and global Anglican Communion over homosexuality and biblical authority." The Fresno Bee reported: "Saturday's unprecedented votes set the stage for possible further disintegration of the U.S. church, which is now left with 109 dioceses. The dioceses in Pittsburgh and Fort Worth, Texas, are scheduled to vote next year on whether they also will leave."
For years now, Episcopalians opposed to the increasingly liberal trajectory of the national body have warned that a separation would come. The 2003 election and consecration of an openly homosexual bishop set the stage for the final conflict that would, over just four years, produce the separation.
Conservatives, determined to remain within the Anglican Communion, have pressed for corrective action from the Episcopal Church USA. Instead, the church has refused to repent of its actions contrary to Scripture. Soon after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the national church elected a liberal woman, the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori, as its Presiding Bishop. As Bishop of Nevada, Bishop Jefferts-Schori had supported the election of Gene Robinson and was considered in favor of normalizing homosexuality within the church.
Meanwhile, the larger Anglican Communion expressed its grave concern through a document known as the Windsor Report and through repeated efforts to call the American church to correct its actions that violated the tradition and consensus of the global communion.
Meanwhile, conservative Episcopalians grew increasingly frustrated at the refusal of their church to accept correction. Indeed, it became clear that no correction would come. Conservative organizations and networks sought to find a way for orthodox believers to remain within the church with integrity, but to no avail. As Bishop Schofield told his convention, "the gap has only widened."
The gap is fully evident now as more evangelical and conservative Anglicans have begun to affiliate with provinces of the so-called "Global South." Even as churches in North America and Britain have moved leftward, bishops in Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Uganda, and Kenya have accepted churches formerly identified as Episcopal within their jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield told his diocese that more than 360 congregations have already come under the protection of these bishops.
The Diocese of San Joaquin voted to align with the Province of the Southern Cone (in South America) under the protection of Archbishop Gregory Venables. In response to the diocese's action, Archbishop Venables offered this greeting to his new churches in San Joaquin: "Welcome Home. And welcome back into full communion with the Anglican Communion."
Bishop Schofield told reporters that the alignment with the South American province was a temporary and emergency measure. It seems likely that the eventual future alignment of the Diocese of San Joaquin and other churches and dioceses likely to secede will have to await the determination of legal issues and other matters. The Episcopal Church USA has indicated that it intends to claim ownership of church properties held by the departing churches and dioceses.
In his address to the annual convention, Bishop Schofield offered this powerful reflection, citing Anglican theologian J. I. Packer:
For twenty years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way: straying, at first, from Scripture... to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances, as mere historical documents – of value, perhaps in bygone eras – but no longer applicable to us, to appropriating powers to itself through the General Convention it had never had and, finally, on to unilateral decisions about theology, sexuality, and ordination potentially cutting itself off from the Anglican Communion. J. I. Packer, the eminent British Theologian now living in Canada, puts this in clear perspective when he says: "Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverence, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the culture pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the "in thing" at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss."
At this crucial time in the history of this church, we must pray for those offering brave leadership and biblical witness. The separation has begun.
______________________
From other voices
David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
The Episcopal Church's rejection of 2,000 years of church history and biblical exegesis on human sexuality is the final straw for orthodox Episcopalians. (The Anglican Church of Canada is also breaking up for the same reasons.)We will now see a huge exodus from The Episcopal Church exposing what will become an enormous public relations nightmare, a disaster that it cannot possibly reverse, despite the fiction put out by homosexual leaders like Louie Crew and Bishop Robinson that an inclusive church would see an enormous influx of Roman Catholic homosexuals and other closeted homosexuals who want a place to worship. That hasn't happened. Robinson's consecration four years ago has only emptied churches.An ecclesiastical blood-bath is clearly in the making. Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of [The Episcopal Church], has made it abundantly clear, in less than reconciling language, that there will be "potential consequences", code for lawsuits, now that Bishop John-David Schofield and the majority of his diocese have voted to leave the national church.
_______________________
A massive thread of media reports is available from TitusOneNine, the weblog of The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon.
_______________________
From EpiscopalLifeOnline [official ECUSA publication]:
Nancy Key, a co-founder of 'Remain Episcopal,' said those who wished to remain in the Episcopal Church have felt marginalized and maligned.
"It feels like spiritual violence," said Key, a parishioner at Holy Family Church in Fresno, which has chosen to remain within the Episcopal Church. "All we want to do is be in the Episcopal Church that actively ordains women and is inclusive," she said. San Joaquin is among three dioceses that refuse to ordain or deploy women priests. The others are Fort Worth and the Peoria, Illinois-based Diocese of Quincy.
Youth Group Diaper Contest Sparks Police Investigation
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:
Mt. Lebanon police investigated a Christian youth group after the mother of one of its members complained about an activity during which her 14-year-old son wore a diaper and bonnet while sitting on a girl's lap.
This is a new low in the already childish church in America!
Read the Whole Story
Mt. Lebanon police investigated a Christian youth group after the mother of one of its members complained about an activity during which her 14-year-old son wore a diaper and bonnet while sitting on a girl's lap.
This is a new low in the already childish church in America!
Read the Whole Story
Oscar Nominee For 'Best Christian Horror Movie' By Jim B.
If there were such a thing as a Christian "horror movie", it ought to be based on this ominous scene from Pilgrim's Progress. Reason being, I can think of few things on earth that would be more frightening than being sin-trapped in John Bunyan's iron cage.
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm first reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress now, after being a Christian for over 20 years. Being the best selling book of all time (after the bible), this Puritan classic is one that I should have read long ago. I've been reading it to my kids at night for the past few weeks now, and this part of the book really stuck with me.
Then Christian said, "Now let me go forward." But theInterpreter replied, "No, you must stay until I have showed youa little more. After this you can be on your way." So he tookhim by the hand again and led him into a very dark room wherea man sat in an iron cage. Now this man seemed very sad tolook upon. He sat with his eyes looking down toward theground, his hands tightly folded together; and he sighed as if hisheart would break. Then said Christian, "What does this mean?"So the Interpreter told him to talk with the man.
CHRISTIAN: What are you doing here?MAN: I am what I once was not.CHRISTIAN: What were you once?MAN: I was once a fair [attractive], flourishing [thriving] andprofessing Christian, in the eyes of both myself and others. At one time I was convinced of being fair [well set] for reachingthe Celestial City; and even had joyous thoughts of arrival at that destination.CHRISTIAN: Yes, but what are you now?MAN: I am now a man of despair and am shut up [captive]to it, as this iron cage depicts. I cannot get out. Oh howmiserable I am since now I cannot get out.CHRISTIAN: But how did you come to be in this condition?MAN: I neglected to watch and be sober; I loosed anyrestraint that had been on my lusts and gave them free reign;I sinned against the light of the Word and the goodness of God;I have grieved the Holy Spirit so that He has departed from me;I have provoked God to anger and He has abandoned me;I have so hardened my heart that I cannot repent.
Then Christian spoke to the Interpreter, "But is there no hope for such a man as this?" "You ask him," replied the Interpreter.
CHRISTIAN: Do you have any hope that you will not bepermanently kept in this iron cage of despair?MAN: No, none at all.CHRISTIAN: But why ought that to be so? Are you not aware that the Son of the Blessed is very merciful and compassionate?MAN: Nevertheless I have crucified him again by my life;I have despised his person; I have despised his righteousness;I have regarded his blood as something quite unholy; I have donedespite to [spitefully opposed, insulted] the Spirit of grace.Therefore I have shut myself out of all of the promises of God;and there now remains for me nothing but threatenings, fearfulprospects of rebuke, fiery indignation, and certain judgment thatshall, as would some adversary, wholly consume me.CHRISTIAN: For what reasons did you bring yourself intothis sorry condition?MAN: On account of the lusts, pleasures, and profits of thisworld. It was in the enjoyment of these things that I promisedmyself increasing delight. But now they all, as it were, snap backand bite me; they gnaw at my soul like a burning worm.CHRISTIAN: But can you not now repent and turn from thiswretched condition?MAN: No, for God has denied me repentance; His Wordgives me no encouragement to believe. Yes, He himself has shutme up in this iron cage so that even all the men in the world areunable to obtain my release. Oh eternity! eternity! How can Ipossibly grapple with the misery that I shall encounter in eternity?INTERPRETER: So remember this man's misery, and let hissorry condition be a perpetual warning to you.CHRISTIAN: Well, this is a most fearful situation. May God help me to watch and be sober, and pray that I may shun the cause of this man's grief.
Resources Recommendations:
If you've read Pilgrim's Progress before in it's original old-English, the above text probably looks unusual to you. The version I'm reading out of is called The Accurate Revise Text edition, by Barry Horner. On his web site you'll find some excellent Bunyan resources including a commentary that explains the scriptures and theology behind the Pilgrim's Progress text. Barry Horner is giving away a lot of his resources on his site, but one package that you might consider purchasing is the Accurate Revised edition along with another book of his called Themes and Issues. The sketch below is from the "1891 Edition w/ 170 Illustrations". I also recommend some of the other Pilgrim's Progress titles on that page including the collection of sermons that CH Spurgeon preached relating to Bunyan's book. There's also a great puzzle (or matching poster) that you can buy that will help your kids keep track of where they are in the story as it's being read. If you are into historical keepsakes for your home, three good ones that you'll want to have include this giant print version of Pilgrim's Progress, the Geneva Bible of the Mayflower Pilgrims, and a New England Primer.
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm first reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress now, after being a Christian for over 20 years. Being the best selling book of all time (after the bible), this Puritan classic is one that I should have read long ago. I've been reading it to my kids at night for the past few weeks now, and this part of the book really stuck with me.
Then Christian said, "Now let me go forward." But theInterpreter replied, "No, you must stay until I have showed youa little more. After this you can be on your way." So he tookhim by the hand again and led him into a very dark room wherea man sat in an iron cage. Now this man seemed very sad tolook upon. He sat with his eyes looking down toward theground, his hands tightly folded together; and he sighed as if hisheart would break. Then said Christian, "What does this mean?"So the Interpreter told him to talk with the man.
CHRISTIAN: What are you doing here?MAN: I am what I once was not.CHRISTIAN: What were you once?MAN: I was once a fair [attractive], flourishing [thriving] andprofessing Christian, in the eyes of both myself and others. At one time I was convinced of being fair [well set] for reachingthe Celestial City; and even had joyous thoughts of arrival at that destination.CHRISTIAN: Yes, but what are you now?MAN: I am now a man of despair and am shut up [captive]to it, as this iron cage depicts. I cannot get out. Oh howmiserable I am since now I cannot get out.CHRISTIAN: But how did you come to be in this condition?MAN: I neglected to watch and be sober; I loosed anyrestraint that had been on my lusts and gave them free reign;I sinned against the light of the Word and the goodness of God;I have grieved the Holy Spirit so that He has departed from me;I have provoked God to anger and He has abandoned me;I have so hardened my heart that I cannot repent.
Then Christian spoke to the Interpreter, "But is there no hope for such a man as this?" "You ask him," replied the Interpreter.
CHRISTIAN: Do you have any hope that you will not bepermanently kept in this iron cage of despair?MAN: No, none at all.CHRISTIAN: But why ought that to be so? Are you not aware that the Son of the Blessed is very merciful and compassionate?MAN: Nevertheless I have crucified him again by my life;I have despised his person; I have despised his righteousness;I have regarded his blood as something quite unholy; I have donedespite to [spitefully opposed, insulted] the Spirit of grace.Therefore I have shut myself out of all of the promises of God;and there now remains for me nothing but threatenings, fearfulprospects of rebuke, fiery indignation, and certain judgment thatshall, as would some adversary, wholly consume me.CHRISTIAN: For what reasons did you bring yourself intothis sorry condition?MAN: On account of the lusts, pleasures, and profits of thisworld. It was in the enjoyment of these things that I promisedmyself increasing delight. But now they all, as it were, snap backand bite me; they gnaw at my soul like a burning worm.CHRISTIAN: But can you not now repent and turn from thiswretched condition?MAN: No, for God has denied me repentance; His Wordgives me no encouragement to believe. Yes, He himself has shutme up in this iron cage so that even all the men in the world areunable to obtain my release. Oh eternity! eternity! How can Ipossibly grapple with the misery that I shall encounter in eternity?INTERPRETER: So remember this man's misery, and let hissorry condition be a perpetual warning to you.CHRISTIAN: Well, this is a most fearful situation. May God help me to watch and be sober, and pray that I may shun the cause of this man's grief.
Resources Recommendations:
If you've read Pilgrim's Progress before in it's original old-English, the above text probably looks unusual to you. The version I'm reading out of is called The Accurate Revise Text edition, by Barry Horner. On his web site you'll find some excellent Bunyan resources including a commentary that explains the scriptures and theology behind the Pilgrim's Progress text. Barry Horner is giving away a lot of his resources on his site, but one package that you might consider purchasing is the Accurate Revised edition along with another book of his called Themes and Issues. The sketch below is from the "1891 Edition w/ 170 Illustrations". I also recommend some of the other Pilgrim's Progress titles on that page including the collection of sermons that CH Spurgeon preached relating to Bunyan's book. There's also a great puzzle (or matching poster) that you can buy that will help your kids keep track of where they are in the story as it's being read. If you are into historical keepsakes for your home, three good ones that you'll want to have include this giant print version of Pilgrim's Progress, the Geneva Bible of the Mayflower Pilgrims, and a New England Primer.
