Rss

  • youtube

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part II

Two paradigms for cultural engagement: persuasion v. warfare

In his book Thriving in Babylon Larry Osborne describes two opposing paradigms of cultural engagement: persuasion and warfare. He has chosen Daniel of the Old Testament as the role-model for the persuasive, non-combative approach of Christians to a hostile culture. He describes those in the warfare paradigm as focusing on fighting the spread of sin on all fronts and who envision themselves as “frontline soldiers in a great spiritual battle between the forces of evil and those who uphold biblical values.”[1] Osborne believes that modern evangelicals who see the culture in terms of spiritual warfare have gotten it all wrong and should emulate Daniel.

When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, it’s always framed in the context of our personal spirituality. The warfare model focuses on the wrong enemy. Non-Christians are not the enemy. They’re the victims of the Enemy. Victims need to be rescued, not wiped out.”[2] [emphasis added]

Here we find the great error of Osborne and like-minded culturally pacifist Christians in engaging the culture. Spiritual warfare is not always framed in the context of personal spirituality. The Bible has a great deal to say about spiritual warfare, and Donald Stamps in “The Christian’s Relationship to the World” describes the cultural battlefield where this war is fought.

The term “world’ often refers to the vast system of this age which Satan promotes and exists independent of God…In this age Satan uses the world’s ideas, morality, philosophies, psychology, desires, governments, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, religions, sports, agriculture, etc., to oppose God, His people, His word and His righteous standards… Believers must be aware that behind all human enterprises there is a spirit, force, or power that moves against God and His Word, some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Finally, the “world” also includes all man-made religious systems and all unbiblical, worldly, or lukewarm “Christian” organizations and churches…In the world believers are strangers and pilgrims.[3]

The individual Christian and the Church (body of Christ) must stand in opposition to the world system. When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, they refer not only to personal spiritual preparation but also to being prepared to wage spiritual warfare in the larger culture as described by Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. [Ephesians 6:10-14. KJV]

If not in the culture, where are Christian supposed to war against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over the present darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places? Christians are Christ’s voice and legs in the spiritual battle against a “world” system ruled by Satan. Christians must not see spiritual warfare only in the “context of our personal spirituality” as claimed by Osborne. It is in the culture that we must stand firm in the evil day. The Apostle Paul had much to say about spiritual warfare in the culture, and the following are just three of his admonitions.

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:3-5. RSV] [emphasis added]

Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. [2 Timothy 4:2. RSV] [emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame to even speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible. [Ephesians 5: 6-7,11-13. RSV] [emphasis added]

The face of spiritual warfare in German culture of the 1930s

Martin Niemöller was a captain of a German U-boat during World War I and was awarded the Iron Cross for Bravery. Although a distinguished pastor in the German Lutheran Church, Niemöller supported the Nazis’ early efforts at restoring Germany’s dignity, ridding the country of communists, and restoring moral order. In a private meeting with Hitler in 1932, Hitler promised Niemöller that he would not interfere with the German churches and would not institute pogroms (persecutions and exterminations) against the Jews.[4]

But as the Nazi regime consolidated its power in early 1933, Niemöller saw the underlying agenda of Hitler. A small minority of pastors, churches, and individual Christians in Germany began opposing Hitler and the apostate German church that had capitulated to his ideas and agenda. The resistance centered within the new “Confessing Church” led by Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a few others. When Hitler heard of a potential church split because of objections to his policies, he summoned several dissenting church leaders including Niemöller to the Reich Chancellery. He lectured the assembled churchmen and said all he wanted was peace between Church and state and blamed them for obstructing his plans. Hitler warned them “…to confine yourself to the Church. I’ll take care of the German people.” Niemöller responded that the Church also had a responsibility toward the German people that was entrusted to them by God and that neither Hitler nor anyone else in the world had power to remove that responsibility. Hitler turned away without comment, but that same evening the Gestapo ransacked Niemöller’s rectory while searching for incriminating material. Within days a homemade bomb exploded in the hall of the rectory.[5]

As Nazi pressure was ratcheted up against the dissenting churchmen, Niemöller and Bonhoeffer were criticized by their fellow churchmen for opposing Hitler and his policies. Eventually over two thousand would choose the route of appeasement and safety and abandoned support of Bonhoeffer and Niemöller’s efforts in resisting the Nazis. “They believed that appeasement was the best strategy; they thought that if they remained silent they could live with Hitler’s intrusion into church affairs and his political policies.”[6] In the late summer of 1933, Niemöller wrote a letter to a friend about his opposition to Hitler.

