When Churches Say Uncle! (Part III)

False Assumption

The second challenge with the church growth movement is their belief that there are people seeking God. Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek phenomenon in Chicago are often thought to have created the Seeker-Sensitive Movement that plagues evangelicalism today. Hybels and his ilk certainly refined the idea and ran with it but they did not “invent” it.

When Henry Ward Beecher in the late 19^th century began preaching a “loving” and “accepting” gospel, he in essence was preaching what he thought people wanted and would respond to. He began to fill his buildings with what he thought people wanted to hear and would hear rather than what the bible actually taught.

Norman Vincent Peale

Peale came along in the 1930’s and introduced “the church” to secular humanist psychology. He popularized the “power of positive thinking” psycho-babble developed by Charles Fillmore.  Peale attracted thousands of people who were seeking a “spiritual experience” coupled with mysticism and the occult. He taught than one could turn one’s wishes into realities by the power of the unconscious mind. Needless to say Peale was both a heretic and a false teacher. He is mentioned here for two reasons. First, he presented a message that people wanted to hear. Second, he heavily influenced Dr. Robert Schuller of the former Crystal Cathedral fame.

Robert Schuller

In 1955 Schuller went to Garden Grove, California where he founded the Garden Grove Community Church, the forerunner to the Crystal Cathedral. Having been heavily influenced by Peale and his power of positive thinking he set out to find what people wanted in a church. He surveyed large areas of Garden Grove and surrounding areas asking people why they didn’t attend church and what they wanted in a church. He then gave it to them.  Schuller also was a false teacher preaching a false gospel. Schuller has been a friend, mentor, and a heavy influence on Rick Warren of Saddle Back Community Church and Purpose Driven fame.

The church growth movement is built on the false assumption that the unconverted are actively seeking after the God of the Bible. As a result many in the church growth movement advocate making the church and the services as “use-friendly” and seeker-sensitive as possible. The change that this philosophy has brought into the church is disastrous. It has been disastrous to the spiritual health and well-being of the individual churches.

In order to make both the church and the services seeker-sensitive congregations have removed any intimidating item from a “church” building including crosses, pulpits, religious art, stained-glass windows to clothing. These things do not keep people from attending the corporate gathering of the body of Christ. Décor or methodologies are not the answer.

The Bible makes it very clear that people are not seeking God. There are no seekers. Therefore the church growth/seeker-sensitive movement is seeking to be sensitive to a non-existent entity. Romans 3:9-18 describes the condition and attitude of every living human being. The scripture is adamant that no one is seeking after God.

“as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Romans 3:10-11, ESV)

No one, no living human being prior to conversion seeks after God. They may seek after relief from guilt, a spiritual experience, a better mind-set, spiritualism, mystic experience, happiness, inward peace, satisfaction, acceptance, and many other things. They are not seeking the God of the bible.

Scripture refutes this notion of individuals seeking after God in at least three (3) ways:

First – (Unconverted man) has no fear of God (Romans 18)

Second – Unconverted man held court, assessed the evidence of God and determined to reject, suppress, and did not honor (value) God as God (Romans 3:21)

Third – Unconverted men hate the light and love their darkness (John 3:19) Since God is light, men in their unconverted state, hate God. They are God-haters. Unconverted men do not seek after God. We think that we can remove our neckties and jackets, wear jeans with holes in them that the unconverted will see our sensitivity toward them and they will come seeking. Removing the pulpit will not make the service any more appealing to the unconverted. It merely sends the message that the word of God is no longer thought of as sufficient or authoritative.

“And this is the judgment: the light [Christ] has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20, ESV)

When individual, local churches subscribe to church growth methods they have in essence cried Uncle. They have usually abandoned things like fervent, passionate, Spirit-filled prayer meetings, they have abandoned expositional teaching and preaching of the word, they have abandoned biblical fellowship with all the members of the body, and the regular meals together which include the Lord’s supper. More importantly they have abandoned the only means by which true biblical churches flourish by and that is discipleship. Church growth methods center on programs, personalities, and promotions rather than faithful obedience to the great commission.

The only church growth plan in the New Testament is found in Matthew 28:18-20. As each individual member of the body of Christ goes about their normal daily life they are to be making disciples. Those disciples once made are to be baptized and then taught everything that Jesus had taught.  

