A TRUE AND FAITHFUL WITNESS
Are you committed to being a true and faithful witness to the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament Gospel?
Schuller Planted, Hybels Watered, Warren (Peter Drucker) Gives
the Increase
By Orrel Steinkamp
The above parody of Paul’s words: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God
gave the increase.” (1Cor. 3:6) is an attempt to show the linkage and
progression of the Church Growth and Seeker Sensitive model of ministry in
America. The Evangelical, some liberal Protestant, some Roman Catholic
churches and even a few Jewish synagogues have come to rely on these
method-driven paradigms to attain numerical success. For some years now
evangelicals have been flexing their muscles and learning how to mix it up
politically, relying on their patrons in Washington to attempt to change the
culture. This obviously is very ego inflating, but all this belies the fact that
pastors and leaders, desperate to increase their numbers and thus validate
their ministries have with the best of intentions altered the focus of the
Gospel.
The facts, however, suggest to discerning observers like David Wells and
others, that like the church in Laodicea, organized evangelicalism says “I am
rich, I have prospered…etc” but actually they are really “poor, blind and
naked.” Presently evangelicalism is rarely attacked from the outside, for it
has curried many friends in the world. But internally it is laced with widening
fissures that will surely produce further fragmentation. This frenzy to grow in
numbers and cultural influence has fostered a reliance on a pragmatic
methodology that the church has never before known. How did we get here?
It’s a long trail, but the Schuller, Hybels, and Warren nexus is what is
currently driving things in that direction. Church Growth is obviously a worthy
goal, but it must be pursued with absolute reliance on Jesus the Head of the
church and the guidance of His word. Conversely, direct borrowing from
current marketing gurus suggests loud and clear that the church has
decided that reliance on Jesus, the faithful announcing of His word, the
working of His Spirit and prayer just doesn’t work anymore in the post-
modern competitive environment. Hence, there has developed a perceived
need to shift dependence to methods and techniques that have their source
in the culture, borrowed from sources that have no Christian world-view.
Gone are the days of expository preaching, praying, fasting, etc. and a
looking to God to give the increase. It all relates to “reliance.” What do we
think will give the increase? Obviously, the church will use the tools of the
culture. We all know that computers, overheads, etc. are neutral. You can
use a hatchet to destroy a tree or pound a tent stake. But in the work of the
Gospel we should not place our reliance on physical tools and principles
(“not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord”). The problem is
not in the physical tools of the culture. Rather it is reliance on ideologies and
marketing schemes. Even though it is vehemently denied, ultimately, our
dependence is placed in schemes and paradigms to give us the increase.
Well intentioned people depend on the well-oiled chariots of Egypt rather
than to wait upon the Lord to confirm the truth of His word. Observably, our
trust has shifted to imported marketing and psychological therapies
abounding in the society. But when these models become what we rely
upon, the focus gradually and sometimes imperceptibly shifts to these
imported methods rather than the “Word of the Lord.”
Schuller pioneered the adaptation of Church Growth Principles and
societal/contextualization from the foreign mission context of McGavren/C.
Peter Wagner as taught at Fuller’s “School of World Mission.” He adapted
these growth principles to his own theology of self esteem and fashioned a
gospel presentation to lure southern Californians into his church. He then
taught this model yearly at the Crystal Cathedral pastors’ conferences.
Among his most famous students were first Bill Hybels and then Rick
Warren. Schuller’s creation of the Church Growth model for America was
clearly a theological departure from historic evangelical doctrine. He off-
loaded the doctrine of sin in order to make room for a self esteem gospel.
Hybels and significantly Warren did not publicly and officially off-load
theology. Rather they marginalized doctrine. They maintained an orthodox
position for the record but it was put on ice in favor of personal fulfillment
sermons, (posted on line for pastors to replicate to their congregations) and
designed for a post-modern audience. For example the doctrine of the cross
is accepted, but is then referred to only in passing and placed on the
periphery. In practice their preaching is very similar to Schuller, but care is
given to keep an acceptable doctrinal statement on reserve like a spare tire
lest the seeker friendly message is challenged.