Although I am working with all my might for the church opposition, it is perfectly clear to me that this opposition is only a very temporary transition to an opposition of a very different kind, and that very few of those engaged in this preliminary skirmish will be part of the next struggle. And I believe that the whole of Christendom should pray with us that it will be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.[7]

In early 1934 from the pulpit of his church in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem, Niemöller spoke of the coming trials that faced the German church.

We have all of us—the whole Church and the whole community—we’ve been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now become manifest whether we are wheat or chaff! Verily, a time of sifting has come upon us, and even the most indolent and peaceful person among us must see that the calm of a meditative Christianity is at an end…

It is now springtime for the hopeful and expectant Christian Church—it is testing time, and God is giving Satan a free hand, so he may shake us up and so that it may be seen what manner of men we are!…

Satan swings his sieve and Christianity is thrown hither and thither; and he who is not ready to suffer, he who called himself a Christian only because he thereby hoped to gain something good for his race and his nations is blown away like chaff by the wind of time.[8]

In 1937, Niemöller and more than eight hundred other churchmen were arrested and imprisoned for their opposition to the Nazis. Following release from prison after eight months, Niemöller was immediately arrested again as a “personal prisoner” of the Führer himself and spent the next seven years in Dachau, one the Nazis’ most infamous concentration camps. He was freed by the Allies in 1945.[9]

After the war, in his sorrow for not recognizing and speaking out in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, Niemöller penned this sorrowful message.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[10]

The face of spiritual warfare in American culture of the twenty-first century

The present course of American culture is much like that of Germany in the early 1930s. Although America’s Godly heritage and the protection of religious freedom built into the Constitution have been powerful deterrents to the agendas of humanism and pagan religions, those deterrents have been substantially weakened over the course of the last three generations as humanistic and pagan philosophies gained ascendance and critical mass in American society. But culturally pacifist Christians like Osborne tell us not to worry. We can thrive in Babylon if we will only have the right perspective and make friends with and serve the powers that be. However, that will require Christians to embrace new definitions of tolerance and perhaps compromise on some of the less important details of their faith.

But it is not a time for “chilling out” or attempting to “thrive” in an increasingly hostile culture. In his commentary on Ephesians 6:11, Donald Stamps paints a much different picture of the Christian’s calling and obligations of spiritual warfare in the culture.

In their warfare of faith, Christians are called upon to endure hardships as good soldiers of Christ, suffer for the gospel, fight the good fight of faith, wage war, be victorious, defend the gospel, strive for the faith, not be alarmed by opponents, put on the full armor of God, stand firm, destroy Satan’s strongholds, take captive every thought, become mighty in war, and contend for the faith.[11]

As it was in Germany of the early 1930s, the America church has been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now be revealed whether the church is wheat or chaff. As Niemöller admonished the German church to pray in the late summer of 1933, the American church should now pray that their resistance will also be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 161.
[2] Ibid., pp.162-163.
[3] “The Christian’s Relationship to the World,” The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990, pp. 578-579.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 177.
[5] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 19-20.
[6] Ibid., p. 21.
[7] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, p. 197.
[8] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, p. 32-32.
[9] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, pp. 293, 295.
[10] Ibid., p. 192.
[11]Stamps, Commentary on Ephesians 6:11, The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, p. 439.

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part I

“If you haven’t noticed, the culture wars are over. We lost.”[1] This was written by Larry Osborne, senior pastor of North Coast Church, a multi-campus megachurch of 11,000 members headquartered in Vista, a city in San Diego County, California. Osborne is one of a growing group of highly influential evangelical leaders and their followers who have abandoned the culture wars. Not only have these evangelical leaders and many of their followers abandoned the culture wars, many are trying to justify their actions by claiming overt resistance to an ungodly culture is non-biblical. Osborne’s book presents several ideas and arguments which ultimately become a pacifistic approach to cultural engagement by Christians. In Part I we shall examine four of these ideas and philosophies.

Some things aren’t worth dying for

Osborne titled Chapter 17 of Thriving in Babylon “Wisdom – Some Things Aren’t Worth Dying For.” In this chapter he states that lack of perspective is a sign of Christian immaturity.

