Posted on 05/03/2003 11:44:05 AM PDT by anncoulteriscool
What's Inside the Trojan Horse?
by: John MacArthur
By God's grace, I have been the pastor of the same church now for almost thirty-five years. From that vantage point, I have witnessed the birth and growth of menacing trends within the church, several of which have converged under what I would call evangelical pragmatism–an approach to ministry that is endemic in contemporary Christianity.
What is pragmatism? Basically it is the philosophy that results determine meaning, truth, and value–what will work becomes a more important question than what is true. As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside. Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.
Let me take a few minutes to explain a little of the history leading up to the current entrenchment of the pragmatic approach in the evangelical church and to show you why it isn't as innocent as it looks.
Recent History
The 1970s, for the most part, were years of spiritual revival in America. The spread of the gospel through the campuses of many colleges and universities marked a fresh, energetic movement of the Holy Spirit to draw people to salvation in Christ. Mass baptisms were conducted in rivers, lakes, and the ocean, several new versions of the English Bible were released, and Christian publishing and broadcasting experienced remarkable growth.
Sadly, the fervent evangelical revival slowed and was overshadowed by the greed and debauchery of the eighties and nineties. The surrounding culture rejected biblical standards of morality, and the church, rather than assert its distinctiveness and call the world to repentance, softened its stance on holiness. The failure to maintain a distinctively biblical identity was profound–it led to general spiritual apathy and a marked decline in church attendance.
Church leaders reacted to the world's indifference, not by a return to strong biblical preaching that emphasized sin and repentance, but by a pragmatic approach to "doing" church–an approach driven more by marketing, methodology, and perceived results than by biblical doctrine. The new model of ministry revolved around making sinners feel comfortable and at ease in the church, then selling them on the benefits of becoming a Christian. Earlier silence has given way to cultural appeasement and conformity.
Even the church's ministry to its own has changed. Entertainment has hijacked many pulpits across the country; contemporary approaches cater to the ever-changing whims of professing believers; and many local churches have become little more than social clubs and community centers where the focus is on the individual's felt needs. Even on Christian radio, phone-in talk shows, music, and live psychotherapy are starting to replace Bible teaching as the staple. "Whatever works," the mantra of pragmatism, has become the new banner of evangelicalism.
The Down-Grade Controversy
You may be surprised to learn that what we are now seeing is not new. England's most famous preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, dealt with a similar situation more than 100 years ago. Among churches that were once solid, Spurgeon and other faithful pastors noticed a conciliatory attitude toward and overt cooperation with the modernist movement. And what motivated the compromise? They sought to find acceptance by adopting the "sophisticated" trends of the culture. Does that sound familiar to you?
One article, published anonymously in Spurgeon's monthly magazine The Sword and the Trowel, noted that every revival of true evangelical faith had been followed within a generation or two by a drift away from sound doctrine, ultimately leading to wholesale apostasy. The author likened this drifting from truth to a downhill slope, and thus labeled it "the down grade." The inroads of modernism into the church killed ninety percent of the mainline denominations within a generation of Spurgeon’s death. Spurgeon himself, once the celebrated and adored herald of the Baptist Union, was marginalized by the society and he eventually withdrew his membership.
The Effects of Pragmatism
Many of today's church leaders have bought into the subtlety of pragmatism without recognizing the dangers it poses. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head on, evangelical pragmatism gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it effectively denigrates the things that are precious to Him.
First, there is in vogue today a trend to make the basis of faith something other than God's Word. Experience, emotion, fashion, and popular opinion are often more authoritative than the Bible in determining what many Christians believe. From private, individual revelation to the blending of secular psychology with biblical "principles," Christians are listening to the voice of the serpent that once told Eve, "God's Word doesn't have all the answers." Christian counseling reflects that drift, frequently offering no more than experimental and unscriptural self-help therapy instead of solid answers from the Bible.
Christian missionary work is often riddled with pragmatism and compromise, because too many in missions have evidently concluded that what gets results is more important than what God says. That's true among local churches as well. It has become fashionable to forgo the proclamation and teaching of God's Word in worship services. Instead, churches serve up a paltry diet of drama, music, and other forms of entertainment.
Second, evangelical pragmatism tends to move the focus of faith away from God's Son. You've seen that repeatedly if you watch much religious television. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel advocated by so many televangelists is the ultimate example of this kind of fantasy faith. This false gospel appeals unabashedly to the flesh, corrupting all the promises of Scripture and encouraging greed. It makes material blessing, not Jesus Christ, the object of the Christian's desires.
Easy-believism handles the message differently, but the effect is the same. It is the promise of forgiveness minus the gospel's hard demands, the perfect message for pragmatists. It has done much to popularize "believing" but little to provoke sincere faith.
