The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment is expressed in three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. The second method used to achieve cultural relevance was discussed in Part III – Mixing of the light with darkness. In Part IV we shall discuss the third and final method used by many in the modern church to achieve cultural relevance.

Nonjudgmental Love as a substitute for repentance and turning from sin

What is the nature of God’s love? We find the answer in the verse that is usually taught first to children in Sunday school. “For God so loved the world that he gave is only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16. RSV] The “whoever” includes all men, women, boys, and girls. Belief in Christ means to accept Him as one’s Lord and Savior, that is, one returns that love by being a follower of Christ, and to follow Christ is to follow his commandments. However, if one expresses love for Christ in words only and does not follow his commandments, they are not followers of Christ and have no part of His kingdom.

Many churches are compromising the gospel message through incorporation of the world’s definitions of love and tolerance. The message of many churches is that God’s love is nonjudgmental and so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. In other words, love is all that matters. If this message is true, then sin is of no consequence in determining our eternal destination. And if sin is of no consequence to God, then He does not care about how we live our lives. Without sin, Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin becomes irrelevant. The new concepts of love and tolerance are expressed as unconditional acceptance which is presumed superior to the old-fashioned approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.

To become culturally accepted, the church has resorted to feel-good messages focused on fixing the self in the here-and-now as opposed to salvation and eternity. Bad Religion, a book by Ross Douthat (a Catholic writer), is about how America became a nation of heretics. Douthat made a stark and revealing comparison of the past ministry of Billy Graham and the vacuous sermons of non-judgmental love preached by Joel Osteen.

Like Graham, Osteen courts a worldwide audience: More than 200 million people around the globe…But there the similarities end. Graham’s persona was warm and inclusive, but theologically he preached a stark, stripped-down gospel—a series of altar calls, with eternity hanging in the balance and Christianity distilled to a yes or no for Christ. Osteen’s message is considerably more upbeat. His God gives without demanding, forgives without threatening to judge, and hands out His rewards in this life rather than in the next. (emphasis added) Where Graham was inclined to comments like “we’re all on death row…the only way out of death row is Jesus,” Osteen prefers cheerier formulations. “Too many times we get stuck in a rut, thinking we’ve reached our limits,” he writes in Your Best Life Now. “But God wants us to constantly be increasing, to be rising to new heights. He wants to increase you in his wisdom and help you make better decisions. God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas, and creativity.”[1] [emphasis added]

There are many other religious leaders who are house-hold names in America that, like Joel Osteen, are popularizing the false and hollow gospel of the nonjudgmental love with little if any mention of sin or its eternal consequences (hell).

But the modern gospel of nonjudgmental love is not new. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a brilliant German theologian who stood against the Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s until his death on a cold February day in 1945 when he was hanged on a Nazi gallows. His warnings with regards to nonjudgmental love have been quoted in a previous article but bear repeating.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[2]

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[3]

______

The reason for the decline of many churches in America is not that the rising tide of secularism and humanism are stronger than the transformational power of the gospel. Rather, in an attempt to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant, many churches gradually, and for some almost unknowingly, have compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. However, these compromises and non-biblical activities translate into spiritual weakness and generally start with the “what we do” (methods) part of the equation but soon extends to the “what we believe.” In nations with a strong Christian influence, Satan must resort to guerilla tactics against the church by chipping away at the edges of the gospel message through compromise as opposed to a classical frontal attack. But as many American churches embraced an anemic and powerless message in the post-Christian and post-modern era, the church has steadily grown weaker and has begun to experience a greater number frontal attacks by Satan’s guerillas (e.g., challenges to the legitimacy and influence of the church in the public square and all spheres of American life).

The Romans at the time of the early church saw value in all religions. Modern multiculturalists would call them “inclusive.” The Pantheon in Rome was built to honor all gods, and the Christian God was welcomed if only the Christians would make themselves culturally relevant by giving some tribute and deference to the Roman gods.[4] But those early Christians refused to compromise their beliefs and unequivocally held to God’s commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” [Exodus 20:3. RSV]

The American church must also reject the lure of cultural relevance in its efforts to make the church acceptable to a lost and dying world. The transformational power of the unadulterated Gospel is enough. So what if the church’s non-compromising message and methods are rejected by the culture? The great poet T. S. Eliot answers well. “For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”[5]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 183.
[2] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117-118.
[4] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), p. 25.
[5] T. S. Elliot quote, Wisdom Quotes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/t-s-eliot-6.html (accessed December 26, 2014).