Rick Warren’s Walmart Minute…..plus 50 seconds
Once again Rick Warren blows a wonderful opportunity to preach the Gospel. Warren was a part of the first ever Christmas Carol Concert presented to all locations of Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club in America which was also presented by the Salvation Army.
Warren spoke for 1 minute 50 seconds and spoke of celebration, salvation and reconciliation, but in his inimitable way, he managed to do it without speaking the Name of Jesus, and of course presented a light and fluffy, back-rubbing waste of time.
What is it that compels people like Warren, Bill Hybels and others to leave the Lord Jesus and the Gospel out of what they describe as Christian messages and events?
Is Rick Warren stupid, dumb or suffering from some physical or mental defect? Of course not, he is a very talented, gifted and articulate person. His worldly success is rivaled by few, generating billions of dollars in the sale of his Purpose Driven empire, from the books to purpose driven merchandise.
So why? What is so wrong with presenting a clear and scriptural Gospel message? My only conclusion has to be that Warren and those like him CHOOSE to deny the Lord. They CHOOSE to be ashamed of the Gospel. They CHOOSE to present a weak and watered down Gospel. They CHOOSE worldly success and fame and acceptance over the self-denial and offense that comes when one presents the Gospel as it should be.
Jeremiah and Isaiah and Paul and Peter and all the others just went about it the wrong way. They should have toned down their presentation. Obviously if these men had been more loved by the world, they, the world, would have loved God, right? Great martyrs of the faith should have tried to get along, and be more tolerant and sensitive. If Polycarp had not been so nick-picky and so bold and direct, perhaps he would have been murdered.
Rick Warren is not only a joke, he is an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment to the Lord and to the cause of Christ. Pray for Warren. I call on him to repent while there is still time, and to lay down all of this purpose driven trash, and do not be ashamed of the Gospel.
Listen to Warren’s message here!
Warren spoke for 1 minute 50 seconds and spoke of celebration, salvation and reconciliation, but in his inimitable way, he managed to do it without speaking the Name of Jesus, and of course presented a light and fluffy, back-rubbing waste of time.
What is it that compels people like Warren, Bill Hybels and others to leave the Lord Jesus and the Gospel out of what they describe as Christian messages and events?
Is Rick Warren stupid, dumb or suffering from some physical or mental defect? Of course not, he is a very talented, gifted and articulate person. His worldly success is rivaled by few, generating billions of dollars in the sale of his Purpose Driven empire, from the books to purpose driven merchandise.
So why? What is so wrong with presenting a clear and scriptural Gospel message? My only conclusion has to be that Warren and those like him CHOOSE to deny the Lord. They CHOOSE to be ashamed of the Gospel. They CHOOSE to present a weak and watered down Gospel. They CHOOSE worldly success and fame and acceptance over the self-denial and offense that comes when one presents the Gospel as it should be.
Jeremiah and Isaiah and Paul and Peter and all the others just went about it the wrong way. They should have toned down their presentation. Obviously if these men had been more loved by the world, they, the world, would have loved God, right? Great martyrs of the faith should have tried to get along, and be more tolerant and sensitive. If Polycarp had not been so nick-picky and so bold and direct, perhaps he would have been murdered.
Rick Warren is not only a joke, he is an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment to the Lord and to the cause of Christ. Pray for Warren. I call on him to repent while there is still time, and to lay down all of this purpose driven trash, and do not be ashamed of the Gospel.
Listen to Warren’s message here!
James Dobson Statement on Colorado Shootings
Colorado Springs, Colo. – Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to the shootings at New Life Church in Colorado Springs and Youth With a Mission missionary center in Arvada: “The Focus on the Family community is grieving over the Sunday shootings at New Life Church and Youth With a Mission missionary center. It is always tragic when these senseless acts of violence occur, and they are occurring now with shocking regulatory in our nation. Yesterday, however, the targets were two religious organizations where men and women worship, serve their neighborhoods and seek care. There are no ‘sanctuaries’ in today’s culture. “Focus on the Family was founded to help families and, during this time of crisis, we will continue to do that. We are working with area churches and pastors to provide counseling and support to those affected by the shootings. “As we pray for the friends and families touched by these tragedies, we take comfort in the fact that, even when the world doesn’t make sense, we don’t have to walk alone. God is with us and He is still in control even when we don’t understand why things happen. We trust him to work out all things – even this tragedy – for the good of those who love Him.”
A Practice, Not a Program By Jesse Johnson
“What does your church do for evangelism?”
I was meeting with a group of outreach pastors from other large churches in our nation. The topic was what our churches do to transform our communities. When the question about what we “do for evangelism” came my way, I knew the expected answer would look like a list of programs. People around the table—many of them from some of the most program-driven, seeker-sensitive churches in the country—turned to me. They were curious about what Pastor MacArthur’s church does to impact our community.
The man repeated, “What does your church do for evangelism?”
“We evangelize,” I answered. As the group laughed, thinking I was joking, it occurred to me that my answer was more profound that I had intended.
At Grace Church, our philosophy of evangelism hinges on the idea that evangelism is not a program. A church does not transform a community through activities and events. In fact, church-sponsored evangelism programs generally do not produce results. Rather, a church impacts its community through the lives of its members. The kingdom is expanded as believers are faithful in evangelism in their individual lives.
All believers are to be active in evangelism. In fact, all four Gospels end with Jesus commanding believers to bring salvation to the lost (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; John 20:21). Jesus’ last earthly words were another repetition of this same command, to bear witness to the gospel (Acts 1:8). It is not an overstatement to say that all Christians should be driven by a love for evangelism. After all, it is our mission in life.
But while all Christians are called to be active in evangelism, not all Christians are equally gifted at this particular calling. Acts 21:8 and Ephesians 4:11 both imply that some have the gift of evangelism and some do not. But God in His wisdom has still called all Christians to evangelize.
Thus, one of the marks of a Christian is a love for evangelism. If you are fearful, evangelism gives you the opportunity to trust God for courage. If you are timid, evangelism gives you an opportunity to trust God for confidence. Christians are slaves to Christ, soldiers in His service, and sons of God. Our master, our general, and our Father has given us our orders: to reach the lost with the hope of the gospel.
As Christians, we love what God loves, and God loves the lost. As we become more and more sanctified, we become more and more like Christ. This growth causes us to grow in our love for those who are still God’s enemies.
Grace Church impacts our community because our members love those in our community. This love results in us reaching out to the lost, presenting the gospel to them, and seeing some of them saved. As we do this, our church grows, and our evangelism results in changed lives. In fact, 2 Corinthians 4:15 says “that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.” In other words, the more we evangelize, the more God’s grace extends to our community. And the more His grace extends, the more He is glorified.
Don’t get me wrong—we do have evangelistic programs and outreaches, and we do have structured events. But what has consistently produced more fruit than any program is the faithfulness of individuals who express their love for their neighbors through evangelism.
So the next time someone asks you what our church does for evangelism, the answer is simple. We evangelize.
I was meeting with a group of outreach pastors from other large churches in our nation. The topic was what our churches do to transform our communities. When the question about what we “do for evangelism” came my way, I knew the expected answer would look like a list of programs. People around the table—many of them from some of the most program-driven, seeker-sensitive churches in the country—turned to me. They were curious about what Pastor MacArthur’s church does to impact our community.
The man repeated, “What does your church do for evangelism?”
“We evangelize,” I answered. As the group laughed, thinking I was joking, it occurred to me that my answer was more profound that I had intended.
At Grace Church, our philosophy of evangelism hinges on the idea that evangelism is not a program. A church does not transform a community through activities and events. In fact, church-sponsored evangelism programs generally do not produce results. Rather, a church impacts its community through the lives of its members. The kingdom is expanded as believers are faithful in evangelism in their individual lives.
All believers are to be active in evangelism. In fact, all four Gospels end with Jesus commanding believers to bring salvation to the lost (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; John 20:21). Jesus’ last earthly words were another repetition of this same command, to bear witness to the gospel (Acts 1:8). It is not an overstatement to say that all Christians should be driven by a love for evangelism. After all, it is our mission in life.
But while all Christians are called to be active in evangelism, not all Christians are equally gifted at this particular calling. Acts 21:8 and Ephesians 4:11 both imply that some have the gift of evangelism and some do not. But God in His wisdom has still called all Christians to evangelize.
Thus, one of the marks of a Christian is a love for evangelism. If you are fearful, evangelism gives you the opportunity to trust God for courage. If you are timid, evangelism gives you an opportunity to trust God for confidence. Christians are slaves to Christ, soldiers in His service, and sons of God. Our master, our general, and our Father has given us our orders: to reach the lost with the hope of the gospel.
As Christians, we love what God loves, and God loves the lost. As we become more and more sanctified, we become more and more like Christ. This growth causes us to grow in our love for those who are still God’s enemies.
Grace Church impacts our community because our members love those in our community. This love results in us reaching out to the lost, presenting the gospel to them, and seeing some of them saved. As we do this, our church grows, and our evangelism results in changed lives. In fact, 2 Corinthians 4:15 says “that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.” In other words, the more we evangelize, the more God’s grace extends to our community. And the more His grace extends, the more He is glorified.
Don’t get me wrong—we do have evangelistic programs and outreaches, and we do have structured events. But what has consistently produced more fruit than any program is the faithfulness of individuals who express their love for their neighbors through evangelism.
So the next time someone asks you what our church does for evangelism, the answer is simple. We evangelize.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Christians and Christmas Trees By John MacArthur
As the Christmas Season approaches, questions like this sometimes arise. Like everything in life, it is important to approach these issues with biblical discernment.
In this case, we see nothing wrong with the traditional Christmas tree. However, some have taught that it’s wrong for anyone to have a Christmas tree in their home. But are their reasons valid? We don’t think so. Let’s look at the two most common objections people make against having a Christmas tree.
First, some object on the basis that Christmas trees have pagan origins. It is believed that Boniface, English missionary to Germany in the eighth century, instituted the first Christmas tree. He supposedly replaced sacrifices to the god Odin’s sacred oak with a fir tree adorned in tribute to Christ. But certain other accounts claim that Martin Luther introduced the Christmas tree lighted with candles. Based on that information you could say the Christmas tree has a distinguished Christian pedigree.
However, even if a pagan background were clearly established, that wouldn’t necessarily mean we could not enjoy the use of a Christmas tree. Perhaps the following analogy will help.
During World War II the American military used some remote South Pacific islands for temporary landing strips and supply depots. Prior to that time the indigenous tribal people had never seen modern technology up close. Large cargo planes swooped in filled with an array of material goods, and for the first time the islanders saw cigarette lighters (which they deemed to be miraculous), jeeps, refrigerators, radios, power tools, and many varieties of food.
When the war was over, the islanders concluded that the men who brought cargo were gods, so they began building shrines to the cargo gods. They hoped the cargo gods would return with more goods.
Most people do not even know about this religious superstition. Similarly, few know anything about the worship of trees. When a child pulls a large present out from under the Christmas tree and unwraps a large model cargo plane, no one views that object as an idol. Nor do we view the Christmas tree to be some kind of gift god. We understand the difference between a toy and an idol just as clearly as we understand the difference between an idol and a Christmas tree. We see no valid reason to make any connection between Christmas trees and wooden idols or the worship of trees. Those who insist on making such associations should take note of the warnings in Scripture against judging one another in doubtful things (see Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).
Another common objection is the claim that Christmas trees are prohibited in Scripture. Jeremiah 10 is commonly used to support this viewpoint. But a closer look at the passage will show that it has nothing to do with Christmas trees and everything to do with idol worship. Verse eight says, “A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine.”
Idol worship was a clear violation of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:3-6 says, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
There is no connection between the worship of idols and the use of Christmas trees. We should not be anxious about baseless arguments against Christmas decorations. Rather, we should be focused on the Christ of Christmas and giving all diligence to remembering the real reason for the season.
In this case, we see nothing wrong with the traditional Christmas tree. However, some have taught that it’s wrong for anyone to have a Christmas tree in their home. But are their reasons valid? We don’t think so. Let’s look at the two most common objections people make against having a Christmas tree.
First, some object on the basis that Christmas trees have pagan origins. It is believed that Boniface, English missionary to Germany in the eighth century, instituted the first Christmas tree. He supposedly replaced sacrifices to the god Odin’s sacred oak with a fir tree adorned in tribute to Christ. But certain other accounts claim that Martin Luther introduced the Christmas tree lighted with candles. Based on that information you could say the Christmas tree has a distinguished Christian pedigree.
However, even if a pagan background were clearly established, that wouldn’t necessarily mean we could not enjoy the use of a Christmas tree. Perhaps the following analogy will help.
During World War II the American military used some remote South Pacific islands for temporary landing strips and supply depots. Prior to that time the indigenous tribal people had never seen modern technology up close. Large cargo planes swooped in filled with an array of material goods, and for the first time the islanders saw cigarette lighters (which they deemed to be miraculous), jeeps, refrigerators, radios, power tools, and many varieties of food.
When the war was over, the islanders concluded that the men who brought cargo were gods, so they began building shrines to the cargo gods. They hoped the cargo gods would return with more goods.
Most people do not even know about this religious superstition. Similarly, few know anything about the worship of trees. When a child pulls a large present out from under the Christmas tree and unwraps a large model cargo plane, no one views that object as an idol. Nor do we view the Christmas tree to be some kind of gift god. We understand the difference between a toy and an idol just as clearly as we understand the difference between an idol and a Christmas tree. We see no valid reason to make any connection between Christmas trees and wooden idols or the worship of trees. Those who insist on making such associations should take note of the warnings in Scripture against judging one another in doubtful things (see Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).