But all of this concern is overshadowed by the apparent reliance and
dependence upon imported sociological, marketing/business and
therapeutic models which then displace a robust reliance on the teaching
and preaching of the Gospel and reliance upon the work of the Spirit. The
method (medium) has become the message. In actual practice the mission
statement replaces the word of God. God is not relied upon and is relegated
to a spectator who is given a box seat to watch the church apply pragmatic
schemes from the culture on His behalf. Martin Luther used a brilliant
illustration that is pertinent to this discussion. He referred to a tuning fork
used to arrive at middle C on a harpsichord from which all the other notes
were based. For Luther, the two vibrating prongs of the tuning fork were the
Word and the Spirit. The Word and the Spirit resonated together to produce
a spiritual middle C from which all other spiritual notes agreed. Seeker-
Sensitive enthusiasts have apparently changed the two prongs to cultural
strategies on the one hand, and the churches ability to process them into
numerical success on the other.
Paul in his letter to the Romans announced that he is “not ashamed of the
Gospel, for IT is the power of God unto salvation.” (Romans 1:16a)
Paul also reminds Timothy that the word of God is “profitable for doctrine for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man
of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim.
3:16 NKJV).
Bible-Believing Liberals
by Todd Wilken
“When a thing grows weak and out of date, it is obviously soon going to
disappear. That’s also true of churches. If a church cannot change, it will
eventually die.” [Rick Warren, Baptist Press, Sept 22, 2003]
“Clearly change in both liturgy and structure is inevitable, and this change
will probably be radical, if not total… the forms the Church assumed in the
past inevitably must die.” [John Shelby Spong, Why Christians must Change
or Die, Harper, 1998, p. 198]
One of these statements comes from a famous Christian liberal and the
other comes from a famous Christian conservative… which statement
belongs to the conservative and which belongs to the liberal? You can’t tell,
can you?
How can this be? One is against abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-
cell research and gay marriage and against removing the words, “under
God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from the
currency. The other is in favor of all these things. One calls himself “Bible-
believing.” The other thinks the Bible is a myth. Yet both say that the church
must change or die. Full-blown liberal Christians are easy to spot. They will
tell you up front that they don’t believe what the Bible says. But what about
liberals who think that they are conservative? What about the liberals who
claim to be Bible- believing Christians?
Many Christians today think of themselves as conservative. They are pro-
life, pro-family. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They watch
FOX News. They vote traditional values. For the bible-believing liberal the
difference between political parties is serious, but the differences between
denominations are petty. While they insist on a strict literal interpretation of
US constitution, they play fast and loose with the Bible and its theology.
But can you be political, socially and morally conservative without being
theologically conservative? Oh, yes you can.
Meet the Bible-believing liberals. While they believe that the culture needs to
return to its historic tradition, they think the Church needs to abandon hers.
While maintaining that the flag should be proudly displayed, they fear that a
cross in church might offend seekers…
A Contradiction in Terms
Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Bible-believing liberal” is an oxymoron,
right? You can’t be truly Bible-believing and be liberal at the same time.
THAT is the point. You see, many Christians think of themselves as
conservative Christians. But they have confused cultural conservatism with
theological conservatism. Theologically these Bible-believing Christians have
a lot in common with liberals… Yes, they [Bible-believing liberals] still affirm
the divine revelation of the Bible in principle, but …they have adopted the
liberals’ way of thinking.
The fact that so many otherwise “conservative” Christians fail to see the
similarity between themselves and liberals is remarkable. The fact that so
many Bible-believing liberals fail to see the disparity between their cultural
beliefs and their theological beliefs is astonishing.
“While evangelicals and other conservative Protestants hold to a high
doctrine of Scripture in principle, the last two decades have especially seen
a growing disregard for making their sermons expositions of Scripture;
rather, it’s often the case that the Bible is used as a sourcebook of
quotations for what we really want to say.” Horton, [A Better Way, Baker,
2002, p.218]
You see, you can affirm Scripture’s authority in principle even while denying
it in practice. Bible-believing liberals aren’t liberal in what they say about the
Bible, Bible-believing liberals are liberal in how they use the Bible…
Doctrinal Minimalism and Meiderlin’s Maxim
“In all things essential: unity; in doubtful: liberty; in all things: charity.” This is
a truism for many Christians today. It is often attributed to Saint Augustine.