Christ is no longer the focus of the message. While His name is mentioned from time to time, the real focus is inward, not upward. People are urged to look within; to try to understand themselves; to come to grips with their problems, their hurts, their disappointments; to have their needs met, their desires granted, their wants fulfilled. Nearly all the popular versions of the message encourage and legitimize a self-centered perspective.
Third, today's Christianity is infected with a tendency to view the result of faith as something less than God's standard of holy living. By downplaying the importance of holy living–both by precept and by example–the biblical doctrine of conversion is undermined. Think about it: What more could Satan do to try to destroy the church than undermining God's Word, shifting the focus off Christ, and minimizing holy living?
All those things are happening slowly, steadily within the church right now. Tragically, most Christians seem oblivious to the problems, satisfied with a Christianity that is fashionable and highly visible. But the true church must not ignore those threats. If we fight to maintain doctrinal purity with an emphasis on biblical preaching and biblical ministry, we can conquer external attacks. But if error is allowed into the church, many more churches will slide down the grade to suffer the same fate as the denominations that listened to, yet ignored, Spurgeon's impassioned appeal.
Make it your habitual prayer request that the Lord would elevate the authority of His Word, the glory of His Son, and the purity of His people in the evangelical church. May the Lord revive us and keep us far from the slippery slope of pragmatism.
© Copyright 2003 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.
Reform Bump
He asseses the condition of Evangelical Churches ..it is not a pretty picture.
I would reccomend it to any that have an interest in the growth of the INVISIBLE Church
Did you see his two appearances on Larry King LIve...he was only one standing on the Word, and the Gospel!
Yes I did see him..I am always impressed with his zeal for the gospel!
It seems that we have a war in our congregations in which we will either 1) Worship God in Spirit and in Truth; or 2) Worship man by accomidating our gatherings to the whims of the unregenerate;
Yes I saw that to. In fact it was that appearance that prompted the Bush white house to invite MacArthur to the White House along with some other evangelicals.
Sometimes i am still amased at how God moves His shepherds and His Watchmen to the same place at the same time. i have been reading some of the work of a Layman named Paul Proctor who has been dealing with the subject of the Apostate Church. He cites the present Church Growth movement in particular. Note also that The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (Michael Horton's organisation), has been dealing with this same subject since the early 90's.
i'm fighting this war within my own church. Our Leadership has decided to study and implement the Saddleback model, and are pushing Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Church. i have informed the leadership that they will do this over their dead bodies (i don't plan on dying alone). So we see a "line in the sand" mentality.
You know, i've always wondered...If we are trying to market the church as we would a business,...
1) Who are the "customers"?Just some thoughts.
2) Who are the "employees"?
3) Who are the "Bosses"?
4) What is the "product"?
5) Didn't Jesus chase the "businessmen" out of the temple?
6) What's the difference between marketing animal sacrifices, and marketing the sacrifice of Christ?
I know many evangelical Christians--whether part of a singing group or short-term missions team--who shared reports like "350 people accepted Christ," or "Half of the people in the village were saved." They may have had methods for following up, but we never really heard that side of it. People always seem to be more interested in the emotional, heart-warming aspect of evangelism.
Actually, John MacAuthur is a Reformed Baptist. Like Presbyterians, Reformed Baptsist are Calvinists. They differ with Presbyterians in the following areas:
1) Reformed Baptists are Congregational in Government form while Presbyterians use a Presbyterian Form that the US Congress was modeled on.There are other minor differences, but if you look at the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of 1689, you find very few differences in doctrine, in fact the Baptist Confession of 1689 mentions this in it's introduction. The Church of the Brethern is Arminian, and would be opposed to much of MacAuthur's teaching on the Doctrines of Grace. As Far as i am aware, Reformed Baptist Congregations are independent of one another, and have no organisational body like the Southern Baptist Convention, or the American Baptist Convention.
2) The Baptists do only believer's baptism, while Presbyterians baptise infants.
3) Baptists celebrate the Lord's Supper as a Memorial only, Presbyterians believe that Christ is Spiritually present in the sacrament (not Physically present!)
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is also Reformed Baptist.
Once again MacArthur nails it. I think this is the number one biggest problem today. Just "believe" , say the sinners prayer and that's it. No need to put on the righeousness of Christ.
Once again MacArthur nails it. I think this is the number one biggest problem today. Just "believe" , say the sinners prayer and that's it. No need to put on the righeousness of Christ.
So salvation is the result of HARD WORK, huh? Are you saved because you believe, or are you saved because you work real hard at it?
Are they planning on wearing Hawaiian shirts in the pulpit, too?
We've been to Saddleback services a few times with relatives. Our younger son calls it "Church du Soleil."