Another common objection is the claim that Christmas trees are prohibited in Scripture. Jeremiah 10 is commonly used to support this viewpoint. But a closer look at the passage will show that it has nothing to do with Christmas trees and everything to do with idol worship. Verse eight says, “A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine.”
Idol worship was a clear violation of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:3-6 says, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
There is no connection between the worship of idols and the use of Christmas trees. We should not be anxious about baseless arguments against Christmas decorations. Rather, we should be focused on the Christ of Christmas and giving all diligence to remembering the real reason for the season.
Rethinking Robert Schuller By Warren Smith
As a former New Age follower I could hardly believe it. On October 17, 2004, more than twenty years after his first appearance on the Hour of Power, New Age leader Gerald Jampolsky was once again Robert Schuller’s featured guest. I was not surprised on one level because I had always been aware of Schuller’s affection for New Age teachings. What did surprise me was Schuller’s willingness to still be so openly aligned with a veteran New Age leader like Jampolsky.
I was very familiar with Gerald Jampolsky. When I was exploring New Age teachings he was the first one to introduce me to the New Age Christ and to the New Age/New Gospel teachings of A Course in Miracles. Widely reputed in New Age circles to be the closest thing to a New Age bible, A Course in Miracles taught me that “there is no sin,”1 “a slain Christ has no meaning,”2 and “the recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.”3
On this Hour of Power program Schuller praised Jampolsky and recommended all of his "fabulous"4 books—in spite of the fact that every one of them was based on the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles. He also stated that Jampolsky’s latest book, Forgiveness, was available in the Crystal Cathedral bookstore. Amazingly, Robert Schuller had begun the year as a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. He was now closing the year by featuring a prominent New Age leader as his special guest. As usual, no one in Christian leadership was holding him accountable, or even seemed to care. Over the years Robert Schuller had obviously done a good job of softening up the church.
Schuller’s latest move is to hold a “Rethink Conference” at his Crystal Cathedral. With an unusual mix of Christian and non-Christian speakers, the conference will take place January 17-19, 2008. He is co-hosting the conference with Emerging Church movement leader Erwin McManus. Schuller's "rethink" website states the purpose of the conference: “Our aim is to bring together a cross-section of the key leaders in today’s culture so we can grapple with what’s truly happening in our world.”5
Among the thirty speakers lending their names and varying degrees of credibility to Robert Schuller’s conference are Lee Strobel, Dan Kimball, Charles Colson, George Barna, Rupert Murdoch, George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Larry King, and Rick Warren’s wife Kay Warren. While Rick Warren has tried desperately to deny his spiritual ties to Schuller, his wife’s presence at the conference speaks volumes.
Conference speaker Lee Strobel’s recent book, The Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ, purports to expose today’s deceptive false Christs, yet an in-depth discussion of the false New Age Christ is completely missing from his book. Meanwhile, apologist Strobel, a former Saddleback pastor, makes no apologies for aligning himself with New Age sympathizer Robert Schuller.
The Emerging Church also refuses to take the New Age seriously. Not surprisingly, two of its top leaders—Erwin McManus and Dan Kimball—agreed to participate in this Schuller “Rethink Conference.” The word “rethink” can be found throughout Kimball’s book The Emerging Church that was forewarded by Rick Warren and Brian McLaren. The word “rethink” can also be found throughout the books of other Emergent leaders, including Brian McLaren. So what is this “Rethink Conference” really about? What do Robert Schuller and “the forces that be” hope to accomplish?
In defining the word “rethink” Webster’s states: “to think over again, with a view to changing.” From my perspective as a former New Age follower, I believe that Robert Schuller’s mission has always been to “rethink” and “change” biblical Christianity into something “new”—as in New Age/New Spirituality. There is a reason that New Age leader Neale Donald Walsch and his New Age “God” refer to Robert Schuller as an “extraordinary minister.”6 There is a reason that Gerald Jampolsky and so many other New Age leaders go out of their way to praise Schuller. They know that Robert Schuller has always been open to spiritual compromise.
In fact, in his latest book, Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God’s Dream for Your Life, Schuller eagerly writes about the virtue of compromise. In this book, that bears New Age leader Gerald Jampolsky’s endorsement on the back cover, Schuller states, “We need to learn the healing quality of wise compromise.”7 He further states, “Perhaps the only way to deal with contradictions is to combine them creatively and produce something new. That’s ingenious compromise.”8 Whether Schuller knows it or not, he just presented the recipe for a New World Religion.
In Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God’s Dream for Your Life, Schuller uses the term “God’s Dream” in the subtitle and within the book. He used the term “God’s Dream” heavily in his 1982 book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation. Saddleback pastor Rick Warren used the Schuller term “God’s Dream” to introduce his widely publicized global “P.E.A.C.E. Plan.” He described his peace plan as “God’s Dream for you—and the world.”9 Brian McLaren, Bruce Wilkinson, Joel Osteen, Erwin McManus and a host of other Christian leaders also use the Schuller term “God’s Dream.” Why?
Although “God’s Dream” is a Schulleresque term with no biblical foundation, it has become part of the vocabulary of the church’s new emerging purpose-driven mindset. It is interesting that Rick Warren uses the Schuller term “God’s Dream” to describe his peace plan. Is “God’s Dream” suddenly becoming the metaphor for world peace? Will we be asked to “rethink” and “compromise” our faith for the good of the world? Will we be asked to “rethink” and “compromise” our faith to attain the world peace that is “God’s Dream?” Is this Schuller-inspired conference designed to initiate this kind of “rethink” and “compromise” process? So what are we expected to “rethink”? What must we ultimately “compromise”? The answer lies within the New Age itself.
The New Age also has a “peace plan” and they are also calling for conferences like these. They insist that world peace will only occur when Christians abandon their “exclusive” and “divisive” relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.10 Neale Donald Walsch, speaking for his New Age “God,” unequivocally states that “the era of the Single Savior is over.”11 Yet at the same time, Walsch’s “God” suggests that Robert Schuller could be instrumental in providing a bridge from the church to the peace and oneness of a New Spirituality.12 Is this New Spirituality where Robert Schuller and these kinds of conferences are ultimately headed? Time will tell. It is important to note that Neale Donald Walsch is not some obscure New Age leader. He is a bestselling author and highly regarded by his New Age peers. Just ask Gerald Jampolsky. It was Walsch who wrote the introduction to Forgiveness—the book that was so highly recommended by Robert Schuller on that 2004 Hour of Power program with Jampolsky.
In Revelation 2:2, Jesus Christ commends the church of Ephesus for exposing false teachers and driving them out of the church. Men like Robert Schuller wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in Ephesus. And neither would those who continue to stand alongside Schuller giving him undeserved influence and credibility. The church does not need to “rethink” and “compromise” its God-given biblical doctrines to accommodate the world. It needs to rethink its willingness to follow worldly leaders like Robert Schuller.
I was very familiar with Gerald Jampolsky. When I was exploring New Age teachings he was the first one to introduce me to the New Age Christ and to the New Age/New Gospel teachings of A Course in Miracles. Widely reputed in New Age circles to be the closest thing to a New Age bible, A Course in Miracles taught me that “there is no sin,”1 “a slain Christ has no meaning,”2 and “the recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.”3
On this Hour of Power program Schuller praised Jampolsky and recommended all of his "fabulous"4 books—in spite of the fact that every one of them was based on the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles. He also stated that Jampolsky’s latest book, Forgiveness, was available in the Crystal Cathedral bookstore. Amazingly, Robert Schuller had begun the year as a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. He was now closing the year by featuring a prominent New Age leader as his special guest. As usual, no one in Christian leadership was holding him accountable, or even seemed to care. Over the years Robert Schuller had obviously done a good job of softening up the church.
Schuller’s latest move is to hold a “Rethink Conference” at his Crystal Cathedral. With an unusual mix of Christian and non-Christian speakers, the conference will take place January 17-19, 2008. He is co-hosting the conference with Emerging Church movement leader Erwin McManus. Schuller's "rethink" website states the purpose of the conference: “Our aim is to bring together a cross-section of the key leaders in today’s culture so we can grapple with what’s truly happening in our world.”5
Among the thirty speakers lending their names and varying degrees of credibility to Robert Schuller’s conference are Lee Strobel, Dan Kimball, Charles Colson, George Barna, Rupert Murdoch, George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Larry King, and Rick Warren’s wife Kay Warren. While Rick Warren has tried desperately to deny his spiritual ties to Schuller, his wife’s presence at the conference speaks volumes.
Conference speaker Lee Strobel’s recent book, The Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ, purports to expose today’s deceptive false Christs, yet an in-depth discussion of the false New Age Christ is completely missing from his book. Meanwhile, apologist Strobel, a former Saddleback pastor, makes no apologies for aligning himself with New Age sympathizer Robert Schuller.
The Emerging Church also refuses to take the New Age seriously. Not surprisingly, two of its top leaders—Erwin McManus and Dan Kimball—agreed to participate in this Schuller “Rethink Conference.” The word “rethink” can be found throughout Kimball’s book The Emerging Church that was forewarded by Rick Warren and Brian McLaren. The word “rethink” can also be found throughout the books of other Emergent leaders, including Brian McLaren. So what is this “Rethink Conference” really about? What do Robert Schuller and “the forces that be” hope to accomplish?
In defining the word “rethink” Webster’s states: “to think over again, with a view to changing.” From my perspective as a former New Age follower, I believe that Robert Schuller’s mission has always been to “rethink” and “change” biblical Christianity into something “new”—as in New Age/New Spirituality. There is a reason that New Age leader Neale Donald Walsch and his New Age “God” refer to Robert Schuller as an “extraordinary minister.”6 There is a reason that Gerald Jampolsky and so many other New Age leaders go out of their way to praise Schuller. They know that Robert Schuller has always been open to spiritual compromise.
In fact, in his latest book, Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God’s Dream for Your Life, Schuller eagerly writes about the virtue of compromise. In this book, that bears New Age leader Gerald Jampolsky’s endorsement on the back cover, Schuller states, “We need to learn the healing quality of wise compromise.”7 He further states, “Perhaps the only way to deal with contradictions is to combine them creatively and produce something new. That’s ingenious compromise.”8 Whether Schuller knows it or not, he just presented the recipe for a New World Religion.
In Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God’s Dream for Your Life, Schuller uses the term “God’s Dream” in the subtitle and within the book. He used the term “God’s Dream” heavily in his 1982 book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation. Saddleback pastor Rick Warren used the Schuller term “God’s Dream” to introduce his widely publicized global “P.E.A.C.E. Plan.” He described his peace plan as “God’s Dream for you—and the world.”9 Brian McLaren, Bruce Wilkinson, Joel Osteen, Erwin McManus and a host of other Christian leaders also use the Schuller term “God’s Dream.” Why?
Although “God’s Dream” is a Schulleresque term with no biblical foundation, it has become part of the vocabulary of the church’s new emerging purpose-driven mindset. It is interesting that Rick Warren uses the Schuller term “God’s Dream” to describe his peace plan. Is “God’s Dream” suddenly becoming the metaphor for world peace? Will we be asked to “rethink” and “compromise” our faith for the good of the world? Will we be asked to “rethink” and “compromise” our faith to attain the world peace that is “God’s Dream?” Is this Schuller-inspired conference designed to initiate this kind of “rethink” and “compromise” process? So what are we expected to “rethink”? What must we ultimately “compromise”? The answer lies within the New Age itself.
The New Age also has a “peace plan” and they are also calling for conferences like these. They insist that world peace will only occur when Christians abandon their “exclusive” and “divisive” relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.10 Neale Donald Walsch, speaking for his New Age “God,” unequivocally states that “the era of the Single Savior is over.”11 Yet at the same time, Walsch’s “God” suggests that Robert Schuller could be instrumental in providing a bridge from the church to the peace and oneness of a New Spirituality.12 Is this New Spirituality where Robert Schuller and these kinds of conferences are ultimately headed? Time will tell. It is important to note that Neale Donald Walsch is not some obscure New Age leader. He is a bestselling author and highly regarded by his New Age peers. Just ask Gerald Jampolsky. It was Walsch who wrote the introduction to Forgiveness—the book that was so highly recommended by Robert Schuller on that 2004 Hour of Power program with Jampolsky.
In Revelation 2:2, Jesus Christ commends the church of Ephesus for exposing false teachers and driving them out of the church. Men like Robert Schuller wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in Ephesus. And neither would those who continue to stand alongside Schuller giving him undeserved influence and credibility. The church does not need to “rethink” and “compromise” its God-given biblical doctrines to accommodate the world. It needs to rethink its willingness to follow worldly leaders like Robert Schuller.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
If it is not sustained by Christ it is Chaos....
"[Christ] upholds all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3).
We base our entire lives on the constancy of physical laws. When something like an earthquake disrupts the normal condition or operation of things even a little, the consequences are often disastrous. Can you imagine what would happen if Jesus Christ relinquished His sustaining power over the laws of the universe for it is He in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17)? We would go out of existence, our atoms scattering throughout the galaxy.
If He suspended the laws of gravity only for a brief moment, we would lose all points of reference. If any of the physical laws varied slightly, we could not exist. Our food could turn to poison; we ourselves could drift out into space or get flooded by the ocean tides. Countless other horrible things could happen.
But the universe remains in balance because Jesus Christ sustains and monitors all its movements and interworkings. He is the principle of cohesion. He is not the deist's "watchmaker" creator, who made the world, set it in motion, and has not bothered with it since. The reason the universe is a cosmos instead of chaos--an ordered and reliable system instead of an erratic and unpredictable muddle--is the upholding power of Jesus Christ.