But Augustine never said it. In truth, this saying’s origins are more recent –
in early German liberalism. The real author of this sentiment was a 17th
century Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin who was disturbed by the doctrinal
debates taking place and who thought that insistence on doctrinal purity was
satanic. Meiderlin counseled a minimalist approach to doctrine: “In a word,
were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things
charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation.”
Liberal Christians have taken Meiderlin’s maxim to heart. But so have many
Bible-believing Christians. When it comes to doctrine, they don’t sweat the
details. And, just like liberals, when Bible-believing Christians talk about
“unity in essentials” it isn’t altogether clear what those “essentials” are.
Bishop T.D. Jakes was the keynote speaker for the Willow Creek’s August
2004 Leadership Summit. Jakes is a best selling author, a mega-church
pastor and a popular televangelist. The only problem is that Jakes denies
the biblical doctrine of the trinity. Is the Trinity “essential” or “incidental” at
Willow Creek? To be sure, Willow Creek affirms the Trinity in its public
statement. But remember, what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle,
they often deny in practice. Rick Warren downplays “supposed theological
conflicts” between Christians. He sees them as a product of our limited
knowledge of God. He dismisses such differences by appealing to how
“awesome” God is:
“On earth we ‘see through a glass darkly’ so we all need a large dose of
humility in dealing with our differences. God’s ways are awesome and far
beyond human capabilities. He has no problem reconciling the supposed
theological conflicts that we debate when ideas don’t fit neatly into our
logical rational systems.”
[Rick Warren, Purpose-Driven® Preaching, Preaching, Sept/Oct 2001]
This sounds broadminded but is it really inadequate? Can God reconcile a
theology that says man is totally depraved with one that says he isn’t? [i.e.
Schuller]. Can God reconcile a theology that teaches faith alone with one
that teaches faith and works? [Roman Catholicism]…
Don Matzat summed up the doctrinal minimalism of Bible-believing liberals
well:
“Successful evangelical pastors like Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller are
really no different than the successful modern liberal clergy, like Sloan Coffin
and Harry Emerson Fosdick. While Coffin and Fosdick built their
congregations by appealing to human reason, Hybels and Schuller ‘grow a
church’ by appealing to the feelings [felt needs] and experiences of people.
While the classic liberal pastor questioned on the basis of reason the truth of
traditional Christian doctrine, the postmodern pastor ignores doctrine and
focuses on methods which produce success.”
[Matzat, The New Liberals, Issues and Etc. Vol. 3 #2, 1998]
The Mission Justifies the Means
In 2004 Pastor James Perry made an impassioned plea to his church:
“What would it be like if we had a moratorium on issues that divide us, and
spent all our time and energy focusing on reaching out to those in our world
who feel like outcasts, and share God’s love with them? It is my hope that we
will be more concerned about extending God’s grace than getting it right.”
[Proceedings of the General Council, UMC, Daily Editions, Vol. 4, #6]
Was Perry arguing for more evangelism? Was Perry pleading for greater
mission efforts? Not really. Perry was speaking at the 2004 General
Conference of the United Methodist Church in Pittsburg, arguing for the full
inclusion of active homosexuals in the church… Mike Horton describes this
mindset well:
“Increasingly, we hear that what unites us is mission, not theology. Doctrinal
diversity is encouraged, as long as we can all agree on the mission and its
methods...[Horton, A Better Way, p.215]
George Barna likewise urges the Church:
“It is critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of communication:
the audience, not the message, is sovereign…our message has to be
adapted to the needs of the audience”… [G. Barna, Marketing the Church,
NavPress, 1998, p.145]
C. Peter Wagner agrees:
“…We ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else
possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the
goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method…”
[Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, Regal Books, 1976, p. 137]
“God Loves You” – A Gospel without Sin
John Shelby Spong, perhaps the most liberal Christian alive today, writes:
“The language of sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for
so long that it has achieved the status of sacred mantra…Yet upon close
inspection, these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is
no longer operative.” [Spong, Why Churches must Change, p.44]
Joel Osteen, a “Bible-believing Christian and pastor of the largest mega-
church in America, says nearly the same thing in simpler language:
“We’ve heard a lot about the judgment of God and what we can’t do and
what’s going to keep us out of heaven. But it is time people start hearing
about the goodness of God, about a God that loves them. A God that
believes in them. A God that wants to help them.” [Joel Osteen, Your Best
Life Now, 2004, p. 57]
And why does the perfect and holy God love us with all our faults and
weaknesses? Is it because Jesus lived a perfect life and died a perfect death
in our place? No! [apparently not.]