It's "church as therapy." Their guideline is "what has church done for you lately?" They have it backwards.
Warren's made a fortune on that book, and God is not the richer for it, IMO.
"Worship is an end to itself; not a means to an end."
Great line, OldCodger. The antithesis of Saddleback.
yes written in 2000 I believe
Not hard at all friend, but quite different from the current theology of "I can do whatever I want because I'm saved." I suggest that you read MacArthurs "The Gospel According to Jesus" for a thorough and better explanation.
And who preaches that?
Actually, I would say that a much more dangerous teaching is one which states that in order to be saved you must continue to keep the Mosaic laws. What that says is that Jesus statement on the cross that "it is finished" was a lie.
Did not Jesus die for all your sins? What can you do besides claiming the blood of Jesus over your sins that will save you? Does living a good life free from the outward manifestations of sin save you? Does it keep you saved? Or are you saved wholly and totally by the saving grace of Jesus?
Are you, if you believe in Christ, capable of committing a sin that Jesus did not die for?
Well the visible church would be defined as all professing Christian that adhere to the creeds..God will seperate the sheep from the goats. We do not need to be concerned with that, BUT we do need to profess the gosple to that unsaved visible church as well as those outside the church
I believe that a belief in the Trinity and the PHYSICAL ressurection of Christ is also essential for salvation.
Some church like Dougs substitute historic Christian teachings for the Jewish law..
Saving faith must be in the right thing!
I believe that those beliefs are signs that the sinner has actually believed and has salvation, but any understanding of such complex doctrines as the trinity and an acknowledgement of the physical ressurection of Christ is clearly not necessary in order to be saved. If so then the thief on the cross was doomed.
Do you think that the 3000 souls that were saved on the day of pentacost had any idea of the trinity? Did they understand the principles of the physical resurrection of Christ? Or did they simply respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit in order to be saved?
Gee Mom, for a Calvinist it seems that you have added a lot of conditions for God's unconditional grace.
Perhaps you should go back a bit further for a bigger slice of the picture < /mixed metaphor>. Early American Literature is mostly composed of sermons, particularly Puritan sermonns. One should consider a Jonathan Edwards, who every week composed a sermon of a two or three hour length. It was read from the pulpit, so that it had to be handwritten as well. Imagine the study that would be involved in producing a consistent manuscript that long, as well as the concentration involved in doing it in a week's time without computers or typewriters, electricity, ball point pens, legal pads, etc.
Then consider how different it is today when the congregation can hardly bear a 20 minute sermon that in usually extemporaneous. Some studies suggest that the average church goer forgets a sermon an hour after it is preached.
It is sad when we see how far we have fallen, even though we do have more liesure time, and modern conveniences.
Q) What is the Chief and Greatest End of Man?To the New American Slandard Version of the Catechism that reads:
A) The Chief and Greatest end of Man is to Glorify God and Fully to Enjoy Him Forever.
Q) What is the Chief and Greatest End of Man?This is where that kind of "worship" leads us. And here is a question for all concerned: If we cannot show respect and reverence for God in our worship, how are we going to treat one another?
A) The Chief and Greatest End of Man is to Glorify Himself and to have God Fully Enjoy Man Forever.
Think about that one.
While Edwards is to be commended for his hard work, the published sermons that I have reviewed appear to run between 4500 and 8000 words. At a normal speaking voice (125 words per minute-- most preachers today speak at about 175 words per minute) these sermons by Edwards would last anywhere from 35 to 65 minutes.
Unless the published sermons have been edited for content, I don't think that Edwards would have been preaching for 3 hours non-stop. Many preachers today have 3 or 4 services every Sunday plus mid-week bible studies and they preach an hour per service. Is their dedication to be discounted? Are they less the servant of God than Edwards?
Let us not forget that if you fell asleep during a Puritan sermon you could be flogged. There was an incentive to keep awake that you don't have in today's church. People today attend church because they WANT to, not because the have to. That was not always the case in the days of the Reformation and the days of Puritan America.
Obviously you feel this situation needs correcting, so I assume that God has called you to full time ministry and you will begin this reformation of the modern Church immediately? Perhaps you could publish some of your "sound doctinal" sermons for us here on FR after you send them out to the masses?
Or do you feel, as an armchair critic, that God can simply call others to this task?
It is true that by today's standards the time length would be as you say. In my days in college debate, 600-800 wpm was not unheard of (yes, it is virtually incomprehensible!). It is also true that we have been Steadily increasing the rate that we speak at. Notice the length of the sentences that Edwards and others used. It is comparable to the sentence length of the Greek New Testament (which, as you may no doubt guess, is quite long). It would require a slower pace in order to understand the speaker. You may also not be aware that Edwards was reputed to have had a speach impediment (i believe that he stuttered, though i may be mistaken about the particular malady).
