The Flaws of a Fad-Driven Church
November 15th, 2007
(By Phil Johnson)
This series is adapted from a Shepherds’ Conference seminar Phil gave in 2005. Though it is a couple years old, its content is still very relevant to the evangelical scene today.
Mainstream evangelicalism is in serious trouble.
Now, I know that makes me sound like a pessimist. I hate to sound like such a prophet of doom, and I assure you that I am not a pessimist. I’m a Calvinist, and Calvinists by definition cannot be pessimistic. Seriously. But because I’m going to sound somewhat gloomy, I want to assure you that I see the hand of divine Providence in the outworking of history, and I know God’s purposes are being fulfilled and will be fulfilled perfectly in the end. I’m not a pessimist, but that doesn’t keep me from making a realistic assessment of the distressing state of current affairs in the visible church.
The evangelical movement right now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is in a spiritual condition not very much different from the medieval church just before the Protestant Reformation. Think about it. Luther had to deal with Tetzel, the charlatan fund-raiser who went through Europe promising people miracles in return for money so that the Pope could build St. Peter’s church in the Vatican. We’ve got at least a dozen Tetzels appearing daily on TBN, promising people miracles in exchange for money so that Jan Crouch can make the sets of their television studios gaudier than any room in the Vatican while she adds enough pink hair extensions to rival the Dome of St. Peter’s.
The medieval church was overrun with superstition and ignorance. We’ve got people reciting the prayer of Jabez every day who are convinced that it’s a magic formula that will bring them wealth and good luck.
The medieval church had Leo X and Machiavelli. We’ve got Bill Gothard and Gary Ezzo.
The medieval church saw a decline in doctrine and morality in the church and a corresponding increase in corruption, scandal, and man-centered worship. All of that is true today.
Worst of all, in the medieval era, the gospel was in eclipse and people were so woefully ignorant of biblical truth that men in Martin Luther’s time could complete seminary and enter ministry without ever having learned “the first principles of the oracles of God.” We’re well on the road to that same situation today. Many seminaries are deliberately eliminating biblical and theological courses and replacing them with courses in business and marketing. And Christian leaders who call themselves evangelical are actually encouraging these trends.
Listen, for example, to Tony Campolo, arguing that today’s evangelical seminary students need to be taught marketing savvy rather than theology and Scripture. This is from a book he co-authored with Brian McLaren, ironically titled Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel. Yet Campolo himself has missed the point. He is actually arguing that church leaders should follow the culture and study marketing techniques rather than theology. And he suggests this would be a good thing. He writes:
What if the credits eaten up by subjects seminarians seldom if ever use after graduation were instead devoted to more subjects they will actually need in churches—like business and marketing courses? It is not true that with a gifted preacher, a church will inevitably grow. Good sermons may get visitors to stay once they come, but getting folks to come in the first place [will] take some marketing expertise.
It was a marketing degree, not an M. Div., that Bill Hybels had when he launched the tiny fellowship that would one day be Willow Creek Community Church. It’s not that Hybels is a theological lightweight, [but he’s “brilliantly relevant”]—and the relevance comes not from giftedness or theological discernment, but from thoughtfully studying his congregation. As any good marketer would, Hybels deliberately surveys his people with questionnaires in order to determine what they worry about, what their needs are, what’s important to them. . . . Then he schedules what subjects he will preach on in the coming year, and circulates the schedule to those on his team responsible for music and drama in the services.
The result is preaching that is . . . acutely relevant. But the process isn’t something you’ll learn in most seminaries. Maybe it’s time that some business school courses find their way into seminary.
Now, I don’t know where Tony Campolo has been for the past twenty-five years or so, but if his advice sounds the least bit fresh or novel to you, you haven’t been doing much reading, and you haven’t been paying attention to the drift of the church growth movement over the past three decades. What Campolo is suggesting is precisely what many evangelical seminaries started doing some twenty years ago. Pastors these days are carefully indoctrinated with the notion that they must regard their people as consumers. Religion is carefully packaged to appeal to the consumers’ demands. There are marketing agencies that offer seminars for church leaders to teach them how to “brand” their churches to appeal to the most people. Most church leaders these days are therefore obsessed with opinion polls, public relations, salesmanship, merchandizing, and customer satisfaction. They have been taught and encouraged to think that way by virtually every popular program of the past two decades.
In 1988 (seventeen years ago now), George Barna wrote a book titled Marketing the Church. It was published by NavPress—at the time a major mainstream evangelical publisher (a lot less mainstream these days). In that book, George Barna wrote, “The audience, not the message, is sovereign.” That was the basic idea. And it’s a notion that thousands of pastors and church leaders have uncritically imbibed—and it has been parroted in virtually every major book on church leadership up through and including The Purpose-Driven Church. The audience is sovereign. Their “felt needs” should shape the preacher’s message. Opinion polls and listener response become barometers that tell the preacher what to preach. That’s what Barna was calling for back in 1988. He wrote,
If [we are] going to stop people in the midst of hectic schedules and cause them to think about what we’re saying, our message has to be adapted to the needs of the audience. When we produce advertising that is based on the take-it-or-leave-it proposition, rather than on a sensitivity and response to people’s needs, people will invariably reject our message.
Compare that with the words of the apostle Paul, who (in 2 Timothy 4:2-5) said, “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” What was Paul’s point? Do you think he would have agreed with Barna, who said we must adapt our message to the preferences of the audience, or risk having them reject the message?