The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment of biblical truth and authority takes three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. In Part III, we shall discuss the second method used by many in the church to achieve cultural relevance.

Mixing light with darkness

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]

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 cans these have together?[1]

There are numerous examples of churches that attempt to find common ground with anti-Christian secular organizations and false religions which contradict biblical commandments. When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Three examples are discussed below.

The Episcopal Church hosted a Muslim prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D. C on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was hosted by the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the cathedral, and 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. In response to widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham, Reverend Campbell stated 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.[2]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus, but “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” [John 14:6. RSV] Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building to house His people “…who are called by my name…” [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.

World Vision is one of America’s largest Christian charities. The organization’s president, Richard Stearns, said that change is a symbol of Christian ‘unity’ not ‘compromise.’ He was referring to the decision of World Vision’s American board that the organization would no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman. Stearns said that abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule, but a policy change announced March 24, 2014 permitted gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America’s largest Christian charities.[3] One wonders how Stearns’ erroneous assumption that practicing homosexuals can be Christian as long as the couple entered into a same-sex marriage can be made compatible with the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans in which he addressed the sin of homosexuality. [See: Romans 1:18, 24-27] The decision disturbed Christians everywhere, and such was the backlash that World Vision’s board reversed their decision two days later. But the damage was done. For many people it forever gave cultural legitimacy to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. The gospel message was compromised by linking darkness with the light.

Rick Warren is considered one of America’s leading pastors. His and his church’s outreach to the Islamic religion is another example of mixing light with darkness. 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. His message was that Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising their respective convictions. He defended himself by saying, “I am not interested in interfaith dialogue but interfaith projects.”[4] 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 outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam and was to be centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The mosque’s leader of religious affairs 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.”[5]

But in light of the Apostle Paul’s words to the Corinthians with which we began this article, how can Christians find common ground with false religions and join in interfaith projects (especially with Islam in whose name hundreds of thousands of Christians have been and are being killed)? For those who would make a distinction between the so-called radical Muslims and moderate Muslims (as our government has repeatedly done), the differences at the most fundamental level are meaningless for they all read the same Quran and worship the same Allah.

In spite of his other worthy activities, Warren’s ministry has sent mixed signals as to its total fidelity to the biblical standard. He has mixed the light with darkness and brought great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weakened the authority of the Bible, and gave legitimacy to a false religion.

Here we must clarify the difference between being mismatched with unbelievers and Christ’s command to make disciples. Where possible, Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in hopes of a sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ. Further, the Christian church is not prohibited from working with government and private non-Christian organizations in worthy causes, activities, and programs (e.g., foster care, disaster relief, adoption, provision for the poor). However, the church cannot join with other organizations and those parts of our government that actively promote goals, programs, and activities that stand in opposition to God’s word (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage).

In Part IV, we shall examine a third expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – nonjudgmental love as a substitute for repentance and tuning from sin.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[2] 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).
[3] Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Christianity Today, March 24, 2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html?start=1(accessed December 5, 2014).
[4] 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).
[5] 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).

Charles Clayton Morrison acquired Christian Century in 1908 and over the span of a half century “…he wrote for and edited what became the most influential American Protestant journal of his era.”[1] It was the liberal voice of Christianity in which Morrison and his staff of writers promoted a new brand of Christianity in which

…a “progressive” bent was necessary because science required Christianity to renew, revive, and even rewrite itself to be intelligible to contemporary Christians. They asserted, “The religious discussions of the last century are meaningless today…Church rites, rituals, ordinances and orders are given a truer value as incidentals, not essentials of the religious life…What is the duty of the church in a changing world? Manifestly to accept the law of change as fundamental and inevitable; to adapt itself to the changes.”[2] [emphasis added]

The Christian Century’s editors and writers’ beliefs closely resembled many of the principles of humanism and its emphasis on change and progressivism. The essence of those beliefs championed in the pages of Christian Century is mirrored in the words of Earle Marion Todd.