Apparently for Joel Osteen, sin is simply not a problem to God or for us. Bill
Hybels, on the other hand, certainly believes that sin is a problem. But what
Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice. When
an internal survey of Willow Creek members revealed that “large
percentages of singles” (25% of singles, 38% of single parents, and 41% of
divorced individuals) admitted having illicit sexual relations in the last six
months, Hybels failed to focus on the seriousness of sin:
“Hybels did not call the congregation to repent for their rebellion against a
holy God. Instead he emphasized God’s compassionate love: ‘We are a love-
starved people, with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only he
can give long-term…” [Prichard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996]
Yes, the members in the survey certainly have been “love-starved people,
with broken hearts… All this is true, of course, but it’s not the whole truth.
What’s missing? Is this gospel? We are presented as unsatisfied, unable,
needy, restless, longing, wounded and fearful but not sinful. This is a gospel
without sin. A gospel without sin satisfies sinners, but doesn’t save them…A
gospel without sin requires a Jesus who is merely sympathetic, not our
substitute at the Cross. A gospel without sin is a gospel wherein Christ
crucified is unnecessary. John Spong realizes this; he has done away with
the cross.
“God loves you” isn’t the Gospel. The world is full of unbelievers who firmly
believe God loves them. Prichard writes in his study of Willow Creek, “all the
seekers or weekend attenders I interviewed were convinced that God loves
them. They held this belief before coming to Willow Creek.” [G.A. Prichard,
Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996, 2002, p. 264].
“God loves you” will not do. What unbelievers need to know is how God
loves them: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one
and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not
that we love God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning
sacrifice [propitiation] for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10).
We have heard liberals say it for years: “The Church must change or die.
The culture calls the shots. We must re-read the Bible to fit the culture.
When it comes to doctrine, don’t sweat the details. Our differences don’t
matter anyway. After all, doctrine divides; it is the mission [statement] that
really unites us. And when it comes to that mission, we are justified in using
means we deem necessary. Remember, people just need to know that God
loves them. Now we’re hearing Bible-believing Christians saying the very
same things.
The old-line liberals consider the Gospel irrational: Bible-believing liberals
consider it irrelevant. The old-line liberals criticized the Gospel. Bible-
believing liberals are trying to give it a make-over. The old-line liberals tried
to deconstruct the Gospel; Bible-believing liberals are trying to re-invent it…
Do Bible-believing liberals realize how liberal they really are? No. Are they
well intentioned? Certainly! But some of the old- line liberals were well
intentioned too…
When the Church follows the advice of liberals – Bible-believing or otherwise
– the Gospel message suffers. When liberals – bible-believing or otherwise –
have their way, the cross ends up obscured. When the cross is obscured
sinners go unsaved.
The Plumbline
74425 Co. Rd. 21
Renville, MN. 56284
Telephone: 320 329 3874
Email: orrelsteinkamp@hotmail.com
For More Articles Like This Go To: www.atrueandfaithfulwitness.com
the Increase
By Orrel Steinkamp
The above parody of Paul’s words: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God
gave the increase.” (1Cor. 3:6) is an attempt to show the linkage and
progression of the Church Growth and Seeker Sensitive model of ministry in
America. The Evangelical, some liberal Protestant, some Roman Catholic
churches and even a few Jewish synagogues have come to rely on these
method-driven paradigms to attain numerical success. For some years now
evangelicals have been flexing their muscles and learning how to mix it up
politically, relying on their patrons in Washington to attempt to change the
culture. This obviously is very ego inflating, but all this belies the fact that
pastors and leaders, desperate to increase their numbers and thus validate
their ministries have with the best of intentions altered the focus of the
Gospel.
The facts, however, suggest to discerning observers like David Wells and
others, that like the church in Laodicea, organized evangelicalism says “I am
rich, I have prospered…etc” but actually they are really “poor, blind and
naked.” Presently evangelicalism is rarely attacked from the outside, for it
has curried many friends in the world. But internally it is laced with widening
fissures that will surely produce further fragmentation. This frenzy to grow in
numbers and cultural influence has fostered a reliance on a pragmatic
methodology that the church has never before known. How did we get here?