Waiting is not an option. Compromise is a dirty word. Everything is equally important. There are no nuances. Everything is black and white. And immediate consequences are the only consequences that matter.[2]

Basically, Osborne is saying that immature Christians should “chill out” when it comes to many things in culture. Mature Christians must have perspective. To a limited degree Osborne is correct. Christians must pick their cultural battles wisely. They must know the difference between sin and things that are just personally offensive, and they must always keep the big picture in mind. This is good advice for the Christian culture warrior.

Osborne points to Daniel as a biblical example of someone with perspective. Unfortunately, Osborne doesn’t stop there. He called Daniel “a man of great forbearance” which he immediately defines at biblical tolerance. Using Osborne’s chain of reasoning, Christian maturity arises from having perspective which becomes tolerance in the “biblical sense of the word.” Osborne states that tolerance, rightly understood, is “allowing people the right to be wrong.” He also states that tolerance has wrongly come to mean that nobody is wrong.

Those who dare to claim that some behaviors are actually morally wrong are written off as intolerant bigots. And ironically, they become the one group nobody is tolerant of. While many bemoan the intolerance directed toward Bible-believing Christians, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas.[3]

Humanism’s definition of tolerance begins with the denial of absolutes because no man or group can claim ownership of truth which is often the product of the free give and take of conflicting opinions. The humanist stance towards toleration results in moral relativism which is the antithesis of Christian belief. But the practical outworking in culture of Osborne’s understanding of tolerance effectively silences the presentation of biblical truth by those holding the Christian worldview. The truth claims of pagan religions are left unanswered, and humanism is left unchallenged as the humanistic cultural tsunami spreads across the nation.

Osborne’s stance on tolerance leads to an equally faulty understanding of compromise which he believes isn’t necessarily a dirty word. As with tolerance, Osborne makes some good points with regard to compromise. Yet, he attempts to link compromise with things that have nothing to do with compromise. He states that the wise “know what battles they can win and what battles need to be fought later.”[4] Neither of these statements are indications of compromise. Knowing whether one can win a battle or not is not the deciding factor as to whether that battle ought to be fought. Delaying a battle is not compromise either. These decisions should be determined by prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Christians must remember that God is holy and will not tolerate sin. What passes for tolerance and compromise in many of today’s churches is nothing more than accommodation to the spirit of the world by churches and their leadership. A. W. Tozer described this tendency in Christianity more than sixty years ago.

Christianity is so entangled with the spirit of the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is whitewashed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers, and those same believers are everlastingly seeking to gain acceptance with the world. By mutual concessions men who call themselves Christians manage to get on with men who have for the things of God nothing but contempt.[5] [emphasis added]

Christian resistance to worldly leaders – Attempting to impose their will on non-Christians

Osborne likens the evangelical efforts to resist worldly leaders and their humanistic and pagan cultural influences flooding America as imposing Christianity on non-Christians. “We’re no longer trying to impose our will on non-Christians. We’re trying to keep non-Christians from imposing their will on us—and our churches.”[6]

Daniel also had the wisdom to understand that godless people live godless lives. He never forced his righteous lifestyle on others even as he rose to positions of power, he didn’t try to impose his walk with God on those who didn’t know God.[7]

Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas…We’d boycott non-Christian companies for making non-Christian decisions…I often wonder what would have happened if we’d had the wisdom of Daniel when we were in control…Whether Daniel was at the bottom of the food chain or near the top, he never tried to force his righteousness on others…and thus earned the right to be heard.[8]

It is apparent that Osborne is substantially ignorant of American history, the nation’s founding, and the role of Christianity in its culture until the mid-twentieth century. The Founders weren’t forcing anyone to accept a righteous lifestyle. The Constitution and laws of the land established boundaries and became a foundation for the nation’s central cultural vision.

From this misunderstanding of religion’s duties and rightful place in public square, Osborne and many other highly influential but pacifistic Christian leaders have generally withdrawn from any significant involvement in politics and government over the last three decades. To challenge this belief, Wayne Gruden published a pamphlet titled, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Gruden presents a strong biblical basis for Christian involvement to “significantly influence law, politics, and government …according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible.” At the same time Gruden cautions that Christians “…must simultaneously insist on maintaining freedom of religion for all citizens.”[9] How is this balance achieved?

…the overarching moral suasion (influence or persuasion) of Christian principles under which our nation was founded made possible religious freedom for all faiths. Such moral suasion of Christian principles is not coercive as humanists would have us believe. The moral suasion of Christian principles provided the nation with a central vision and resulted in stability and unity by working through the individual as he voluntarily chooses the manner in which he orders his soul.[10]

Engage the culture by winning friends and influencing people

Osborne attempts to repackage Daniel’s humble nature as “service” to his wicked captors and masters. Therefore, “service” becomes the essential ingredient in constructing the “persuasive” paradigm for engaging culture.