To be continued...

When Churches Say Uncle! (Part II)

Broken Foundations

Let me say at the outset that I do not for a minute believe churches call a session for the express purpose of crying out “Uncle.” Quite the contrary, for the most part they don’t even realize that they have even done so. As a matter of fact sometimes they find that they are sucked into the church growth movement because they are convinced there is no other way to “grow” or save their church. While other churches are actually born into this error having begun by church growth methodology.

As promised in yesterday’s post, I want to give the underlying foundational errors of the church growth movement. Let me say this, the offspring of the church growth movement is known as “The Seeker-Sensitive” Movement. The foundational errors of this movement are three-fold; first, it denies the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, and secondly, it is built on the false assumption that the unconverted is actively seeking after the God of the Bible, and third, the purpose of the Sunday morning worship service is to reach the lost. These are three false assumptions that have lent themselves to the harm of the church;

THE DENIAL OF THE AUTHORITY AND SUFFICENCY OF SCRIPTURE

This is a very serious error. Yet no one in the church growth movement will admit that they have denied the authority or sufficiency of scripture. As a matter of fact, almost all will argue their reasoning and justification by use of the Scriptures. So, in what way do they do this? Or really, how does this denial take place?

Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 16:18:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus alone is the architect, builder, owner and Lord of the church. He gave the blueprints for his church, he gave or instilled the power into the followers of Christ as instruments in the building of the church, and he gave the great commission for the building of His church. Therefore, if we are going to see any “growth” in our churches we must use his blueprints, tap into his power, and obediently follow the great commission.

Today, churches as a whole have abandoned the idea of the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures since they either add to them or abandon them. The great commission gives us the blue print to use in order to build the church – as we are going, make disciples, baptize them, and teach them everything that Christ taught the disciples. Nothing more and nothing less will do. Changing the gospel, redefining sin or repentance, casual dress, rock-star music, or seeker sensitive growth plans will not grow the church. Let me say quickly, at least not spiritually. These methods have sometimes been successful to build “mega-church” messes that profess to be a church.

When you abandon the God-given blue print for church growth which is to make disciples you have abandoned God’s plan for the church and substituted a cheap methodology you have denied the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

To be continued…

When Churches Say "Uncle!" (Part I)

Going Down For the Count

When I was a kid, which seems so very long ago, I was a scrapper. By that I mean I loved to mix it up with the boys in my neighborhood and elementary classes. We would imitate WWF Wrestling, pretend we knew “Karate,” or fought as cowboy and Indians. When one of the gang came across boxing gloves we would “duke” it out in fun. Of course it was always fun until someone got hurt.

When things got a little too physical for us, and by that I mean we were getting hurt, we had a signal for the other fellow to quit. I am sure it was the same signal that you probably used when you use to rough house since I think it was used universally. That signal we so often had to default to was, “Uncle.” This was the universal plea for mercy. But it meant more than just have mercy, it meant, at least to us kids, QUIT! Stop, let me go, I have had enough. Of course sometimes someone jumped us and repeatedly called for us to "Say Uncle."

No one really knows were the expression came from. It has been seen in print as early as 1912. It might have come from an old Irish word, anacol, which means among a few things mercy and sounds like “Uncle.” There is even a folk lore legend that goes like this:

A gentleman was boasting that his parrot would repeat anything he told him. For example, he told him several times, before some friends, to say “Uncle,” but the parrot would not repeat it. In anger he seized the bird, and half-twisting his neck, said: “Say ‘uncle,’ you beggar!” and threw him into the fowl pen, in which he had ten prize fowls. Shortly afterward, thinking he had killed the parrot, he went to the pen. To his surprise he found nine of the fowls dead on the floor with their necks wrung, and the parrot standing on the tenth twisting his neck and screaming: “Say ‘uncle,’ you beggar! say uncle.’”

Regardless of where it came from and how it developed, almost every American boy, and some girls at some time and place have cried out, “Uncle.” I quit, I give up, let me go!

There is a sure tale-tell sign when churches have given up and are quitting God. Maybe, since Christ is actually the head of the church, I should have said when they have given up on Christ. It is easy to see when churches have cried Uncle.