The entire universe hangs on the arm of Jesus. His unsearchable wisdom and boundless power are manifested in governing the universe. And He upholds it all by the word of His power. The key to the Genesis creation is in two words: "God said." God spoke and it happened.
When I contemplate Christ's power to uphold the universe, I'm drawn to the wonderful promise of Philippians 1:6: "I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." When Christ begins a work in your heart, He doesn't end there. He continually sustains it until the day He will take you into God's very presence. A life, just as a universe, that is not sustained by Christ is chaos.
Suggestions for Prayer:
Ask God to remind you of Christ's sustaining power when you endure your next trial.
For Further Study:
Read Job 38-39 for a greater appreciation of what Christ does to uphold the universe.
We base our entire lives on the constancy of physical laws. When something like an earthquake disrupts the normal condition or operation of things even a little, the consequences are often disastrous. Can you imagine what would happen if Jesus Christ relinquished His sustaining power over the laws of the universe for it is He in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17)? We would go out of existence, our atoms scattering throughout the galaxy.
If He suspended the laws of gravity only for a brief moment, we would lose all points of reference. If any of the physical laws varied slightly, we could not exist. Our food could turn to poison; we ourselves could drift out into space or get flooded by the ocean tides. Countless other horrible things could happen.
But the universe remains in balance because Jesus Christ sustains and monitors all its movements and interworkings. He is the principle of cohesion. He is not the deist's "watchmaker" creator, who made the world, set it in motion, and has not bothered with it since. The reason the universe is a cosmos instead of chaos--an ordered and reliable system instead of an erratic and unpredictable muddle--is the upholding power of Jesus Christ.
The entire universe hangs on the arm of Jesus. His unsearchable wisdom and boundless power are manifested in governing the universe. And He upholds it all by the word of His power. The key to the Genesis creation is in two words: "God said." God spoke and it happened.
When I contemplate Christ's power to uphold the universe, I'm drawn to the wonderful promise of Philippians 1:6: "I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." When Christ begins a work in your heart, He doesn't end there. He continually sustains it until the day He will take you into God's very presence. A life, just as a universe, that is not sustained by Christ is chaos.
Suggestions for Prayer:
Ask God to remind you of Christ's sustaining power when you endure your next trial.
For Further Study:
Read Job 38-39 for a greater appreciation of what Christ does to uphold the universe.
The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 49
Q124: What is the third petition?
A124: Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven; that is, grant that we and all men renounce our own will,[1] and without gainsaying obey Thy will, which alone is good;[2] so that every one may fulfill his office and calling as willingly and faithfully [3] as the angels do in heaven.[4]
1. Matt. 16:242. Luke 22:42; Titus 2:123. I Cor. 7:244. Psa. 103:20-21; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 13:21
A124: Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven; that is, grant that we and all men renounce our own will,[1] and without gainsaying obey Thy will, which alone is good;[2] so that every one may fulfill his office and calling as willingly and faithfully [3] as the angels do in heaven.[4]
1. Matt. 16:242. Luke 22:42; Titus 2:123. I Cor. 7:244. Psa. 103:20-21; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 13:21
Questions 17-20 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. For your Family Devotion today.
Q17: Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A17: The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.[1] 1. Rom. 5:12
Q18: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A18: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin,[1] the want of original righteousness,[2] and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin;[3] together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.[4]
1. Rom. 5:192. Rom. 3:103. Eph. 2:1; Psa. 51:54. Matt. 15:19-20
Q19: What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
A19: All mankind by their fall lost communion with God,[1] are under his wrath and curse,[2] and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for ever.[3]
1. Gen. 3:8, 242. Eph. 2:3; Gal. 3:103. Rom. 6:23; Matt. 25:41
Q20: Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A20: God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life,[1] did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.[2]
1. Eph. 1:42. Rom. 3:21-22
A17: The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.[1] 1. Rom. 5:12
Q18: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A18: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin,[1] the want of original righteousness,[2] and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin;[3] together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.[4]
1. Rom. 5:192. Rom. 3:103. Eph. 2:1; Psa. 51:54. Matt. 15:19-20
Q19: What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
A19: All mankind by their fall lost communion with God,[1] are under his wrath and curse,[2] and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for ever.[3]
1. Gen. 3:8, 242. Eph. 2:3; Gal. 3:103. Rom. 6:23; Matt. 25:41
Q20: Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A20: God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life,[1] did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.[2]
1. Eph. 1:42. Rom. 3:21-22
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Michael Jackson “Thriller Dance” a Small Group Promo by Ingrid
Here is what the North Atlanta Church of Christ feels will attract more to their small group ministry. Michael Jackson’s Thriller dance seems to be popular right now with evangelicals in church. The Holy Spirit’s absence leaves a vacuum that these poor wretches are trying to fill by acting out 23-year-old Michael Jackson music videos. It’s really come to this, folks. When God gives a congregation over to spiritual blindness because of rebellion, church becomes a very, very dark place.
Cheap Laughs for a Holy Night by Ingrid
The flippant and irreverent attitude among evangelicals towards Christ is just one reason I am not an evangelical. You can tell how someone views the Lord Jesus Christ by how they talk about Him. We are going through an Advent devotional at home that describes the various “songs” of Scripture that sing of Christ’s birth. Mary’s Magnificat so beautifully reveals her humility, her worship and her deep awareness of who God was. Compare her Magnificat, or Simeon’s Nunc Dimitas, (Now let thy servant depart in peace, according to thy Word…) with the way the Lord is treated in this joke rendition of O Holy Night. The boys over at CRN.info think so highly of this comedy approach to the holiest of nights that they posted it for all to hear. This Advent season, I point you to the spirit of worship found in the words of this ancient prayer that addresses the miracle, the breath-taking truth of what God did that dark night in Bethlehem, 2000 years ago.
Before Thy, birth, O Lord, the angelic hosts looked with trembling on this mystery and were struck with wonder: for Thou who hast adorned the vault of heaven with stars hast been well pleased to be born as a babe; and Thou who holdest all the ends of the earth in the hollow of Thy hand art laid in a manger of dumb beasts. For by such a dispensation has Thy compassion been made known, O Christ, and Thy great mercy: glory to Thee.
Today Christ is born of the Virgin in Bethlehem. Today He who knows no beginning now begins to be, and the Word is made flesh. The powers of heaven greatly rejoice, and the earth with mankind makes glad. The Magi offer gifts, the shepherd proclaim the marvel, and we cry aloud without ceasing: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men.
Before Thy, birth, O Lord, the angelic hosts looked with trembling on this mystery and were struck with wonder: for Thou who hast adorned the vault of heaven with stars hast been well pleased to be born as a babe; and Thou who holdest all the ends of the earth in the hollow of Thy hand art laid in a manger of dumb beasts. For by such a dispensation has Thy compassion been made known, O Christ, and Thy great mercy: glory to Thee.
Today Christ is born of the Virgin in Bethlehem. Today He who knows no beginning now begins to be, and the Word is made flesh. The powers of heaven greatly rejoice, and the earth with mankind makes glad. The Magi offer gifts, the shepherd proclaim the marvel, and we cry aloud without ceasing: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men.
Rick Warren Will Not Tolerate Dissent by Ingrid of slice of Laodicea
From Slice Of Laodicea:Rick Warren is not a happy camper. Why? Because Rick Warren apparently will not be happy until the entire evangelical world bows low before his Purpose-Driven altar and worships at his feet. Over a year ago, I received word from a friend in Christian leadership that Rick Warren had emailed him. Warren wasn’t happy that my friend was consistently publishing articles that exposed the unbiblical nature of the Rick Warren’s revolutionary church movement. I read the email, and I was sickened by the blatant attempt at schmoozing my friend out of exposing the truth. Warren even suggested that he might be interested in a book my friend had written for use at Saddleback. Fortunately, my friend was not the type to be bought off by cheap flattery. He wrote a letter back calling on Rick Warren to repent. He never heard from him again.Well, today I learned that another friend in Christian broadcasting has received an email from Rick Warren who isn’t happy about the host’s exposing of his condom-happy AIDS experts appearing at Saddleback’s Global Summit on AIDS recently. He said it was inaccurate for the host to say that he was promoting condom usage as a solution to the AIDS crisis. Well, Mr. Warren, you’re one clever man. You may not have been waving a pack of condoms around from the podium in Lake Forest, but you made sure to bring your friends there who very much believe condoms are a part of the solution. That would be homosexual Mark Dybul, Global AIDS Ambassador, abortion and homosexual rights champion, Hillary Clinton, UN Undersecretary General, Peter Piot, and CDC AIDS champion, Susan Hillis.Warren’s problem is that he believes in the dialectic process where you have two opposing views clash, producing a third alternative, or synthesis. Therefore, Rick thinks it’s a good and productive thing to have homosexuals clutching condoms mix with Christians who believe in obedience to God’s plan for sexuality. Out of this clash, Warren thinks solutions can be found for AIDS. Utter hogwash. What Warren is, in fact, generating is a dangerous disregard for what God has already told us in his Word. In the name of compassion, Warren is bringing in those who by God’s definition are fools with darkened minds and hearts, and telling Christians they can learn from them in the battle against AIDS. He has no Scriptural basis for any of this. He does, however, seem to have a political agenda rooted in his apparent need for power and influence. That’s why Rick Warren needs to be exposed for what he is, and his false teachings need to be held up for the true church to see. Those who have ears will hear.P.S. It is significant that Rick Warren, darling of Rupert Murdoch of the multi-billion dollar News Corp and golden boy of both secular and Christian media worldwide, cannot tolerate the slightest dissent. Those who have the courage to speak out are either sent emails with words like “slander” in them (vague hints of legal sabers rattling?) or they are schmoozed in an attempt to flatter them into submission. Rick, if you don’t want the reputation of offering condom-driven solutions, stop inviting these political left-wingers to your church. Even Salon Magazine has noted Saddleback’s “left-wing” turn. If you want to dance with the devil, don’t blame Christians for reporting it.
Rick Warren Asked Allah for Forgiveness? When are we going to say Enough is Enough. WeMust Rise up as TRUE CHRISTIANS and put a stop to this.
In the document written to the Muslim community entitled "Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You" The preamble to the document ends with these words:
"...many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world."
It is a common practice among Muslims to refer to Allah as the All Merciful One. Click Here to See. Any muslim reading this would interpret this statement as a bunch of Christian leaders praying to Allah for forgiveness.
Rick Warren and nearly 300 other evangelical leaders signed this document. Yet, it appears to be invoking Allah, the false god of Islam and asking for Allah's forgiveness! AT BEST, this document makes it sound like Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.
"...many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world."
It is a common practice among Muslims to refer to Allah as the All Merciful One. Click Here to See. Any muslim reading this would interpret this statement as a bunch of Christian leaders praying to Allah for forgiveness.
Rick Warren and nearly 300 other evangelical leaders signed this document. Yet, it appears to be invoking Allah, the false god of Islam and asking for Allah's forgiveness! AT BEST, this document makes it sound like Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.
"We Out-Evangelized The Apostles and Were Proud Of it!" By Jim B.
I don't know if this was my favorite post of all time, but it's certainly in the top 5. This crafted satire was composed by someone who observed how common it is for today's growth-driven churches to be enamored with their own 'success'. He's right; I've encountered pastors of 2000-member seeker churches that say things like: "Never in the history of His church has God seen fit to pour out His blessing as greatly as He is in our midst here at [Our] Church". These church leaders often believe that the easy believism, decisional regeneration, and crowd manipulation that they have adopted is yielding results reflective of some massive move of revival. I've seen them make comparisons with the 18th century Great Awakening for example. Today's pragmatic pastors would greatly benefit from Iain Murray's book Revival and Revivalism, in which Murray shows how true revival is never planned or formulated; what today's trendy churches are doing is instead called 'revivalism'. This imaginary letter from the Megachurch Association of America was so well written, I couldn't help but write-in for permission to repost it here. It's long, but well worth the read
From:
Megachurch Association of America 1950 Slippery Slope Drive Bald Tire, California 92630
To:
The Saints of Old (A Satire)
We, the leaders of the modern phenomenon known as the church growth movement, or megachurch movement, wish to correspond with the leaders of the past, namely the Old Testament prophets, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the reformers, and the revivalists, about some differences between your methods and ours that are becoming increasingly apparent. We cannot help but acknowledge that you did a commendable job in advancing our heavenly Father's Kingdom. We are especially inclined to admire your accomplishments given that you labored under such difficult circumstances and without the knowledge of our modern methods. How you built such great and enduring walls for the King without the contemporary straw and mortar that we find so helpful is a puzzling mystery to us.
Our motivation in writing to you is twofold. First, we would like to obtain your official blessing on our new methods. We are sure that you already approve of them and perhaps are envious of our great success as you sit in glory watching us reap a tremendous harvest for the Kingdom of God. However, we feel that an official sanction from the leaders of the past is warranted. Second, we have spent many months examining your methods, and we feel that in light of our modern advances a few of the numerous mistakes and errors that you unfortunately fell into must be pointed out.
We do not consider ourselves superior to you. It is only by our methodology that we have surpassed you older saints. By the providence of God, we were born on the cusp of this progressive and superior methodology. While we greatly respect the methods employed 2000 years ago by our Savior, Jesus Christ, we flatly reject the use of His methods in today's culture. We desire our ministries to glorify Jesus, not necessarily by following His example or by using His methods, but, instead, by reaping a large harvest for Him using our contemporary methods. Our hearts overflow with thanks to God who has graciously shown us a better way to live and minister in these turbulent times.