He served his captors and wicked masters so well and loyally that he kept getting promoted. And with every promotion, his influence in Babylon grew greater…Yet I’m afraid that a modern-day Daniel would be harshly criticized. Many Christians would see him as a spiritual compromiser…Instead of avoiding or attacking the godless leaders of our day, we’ll need to begin to engage them in the same way Daniel did, humbly serving whomever God chooses to temporarily place into positions of authority.[11]

Osborne erroneously attempts to define biblical humility as “…simply serving others by putting their needs and interest above our own. It’s treating others the same way we’d treat them if they were someone ‘important’.” But Osborne’s definition of humility is not to be found in the dictionary.

Noah Webster Dictionary of 1828: Humility: In ethics, freedom from pride and arrogance, humbleness of mind, a modest estimate of one’s own worth. In theology, a lowliness of mind, a deep sense of one’s own unworthiness in the sight of God. Self-abasement, penitence for sin, submission to the Divine will.[12]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 1963: Humility: Quality or state of being humble. Humble: Not proud or haughty. Spirit of deference, not arrogant or assertive, submission, ranking low in some hierarchy of scale.[13]

Osborne’s definition of biblical humility is manifestly false, but it appears to be the core of much of pacifist Christians’ reasons for avoiding the culture wars. It is the seeker-sensitive model of Church Growth designed to reach the lost but modified for the culture at large. However, the Bible commands Christians to speak truth (with love and true humility) into culture as opposed to attempting to influence it through a fawning ingratiation and toady servitude to gain favor with ungodly leaders in a wicked culture. Christians are supposed to be salt and light to a lost and dying world. Although we are required to show Christian love, charity, and bind up the wounds of the broken, such must not be a weak substitute for truth. Writing over sixty years ago, A. W. Tozer anticipated the end-product of modern but misguided pacifist Christian efforts at an ill-defined and misplaced humility.

The Christian faith, based upon the New Testament, teaches the complete antithesis between the Church and the world…It is no more than a religious platitude to say that the trouble with us today is that we have tried to bridge the gulf between two opposites, the world and the Church, and have performed an illicit marriage for which there is no biblical authority. Actually, there is no real union…When the Church joins up with the world it is the true Church no longer but only a pitiful hybrid thing, an object of smiling contempt to the world and an abomination to the Lord.[14]

The American church of the 1950s was not a “spiritual Camelot”

Osborne believes that much of the perceived cultural deterioration that supposedly motivates today’s Christian culture warriors is a result of their looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

Consider how many Christians look back at the 1950s and the days of Leave It to Beaver as the golden era of family values and godly culture…While they were indeed good times if you were a white middle-class suburbanite, they were hardly the glory days of family values and godly culture if you were a black family living under the last vestiges of segregation and Jim Crow.[15]

For instance, the glory days of Father Knows Best, family values, and stay-at-home moms weren’t all they were cracked up to be…once again, as in Roman days, a powerful church is not always a faithful church. It draws people for the wrong reason.

Frankly, if those days were really a spiritual Camelot, someone needs to explain to me how they produced a generation of sex-crazed, free-love, dope-smoking hippies who grew up to be self-absorbed boomers.[16]

Much like the humanistic progressives of today, Osborne disparages the American church of the 1950s which he claims were not “the glory days of family values and godly culture.” Rather, he describes it as a powerful church but not a faithful church.

Here we have two classic examples of assumptive language in which it is taken for granted that the results are caused by what precedes the results. In the first example of assumptive language, Osborne claims that the glory days of family values and godly culture couldn’t have existed because there were other segments of society that were suffering. In the second example of Osborne’s assumptive language, the church was culturally powerful; therefore we must assume that it couldn’t have been spiritual. As evidence of the lack of spirituality of the 1950s church, Osborne’s assumptive language points to the rebellious Boomer generation as being caused by the 1950s church. But Osborne lost (or perhaps never had) his much coveted historical perspective as to the reasons for the rise of the Boomer generation.