Churches cry Uncle when they turn from trusting both Christ and what He said in the Scriptures about the church to church growth theology and methodology. Church growth theology screams one thing very loud and clear, we don’t trust Christ to build His church so we will do it our way. Adoption of church growth methodology is a sure sign the church has cried Uncle!

What does church growth methodology say so clearly? We will go into that in part two in tomorrow’s post, Lord willing. Please stop by.

To be continued...

Who Do You Run With?

Let those be thy choicest companions who have made Christ their chief companion.

Thomas Brooks

1608 - 1680

____________________________________________________ 

Happy Birthday to my darling  3rd daughter, the brand new Mrs. Sharon A. (Metcalf) Jones of Perioa, IL. Happy Birthday my dear SAM3!

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part VI)

THE AFTERMATH

In 1972 Don McLean released an album entitled American Pie. The title song, American Pie went number one in 1972 for four weeks. The song is a lamenting of the plane crash and death February 3, 1959 of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and the Big Bopper. The song’s message proposes that this was “The day the Music Died.” This mysterious song has been the subject of many interpretations and McLean refuses to elaborate.

While the combination of the ministry of Charles Finney and the Dedham Decision may not have been “The Day that the Music of Biblical Evangelism” died, but it is close. The Doctrines of Grace are still taught today in many places. There is certainly a “revival” of the biblical doctrine of soteriology. However, many things changed in the American churches with the advent of Finney; particulary in the aftermath.

In the latter part of the 18^th century Henry Ward Beecher stopped preaching the “negative” aspects of the gospel, such as hell, judgment, and damnation and he began preaching a “gospel” of love. He came so popular that he was called to the Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, NY.

The latter part of the 19^th century became a breeding ground for newly styled preaching and evangelists. First, the bible doctrine of sin and its effect on the volition (will) has been rejected by Finney. Second, the New Divinity had developed various strains of aberrant theology, and third, prominent preachers were now changing the gospel to a gospel of love.

All the right ingredients were in place for men like D. L. Moody and Billy Sunday to come along and redefine evangelism and revivalism. In all fairness, from what is known, both of these men were “sincere” and had an almost insatiable desire to “win people to Christ” and they both possessed a tremendous distaste for, what one article called “complicated theology.” As a matter of fact Sunday was on record for stating that he knew as much about theology as a jack-rabbit knows about Ping-Pong.

Billy Sunday followed closely in the steps of Charles Finney. Sunday held to Finney’s free will teaching. Believing a sinner could will himself to salvation at any time he chose, Sunday developed revival techniques that were designed to “move” or “manipulate” the will of a sinner to make a decision.

Thus, with the advent of new “evangelists” like Billy Sunday, revival or evangelism became a performance. Evangelists would put on a show, preach a very simple gospel of love, and presto! Thousands of people would be “moved” to walk the aisle and make a profession or decision for Christ.

In 1949 another Evangelist came to prominence. After a number of celebrities reportedly converted to Christ in a 1949 Los Angeles crusade, William Randolph Hearst told his people to “puff” a new evangelist. This evangelist was Billy Graham.

Graham is an interesting and for some, complicated man. His theology and methodology has been debated by many for years. Graham studied and learned much from Whitefield, Finney, and Billy Sunday. Graham, although seemingly a model of purity and one of the most admired man in America can be an enigma.

Graham is not really a product of Edwards or Finney. It seems he does not believe that conversions come with the right use of the proper means. Graham does not hold to the biblical doctrines of grace and has a skewed view of salvation. He holds to “man’s free-will” theology of Pelagius and Finney. He certainly uses unbiblical terminology in his gospel presentations, such as “receive Jesus into your heart,” or “accept Jesus in your life,” or “make a decision for Christ.” Graham also has made some very poor choices with whom he has held crusades with and has moved to a more “universal” position of redemption in his older years.

I mention Graham because he has heavily influenced evangelicals, evangelists, preachers, and revivalists more so than any other man in the 20^th century. Revivalism has been heavily influenced by the Arminian, free-will decisional regeneration mentality. Since Finney’s day and the latter part of the 19^th century preaching has been aimed at leading sinners to make “a decision” for Christ.