It’s a long trail, but the Schuller, Hybels, and Warren nexus is what is
currently driving things in that direction. Church Growth is obviously a worthy
goal, but it must be pursued with absolute reliance on Jesus the Head of the
church and the guidance of His word. Conversely, direct borrowing from
current marketing gurus suggests loud and clear that the church has
decided that reliance on Jesus, the faithful announcing of His word, the
working of His Spirit and prayer just doesn’t work anymore in the post-
modern competitive environment. Hence, there has developed a perceived
need to shift dependence to methods and techniques that have their source
in the culture, borrowed from sources that have no Christian world-view.
Gone are the days of expository preaching, praying, fasting, etc. and a
looking to God to give the increase. It all relates to “reliance.” What do we
think will give the increase? Obviously, the church will use the tools of the
culture. We all know that computers, overheads, etc. are neutral. You can
use a hatchet to destroy a tree or pound a tent stake. But in the work of the
Gospel we should not place our reliance on physical tools and principles
(“not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord”). The problem is
not in the physical tools of the culture. Rather it is reliance on ideologies and
marketing schemes. Even though it is vehemently denied, ultimately, our
dependence is placed in schemes and paradigms to give us the increase.
Well intentioned people depend on the well-oiled chariots of Egypt rather
than to wait upon the Lord to confirm the truth of His word. Observably, our
trust has shifted to imported marketing and psychological therapies
abounding in the society. But when these models become what we rely
upon, the focus gradually and sometimes imperceptibly shifts to these
imported methods rather than the “Word of the Lord.”
Schuller pioneered the adaptation of Church Growth Principles and
societal/contextualization from the foreign mission context of McGavren/C.
Peter Wagner as taught at Fuller’s “School of World Mission.” He adapted
these growth principles to his own theology of self esteem and fashioned a
gospel presentation to lure southern Californians into his church. He then
taught this model yearly at the Crystal Cathedral pastors’ conferences.
Among his most famous students were first Bill Hybels and then Rick
Warren. Schuller’s creation of the Church Growth model for America was
clearly a theological departure from historic evangelical doctrine. He off-
loaded the doctrine of sin in order to make room for a self esteem gospel.
Hybels and significantly Warren did not publicly and officially off-load
theology. Rather they marginalized doctrine. They maintained an orthodox
position for the record but it was put on ice in favor of personal fulfillment
sermons, (posted on line for pastors to replicate to their congregations) and
designed for a post-modern audience. For example the doctrine of the cross
is accepted, but is then referred to only in passing and placed on the
periphery. In practice their preaching is very similar to Schuller, but care is
given to keep an acceptable doctrinal statement on reserve like a spare tire
lest the seeker friendly message is challenged.
But all of this concern is overshadowed by the apparent reliance and
dependence upon imported sociological, marketing/business and
therapeutic models which then displace a robust reliance on the teaching
and preaching of the Gospel and reliance upon the work of the Spirit. The
method (medium) has become the message. In actual practice the mission
statement replaces the word of God. God is not relied upon and is relegated
to a spectator who is given a box seat to watch the church apply pragmatic
schemes from the culture on His behalf. Martin Luther used a brilliant
illustration that is pertinent to this discussion. He referred to a tuning fork
used to arrive at middle C on a harpsichord from which all the other notes
were based. For Luther, the two vibrating prongs of the tuning fork were the
Word and the Spirit. The Word and the Spirit resonated together to produce
a spiritual middle C from which all other spiritual notes agreed. Seeker-
Sensitive enthusiasts have apparently changed the two prongs to cultural
strategies on the one hand, and the churches ability to process them into
numerical success on the other.
Paul in his letter to the Romans announced that he is “not ashamed of the
Gospel, for IT is the power of God unto salvation.” (Romans 1:16a)
Paul also reminds Timothy that the word of God is “profitable for doctrine for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man
of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim.
3:16 NKJV).