Change, unceasing change, is the eternal law…Not only are things changing; they are growing. The world, the universe, is becoming more beautiful, more wonderful, more complex…[T]he church, like every other institution that is to continue to live and discharge a vital function, must adapt herself to the changed conditions. (Jan. 20, 1910).[3] [emphasis added]

These words describe the sentiments of liberal theology that captured mainline Protestantism in the early twentieth century. Todd’s admonition to the church of one hundred years ago continues to accurately reflect the modern church’s quest for cultural relevance from the mid-twentieth century to the present day through the introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen.

The Catholic Church has been a stalwart ally of evangelical Protestants in defense of biblical principles such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and opposition to homosexuality. Pope John Paul II and Pope Gregory XVI were staunch defenders of the faith and champions of biblical truth. However, it quickly became apparent after his election that Pope Francis was not of the same mindset as his predecessors. Strongly influenced by leftist liberation theology that invaded many countries in South America during the 1960s, Pope Francis has aggressively courted modern culture throughout the world in an effort to revitalize the Catholic Church. Many of his statements, proclamations, and actions are undeniably in conflict with and undermine biblical authority and scriptural commandments, but one of his statements stands out as it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ — all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. “Father, the atheists?” Even the atheists. Everyone. We must meet one another doing good. “But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.” But do good: We will meet one another there.[4]

Similarly, Pope Francis has given a pass to heaven for Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else who does not accept Christ as their savior but who “do good.” However, Pope Francis’s efforts at gaining cultural relevancy through promotion of a broad road-big tent religion are in direct conflict with the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel. “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.” [Matthew 7:13. RSV] In John’s gospel we find that Jesus’s words are also different from those of Pope Francis. “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” [John 14:6. RSV]

Liberal Protestant churches in America (and now the Catholic Church under Pope Francis) continue to vigorously pursue efforts at cultural relevancy in their march to conform to a dominant humanistic culture, and now many evangelical churches are beginning to march to the beat of the same drummer. The American church’s quest for cultural relevance expresses itself in three forms.

Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word

We have noted in Matthew 7:13 that the way of the Christian on this earth is narrow and that the broad way leads to destruction. The narrow way is bordered by two ditches. On the one side is the ditch of legalism in which the legalist tries to live by the law and disregards the heart of Christ’s message. On the other side is the ditch of worldliness. In the modern world the church has a far greater chance of getting stuck in the ditch of worldliness that that of legalism.

Oz Guinness identified four steps in the process of the world’s infiltration into the church which leads to compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He describes it as a collapse into worldliness.

• Assumption – Some aspect of modern life or thought is assumed either to be significant, and therefore worth acknowledging, or superior to what Christians know or do, and therefore worth adopting. Soon the assumption in question becomes an integral part of Christian thought and practice.
• Abandonment – Truths or customs that do not fit in with the modern assumption are put up in the creedal attic to collect dust. They are of no more use. The modern assumptions are authoritative. Is the traditional idea unfashionable, superfluous, or just plain wrong? No matter. It doesn’t fit in, so it has to go.
• Adaptation – Something new is assumed, something old is abandoned; and everything else is adapted. In other words, what remains of traditional beliefs and practices is altered to fit with the new assumption.
• Assimilation – The outcome is that what remains is not only adapted but absorbed by the modern assumptions. It is assimilated without any decisive remainder. The result is worldliness, or Christian capitulation to some aspect of the culture of its day.[5]

Notice the progressive steps that lead to compromise: thought, action, change, and integration. Isn’t this the same scenario that Eve followed in her encounter with the serpent in the garden?

The biblical message of the church must always remain unchanged, but the church’s methods must adapt to the times. Unfortunately, many churches in adapting their methods have also gradually and subtly changed and softened its message as well in their scramble to survive in a rapidly changing culture. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the teachings of the Bible, and without a foundation of biblical truth, they have become powerless.

In 2001, Jim Cymbala wrote that as the church confronts an antagonistic culture we need to take a look at what the church is doing. One of the things he observed was that the church is, “Letting the world ‘evangelize’ us without our realizing it.”[6]

Instead of being a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God (in the New Testament sense of the words), the world’s value system has invaded the church so that there’s almost no distinction between the two.