It cannot be denied that ours is an important movement in the annals of church history. In 1970 there were only 10 megachurches in America. Today there are over 800 such churches. Last year brother Bill Hybels in Illinois had over 100,000 church leaders attending his church growth seminars while brother Rick Warren (of Purpose-Driven Life fame) had 250,000 leaders attend his seminars. Please note also that our dear brother Joel Osteen at Lakewood Church in Texas is soon projected to have 30,000 in weekly church attendance. We have managed to grow our churches aggressively, by the grace of God, in an era of declining church interest and blossoming secularization. We could not have achieved such success without much help from those who came immediately before us. More about them will be discussed later.
Our movement has been dubbed "the seeker-friendly movement." This title sums up our criticism of the ministries of all those to whom this letter is addressed. As we read the Bible looking for corroboration of our methods, we have to conclude that God is doing a new thing among us. One of our brothers, the "Pastor of Greater Arts" in Rick Warren's megachurch, was recently quoted in a newspaper saying, "Don't forget, Christ used user-friendly language. He spoke to his followers in parables" (The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 30, 2003). We thought this idea might serve as some type of Biblical precedent for our approach of broad appeal and inclusivity. Then someone pointed out that in the 13th chapter of Matthew, Jesus stated that the reason He spoke in parables was so that people might hear Him, yet not understand Him. This idea sent our search for Biblical justification back to square one. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no Biblical precedent for what we are doing. Nevertheless, we know that our methods are right, and we will boldly let our rising numbers speak for themselves. Hence, pragmatism remains our chief principle: if it appears to work, it must be right.
It is evident to us that in today's culture your archaic methods could never produce the results that we have achieved. We cannot bear the thought of proclaiming to this generation words such as the following spoken by Isaiah:
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat of the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword. (Isaiah 1:18-20)
The above verses violate another one of our key principles: we never imply that someone is guilty of sin. After all, it is the Holy Ghost's job to bring about conviction of sin. Since the Holy Ghost convicts of sin so rarely in our churches, it would be highly presumptuous for us to take upon ourselves this role.
We have uncovered many of our guiding principles through the use of modern marketing techniques that have confirmed that unchurched people and backsliders are offended at direct and plain speech such as Isaiah's above. God's ministers must not make anyone feel uncomfortable. We want people to have fun in church. We do not want the atmosphere to be unfriendly or offensive. Neither doctrines nor Biblical standards have ever saved anyone, but church involvement has led many people to the Lord for salvation. We have, therefore, made the wise decision to sacrifice the better for the best in doing away with all doctrines or Biblical standards that would seem to inhibit church growth.
For example, take the Biblical view of the self. The Bible teaches that we should esteem others as better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). You men of old, whether from Bible times or from later centuries, uniformly thought of yourselves as mere dust before an infinite and holy God. The modern theory of self-esteem, which has become highly popular in the church over the past 40 years, has no place in Scripture. Neither is there any evidence in church history of such a notion. Yet the idea that one must have a positive self-image in order to be happy and healthy has so permeated the church that one would be considered mad if he were to question it. Even though this idea has no basis in Scripture, no basis in church history, and you men of old believed the exact opposite of this modern doctrine, we gladly embrace it since the notion of positive self-esteem has such power to attract people to our churches. How repulsive to the unchurched would Ezekiel's words be today, "Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall clothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations" (Ezek. 32:31)?
As you can see, we are committed to removing anything from the church that has the potential to injure a sinner's self-esteem. Our beloved brother, Robert Schuller, who served as a keynote speaker at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) last year and who was a pioneer in helping develop our philosophy of ministry, has represented our position well when he said, "I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition" (Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1984).
In addition to removing anything offensive, we have added numerous things to the life of the church that are very attractive to the carnal mind of the lost. A notable newspaper summarized our approach with the following:
Gone are traditional religious dogmas, rituals, and symbols, replaced by uplifting songs and sermons. Congregants are taught that - through God - they are victors, not victims. The messages are encouraging and easy to swallow, and no one is called a sinner. It's 'Jesus meets the power of positive thinking'... There's none of that old-time religion; none of that hell-and-damnation, fire-and-brimstone preaching ... The idea is to be inclusive and inoffensive ... Pastor Joel Osteen's sermon [was] given like a motivational speech ... There's no talk of controversial subjects, such as abortion or homosexuality ... [The megachurches] have more of a rock concert feel ... Organs have been replaced by electric guitars, hymns with rock-and-roll tunes. Nowhere is there a cross or a candle, and the language is contemporary, with not a 'thee' or a 'thou'... Worked into a frenzy by the 10 piece [rock] band and 300-member choir, dozens of slick music videos and, yes, the wave, congregants were enraptured. (The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 30, 2003)
Compare the above description to accounts of Jonathan Edwards' infamous and shameful sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." We cannot countenance such preaching as this,
The devils watch them [the unchurched]; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost ... The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.
Under Edwards' despicable, old-style preaching scores of people were smitten by a glimpse of their lost and sinful condition to the point of utter brokenness manifested by much weeping and wailing. How this must have wrecked the congregants' self-esteem, which, undoubtedly, was already made fragile by his frequent use of negative language. We are certain that Edwards often spoke of human depravity, hell, the dangers of sin, the necessity of repentance, and other such topics that have no place in our messages. We are also certain that he never would have allowed his congregants to perform "the wave" in church. Perhaps this is one of the reasons his parishioners fired him. He was forced to move his family to the wilderness village of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, to pastor a congregation made up mainly of poor Indians. As you can see, Edwards' approach was certainly wrong. We find that the converse of our chief principle is also true; if it appears not to work, it must be wrong. Oh, what a triumph God is working through us over the archaic methods of yesterday!
By God's providence we have been able to choose from a wide variety of worldly entertainment that did not exist in prior ages. The rise of rock-and-roll has been the best thing that has happened to the church in centuries. We have been able to harness the wide appeal of rock-and-roll in its various forms and bring multitudes of rock fans into the church to "rock for the Lord." This leaven has so thoroughly leavened the whole lump that our services feel more like a rock concert than a church service. Imagine the energy and spirit of a Rolling Stones concert brought into God's house and used to reach people with our message of empowerment. Glory to God for this great modern tool, rock-and-roll! Where would we be without it? Our preaching alone could never draw in so many unchurched people.
You older saints must be starting to see the advantage of our approach. We do not pretend to have discovered this inclusive and pragmatic method ourselves. We must credit our forefather, Emperor Constantine, for first utilizing this method in advancing God's Kingdom in the 4th century. Constantine could rightly be called the father of the megachurch movement. By mixing a generous portion of the world with the ministry of the church, he was able to appeal to the unchurched and "resonate with the spirit of the age" as we are trying to do. It was Constantine who first employed the method of bringing into God's house those things that the unregenerate world found to be irresistible attractants. The church grew by leaps and bounds when he brought pagan idols into the church, gave them Biblical names such as the Virgin Mary and Saint Peter, and encouraged the pagans to pray to them and worship them. We must reverently offer hearty praises to God who has enabled us to enlarge and strengthen the church just as in the days of Constantine.
Instead of barring pagans from church fellowship, Constantine cleared away all obstacles to their full participation. Christianity very quickly changed from a small, penurious, and persecuted band of disciples to a popular, wealthy, and commodious fellowship. The following quote from a historian will buttress our view of Constantine,
All at once, the profession of the Gospel became fashionable; crowds of merely nominal converts presented themselves at the baptismal font; and many even entered the clerical office who had no higher object in view than an honorable or a lucrative position. Ecclesiastical discipline was relaxed; and that the heathen might be induced to conform to the religion of the emperor, many of their [pagan] ceremonies were introduced into the worship of the Church. (Paganism Surviving in Christianity, by Abram Herbert Lewis, 1892)
Constantine's great innovations have been roundly criticized by Protestants, but we see the wisdom of his policy of inclusion. Of course, Constantine's methodology required a relaxation of Biblical standards, the very thing that we have tried to promote ourselves. There is little recorded about the music of that period, but we are sure that if rock-and-roll had been around, Constantine would have changed the lyrics a bit, brought it into the church, and used its appeal for the Lord.
We would now like to discuss several examples of the more egregious methodologies employed by those to whom this letter is addressed. To begin with, most of what is recorded about the ministries of the Old Testament prophets we find quite embarrassing. The manner in which the prophets communicated with their fellowman was often vitriolic, non-pragmatic, and harmful. Let us consider the ministry of Elijah as an example. We find that the words he spoke to Ahab, Jezebel, and the prophets of Baal were very negative to say the least. We believe that slaying 450 of Baal's prophets was very unappealing to the unchurched of his day. After God's fire fell on the sacrifice at Mount Carmel, we believe it would have been better to turn the event into a BBQ and invite the prophets of Baal to join in. Perhaps Elijah could have hired a Zidonian band to play festive music so that Baal's prophets and Jezebel would feel welcome. Elijah could learn much from the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Using such methods as Elijah's, it is no wonder that many of God's ancient prophets were killed in the prime of their ministries.
We greatly dislike the words recorded by Ezekiel when God told him that the priests "shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek. 44:23). We believe in letting the people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. We feel that constantly barking at this or that would offend many people and drive them away from church. You will hear no barking at sin from our pulpits. If the sheep are driven away from church by offensive preaching, they will surely fall prey to ravening, grievous wolves. Our approach can be summed up by a quote in the media from brother Joel Osteen, "For years there's been a lot of hellfire and damnation. You go to church to figure out what you're doing wrong and you leave feeling bad like you're not going to make it. We believe in focusing on the goodness of God" (FOXNews.com, Feb. 3, 2004).
We also take exception to the methods of John the Baptist. We are opposed to everything about his approach. He obstinately refused to conform his manner of dress, his diet, or his doctrine to the prevailing trends of the time. We are sure that if he had donned soft raiment and had preferred sumptuous snacks rather than grasshoppers and honey, his appeal would have been broadened, particularly with the 20-something crowd of his day.
His preaching ministry seems to have been very offensive and "preachy." He said, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ... O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance ... And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:2, 7-8, 10). He should have known that the unchurched dislike such authoritative, "holier than thou" styles of communication. Perhaps a trendy church skit or an evangelistic chariot wash would have produced better results.
While John the Baptist did not lack enthusiasm for the cause of Christ, the fact that his public ministry lasted only six months ending with his imprisonment and decapitation illustrates his faulty methodology. Just imagine the harvest that John the Baptist could have won had he softened his message a bit and been more positive. If he had taken our approach, he could have been one of the greatest ministers of the gospel in all of church history. It is true that John the Baptist was commended by Christ, but we cannot help thinking how much greater he could have been used if he had not been so disengaged from the culture and "preachy" in his ministry. Surely, John the Baptist could learn from our example of accommodation, diplomacy, and peaceful coexistence with unchurched men such as King Herod.
The earthly ministry of our Savior is not without regrettable examples of offensive methods. It is somewhat surprising to us that Jesus chose to emulate the old-style methods of those who preceded Him rather than our modern and efficacious style, which He undoubtedly foreknew. The way in which He spoke to the religious leaders could hardly be considered inclusive or diplomatic. Also, the incident with the moneychangers and the whip represents inconsistent behavior from One who spoke of being "meek and lowly in heart." Again, Jesus went so far as to publicly imply that a particular unchurched woman was a dog and not worthy to receive spiritual bread (Matt. 15:26). The 6th chapter of John records perhaps the most tragic event in the earthly ministry of our Savior. While trying to inform His hearers about obtaining eternal life, Jesus represented the way as so difficult and narrow that many, many of His followers turned back "and walked no more with him" (v. 66). This same narrowness can be seen in the 19th chapter of Matthew when the rich young ruler inquired of Jesus the way to eternal life and was sent "away sorrowful" by the stringency of Jesus' words.
Given the fact that Jesus ministered in the style of Elijah and John the Baptist (Luke 9:18-19), it seems obvious to us why His three years of incessant labor produced the rather smallish church of 120 souls at the day of Pentecost. It is certainly commendable that Jesus healed the sick and fed the multitudes. However, we believe that Jesus could have done a great deal more to engender goodwill with His targeted market. His ministry's unappealing narrowness was sadly conspicuous on the day the people cried, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas"!
To the Apostle Peter we would like to address the matter of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter should have found a less confrontational approach to dealing with this well-intentioned couple. Had they not given a sizable portion of their wealth to the work of the ministry? Diplomacy and inclusivity would have proven much more positive than the caustic and accusatory language spoken by Peter. The fact that Peter was the human agency of their swift demise must have done irreparable damage to his reputation as a minister of our longsuffering and gracious heavenly Father. We can only imagine what harm was done to the spread of the gospel when, to quote from our beloved NIV, "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events ... No one else dared join them" (Acts 5:11, 13). We are sure that this regrettable incident with Ananias and Sapphira kept many compromisers, liars, false professors, hypocrites, and covetous persons out of church fellowship. These are the very people we have had stupendous success bringing into God's house. It is not recorded, but we are sure the Lord must have been grieved at Peter's unloving dealings with this misunderstood couple.