Bible-Believing Liberals
by Todd Wilken
“When a thing grows weak and out of date, it is obviously soon going to
disappear. That’s also true of churches. If a church cannot change, it will
eventually die.” [Rick Warren, Baptist Press, Sept 22, 2003]
“Clearly change in both liturgy and structure is inevitable, and this change
will probably be radical, if not total… the forms the Church assumed in the
past inevitably must die.” [John Shelby Spong, Why Christians must Change
or Die, Harper, 1998, p. 198]
One of these statements comes from a famous Christian liberal and the
other comes from a famous Christian conservative… which statement
belongs to the conservative and which belongs to the liberal? You can’t tell,
can you?
How can this be? One is against abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-
cell research and gay marriage and against removing the words, “under
God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from the
currency. The other is in favor of all these things. One calls himself “Bible-
believing.” The other thinks the Bible is a myth. Yet both say that the church
must change or die. Full-blown liberal Christians are easy to spot. They will
tell you up front that they don’t believe what the Bible says. But what about
liberals who think that they are conservative? What about the liberals who
claim to be Bible- believing Christians?
Many Christians today think of themselves as conservative. They are pro-
life, pro-family. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They watch
FOX News. They vote traditional values. For the bible-believing liberal the
difference between political parties is serious, but the differences between
denominations are petty. While they insist on a strict literal interpretation of
US constitution, they play fast and loose with the Bible and its theology.
But can you be political, socially and morally conservative without being
theologically conservative? Oh, yes you can.
Meet the Bible-believing liberals. While they believe that the culture needs to
return to its historic tradition, they think the Church needs to abandon hers.
While maintaining that the flag should be proudly displayed, they fear that a
cross in church might offend seekers…
A Contradiction in Terms
Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Bible-believing liberal” is an oxymoron,
right? You can’t be truly Bible-believing and be liberal at the same time.
THAT is the point. You see, many Christians think of themselves as
conservative Christians. But they have confused cultural conservatism with
theological conservatism. Theologically these Bible-believing Christians have
a lot in common with liberals… Yes, they [Bible-believing liberals] still affirm
the divine revelation of the Bible in principle, but …they have adopted the
liberals’ way of thinking.
The fact that so many otherwise “conservative” Christians fail to see the
similarity between themselves and liberals is remarkable. The fact that so
many Bible-believing liberals fail to see the disparity between their cultural
beliefs and their theological beliefs is astonishing.
“While evangelicals and other conservative Protestants hold to a high
doctrine of Scripture in principle, the last two decades have especially seen
a growing disregard for making their sermons expositions of Scripture;
rather, it’s often the case that the Bible is used as a sourcebook of
quotations for what we really want to say.” Horton, [A Better Way, Baker,
2002, p.218]
You see, you can affirm Scripture’s authority in principle even while denying
it in practice. Bible-believing liberals aren’t liberal in what they say about the
Bible, Bible-believing liberals are liberal in how they use the Bible…
Doctrinal Minimalism and Meiderlin’s Maxim
“In all things essential: unity; in doubtful: liberty; in all things: charity.” This is
a truism for many Christians today. It is often attributed to Saint Augustine.
But Augustine never said it. In truth, this saying’s origins are more recent –
in early German liberalism. The real author of this sentiment was a 17th
century Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin who was disturbed by the doctrinal
debates taking place and who thought that insistence on doctrinal purity was
satanic. Meiderlin counseled a minimalist approach to doctrine: “In a word,
were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things
charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation.”
Liberal Christians have taken Meiderlin’s maxim to heart. But so have many
Bible-believing Christians. When it comes to doctrine, they don’t sweat the
details. And, just like liberals, when Bible-believing Christians talk about
“unity in essentials” it isn’t altogether clear what those “essentials” are.
Bishop T.D. Jakes was the keynote speaker for the Willow Creek’s August
2004 Leadership Summit. Jakes is a best selling author, a mega-church
pastor and a popular televangelist. The only problem is that Jakes denies
the biblical doctrine of the trinity. Is the Trinity “essential” or “incidental” at
Willow Creek? To be sure, Willow Creek affirms the Trinity in its public
statement. But remember, what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle,
they often deny in practice. Rick Warren downplays “supposed theological
conflicts” between Christians. He sees them as a product of our limited
knowledge of God. He dismisses such differences by appealing to how
“awesome” God is:
“On earth we ‘see through a glass darkly’ so we all need a large dose of
humility in dealing with our differences. God’s ways are awesome and far
beyond human capabilities. He has no problem reconciling the supposed
theological conflicts that we debate when ideas don’t fit neatly into our
logical rational systems.”