GOD STILL SAVES

Despite all that Charles Finney, Henry Ward Beecher, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peal, Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, or even Rick Warren preach or practice evangelism, God still saves sinners. God alone saves sinners. Conversion is not a by-product of a well-staged theatrical event designed to “manipulate” the will to make a decision.

Decisional regeneration, defined as using whatever means and methods that are needed to induce a sinner to make a decision is not biblical. Many false conversions result from men and women making a decision. Some of these false professions are known in a short period of time. Some however are not made known until eternity. (Matthew 7:21-22)

The End

______________________________________________ 

Happy Birthday to my darling 4th daughter, Stacy A. Gallegos of San Tan Valley, Arizona. Happy Birthday SAM4

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part V)

The New Divinity

Thousands of people heard Whitefield and Edwards preach and responded. Most responded in true faith in what we now call the First Great Awakening. You would have thought that many of the men who followed these true gospel preachers would continue to perpetuate the biblical gospel. History tells us that many did indeed follow in the footsteps of both Whitefield and Edwards.

Wouldn’t you know it? Many of Edward’s followers chose to “modify” Edward’s message. What they produced is what is known as the “New Divinity.” A leading figure in this new movement was none other than the grandson of Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight. Nathaniel W. Taylor and Samuel Hopkins were  major promoters of this new doctrine which among many of its points redefined the human will and its ability to choose right or wrong. It appears from a cursory review of the 13 principles of the New Divinity that they are really a mixture of “free-will, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism.

Needless to say that modifying Edwards “Calvinism” and mixing in semi-Pelagianistic ideas, this “group” developed splinter groups. Such groups were known as the “Tasters” and others as the “Exercisers.” Others within this group ran amuck with various doctrines.

One individual who came out of this movement was Charles Finney. I wish I had the time to develop a portrait of this “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It is so ironic that so many people have been deceived by this man and his theology. It is even more ironic that he has been made out to be some sort of “poster-boy” for his supposed part in the “Second Great Awakening.”

Needless to say Finney while using Edwards’s language and terms rejected Edwards’s doctrine regarding conversion, the soul, original sin, and other things. Finney’s greatest error came when he rejected Edwards’s interpretation of scripture in his Treatise on the Will.

Finney erroneously believed that the sinner’s “inward being” enabled the sinner to control their own life, intellect, directly or indirectly by “willing” it to be so or not so. Edwards and Whitefield taught that both salvation and revival was absolutely dependent upon God. Finney taught that both salvation and revival did not depend on Spiritual or divine intervention. Conversion for Finney became simply a matter of determining the right motivator for the sinner’s will. He wrote in his Lectures on Revivals of Religion, “…conversion…is purely a philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” In other words, just find the right method to bring the sinner under conviction and you can convert the sinner.

Rather than being a prime figure in the Second Great Awakening, Finney worked a man-made circus in the 1820’s that spread through the northeast leaving what has been since called, “burned-over districts.” His theology was a disaster.

Unfortunately, Finney became a tremendous influence on many preachers and evangelists. It seems many began to adopt his “methods” when they saw how many people Finney claimed to “convert.” This was the beginning of the change of the gospel in America for the worse.

In 1820 a landmark decision was handed down in the case of Dedham, MA. This was a break with the “church” and the town in which it was located. It meant that the town no longer called or dismissed pastors and it also meant that the town no longer supported the congregation (including pastor). Each individual church was now required to be indigenous. Pastors were no longer paid by townships but had to scramble to gain and retain congregants in order to be supported. Pastors now had to “draw” big crowds in order to keep preaching and equally important, “eating.”

This led to what Nathan Hatch called in his book, The Democratization of American Christianity a “spiritual free-for-all.” In essence it was a “no-holds-barred” race to preach in such a manner to gain the largest amount of listeners as possible. Under Finney’s influence and twisted doctrine, evangelization was no longer viewed as in the hands of a Sovereign God who saved whom He desired and when He desired but in the hands of the most clever innovator of the right means to “stir” the will and mass produce converts. In other words, we see the door open and the concrete mixed in order to pave the way for what we now bemoan as “decisional regeneration.”

To be continued…

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part IV)

The Path of Conversion in America

The past seven years have given my wife and me several opportunities to visit a number of churches in southwest Washington and northwest Oregon. Many of these churches turned out to have few in number and were struggling to stay alive. Most of these churches were desperate in finding ways to grow, supply the budget, be relevant, and meet the needs of their respective community.