There remain numerous examples in the New Testament of objectionable methods, but time would fail us to decry them all thoroughly. However, we must mention one other matter from the life of the Apostle to the unchurched. We find Paul's demeanor and attitude toward those without the church to be reprehensible. Please consider some of the scandalous things he wrote:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. (2 Cor. 6:14-17)
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:11)
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Tim. 5:20)
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim. 4:2-4)
A striking difference between us and the Apostle Paul is his seeming indifference to numerical success. He seemed content to focus his ministry on building a pure bride, even if numerically small. This evidently required that Paul have the battlefield mindset of a soldier, which is much different than our own mindset. We dislike the fact that he was always fighting and contending. A variety of verbs are used to describe the ministries of Paul and his associates in the book of Acts. They were ubiquitously found disputing against, reasoning with, speaking boldly to, preaching to, persuading, exhorting, declaring, and warning their hearers. We believe that this kept them from entering into peace and rest such as we have. We believe that by not fighting with the world, we have discovered the green pastures and still waters about which the Lord spoke in the Psalms. It is not surprising to us that Paul's polemical ministry caused him to spend a great deal of time in prison. Perhaps God was trying to speak to him there about changing his methods.
We could write for many more pages about the deficiencies of those who ministered before AD 1950. Certainly the reformers such as Tyndale and Luther were wrong in their approach in the 1500s. John Bunyan was obviously off track since his dogmatism caused him to be locked up in the Bedford jail for over a decade in the 1600s. We condemn the offensive manner in which the likes of George Whitefield, John Wesley, and scores of other fanatics preached repentance in the open air to the unchurched in the 1700s. Perhaps the worst example of such old-style fanaticism was exhibited by William and Catherine Booth, the founders of the Salvation Army, in the 1800s. It gives us pangs of nausea when we contemplate the shameful and embarrassing tactics that those here listed used in the name of our mild-mannered and gentle Jesus.
By looking at a description of Whitefield's preaching. it is plain to see the unchristian tone of his sermons. Bishop J.C. Ryle said that Whitefield was "perpetually telling you about your sins, your heart, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the absolute need of repentance, faith, holiness ..." (Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, by J.C. Ryle, p. 51). Let us look at another example. Note the profusion of negative language in this excerpt from a John Wesley sermon:
Thou ungodly one who hearest these words, thou vile, helpless, miserable sinner, I charge thee before God, the judge of all, go straight unto Jesus with all thy ungodliness ... Go as altogether ungodly, guilty, lost, destroyed, deserving and dropping into hell ... Plead thou singly the blood of the covenant, the ransom paid for thy proud, stubborn, sinful soul. (Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, by J.C. Ryle, p. 93)
And what were the effects of these unchristian methods on the hearers? We could demonstrate our point using numerous examples from the lives of the men listed above, but let us look at one account from the journal of George Whitefield:
Most were drowned in tears. The Word was sharper than a two-edged sword. The bitter cries and groans were enough to pierce the hardest heart. Some of the people were as pale as death; others were wringing their hands; others lying on the ground; others sinking into the arms of friends; and most lifting up their eyes to Heaven and crying to God for mercy. (George Whitefield, Vol. 1, by Arnold Dallimore, p. 487)
The damage done to the hearers, particularly to any unchurched people that might have been present, can be clearly seen in Whitefield's own account. Thus robbed of their self-esteem, many of Whitefield's hearers were driven into mental illness. In fact, a complaint was made to Bishop Benson that 15 persons were driven mad by Whitefield's first sermon, which he preached at his ordination. With such deleterious effects as these, it is no wonder that Luther, Tyndale, Bunyan, Booth, the early Methodists, and many others were so bitterly opposed by the more mature and pragmatic church leaders of their day.
Though we reject nearly all "great" men from previous centuries (except Constantine), there are many truly great ones who came immediately before us upon whose shoulders we stand. We could not have had such wonderful success without pioneers such as Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the other founders of neo-evangelicalism whose bold stance against the intolerant and mean-spirited fundamentalists paved the way for our movement. Their example of diplomacy, their repudiation of separation, and their willingness to adapt church standards to the changing American culture cannot be overstated. Also, the efforts of Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, and the other signatories of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (ECT) helped prepare America for the burgeoning of ecumenical activity that has modified the spiritual climate in favor of rapid church growth. The modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV) have also played no small part in our success. Interestingly, we find that very, very few of the adherents of the archaic King James Bible are in support of our methodology. We must thank men like Robert Schuller and James Dobson for their tireless efforts to make pop psychology acceptable in the church. Pop psychology has proven to be extremely attractive to those whose ears seem to itch for a positive message.
Lastly, we must acknowledge our indebtedness to Anton LaVey, an important pioneer in spiritual matters. In the 1960s LaVey founded the Church of Satan. He also authored the Satanic Bible, which has sold hundreds of thousands of copies all over the world. Under his leadership the Church of Satan grew to 10,000 members worldwide, which clearly makes it a megachurch. We are somewhat envious of LaVey for his success in recruiting some of Hollywood's biggest stars such as Sammy Davis, Jr., and Jayne Mansfield, both of whom were involved in the Church of Satan. We have been earnestly praying for someone like Madonna or Howard Stern to join one of our churches that we might see them continue their careers "for the Lord." How, you may ask, was LaVey able to build such an influential and large church for Satan? We believe that the two quotes below may give a hint as to the reason:
We established a Church of Satan - something that would smash all concepts of what a "church" was supposed to be. This was a temple of indulgence to openly defy the temples of abstinence that had been built up until then. We didn't want it to be an unforgiving, unwelcoming place, but a place where you could go to have fun. (Anton Szandor LaVey, History of the Church of Satan by Blanche Barton)
LaVey came to genuinely believe that his message of aggressive self-interest was a way of individuals to achieve freedom and happiness in their lives. He saw Satan, not as a tempter of mankind, but as a spur to human self-improvement. (http://www.satanic-kindred.org/tribute.htm)
These two quotes reveal that the philosophy of "ministry" utilized by Anton LaVey is strikingly similar to our own. We must mention that there are numerous irreconcilable differences between LaVey's beliefs and ours, yet these differences seem to be peripheral. At the core, his philosophy of ministry and ours match up very closely with the obvious exception that we serve God rather than Satan. We are thankful to Mr. LaVey for his ironic contributions to our great work.
As you can see from the cogent arguments outlined in this piece of correspondence, the conditions under which you labored were wholly unnecessary. Your toiling, your deprivation, and your strictness were an unfortunate tragedy. Not only did you suffer needlessly, your efforts were dreadfully hampered by the faulty methods that you employed. Most thankfully, God has enabled us to forge new paths that are not so straight, nor narrow, nor toilsome, as those upon which you older saints were obliged to tread. In heaven we look to receive honor and glory commensurate with our accomplishments for Christ. Until we arrive there, we bid you enjoy the meager fruits of your flawed labors. When we join you in the Celestial City, our brilliance will surely outshine your tarnished glory. We will undoubtedly be given the seats of honor in the presence of the King as a result of our superior methodology.
Respectfully yours,Steering Committee MembersMegachurch Association of America
Our motivation in writing to you is twofold. First, we would like to obtain your official blessing on our new methods. We are sure that you already approve of them and perhaps are envious of our great success as you sit in glory watching us reap a tremendous harvest for the Kingdom of God. However, we feel that an official sanction from the leaders of the past is warranted. Second, we have spent many months examining your methods, and we feel that in light of our modern advances a few of the numerous mistakes and errors that you unfortunately fell into must be pointed out.
We do not consider ourselves superior to you. It is only by our methodology that we have surpassed you older saints. By the providence of God, we were born on the cusp of this progressive and superior methodology. While we greatly respect the methods employed 2000 years ago by our Savior, Jesus Christ, we flatly reject the use of His methods in today's culture. We desire our ministries to glorify Jesus, not necessarily by following His example or by using His methods, but, instead, by reaping a large harvest for Him using our contemporary methods. Our hearts overflow with thanks to God who has graciously shown us a better way to live and minister in these turbulent times.
It cannot be denied that ours is an important movement in the annals of church history. In 1970 there were only 10 megachurches in America. Today there are over 800 such churches. Last year brother Bill Hybels in Illinois had over 100,000 church leaders attending his church growth seminars while brother Rick Warren (of Purpose-Driven Life fame) had 250,000 leaders attend his seminars. Please note also that our dear brother Joel Osteen at Lakewood Church in Texas is soon projected to have 30,000 in weekly church attendance. We have managed to grow our churches aggressively, by the grace of God, in an era of declining church interest and blossoming secularization. We could not have achieved such success without much help from those who came immediately before us. More about them will be discussed later.
Our movement has been dubbed "the seeker-friendly movement." This title sums up our criticism of the ministries of all those to whom this letter is addressed. As we read the Bible looking for corroboration of our methods, we have to conclude that God is doing a new thing among us. One of our brothers, the "Pastor of Greater Arts" in Rick Warren's megachurch, was recently quoted in a newspaper saying, "Don't forget, Christ used user-friendly language. He spoke to his followers in parables" (The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 30, 2003). We thought this idea might serve as some type of Biblical precedent for our approach of broad appeal and inclusivity. Then someone pointed out that in the 13th chapter of Matthew, Jesus stated that the reason He spoke in parables was so that people might hear Him, yet not understand Him. This idea sent our search for Biblical justification back to square one. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no Biblical precedent for what we are doing. Nevertheless, we know that our methods are right, and we will boldly let our rising numbers speak for themselves. Hence, pragmatism remains our chief principle: if it appears to work, it must be right.
It is evident to us that in today's culture your archaic methods could never produce the results that we have achieved. We cannot bear the thought of proclaiming to this generation words such as the following spoken by Isaiah:
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat of the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword. (Isaiah 1:18-20)
The above verses violate another one of our key principles: we never imply that someone is guilty of sin. After all, it is the Holy Ghost's job to bring about conviction of sin. Since the Holy Ghost convicts of sin so rarely in our churches, it would be highly presumptuous for us to take upon ourselves this role.
We have uncovered many of our guiding principles through the use of modern marketing techniques that have confirmed that unchurched people and backsliders are offended at direct and plain speech such as Isaiah's above. God's ministers must not make anyone feel uncomfortable. We want people to have fun in church. We do not want the atmosphere to be unfriendly or offensive. Neither doctrines nor Biblical standards have ever saved anyone, but church involvement has led many people to the Lord for salvation. We have, therefore, made the wise decision to sacrifice the better for the best in doing away with all doctrines or Biblical standards that would seem to inhibit church growth.
For example, take the Biblical view of the self. The Bible teaches that we should esteem others as better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). You men of old, whether from Bible times or from later centuries, uniformly thought of yourselves as mere dust before an infinite and holy God. The modern theory of self-esteem, which has become highly popular in the church over the past 40 years, has no place in Scripture. Neither is there any evidence in church history of such a notion. Yet the idea that one must have a positive self-image in order to be happy and healthy has so permeated the church that one would be considered mad if he were to question it. Even though this idea has no basis in Scripture, no basis in church history, and you men of old believed the exact opposite of this modern doctrine, we gladly embrace it since the notion of positive self-esteem has such power to attract people to our churches. How repulsive to the unchurched would Ezekiel's words be today, "Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall clothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations" (Ezek. 32:31)?
As you can see, we are committed to removing anything from the church that has the potential to injure a sinner's self-esteem. Our beloved brother, Robert Schuller, who served as a keynote speaker at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) last year and who was a pioneer in helping develop our philosophy of ministry, has represented our position well when he said, "I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition" (Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1984).
In addition to removing anything offensive, we have added numerous things to the life of the church that are very attractive to the carnal mind of the lost. A notable newspaper summarized our approach with the following:
Gone are traditional religious dogmas, rituals, and symbols, replaced by uplifting songs and sermons. Congregants are taught that - through God - they are victors, not victims. The messages are encouraging and easy to swallow, and no one is called a sinner. It's 'Jesus meets the power of positive thinking'... There's none of that old-time religion; none of that hell-and-damnation, fire-and-brimstone preaching ... The idea is to be inclusive and inoffensive ... Pastor Joel Osteen's sermon [was] given like a motivational speech ... There's no talk of controversial subjects, such as abortion or homosexuality ... [The megachurches] have more of a rock concert feel ... Organs have been replaced by electric guitars, hymns with rock-and-roll tunes. Nowhere is there a cross or a candle, and the language is contemporary, with not a 'thee' or a 'thou'... Worked into a frenzy by the 10 piece [rock] band and 300-member choir, dozens of slick music videos and, yes, the wave, congregants were enraptured. (The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 30, 2003)
Compare the above description to accounts of Jonathan Edwards' infamous and shameful sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." We cannot countenance such preaching as this,
The devils watch them [the unchurched]; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost ... The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.
Under Edwards' despicable, old-style preaching scores of people were smitten by a glimpse of their lost and sinful condition to the point of utter brokenness manifested by much weeping and wailing. How this must have wrecked the congregants' self-esteem, which, undoubtedly, was already made fragile by his frequent use of negative language. We are certain that Edwards often spoke of human depravity, hell, the dangers of sin, the necessity of repentance, and other such topics that have no place in our messages. We are also certain that he never would have allowed his congregants to perform "the wave" in church. Perhaps this is one of the reasons his parishioners fired him. He was forced to move his family to the wilderness village of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, to pastor a congregation made up mainly of poor Indians. As you can see, Edwards' approach was certainly wrong. We find that the converse of our chief principle is also true; if it appears not to work, it must be wrong. Oh, what a triumph God is working through us over the archaic methods of yesterday!
By God's providence we have been able to choose from a wide variety of worldly entertainment that did not exist in prior ages. The rise of rock-and-roll has been the best thing that has happened to the church in centuries. We have been able to harness the wide appeal of rock-and-roll in its various forms and bring multitudes of rock fans into the church to "rock for the Lord." This leaven has so thoroughly leavened the whole lump that our services feel more like a rock concert than a church service. Imagine the energy and spirit of a Rolling Stones concert brought into God's house and used to reach people with our message of empowerment. Glory to God for this great modern tool, rock-and-roll! Where would we be without it? Our preaching alone could never draw in so many unchurched people.