[Rick Warren, Purpose-Driven® Preaching, Preaching, Sept/Oct 2001]
This sounds broadminded but is it really inadequate? Can God reconcile a
theology that says man is totally depraved with one that says he isn’t? [i.e.
Schuller]. Can God reconcile a theology that teaches faith alone with one
that teaches faith and works? [Roman Catholicism]…
Don Matzat summed up the doctrinal minimalism of Bible-believing liberals
well:
“Successful evangelical pastors like Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller are
really no different than the successful modern liberal clergy, like Sloan Coffin
and Harry Emerson Fosdick. While Coffin and Fosdick built their
congregations by appealing to human reason, Hybels and Schuller ‘grow a
church’ by appealing to the feelings [felt needs] and experiences of people.
While the classic liberal pastor questioned on the basis of reason the truth of
traditional Christian doctrine, the postmodern pastor ignores doctrine and
focuses on methods which produce success.”
[Matzat, The New Liberals, Issues and Etc. Vol. 3 #2, 1998]
The Mission Justifies the Means
In 2004 Pastor James Perry made an impassioned plea to his church:
“What would it be like if we had a moratorium on issues that divide us, and
spent all our time and energy focusing on reaching out to those in our world
who feel like outcasts, and share God’s love with them? It is my hope that we
will be more concerned about extending God’s grace than getting it right.”
[Proceedings of the General Council, UMC, Daily Editions, Vol. 4, #6]
Was Perry arguing for more evangelism? Was Perry pleading for greater
mission efforts? Not really. Perry was speaking at the 2004 General
Conference of the United Methodist Church in Pittsburg, arguing for the full
inclusion of active homosexuals in the church… Mike Horton describes this
mindset well:
“Increasingly, we hear that what unites us is mission, not theology. Doctrinal
diversity is encouraged, as long as we can all agree on the mission and its
methods...[Horton, A Better Way, p.215]
George Barna likewise urges the Church:
“It is critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of communication:
the audience, not the message, is sovereign…our message has to be
adapted to the needs of the audience”… [G. Barna, Marketing the Church,
NavPress, 1998, p.145]
C. Peter Wagner agrees:
“…We ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else
possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the
goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method…”
[Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, Regal Books, 1976, p. 137]
“God Loves You” – A Gospel without Sin
John Shelby Spong, perhaps the most liberal Christian alive today, writes:
“The language of sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for
so long that it has achieved the status of sacred mantra…Yet upon close
inspection, these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is
no longer operative.” [Spong, Why Churches must Change, p.44]
Joel Osteen, a “Bible-believing Christian and pastor of the largest mega-
church in America, says nearly the same thing in simpler language:
“We’ve heard a lot about the judgment of God and what we can’t do and
what’s going to keep us out of heaven. But it is time people start hearing
about the goodness of God, about a God that loves them. A God that
believes in them. A God that wants to help them.” [Joel Osteen, Your Best
Life Now, 2004, p. 57]
And why does the perfect and holy God love us with all our faults and
weaknesses? Is it because Jesus lived a perfect life and died a perfect death
in our place? No! [apparently not.]
Apparently for Joel Osteen, sin is simply not a problem to God or for us. Bill
Hybels, on the other hand, certainly believes that sin is a problem. But what
Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice. When
an internal survey of Willow Creek members revealed that “large
percentages of singles” (25% of singles, 38% of single parents, and 41% of
divorced individuals) admitted having illicit sexual relations in the last six
months, Hybels failed to focus on the seriousness of sin:
“Hybels did not call the congregation to repent for their rebellion against a
holy God. Instead he emphasized God’s compassionate love: ‘We are a love-
starved people, with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only he
can give long-term…” [Prichard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996]
Yes, the members in the survey certainly have been “love-starved people,
with broken hearts… All this is true, of course, but it’s not the whole truth.