I found it to be interesting that each of these churches (and many that I have been in over the last several years or have read about) have a few common threads that tie them together. Each of these so-called churches had these things in common: 

• A lack of understanding spiritual leadership within the church
• An inherent philosophy of decisional regeneration evangelism
• A lack of understanding of the sovereignty of God in evangelism
• A feverish emphasis on sanctification or spiritual growth as their starting point
• A slavish commitment to church growth philosophy and methodology 

Let’s take a moment and see how the church has understood or viewed conversion over the last 400 years in America.

EDWARDS AND WHITEFIELD

Jonathan Edwards wrote in 1740,

“There is no kind of love in the world that has had such a great visible effects in men as love to Christ has had, though he be an unseen object which [is] an evidence of a divine work in the hearts of men, infusing that love into them. Thus the voice of reason, Scripture, and experience, and the testimony of the best of men do all concur in it, that there must be such a thing as conversion.””…seeing man naturally is unholy, there must be a change of nature in order to their being happy in God.” [1]

The great awakening did not materialize because of weak evangelistic presentations of “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” or sweet and sugary promises of “your best life now.” Gospel presentations and gospel invitations were 180 degrees in juxtaposition to what they are today. Listen to this excerpt from a sermon by Jonathan Edwards:

“The punishment that is threatened to be inflicted on ungodly men is the wrath of God. God has often said that he will pour out his wrath upon the wicked. The wicked, they treasure up wrath; they are vessels of wrath, and they shall drink of the cup of God’s wrath that is poured out without mixture.” (Revelation 14:10) “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture.” That is, there shall be no mixture of mercy; there shall be no sort of mitigation or moderation. God sometimes executes judgments upon sinners in this world, but it is with great mixtures of mercy and with restraint. But then there will be full and unmixed wrath.” (Yale Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14.304)

How do you think such preaching would be welcomed today in our modern churches? The significant difference lies in the fact that sermons by men like Edwards and Whitfield drove men to repentance and conversion. Today’s sermons drive men to be better husbands, or better fathers, or better wealth gathers, or even better lovers. All these things are good things but they can and in most cases are being done without the aid of the Holy Spirit and they surely do not drive men to repentance and/or conversion. Our evangelical churches are full of psychology  and self-help classes.

Listen to an excerpt from a sermon by George Whitefield:

“But thus must it be, if Christ be not your righteousness. For God’s justice must be satisfied; and, unless Christ’s righteousness is imputed and applied to you here, you must hereafter be satisfying the divine justice in hell-torments eternally; nay, Christ himself shall condemn you to that place of torment. And how cutting is that thought! Me thinks I see poor, trembling, Christ less wretches, standing before the bar of God, crying out , Lord, if we must be dammed, let some angel, or some archangel, pronounce the damnatory sentence: but all in vain. Christ himself shall pronounce the irrevocable sentence. Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord, let me persuade you to close with Christ, and never rest till you can say, “The Lord our righteousness.” Who knows but the Lord may have mercy on, nay abundantly pardon you? Beg of God to give you faith; and, if the Lord gives you that, you will by it receive Christ, with his righteousness, and his All. (From The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, London, 1771-1772, accessed online.)

What are sermons like today? Do you want a better life; do you want to go to heaven? “Make a decision for Jesus and ask him into your hearts. Don’t worry about your sin; he takes you where you are. Just decide today!” At best a few scriptures are given from something we call the Romans Road and we pronounce our sinner “saved.”

Edwards and Whitefield both to their hearers to beg God for mercy and for pardon. They never promised redemption or salvation, they thundered forth, “If God has mercy on you.” They pleaded with their hearers to “close with Christ,” in other words, take care of business. They did not tell them to pray a prayer, make a decision, or ask Jesus in their hearts. They didn’t say repeat after me – they preached, “Beg God to give you faith.” They did not give an invitation. They left the sinner to work through his or her conviction of sin and allowed the Spirit of God to work salvation into their lives. They didn't count "converts." They waited to see if fruit developed from the seed that was planted and watered.

What happened?

To Be Continued…

---

[1] Kimnach, Minkema, and Sweeney, eds., The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, 89)