You older saints must be starting to see the advantage of our approach. We do not pretend to have discovered this inclusive and pragmatic method ourselves. We must credit our forefather, Emperor Constantine, for first utilizing this method in advancing God's Kingdom in the 4th century. Constantine could rightly be called the father of the megachurch movement. By mixing a generous portion of the world with the ministry of the church, he was able to appeal to the unchurched and "resonate with the spirit of the age" as we are trying to do. It was Constantine who first employed the method of bringing into God's house those things that the unregenerate world found to be irresistible attractants. The church grew by leaps and bounds when he brought pagan idols into the church, gave them Biblical names such as the Virgin Mary and Saint Peter, and encouraged the pagans to pray to them and worship them. We must reverently offer hearty praises to God who has enabled us to enlarge and strengthen the church just as in the days of Constantine.
Instead of barring pagans from church fellowship, Constantine cleared away all obstacles to their full participation. Christianity very quickly changed from a small, penurious, and persecuted band of disciples to a popular, wealthy, and commodious fellowship. The following quote from a historian will buttress our view of Constantine,
All at once, the profession of the Gospel became fashionable; crowds of merely nominal converts presented themselves at the baptismal font; and many even entered the clerical office who had no higher object in view than an honorable or a lucrative position. Ecclesiastical discipline was relaxed; and that the heathen might be induced to conform to the religion of the emperor, many of their [pagan] ceremonies were introduced into the worship of the Church. (Paganism Surviving in Christianity, by Abram Herbert Lewis, 1892)
Constantine's great innovations have been roundly criticized by Protestants, but we see the wisdom of his policy of inclusion. Of course, Constantine's methodology required a relaxation of Biblical standards, the very thing that we have tried to promote ourselves. There is little recorded about the music of that period, but we are sure that if rock-and-roll had been around, Constantine would have changed the lyrics a bit, brought it into the church, and used its appeal for the Lord.
We would now like to discuss several examples of the more egregious methodologies employed by those to whom this letter is addressed. To begin with, most of what is recorded about the ministries of the Old Testament prophets we find quite embarrassing. The manner in which the prophets communicated with their fellowman was often vitriolic, non-pragmatic, and harmful. Let us consider the ministry of Elijah as an example. We find that the words he spoke to Ahab, Jezebel, and the prophets of Baal were very negative to say the least. We believe that slaying 450 of Baal's prophets was very unappealing to the unchurched of his day. After God's fire fell on the sacrifice at Mount Carmel, we believe it would have been better to turn the event into a BBQ and invite the prophets of Baal to join in. Perhaps Elijah could have hired a Zidonian band to play festive music so that Baal's prophets and Jezebel would feel welcome. Elijah could learn much from the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Using such methods as Elijah's, it is no wonder that many of God's ancient prophets were killed in the prime of their ministries.
We greatly dislike the words recorded by Ezekiel when God told him that the priests "shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek. 44:23). We believe in letting the people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. We feel that constantly barking at this or that would offend many people and drive them away from church. You will hear no barking at sin from our pulpits. If the sheep are driven away from church by offensive preaching, they will surely fall prey to ravening, grievous wolves. Our approach can be summed up by a quote in the media from brother Joel Osteen, "For years there's been a lot of hellfire and damnation. You go to church to figure out what you're doing wrong and you leave feeling bad like you're not going to make it. We believe in focusing on the goodness of God" (FOXNews.com, Feb. 3, 2004).
We also take exception to the methods of John the Baptist. We are opposed to everything about his approach. He obstinately refused to conform his manner of dress, his diet, or his doctrine to the prevailing trends of the time. We are sure that if he had donned soft raiment and had preferred sumptuous snacks rather than grasshoppers and honey, his appeal would have been broadened, particularly with the 20-something crowd of his day.
His preaching ministry seems to have been very offensive and "preachy." He said, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ... O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance ... And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:2, 7-8, 10). He should have known that the unchurched dislike such authoritative, "holier than thou" styles of communication. Perhaps a trendy church skit or an evangelistic chariot wash would have produced better results.
While John the Baptist did not lack enthusiasm for the cause of Christ, the fact that his public ministry lasted only six months ending with his imprisonment and decapitation illustrates his faulty methodology. Just imagine the harvest that John the Baptist could have won had he softened his message a bit and been more positive. If he had taken our approach, he could have been one of the greatest ministers of the gospel in all of church history. It is true that John the Baptist was commended by Christ, but we cannot help thinking how much greater he could have been used if he had not been so disengaged from the culture and "preachy" in his ministry. Surely, John the Baptist could learn from our example of accommodation, diplomacy, and peaceful coexistence with unchurched men such as King Herod.
The earthly ministry of our Savior is not without regrettable examples of offensive methods. It is somewhat surprising to us that Jesus chose to emulate the old-style methods of those who preceded Him rather than our modern and efficacious style, which He undoubtedly foreknew. The way in which He spoke to the religious leaders could hardly be considered inclusive or diplomatic. Also, the incident with the moneychangers and the whip represents inconsistent behavior from One who spoke of being "meek and lowly in heart." Again, Jesus went so far as to publicly imply that a particular unchurched woman was a dog and not worthy to receive spiritual bread (Matt. 15:26). The 6th chapter of John records perhaps the most tragic event in the earthly ministry of our Savior. While trying to inform His hearers about obtaining eternal life, Jesus represented the way as so difficult and narrow that many, many of His followers turned back "and walked no more with him" (v. 66). This same narrowness can be seen in the 19th chapter of Matthew when the rich young ruler inquired of Jesus the way to eternal life and was sent "away sorrowful" by the stringency of Jesus' words.
Given the fact that Jesus ministered in the style of Elijah and John the Baptist (Luke 9:18-19), it seems obvious to us why His three years of incessant labor produced the rather smallish church of 120 souls at the day of Pentecost. It is certainly commendable that Jesus healed the sick and fed the multitudes. However, we believe that Jesus could have done a great deal more to engender goodwill with His targeted market. His ministry's unappealing narrowness was sadly conspicuous on the day the people cried, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas"!
To the Apostle Peter we would like to address the matter of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter should have found a less confrontational approach to dealing with this well-intentioned couple. Had they not given a sizable portion of their wealth to the work of the ministry? Diplomacy and inclusivity would have proven much more positive than the caustic and accusatory language spoken by Peter. The fact that Peter was the human agency of their swift demise must have done irreparable damage to his reputation as a minister of our longsuffering and gracious heavenly Father. We can only imagine what harm was done to the spread of the gospel when, to quote from our beloved NIV, "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events ... No one else dared join them" (Acts 5:11, 13). We are sure that this regrettable incident with Ananias and Sapphira kept many compromisers, liars, false professors, hypocrites, and covetous persons out of church fellowship. These are the very people we have had stupendous success bringing into God's house. It is not recorded, but we are sure the Lord must have been grieved at Peter's unloving dealings with this misunderstood couple.
There remain numerous examples in the New Testament of objectionable methods, but time would fail us to decry them all thoroughly. However, we must mention one other matter from the life of the Apostle to the unchurched. We find Paul's demeanor and attitude toward those without the church to be reprehensible. Please consider some of the scandalous things he wrote:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. (2 Cor. 6:14-17)
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:11)
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Tim. 5:20)
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim. 4:2-4)
A striking difference between us and the Apostle Paul is his seeming indifference to numerical success. He seemed content to focus his ministry on building a pure bride, even if numerically small. This evidently required that Paul have the battlefield mindset of a soldier, which is much different than our own mindset. We dislike the fact that he was always fighting and contending. A variety of verbs are used to describe the ministries of Paul and his associates in the book of Acts. They were ubiquitously found disputing against, reasoning with, speaking boldly to, preaching to, persuading, exhorting, declaring, and warning their hearers. We believe that this kept them from entering into peace and rest such as we have. We believe that by not fighting with the world, we have discovered the green pastures and still waters about which the Lord spoke in the Psalms. It is not surprising to us that Paul's polemical ministry caused him to spend a great deal of time in prison. Perhaps God was trying to speak to him there about changing his methods.
We could write for many more pages about the deficiencies of those who ministered before AD 1950. Certainly the reformers such as Tyndale and Luther were wrong in their approach in the 1500s. John Bunyan was obviously off track since his dogmatism caused him to be locked up in the Bedford jail for over a decade in the 1600s. We condemn the offensive manner in which the likes of George Whitefield, John Wesley, and scores of other fanatics preached repentance in the open air to the unchurched in the 1700s. Perhaps the worst example of such old-style fanaticism was exhibited by William and Catherine Booth, the founders of the Salvation Army, in the 1800s. It gives us pangs of nausea when we contemplate the shameful and embarrassing tactics that those here listed used in the name of our mild-mannered and gentle Jesus.
By looking at a description of Whitefield's preaching. it is plain to see the unchristian tone of his sermons. Bishop J.C. Ryle said that Whitefield was "perpetually telling you about your sins, your heart, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the absolute need of repentance, faith, holiness ..." (Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, by J.C. Ryle, p. 51). Let us look at another example. Note the profusion of negative language in this excerpt from a John Wesley sermon:
Thou ungodly one who hearest these words, thou vile, helpless, miserable sinner, I charge thee before God, the judge of all, go straight unto Jesus with all thy ungodliness ... Go as altogether ungodly, guilty, lost, destroyed, deserving and dropping into hell ... Plead thou singly the blood of the covenant, the ransom paid for thy proud, stubborn, sinful soul. (Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, by J.C. Ryle, p. 93)
And what were the effects of these unchristian methods on the hearers? We could demonstrate our point using numerous examples from the lives of the men listed above, but let us look at one account from the journal of George Whitefield:
Most were drowned in tears. The Word was sharper than a two-edged sword. The bitter cries and groans were enough to pierce the hardest heart. Some of the people were as pale as death; others were wringing their hands; others lying on the ground; others sinking into the arms of friends; and most lifting up their eyes to Heaven and crying to God for mercy. (George Whitefield, Vol. 1, by Arnold Dallimore, p. 487)
The damage done to the hearers, particularly to any unchurched people that might have been present, can be clearly seen in Whitefield's own account. Thus robbed of their self-esteem, many of Whitefield's hearers were driven into mental illness. In fact, a complaint was made to Bishop Benson that 15 persons were driven mad by Whitefield's first sermon, which he preached at his ordination. With such deleterious effects as these, it is no wonder that Luther, Tyndale, Bunyan, Booth, the early Methodists, and many others were so bitterly opposed by the more mature and pragmatic church leaders of their day.
Though we reject nearly all "great" men from previous centuries (except Constantine), there are many truly great ones who came immediately before us upon whose shoulders we stand. We could not have had such wonderful success without pioneers such as Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the other founders of neo-evangelicalism whose bold stance against the intolerant and mean-spirited fundamentalists paved the way for our movement. Their example of diplomacy, their repudiation of separation, and their willingness to adapt church standards to the changing American culture cannot be overstated. Also, the efforts of Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, and the other signatories of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (ECT) helped prepare America for the burgeoning of ecumenical activity that has modified the spiritual climate in favor of rapid church growth. The modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV) have also played no small part in our success. Interestingly, we find that very, very few of the adherents of the archaic King James Bible are in support of our methodology. We must thank men like Robert Schuller and James Dobson for their tireless efforts to make pop psychology acceptable in the church. Pop psychology has proven to be extremely attractive to those whose ears seem to itch for a positive message.
Lastly, we must acknowledge our indebtedness to Anton LaVey, an important pioneer in spiritual matters. In the 1960s LaVey founded the Church of Satan. He also authored the Satanic Bible, which has sold hundreds of thousands of copies all over the world. Under his leadership the Church of Satan grew to 10,000 members worldwide, which clearly makes it a megachurch. We are somewhat envious of LaVey for his success in recruiting some of Hollywood's biggest stars such as Sammy Davis, Jr., and Jayne Mansfield, both of whom were involved in the Church of Satan. We have been earnestly praying for someone like Madonna or Howard Stern to join one of our churches that we might see them continue their careers "for the Lord." How, you may ask, was LaVey able to build such an influential and large church for Satan? We believe that the two quotes below may give a hint as to the reason:
We established a Church of Satan - something that would smash all concepts of what a "church" was supposed to be. This was a temple of indulgence to openly defy the temples of abstinence that had been built up until then. We didn't want it to be an unforgiving, unwelcoming place, but a place where you could go to have fun. (Anton Szandor LaVey, History of the Church of Satan by Blanche Barton)
LaVey came to genuinely believe that his message of aggressive self-interest was a way of individuals to achieve freedom and happiness in their lives. He saw Satan, not as a tempter of mankind, but as a spur to human self-improvement. (http://www.satanic-kindred.org/tribute.htm)
These two quotes reveal that the philosophy of "ministry" utilized by Anton LaVey is strikingly similar to our own. We must mention that there are numerous irreconcilable differences between LaVey's beliefs and ours, yet these differences seem to be peripheral. At the core, his philosophy of ministry and ours match up very closely with the obvious exception that we serve God rather than Satan. We are thankful to Mr. LaVey for his ironic contributions to our great work.