What’s missing? Is this gospel? We are presented as unsatisfied, unable,
needy, restless, longing, wounded and fearful but not sinful. This is a gospel
without sin. A gospel without sin satisfies sinners, but doesn’t save them…A
gospel without sin requires a Jesus who is merely sympathetic, not our
substitute at the Cross. A gospel without sin is a gospel wherein Christ
crucified is unnecessary. John Spong realizes this; he has done away with
the cross.
“God loves you” isn’t the Gospel. The world is full of unbelievers who firmly
believe God loves them. Prichard writes in his study of Willow Creek, “all the
seekers or weekend attenders I interviewed were convinced that God loves
them. They held this belief before coming to Willow Creek.” [G.A. Prichard,
Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996, 2002, p. 264].
“God loves you” will not do. What unbelievers need to know is how God
loves them: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one
and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not
that we love God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning
sacrifice [propitiation] for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10).
We have heard liberals say it for years: “The Church must change or die.
The culture calls the shots. We must re-read the Bible to fit the culture.
When it comes to doctrine, don’t sweat the details. Our differences don’t
matter anyway. After all, doctrine divides; it is the mission [statement] that
really unites us. And when it comes to that mission, we are justified in using
means we deem necessary. Remember, people just need to know that God
loves them. Now we’re hearing Bible-believing Christians saying the very
same things.
The old-line liberals consider the Gospel irrational: Bible-believing liberals
consider it irrelevant. The old-line liberals criticized the Gospel. Bible-
believing liberals are trying to give it a make-over. The old-line liberals tried
to deconstruct the Gospel; Bible-believing liberals are trying to re-invent it…
Do Bible-believing liberals realize how liberal they really are? No. Are they
well intentioned? Certainly! But some of the old- line liberals were well
intentioned too…
When the Church follows the advice of liberals – Bible-believing or otherwise
– the Gospel message suffers. When liberals – bible-believing or otherwise –
have their way, the cross ends up obscured. When the cross is obscured
sinners go unsaved.
The Plumbline
74425 Co. Rd. 21
Renville, MN. 56284
Telephone: 320 329 3874
Email: orrelsteinkamp@hotmail.com
For More Articles Like This Go To: www.atrueandfaithfulwitness.com
HOME
Rick Warren
Forty Days: False Gospel
Forty Days: A Closer Look
Forty Days: Which Jesus?
PDL: God's Wisdom
PDL: Exalting the Fallen Creation
PDL: A Purpose-Shaped
Worldview
Antichrist
Will Antichrist Be Revealed
Before the Tribulation?
The Great Harlot
"Mystery" Babylon
"Emerging" Church
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell - Part 1
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell - Part 2
Church Growth Movement
Schuller, Hybels & Warren
Review of Schuller's "Self-Esteem"
False Apostles, False
Prophets, False Revival
River of Seducing Spirits
Spiritual Warfare Script
Deception of Spiritual Warfare
Flags & Banners...Spiritual Power
Tools?
Davidic Warfare/Worship?
Jesus of the "Signs" Now the
"Christ" of Apostolic Government
Mystical Christianity?
Tenney's Mystical Deity Chase
Richard Foster: Quaker Mystic?
Willard and "The Way of Jesus"
What Oswald Chambers
Might Have Thought About
Todays "Christianity"
Rick Warren
Forty Days: False Gospel
Forty Days: A Closer Look
Forty Days: Which Jesus?
PDL: God's Wisdom
PDL: Exalting the Fallen Creation
PDL: A Purpose-Shaped
Worldview
Antichrist
Will Antichrist Be Revealed
Before the Tribulation?
The Great Harlot
"Mystery" Babylon
"Emerging" Church
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell - Part 1
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell - Part 2
Church Growth Movement
Schuller, Hybels & Warren
Review of Schuller's "Self-Esteem"
False Apostles, False
Prophets, False Revival
River of Seducing Spirits
Spiritual Warfare Script
Deception of Spiritual Warfare
Flags & Banners...Spiritual Power
Tools?
Davidic Warfare/Worship?
Jesus of the "Signs" Now the
"Christ" of Apostolic Government
Mystical Christianity?
Tenney's Mystical Deity Chase
Richard Foster: Quaker Mystic?
Willard and "The Way of Jesus"
What Oswald Chambers
Might Have Thought About
Todays "Christianity"