The history of the 1950s church in America and the cause of the Boomer rebellion have been written about extensively. Those well-documented and authoritative histories emphatically do not support Osborne’s conclusions reflected by his assumptive statements.
______

In Part I we have examined four ideas and philosophies that foster Christian pacifism in the culture wars as championed by Osborne and others. In Part II, we shall glean the essences of the two opposing views of Christian cultural engagement and examine those in comparison to the role of the church in the German culture of the 1930s.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 136.
[2] Ibid., p. 169.
[3] Ibid., pp. 174-175.
[4] Ibid., p. 185.
[5] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 115.
[6] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 136.
[7] Ibid., p. 173.
[8] Ibid., pp. 175-176.
[9] Wayne Gruden, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Booklet adapted from Wayne Gruden, Politics – According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).
[10] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 224.
[11] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, pp. 150-151.
[12] “humility,” Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967, 1995 by Rosalie J. Slater), p. 12.
[13] “humble, humility,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), pp. 404-405.
[14] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, pp. 115-116.
[15] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 36.
[16] Ibid., pp. 195-196.

How much is your child worth?

You’ve probably heard or read about Harambe of the Cincinnati Zoo. He was the 420 pound silverback gorilla that was shot and killed on May 28th by zoo officials to protect the life of a 3-year old child that managed to slip into Harambe’s domain. Such is the outrage at the killing by many in our humanistic society that the story has spun across several 24-hour news cycles as well as exploded in the internet and print media.

The preschooler managed to wiggle into zoo’s Gorilla World enclosure, walk through some bushes, and then fell down the 15 wall into a moat that separated the gorilla from onlookers. The gorilla went to the child and was reported to have been “violently dragging and throwing the child.” Within ten minutes zoo officials had been notified and responded. Zoo officials determined that it was too dangerous to attempt to use a tranquillizer gun because it might enrage the gorilla during the time it takes for the tranquilizing drug to take effect. Instead they made the decision to shoot and kill the gorilla.[1] Jack Hanna, the respected and renowned American zookeeper, fully agreed with the decision. Hanna said he saw video of the gorilla jerking the boy through the water and knew what would happen if the animal wasn’t killed. “I’ll bet my life on this, that child would not be here today.”[2]

It takes 5 to 10 minutes for a gorilla to lay down and go to sleep, so what’s that male going to do if all the sudden, “pow” he feels this thing hit him? He’s going to go back there, what is this thing? pull it out, and he’s got a child in his hand … We’re going to have a disaster. Within one split second. You wouldn’t even want to witness it.[3]

Rather than rejoice with saving the life of a 3-year old child, it seems that there are thousands if not millions in America culture that have made the killing of Harambe the center of the story. Jane Goodall, the world-renowned British primatologist and conservationist, sent an email to Cincinnati Zoo executive Thane Maynard. She expressed her sorrow for Maynard for “having to try to defend something which you may well disapprove of.”[4]

I tried to see exactly what was happening – it looked as though the gorilla was putting an arm round the child – like the female who rescued and returned the child from the Chicago exhibit…Anyway, whatever, it is a devastating loss to the zoo, and to the gorillas. How did the others react? Are they allowed to see, and express grief, which seems to be so important? Feeling for you.[5]

By “others,” Goodall appears to mean that the other gorillas at the zoo should be allowed to see and express grief at what had happened to Harambe.

One Cincinnati animal rights activist helped organize a vigil just outside the zoo gates “to honor Harambe who turned 17 the day before he was shot.[6] Another expression of this collective moral outrage was the initiation of a petition to hold the parents accountable for negligence and lack of supervision.

A sad incident at the Cincinnati Zoo has prompted this petition. On May 28, 2016 an unattended four-year-old boy [as originally reported] was able to crawl through a series of barriers at the Gorilla World enclosure. The child fell an estimated 10 to 12 feet into the moat surrounding the habitat. The 17 year-old male Western Lowland Gorilla named Harambe then got a hold of the boy. The gorilla was perceived as dragging and throwing the boy. The zoo made the last-resort decision to shoot Harambe because of the increased risk of aggression if a tranquilizer was used in such close proximity to a human. This heartbreaking decision was made in the best interests of keeping the child and the public safe. This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep a closer watch on the child. We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision. Witnesses claim that they heard the child state that he wished to go into the enclosure and was actively trying to breach the barriers. This should have prompted the parents to immediately remove the child from the vicinity. It is believed that the situation was caused by parental negligence and the zoo is not responsible for the child’s injuries and possible trauma. We the undersigned want the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life. We the undersigned feel the child’s safety is paramount in this situation. We believe that this negligence may be reflective of the child’s home situation. We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child’s home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.[7] [emphasis added]

As of June 7th the petition had received over one-half million signers.[8] The petitioners have already judged the parents guilty of neglect and lack of supervision. Why? Because something bad happened to a child. No one can deny that there are occasions of neglect or lack of supervision by parents or caregivers. But in the normal course of life bad things will happen to even the children of the most caring, attentive, and protective parents. But humanists must not bother with such distinctions in their rush to judgement and condemnation when bad things happen. One is guilty until they have proven their innocence.