As you can see from the cogent arguments outlined in this piece of correspondence, the conditions under which you labored were wholly unnecessary. Your toiling, your deprivation, and your strictness were an unfortunate tragedy. Not only did you suffer needlessly, your efforts were dreadfully hampered by the faulty methods that you employed. Most thankfully, God has enabled us to forge new paths that are not so straight, nor narrow, nor toilsome, as those upon which you older saints were obliged to tread. In heaven we look to receive honor and glory commensurate with our accomplishments for Christ. Until we arrive there, we bid you enjoy the meager fruits of your flawed labors. When we join you in the Celestial City, our brilliance will surely outshine your tarnished glory. We will undoubtedly be given the seats of honor in the presence of the King as a result of our superior methodology.
Respectfully yours,Steering Committee MembersMegachurch Association of America
"Inner Promptings" From The Great Awakening By Jim B.
Anyone who is truly convinced that God is speaking fresh words of revelation will inevitably view the later prophecies as somehow more relevant and more personal than the message of Scripture, which is more than two thousand years old. Inevitably, wherever personal prophecy has been stressed, Scripture has been deemphasized. Two thousand years of church history confirms that this is true. This same issue was hotly debated during the Great Awakening. It was one area where Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield did not (in the beginning) see eye to eye.
Based on John MacArthur's book - Reckless Faith
Clearly on this question Edwards would not have been the least bit sympathetic with modern charismatics. Edwards believed prophecy had ceased along with the rest of the charismatic gifts. Whitefield was far more willing than Edwards to treat subjective impulses as if they could reliably reveal the Holy Spirit's leading. In 1740 Edwards confronted Whitefield on the issue. He later wrote to a friend,
I indeed have told several persons that I once purposely took an opportunity to talk with Mr. Whitefield alone about [subjective] impulses: and have mentioned many particulars of our conference together on that [matter]: That I told him some reasons I had to think he gave too great heed to such things: and have told what manner of replies he made; and what reasons I offered against such things. And I also said that Mr. Whitefield did not seem to be offended with me: but yet did not seem to be inclined to have a great deal of discourse about it: And that in the time of it he did not appear to be convinced by any thing I said.
At the height of the Great Awakening, this issue became, in as Iain Murray said in his Edwards biography, "the talking-point of the whole country." Edwards clearly warned his congregation not to place much stock in subjective impressions. He saw this as a particular danger in a time of revival, when religious affections are heightened and the imagination more active than usual. Murray writes,
The "impressions" or "impulses" which [Edwards] criticized were varied in character. Sometimes they involved an element of the visionary. Sometimes they appeared to provide foreknowledge of future events. And sometimes they were accompanied and supported by random texts of Scripture. Against this belief Edwards argued that a Christian might indeed have a "holy frame and sense from the Spirit of God" but the "imaginations that attend it are but accidental" and not directly attributable to the Spirit.
Edwards had carefully studied this issue. He was convinced that the tendency to follow subjective impulses was a dangerous path down which to travel: "[An] erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion that it is God's manner in these days to guide His saints - by inspiration, or immediate revelation." He saw several dangers in the practice, not the least of which was its hardening effect on the person supposedly receiving the revelation. "As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct." Edwards also knew from both church history and personal experience that:
Many godly persons have undoubtedly in this and other ages, exposed themselves to woeful delusions, by an aptness to lay too much weight on impulses and impressions, as if they were immediate revelations from God, to signify something future, or to direct them where to go, and what to do.
Edwards' advice was straightforward:
I would therefore entreat the people of God to be very cautious how they give heed to such things. I have seen them fail in very many instances, and know by experience that impressions being made with great power, and upon the minds of true, yea eminent, saints - are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven. I have known such impressions fail, in some instances, attended with all these circumstances.
A generation before Edwards, the illustrious Boston pastor Cotton Mather had experimented with this very tendency, believing that God would grant him "particular faiths" for specific prayers to be answered. Convinced God had promised to grant certain prayer requests, Mather prophesied that his wife would recover from a serious illness, that his father would return to England to serve the Lord, and that his wayward son would return to the Lord. Only after those and several other expectations went unfulfilled did Mather begin to question his doctrine of "particular faiths."
George Whitefield also learned the hard way that subjective impulses can be tragically fallible. When Whitefield's wife was expecting her first child, he prophesied that she would have a son who would become a preacher of the Gospel. The child was indeed a boy, but he died at the age of four months. He was Whitefield's only child. Murray writes,
Whitefield at once recognized his mistake saying: "I misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I made no scruple of declaring 'that I should have a son, and that his name was to be John.'" When back in New England, in 1745, he could say feelingly of what had happened there, "Many good souls, both among clergy and laity, for a while, mistook fancy for faith, and imagination for revelation."
Many good souls still fall into that same error [today]. As mentioned earlier, many (perhaps most) Christians believe God uses subjective promptings to guide believers in making major decisions. A thorough search of church history would undoubtedly confirm that most believers who lean heavily on immediate "revelations" or subjective impressions ostensibly from God end up embarrassed, confused, disappointed, and frustrated. ...
Scripture never commands us to tune into any inner voice. We're commanded to study and meditate on Scripture (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:1-2). We're instructed to cultivate wisdom and discernment (Prov. 4:5-8). We're told to walk wisely and make the most of our time (Eph. 5:15-16). We're ordered to be obedient to God's commands (Deut. 28:1-2; John 15:14). But we are never encouraged to listen for inner promptings.
Based on John MacArthur's book - Reckless Faith
Clearly on this question Edwards would not have been the least bit sympathetic with modern charismatics. Edwards believed prophecy had ceased along with the rest of the charismatic gifts. Whitefield was far more willing than Edwards to treat subjective impulses as if they could reliably reveal the Holy Spirit's leading. In 1740 Edwards confronted Whitefield on the issue. He later wrote to a friend,
I indeed have told several persons that I once purposely took an opportunity to talk with Mr. Whitefield alone about [subjective] impulses: and have mentioned many particulars of our conference together on that [matter]: That I told him some reasons I had to think he gave too great heed to such things: and have told what manner of replies he made; and what reasons I offered against such things. And I also said that Mr. Whitefield did not seem to be offended with me: but yet did not seem to be inclined to have a great deal of discourse about it: And that in the time of it he did not appear to be convinced by any thing I said.
At the height of the Great Awakening, this issue became, in as Iain Murray said in his Edwards biography, "the talking-point of the whole country." Edwards clearly warned his congregation not to place much stock in subjective impressions. He saw this as a particular danger in a time of revival, when religious affections are heightened and the imagination more active than usual. Murray writes,
The "impressions" or "impulses" which [Edwards] criticized were varied in character. Sometimes they involved an element of the visionary. Sometimes they appeared to provide foreknowledge of future events. And sometimes they were accompanied and supported by random texts of Scripture. Against this belief Edwards argued that a Christian might indeed have a "holy frame and sense from the Spirit of God" but the "imaginations that attend it are but accidental" and not directly attributable to the Spirit.
Edwards had carefully studied this issue. He was convinced that the tendency to follow subjective impulses was a dangerous path down which to travel: "[An] erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion that it is God's manner in these days to guide His saints - by inspiration, or immediate revelation." He saw several dangers in the practice, not the least of which was its hardening effect on the person supposedly receiving the revelation. "As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct." Edwards also knew from both church history and personal experience that:
Many godly persons have undoubtedly in this and other ages, exposed themselves to woeful delusions, by an aptness to lay too much weight on impulses and impressions, as if they were immediate revelations from God, to signify something future, or to direct them where to go, and what to do.
Edwards' advice was straightforward:
I would therefore entreat the people of God to be very cautious how they give heed to such things. I have seen them fail in very many instances, and know by experience that impressions being made with great power, and upon the minds of true, yea eminent, saints - are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven. I have known such impressions fail, in some instances, attended with all these circumstances.
A generation before Edwards, the illustrious Boston pastor Cotton Mather had experimented with this very tendency, believing that God would grant him "particular faiths" for specific prayers to be answered. Convinced God had promised to grant certain prayer requests, Mather prophesied that his wife would recover from a serious illness, that his father would return to England to serve the Lord, and that his wayward son would return to the Lord. Only after those and several other expectations went unfulfilled did Mather begin to question his doctrine of "particular faiths."
George Whitefield also learned the hard way that subjective impulses can be tragically fallible. When Whitefield's wife was expecting her first child, he prophesied that she would have a son who would become a preacher of the Gospel. The child was indeed a boy, but he died at the age of four months. He was Whitefield's only child. Murray writes,
Whitefield at once recognized his mistake saying: "I misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I made no scruple of declaring 'that I should have a son, and that his name was to be John.'" When back in New England, in 1745, he could say feelingly of what had happened there, "Many good souls, both among clergy and laity, for a while, mistook fancy for faith, and imagination for revelation."
Many good souls still fall into that same error [today]. As mentioned earlier, many (perhaps most) Christians believe God uses subjective promptings to guide believers in making major decisions. A thorough search of church history would undoubtedly confirm that most believers who lean heavily on immediate "revelations" or subjective impressions ostensibly from God end up embarrassed, confused, disappointed, and frustrated. ...
Scripture never commands us to tune into any inner voice. We're commanded to study and meditate on Scripture (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:1-2). We're instructed to cultivate wisdom and discernment (Prov. 4:5-8). We're told to walk wisely and make the most of our time (Eph. 5:15-16). We're ordered to be obedient to God's commands (Deut. 28:1-2; John 15:14). But we are never encouraged to listen for inner promptings.
Forgiveness and Repeat Offenses By John MacArthur
As Christians, How Should We Handle Repeat Offenses?
Jesus answered this question expressly in Luke 17:3-4: “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” Our forgiveness is supposed to be lavish, enthusiastic, eager, freely offered, and unconstrained–even for repeat offenders. After all, we are all repeat offenders against God.
But What If There Is Reason To Think That the Offender’s “Repentance” Is a Sham?
In normal circumstances, love obliges us to assume the best about those who profess repentance (1 Cor. 13:7). Scripture does suggest, however, that there are certain times when it is legitimate to demand fruits of repentance before assuming that someone’s profession of repentance is genuine (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8).
One author paints a hypothetical scenario where an offender intentionally punches an innocent person in the nose. After the first offense, the offender asks for, and receives, forgiveness. Moments later, in another unprovoked attack, he punches the same person in the nose a second time. The cycle is repeated a third time, and a fourth, and so on, with the bully professing repentance each time and the victim granting forgiveness each time. That author suggests this is how Jesus’ words are to be interpreted: “If he . . . returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” All the offender needs to do is to say he repents, and the offended person is obliged to forgive.
But that is far too wooden an interpretation of Jesus’ words. Our Lord was not suggesting that the disciples should throw discernment out the window when it comes to evaluating a person’s repentance. Nothing in the context of Luke 17:3-4 suggests that the offense Jesus had in mind was deliberate or that the repentance was feigned.
In fact, it is important to be wary of feigned repentance in cases like the hypothetical one just described. Such deliberately repeated offenses, especially when accompanied by phony repentance, are evidence of a profoundly evil character and a cynical hatred of the truth. John the Baptist was justified in refusing baptism to the Pharisees until they showed the reality of their profession of repentance (Matt. 3:8).
So there are times when it is sheer folly to accept a mere profession of repentance, especially in the wake of several deliberate repeat offenses.
Nonetheless, even after multiple offenses, the offended person must be prepared to forgive — eager to forgive — unless there remains some very compelling reason to doubt the offender’s profession of repentance. Even the hardest and most deliberate offender should never be permanently written off; rather, complete forgiveness and reconciliation should remain the offended person’s goal.
(For more practical answers to questions about forgiveness, click here to read John’s booklet Answering the Hard Questions about Forgiveness.)
Jesus answered this question expressly in Luke 17:3-4: “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” Our forgiveness is supposed to be lavish, enthusiastic, eager, freely offered, and unconstrained–even for repeat offenders. After all, we are all repeat offenders against God.
But What If There Is Reason To Think That the Offender’s “Repentance” Is a Sham?
In normal circumstances, love obliges us to assume the best about those who profess repentance (1 Cor. 13:7). Scripture does suggest, however, that there are certain times when it is legitimate to demand fruits of repentance before assuming that someone’s profession of repentance is genuine (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8).
One author paints a hypothetical scenario where an offender intentionally punches an innocent person in the nose. After the first offense, the offender asks for, and receives, forgiveness. Moments later, in another unprovoked attack, he punches the same person in the nose a second time. The cycle is repeated a third time, and a fourth, and so on, with the bully professing repentance each time and the victim granting forgiveness each time. That author suggests this is how Jesus’ words are to be interpreted: “If he . . . returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” All the offender needs to do is to say he repents, and the offended person is obliged to forgive.
But that is far too wooden an interpretation of Jesus’ words. Our Lord was not suggesting that the disciples should throw discernment out the window when it comes to evaluating a person’s repentance. Nothing in the context of Luke 17:3-4 suggests that the offense Jesus had in mind was deliberate or that the repentance was feigned.
In fact, it is important to be wary of feigned repentance in cases like the hypothetical one just described. Such deliberately repeated offenses, especially when accompanied by phony repentance, are evidence of a profoundly evil character and a cynical hatred of the truth. John the Baptist was justified in refusing baptism to the Pharisees until they showed the reality of their profession of repentance (Matt. 3:8).
So there are times when it is sheer folly to accept a mere profession of repentance, especially in the wake of several deliberate repeat offenses.
Nonetheless, even after multiple offenses, the offended person must be prepared to forgive — eager to forgive — unless there remains some very compelling reason to doubt the offender’s profession of repentance. Even the hardest and most deliberate offender should never be permanently written off; rather, complete forgiveness and reconciliation should remain the offended person’s goal.
(For more practical answers to questions about forgiveness, click here to read John’s booklet Answering the Hard Questions about Forgiveness.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)