Unless the published sermons have been edited for content, I don't think that Edwards would have been preaching for 3 hours non-stop. Many preachers today have 3 or 4 services every Sunday plus mid-week bible studies and they preach an hour per service. Is their dedication to be discounted? Are they less the servant of God than Edwards?
i have no idea what your sources are, so i would not be able to tell you whether they are abridged or not. My source is the late Dr. John H. Gerstner, a scholar of Jonathan Edwards, and the teacher of R.C. Sproul (both from Pittsburgh). i do not know how many services Edwards held at North Hampton and other churches, though because of the total length of service, i doubt that 3 or 4 would have been possible. i can tell you this: i have never heard any preacher do an expository sermon for an hour length. i have been in a variety of different churches in different traditions running from Assembly of God to Episcopalian, From Covenanter to Catholic, and a variety of "independents". Twelve to twenty minutes is the average. As per dedication, all i have to go upon is what God has given, namely the fruits of the ministry. That means i would have to look at each on a case-by-case basis, so i do not need to tell you that i will remain ignorant on that particular issue. Somehow though, i don't see a Great Awakening coming out of Saddleback or Willow Creek. All i see coming out of those places are 1) a Remnant chosen by God, headed for other places; and 2) a "dumbded-down" church that is afflicted by "God-lite".
Let us not forget that if you fell asleep during a Puritan sermon you could be flogged. There was an incentive to keep awake that you don't have in today's church. People today attend church because they WANT to, not because the have to. That was not always the case in the days of the Reformation and the days of Puritan America.
Many of the colonies such as Mass. had complete religious toleration, which meant that groups such as Catholics and Deists could exist. While in the 17th Century, church attendance was compulsory, this was not the case in the 18th Century. Franklin and Jefferson did not regularly attend, and many others could not for distance. Keep in mind that church buildings were often poorly ventilated, lit and/or heated with open fires in candles, lamps and stoves. Oxygen depletion was a problem and would be manifested in sleep. Indeed, these measures while seeming draconian, may have saved lives in an era where carbon monoxide was unknown.
And who preaches that? :-)
I would say that letting Christ live in us and through us is ceding our will to God. Christ did not and will not sin. He never broke any biblcal law, in fact he created them. The only laws he ever broke were the laws of men.
Faith in God means having the faith to LET him live in and through us. It means yielding to his power and will and letting him change and convert us.
Simple "belief" is addressed in scripture:
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
In other words, WORKS is the proof of faith. It means that we are letting God work in us.
A refusal to follow scripture and obey God is simply a denial of his lordship over us.
Well obviously you've never heard Jon Courson. His expository sermons last at least an hour each and often as long as an hour and a half. It took him over 12 years to get from Genesis to Revelation and every sermon is here for your listening pleasure:
Jon Courson's Sermons at Firefighters for Christ
BTW why does a sermon have to be longer than an hour in order to be effective? God was quite short on words when he issued the 10 commandments. And I think that the average reader could read all the words in red in the entire new testament in about an hour. The Sermon on the Mount was about a 5 to 10 minute sermon. So the Lord does not judge the effectiveness of a sermon by the length, but by the content. So I would much prefer listening to a preacher who can effectivley communicate the gospel in a 10 minute sermon, than a preacher who rambles on for hours and hours and does not comminicate to anyone but himself. The length of a sermon is not how it should be judged. If so, then by that standard Jesus was a lousy preacher.
So you think that memebrs of the Armstrong church are saved?
A few years ago we attended a Presbyterian church (in name only, it turned out).
We suggested an adult discussion group on the Westminster Catechism (how radical). We were voted down, as a study of the Westminster might appear too "divisive" to some.
We left the next Sunday.
LOL, do you think that John Knox would have ever been recieved into membership in such a congregation?
Some people in our denomination think that the initials E.P.C. stand for Everybody Please Come. i have been working hard to disabuse people of that idea.
Give the BGEA credit where it's due. They have kept statistics on the results of their "crusades" over the decades, and inform us that 4% of those who "make a decision for Christ" actually become active Christians. This would indicate that the "crusade evangelism" approach -- inducing conversions through various techniques of emotional manipulation -- has a 96% defect rate. People have some kind of experience induced by the event, which fails to last too far beyond the event that created the experience.
I have a personal conviction against responding to altar calls.
"I have a personal conviction against responding to altar calls."
Especially since the gospel itself is all the invitation anyone ever needs. The danger of altar calls, in my opinon, is that the evangelist tends to take over the Holy Spirit's job of giving people the assurance of salvation. It would seem that many people leave these crusades with a false sense of security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.