This is one of the hallmarks of the modern humanistic society. Something bad happens. Therefore, someone was victimized and someone must be held accountable. For these cultural vigilantes, one is either a victim or a victimizer. There is no middle ground, and it is up to the powers of NGO activists (non-governmental organizations) and socialistically-minded governments to assess the situation, parcel out the requisite penalties, and dump another load of meaningless rules and regulations on Americans in a futile attempt to assure that nothing bad will ever happen again. No element of life is so small or insignificant into which they will not stick their long bureaucratic noses, be it sugary soft drinks, genderless bathroom facilities, or other such examples of demagoguery.

It is difficult to imagine that the signers of the change.org petition who had raised children of their own would never have had moments of inattention or distraction which may have resulted in a bad outcome for their child such as failing to prevent their child from falling from a bicycle, preventing a child from slipping out of a yard whose gate was left unlocked, becoming separated at a park or zoo, or allowing a child to jerk his hand from his parent’s hand and dash into traffic.

The social engineers of the humanistic world which they have created will argue that education is the key. Education leads to appropriate behavior modification in both children and parents which will minimize such unfavorable outcomes in life. However, there is a disconnection between humanism’s belief in the perfectibility of man and their means of achieving that perfection. For most of a century American children and their parents have been immersed in John Dewey’s democratized education model in which the teacher is merely the facilitator and must not impose fixed values or notions of right or wrong. Children are presumed to be inherently good and must be allowed to explore and develop their own relativistic versions of truth. But in the real world, bad actions and bad behavior have consequences that demand rigorous adherence to fixed standards of behavior. In other words children are taught to think one way but must act another way when they become adults. This is just one of the basic fallacies of the humanistic understanding of the world. It ignores the innate fallen nature of mankind but demands perfection without the fixed values and timeless objective truths of the God who created the universe and mankind. Such disconnection is one of the principal causes of the rapidly deteriorating social fabric at all levels of America life—government, marriage, family, economy, education, arts, and culture in general.
______

The massive moral outrage and hand-wringing at the unfortunate death of a single silverback gorilla is astonishing. Where is the moral outrage when approximately 3000 unborn babies are aborted each day of the year in America? Where is the moral outrage when in slightly less than two months the number of babies aborted in America equals the entire population of 175,000 silverback gorillas remaining in the world? What is the value of a child compared to a silverback gorilla? In the humanistic view of the world, it appears to be very little.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Alex Abad Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture, June 1, 2016. http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11813640/harambe-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo-killed (accessed June 7, 2016).
[2] Dan Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press, May 30, 2016. https://www.yahoo.com/news/vigil-planned-cincinnati-zoo-tribute-143125063.html?ref=gs (accessed June 7, 2016).
[3] Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture.
[4] Patrick Brennan, “Jane Goodall to Cincy zoo director: I’m so sorry’,” cincinnati.com, June 2, 2016. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/06/02/jane-goodall-cincy-zoo-director-feel-so-sorry/85285432/ (accessed June 7, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press.
[7] Sheila Hunt, “Justice for Harambe,” change.org. https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe (accessed June 7, 2016).
[8] Ibid.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part IV

As described in Part I, the Yale Covenant was a response to an open letter signed by 130 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world to leaders of Christian churches everywhere. The Muslim scholars pointed to common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. The Yale Covenant was a response to the Muslim letter signed by over three hundred prominent Christian ministers, professors, and leaders from various organizations including Christian churches, ministries, seminaries, Christian publishers, and various quasi-Christian organizations. Most of the signers could be classified as coming from the liberal segment of those entities. However, there were several high-profile and highly influential representatives from major evangelical churches and organizations that signed the Yale Covenant but who are not typically thought of as being associated with liberal doctrines and causes. Those included:

Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals

David Yonggi Cho, Founder and Senior Pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea

Bill Hybels, Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and Founder of Willow Creek Association

Dr. Robert Schuller, Founder of Crystal Cathedral and Hour of Power television ministry

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, and author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.[1]

When these men affixed their names to the Yale Covenant, they effectively associated themselves with a false religion in direct violation of the Apostle Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians.