Wouldn’t it be wise to ask ourselves what kind of teaching has brought about this sad state of affairs? What are we doing, or not doing, that causes such a breakdown in the spiritual fiber of professing Christians? We had better start asking some hard questions and be prepared to throw overboard whatever has made the church so weak and carnal.

Instead of that, a massive cover-up is going on. Rather than face the obvious facts around us, certain church leaders proclaim that everything is fine because they have a “new vision for the church.”[7]

The Bible is very explicit about what constitutes worldliness, and the Apostle Paul gives a very clear presentation of what it means to not be worldly. “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.” [Titus 2:11-12. RSV] Do not misunderstand, the church should reach out to the lost by being charitable, helpful, friendly, encouraging, and welcoming through our activities in the community. Churches can and should be involved in certain secular activities, but it is wrong to adopt methods that are by their very nature worldly to the point of impiety which brings reproach upon Christ’s church and the gospel message. The church must guard against a compromised message and methods that incorporate corrupting elements of worldliness that lead to impiety whose synonyms are sin, sinfulness, irreverence, transgression, immorality, and ungodliness.

Nadab and Abihu’s efforts to accomplish God’s work in direct disobedience to God’s commandments were described in Part I. Their efforts were called strange fire – “strange fire” because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation. May we not also describe the modern church’s efforts to influence the culture by compromising His standards, adulterating His message, and substituting impious worldly methods to attract sinners as “strange fire”?

In Part III, we shall examine a second expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – mixing light with darkness.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 269.
[2] Ibid., p. 279.
[3] Earle Marion Todd quoted by Meador, p. 279
[4] Cheryl K. Chumley, “Pope Francis suggests that atheists’ good deeds gets them to heaven,” Washington Times, May 24, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/24/pope-francis-suggests-atheists-good-deeds-gets-the/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[5] Shane Lems, “The church’s collapse into worldliness,” The Aquila Report, July 5, 2013.
http://theaquilareport.com/the-churchs-collapse-into-worldliness/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[6] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), p. 22.
[7] Ibid., pp. 22-23.

A significant cause of the decline of the Western church is its fascination with and desire for cultural relevance. This persistent affliction of Western civilization is not of its own making but has been present since before the fall of man.

The business of Satan is to compromise the church. If he is successful, the message of the church will be adulterated and its continued existence imperiled. His favorite weapon is first to plant doubt. Doubt expressed and considered is then followed by the brazen lie. In Genesis 3, the serpent said to the woman, “…Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” Eve was not ignorant of God’s instruction and she gave the right response to the serpent, “…we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’.” But the serpent challenged the truth spoken by Eve with the lie, “You will not die…” [Genesis 3:1-4 RSV] Although knowing the truth, Eve believed the lie and ate of that which was forbidden.

Thirty-five hundred years ago the story of Nadab and Abihu and their sudden and ignominious demise was recorded in Leviticus. This brief story has been a warning to God’s people down through the ages and continues to be applicable to the twenty-first century church. First, we must review a little of the back story preceding the disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, both highly regarded leaders of ancient Israel. Chapter 9 recounts Moses instruction to Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel to make a sin offering and burnt offering for the people. Having done so, “…the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: when all the people saw, they shouted and fell on their faces.” [Leviticus 23b, 24. KJV] God accepted the atonement for the sins of the people, and they demonstrated their joy. “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” [Leviticus 10:1-2. KJV] The fire was strange [unholy] because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation.

Matthew Henry wrote that the motivation for Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience arose from pride and presumption.[1] Like Eve, Nadab and Abihu were not ignorant of God’s instruction, and like Eve, their disobedience cost them their lives. When God’s commands are compromised by anyone in church leadership, the sins of pride, presumption, and disobedience must be properly addressed by the church or the entire church is endangered. [See: Leviticus 10: 4-7. RSV]

The greatest enemy of Christianity in its two thousand year history is humanism, and one of the reasons for its success is because humanism personifies Satan’s implantation of doubt followed by the big lie. One of the cornerstones of humanism is its rejection of absolute or objective truth. Without a belief in objective truth, all other human ideas of truth become debatable and therefore lend themselves to compromise. In humanism’s definition, truth is perceived as merely situational, of one’s own making, a product of the times and subject to change, a difference of opinion. And without the benchmark of objective truth as presented by God’s word, it is ever so much easier to embrace the lie even when one has known the source of unchangeable truth.