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God…[2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. RSV] [emphasis added]

Matthew Henry’s 300 year old commentary gives additional insight into the Apostle Paul’s words of cautioned to the Corinthians.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane. There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers. We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion can these have together?[2]

These men and others in evangelicalism that embrace and promote anti-biblical efforts such as the Yale Covenant bring great reproach and damage to the cause of Christ through their efforts. They cannot separate their pronouncements, actions, and example from those of others in the church (evangelical or liberal) such as the Reverend Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Pastor Campbell permitted the Episcopal Church to host a Muslim prayer service at the Cathedral on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was conducted at the Cathedral by Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim and the South African ambassador to the U.S., in cooperation with various Muslim societies and organizations and The Nation’s Mosque. Widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham prompted Reverend Campbell to vigorously defend her decision. She stated that the National Cathedral was a

…place of prayer for all people. Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God…We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us.[3] [emphasis added]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God as has been unequivocally demonstrated in Parts I through III of this series. Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building in which His people “…who are called by my name…” worship the God of the Bible [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Third, as Matthew Henry wrote, religious communion between the light and darkness is a great absurdity, not bridge building as Reverend Campbell would have us believe.

In his outreach efforts to the Muslim faith, Rick Warren did much more than just sign his name to the Yale Covenant in 2007. In 2006 Warren and his wife received an invitation to visit and share an Ifar meal from the leader of the Mission Viejo mosque near Saddleback Church. Iftar is the evening meal Muslims eat after fasting all day during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Following several such visits, Warren began accepting invitations to address Muslim conferences in Long Beach, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.[4]

On July 4, 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capitol during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

I will tell you that I am not interested in interfaith dialogue. I am interested in interfaith projects. There is a big difference. Talk is very cheap. You can talk and talk and talk and never get anything done. Love is something you do. It is something we do together…You know what I discovered is when you walk down the middle of the road you get hit coming and going…Actually, it is easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you. But if you actually try to build relationships, like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering, you’ll get criticized for it, so will I. But that is not what matters.[5]

Although Warren strongly asserts that he has maintained his religious differences with Islam, he says that Muslims and Christians can work together for “the common good.” He encouraged the Muslim audience to not compromise their convictions.[6]

In 2011 Warren invited Muslims to share Christmas dinner with the members of his church. At the dinner Warren and the leader of a Los Angeles mosque introduced King’s Way as “a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.” The document co-authored by Warren and the Muslim leader outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam that centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The document stated that Muslims and Christians believed in “one God” and that the religions shared two fundamental commandments: “love of God” and “love of neighbor” and quoted side-by-side verses from the Bible and the Koran to support their claims. The “King’s Way” document committed both faiths to: “Making friends with one another, building peace and working on shared social service projects.” Echoing Warren’a statements, the mosque’s leader stated that, “We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other. We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”[7]

The Orange County Register reporting on the event stated that, according to polls by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “evangelicals are 30 percent more likely than other Christians to hold a negative view of Islam…[and] that evangelicals overwhelmingly favor converting Muslims to Christianity and are more likely to believe that Islam encourages violence.” The newspaper also stated that Warren “has repeatedly encouraged evangelicals to set aside such views, arguing that Christians are obliged to treat everyone with love and respect, regardless of faith.”[8] Christians should treat individual Muslims with love and respect, but one must ask where in the Bible does it give Warren the authority to tell Muslims to not compromise their convictions and to suspend efforts at conversion for “the common good”?

How does Warren’s words and actions align with the Apostle Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians: “…what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” Henry’s commentary on this verse is abundantly clear when he states that “It is wrong for good people to join in affinity with the wicked and profane.” Although Warren claims that he is working for “the common good,” Henry states that “There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad…We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them.”

The words and actions of Campbell and Warren are clearly contrary both to the letter and the spirit of Paul’s instructions to Christians. This is theological apostasy described in Part I in which deceitful leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. They and others in the evangelical church who follow their examples bring great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weaken the authority of the Bible, and give legitimacy to a false and violent religion.
______

In Matthew 24, after Jesus and His disciples left the temple, they went to the Mount of Olives where the disciples asked questions with regard to the sign of His coming and the end of the world. In verses 4 through 14, Jesus gave them general signs of events leading up to rapture which occurs just before the end the last days which culminate with the seven-year tribulation period. The signs that Jesus gave in these verses characterize the events preceding the rapture, and these events will intensify as that time approaches. One of those signs was the increase of false prophets and religious compromisers within the visible church. They will deceive many as religious deception becomes rampant throughout the planet (v.4-5, 11). Other events of our present day mirror those spoken of by Christ and unmistakably signal the nearness of the rapture: the increasing prevalence of war and threats of war, famine, pestilences, and natural disasters (vv. 6-7); the increase and severity of hatred for and persecution of God’s people (v. 9) resulting in large numbers that will forsake their loyalty to Christ (v.10); and the rapid increase in immorality, violence, and crime while natural love and family affection decrease (v. 12).[9]

In Matthew 24:11 Christ states, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Given that we are primarily addressing theological apostasy, the extensive Commentary and Study Notes of Donald Stamps written for the Full Life Study Bible and published over twenty-five years ago give great clarity as it paints a prescient picture of the condition of today’s contemporary American evangelical church.

As the last days [before the rapture] begin to close, false teachers and preachers will be exceedingly prevalent. Much of Christendom will be in an apostate condition. Loyalty and total commitment to the truth of God’s Word and Biblical righteousness will be in the minority. [emphasis added]

(1) Professing believers will accept “new revelation” even though it conflicts with the revealed Word of God. This will lead to opposition to Biblical truth within the churches. Those who preach a distorted gospel may even gain strategic leadership positions in denominations and theological schools of Christendom, enabling them to deceive and mislead many within the church.

(2) Throughout the world millions will be in the occult, astrology, witchcraft, Spiritism, and Satanism. The influence of demons and evil spirits will multiply greatly.

(3) Protection against being deceived is found in an enduring faith and love for Christ, in a commitment to the absolute authority of His Word and a thorough knowledge of that Word.[10] [emphasis added]

______

The Yale Covenant is just one example of apostasy in the church. One might argue that the number of evangelicals among its three hundred signers was relatively insignificant and does not reflect the true condition of the evangelical church. But the magnitude and extent of the influence of these men and others of like minds are extremely significant in the evangelical world, and their words and actions in this and other matters have contributed greatly to the rapid increase and spread of a general apostasy in these last days.

Leith Anderson is President of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents more than 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.[11]

David Yonggi Cho was the Founder and Senior Pastor [now Emeritus pastor] of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea, the world’s biggest congregation[12] estimated by several sources as being in excess of eight hundred thousand.

Bill Hybels founded Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and has been the senior pastor of the multi-campus mega church for over forty years. Since 1992, Hybels also had indoctrinated twelve thousand churches and their leaders with his message, methods, and practices through their membership in the Willow Creek Association, also founded by and led by Hybels.[13]

Dr. Robert Schuller founded what eventually became the Crystal Cathedral, a California mega church that for many years had a world-wide television audience through Schuller’s Hour of Power television ministry. Schuller died in 2015.

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, is often called America’s pastor. The mega church pastor’s reach extends far beyond his own congregation through his Purpose Driven empire which includes his multi-million bestselling books (The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life). The Purpose Driven Church is listed in “100 Christian Books That Changed the 20th Century.” Warren’s Purpose Driven Network of churches is a global coalition of congregations in 162 countries that have trained more than 400,000 ministers and priests worldwide. Additionally, almost 157,000 church leaders subscribe to the Ministry’s ToolBox, Warren’s weekly newsletter.[14]

These five men have had an incredibly powerful influence on evangelicalism not only in America but around the world. Yet, these men have through their words and actions boldly aligned themselves with doctrines of darkness in direct contradiction to the Bible’s commands. For Schuller, Hybels, and Warren, their departures from sound doctrine and practice of New Testament Christianity are not new and not limited to the Yale Covenant. In spite of the power, influence, popularity, and strategic leadership positions of these men, Bible-believing Christians must adhere to Christ’s warning to His disciples found in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture,
http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[3] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[4] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register, August 21, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html (accessed December 5, 2014).
[5] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 53-54.
[10] Ibid., p. 54.
[11] “About NAE,” National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/about-nae/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[12] “World’s Biggest Congregation,” PBS – Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, August 10, 2012.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/08/10/august-10-2012-worlds-biggest-congregation/10162/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[13] Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal – Where Are You? (Barrington, Illinois: Willow Creek Association, 2007), pp. 3-4, 111.
[14] “About Rick Warren,” Pastor Rick’s Daily Hope, http://rickwarren.org/about/rick-warren (accessed May 2, 2016).