The modern humanistic surge began during the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Throughout the nineteenth century, humanists’ corrupted use of scientific knowledge and advancement spread seeds of doubt as to the truth and authority of God and His Word. The nineteenth century’s icons of the humanistic faith included Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species in the biological sciences; Christopher Langdell, dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895 and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. at the beginning of the twentieth century in the realm of law; John Dewey and the progressive education movement which began in the 1890s; and William James who divorced psychology and the study of human nature from the biblical worldview. In the early part of the twentieth century, many in leadership of the various spheres of American life were sufficiently conditioned to move from objective truth, to doubt, and then acceptance of the big lie: there is no God.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many mainline churches felt the effects of a loss of cultural authority as secular humanism advanced. In order to retain a modicum of cultural authority in the face of humanism’s onslaught, Protestant leaders began embracing secular human sciences to lend credibility and cultural relevance to the tenets of their religion. One of the great Christian leaders of the era who embraced the secular human sciences was Charles Clayton Morrison, publisher of the influential journal Christian Century.

Morrison was the son of a Disciples of Christ minister and attended a Disciples of Christ College in preparation for ministry. He was heavily influenced by H. O. Breeden, another Disciples pastor that supported evolution and biblical criticism. Morrison continued graduate studies at the University of Chicago where he studied psychology and philosophy as opposed to theology. John Dewey and others in the functionalist [practical, utilitarian] school of psychology were his teachers. Any remnants of Morrison’s revivalist faith were completely abandoned. He wrote of this transformation.[2]

When I left [the University], I was thoroughly immunized against every form of rationalism, apriorism, or speculation of any kind based on dogmatic or authoritarian ideas. Ideas, I saw, arise in experience, they are conditioned by experience, they refer to experience…In a word, ideas are functional for experience.[3]

Founded in 1884, the Christian Oracle was the liberal voice of Disciples of Christ ministers and laity. The journal’s name was changed to the Christian Century in January 1900, but the journal continued to struggle with low readership amidst intermittent bouts of bankruptcy. Morrison acquired the journal at a sheriff’s sale following another bankruptcy in 1908. Under Morrison’s editorship, the Christian Century’s commitment to liberal theology was strengthened. Darwin was “hailed as the most important figure of the nineteenth century…and that evolution does not contradict but affirms the Christian account of creation.” Liberal Protestantism was profoundly affected by the promotion of psychology through Sunday school teachers training courses, promotion of books on psychology, pastoral care and counseling, seminary training, and Sunday school classes.[4]

By 1938, Morrison had been the editor of the Christian Century for thirty years. In that time the journal had attained great cultural prominence but at the loss of much of its Christian character. Although indistinguishable from many of its secular peers, the journal was recognized as the preeminent voice of mainstream American Protestantism. One year later, Morrison shockingly wrote “How My Mind Has Changed” in which he described the secularizing consequences of the publication on American Protestantism in which he and his staff “…introduced and popularized psychology with a language of instinct and personality, which displaced the Christian theological language of morality and grace.”[5]

I had baptized the whole Christian tradition in the waters of psychological empiricism, and was vaguely awakening to the fact that, after this procedure, what I had left was hardly more than a moralistic ghost of the distinctive Christian reality. It was as if the baptismal waters of the empirical stream had been mixed with some acid which ate away the historical significance, the objectivity and the particularity of the Christian revelation, and left me in complete subjectivity to work out my own salvation in terms of social service and an “integrated personality.”[6]

Morrison’s quest to make the church culturally relevant was in reality comparable to Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire—an introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of biblical authority and truth in order to make the church acceptable to a fallen culture. From such pride and presumption, great damage has been inflicted upon the church and its witness as to the unchangeable truth of God’s Word. Unfortunately, the American church’s quest for cultural relevancy is alive and vigorous in the twentieth-first century. In Part II, we shall examine Christianity’s modern expressions of its efforts at cultural relevancy which have completely captured the liberal church in America and is now invading many evangelical churches.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 122-123.
[2] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California:
University of California Press, 2003), pp. 273, 277.
[3] Ibid., p. 277.
[4] Ibid., pp. 273-274, 278-292
[5] Ibid., p. 302.
[6] Ibid., p. 269.