No, Paul told Timothy: “But you . . . fulfill your ministry.” “Preach the word! . . . in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
That is what we are called to do as pastors—not follow the fads and fashions of our culture. Not even to follow the silly parade of evangelical fads that have assaulted the church in wave after wave for two decades running. The fads and the programs are killing the evangelical movement. And I’m convinced that those who do not get back to the business of preaching the Bible will soon see their churches die—because, after all, the Word of God is the only message that has the power to give spiritual life.
And, frankly, the death of the fad-driven churches will be a good thing in the long term. It’s something I hope I live long enough to see.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Hey, Phil, good article. But let me clarify…you can be a Calvinist and be pesimis. The hope I have, thank God, is not Calvin, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just phenomenally on point.
What would happen if people actually accepted the wisdom in this seminar?
(I’ve listened to the audio for this seminar in its entirety, and it’s definitely worth the $2 if anyone would like to pick it up.)
Thanks for posting this–great to see/read such clarity of thought and boldness.
Don’t Calvinists believe God created the vast majority of mankind for the main purpose of tormenting them for ever? Don’t Calvinists believe God hates the vast majority of people? That sounds pessimistic to me. Was Luther such a great guy? Was he better than Tetzel? Wasn’t he an anti-semite? Didn’t he believe in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration? Don’t get me wrong I am not a TBN fan. But when was the last time Benny Hinn had anyone burned at the stake for getting the doctrine of the Trinity wrong? Lets not glorify Luther or Calvin. Why put down Bill Hybels for marketing? John MacArthur is more famous than Bill. He sells a lot of books at SAMS CLUB. He has a wonderful marketing machine. Nothing wrong with that. Would Paul adapt his message to the people? That is what the epistles are, letters to specific churches with specific needs. He was all things to all people. Matbe the people he was talking about that don’ have sound doctrine are fundamentalists. “God loves everybody but He is going to torment the vast majority of mankind in flame for ever. That does not sound like sound doctrine to me. So are you saying fads are bad? So are you saying don’t use marketing techniques? Are you saying don’t find out people’s needs in order to meet them? That is what it sounds like. Yes preaching the Bible is good. But so is visiting orphans and widows and prisoners. I am sure you are a good man Phil as humans go. But you are not perfect. Neither is Luther, Calvin, Hybels, or MacArthur. If Bill Hybels is sinning go to your brother and tell him. If he is not sinning, get off his back.
This is something the French-Canadian Christians on the South Shore of Montreal need to read! The biggest “church” in Quebec is ALL about the “felt needs, purpose-driven, prayer of Jabez, tweak your life, marriage, family, Jesus improve your career, non-expository preaching” philosophy..someone pray for the people in this gathering of people, PLEASE!!
Keith,
You mean Luther was a Jew-hater and heretic? Noooooo!!!!!
You mean Calvin was a murdered? Noooooo!!!! You mean Calvin spoke of the sacraments as genuine instruments of salvation? Nooooooo!!!
Please Keith, don’t confuse me with the facts.
The most significant controversy to centre upon the sacrament of baptism has arguably been the debate over whether it is legitimate to baptize infants or not(McGrath 443). In his most renowned work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin takes up this issue endeavouring to prove that infant baptism is a divine institution(Wendel 324). Calvin declares that “infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God”(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11). This essay will undertake the task of manifesting the coherence, profundity, and thoroughness of Calvin’s reasoning, while illuminating the congruence of his arguments with Scripture.
From: http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
Keith is right; Calivnism is the gloomiest, most depressing doctrine imaginable.
David and Keith,
Read Romans 9:10-24. You will probably find Paul’s view pretty gloomy too, if you see Calvinism as gloomy. Good luck trying to argue this point with Paul.
“It’s something I hope I live long enough to see.”
Me too.
” ..they will turn their ears away from the truth”.
“The truth is only important if it benefits me, and my desires, that’s the truth I want.”
This is the human heart. And preachers are giving them what they want. Why? Because they are man-centered, and not Christ-centered. Many will come on that day and say to Jesus, “Lord we did things for you.” It was a different Jesus they were serving and preaching about. Not the Jesus Christ of Scripture, and not the Gospel of Scripture.
Keep on Phil, for the Lord is glorified in His truth, and we are sanctified in His truth, and set apart for His glory.
Paul warned about the itching ears. We have moved into a time where the itching ears of cultural compromise has influenced the minds of too many. It is a fad but how many will be lost in the mad dash to pack the pews at any price. True discipleship is being overlooked for the sake of reaching people in the culture.The deception has eternal consequences but will also distort true sanctification.
@Keith,
Hybels and Willow Creek clones purposely don’t preach the full counsel of His Word.
HE (Hybels) HAS BEEN TOLD-REPEATEDLY!. Haven’t you see his mea culpa video on the web? He explains Willow’s 30 year failure to create “authentic disciples”–Keith, where you been, man? Now Hybels is setting the stage to take Christianity into Emergent Church theology (is there one:) That’s the new direction of Willow Creek, further away from the bible and deeper into the man-made pragmatic marketing machine of bad religion.
Look at Willow’s April 2008 conference speakers starting with Brian Mclaren, the inventor of the cult called Emergent. The “Fall” made us sinners- what’s so special about you (or me) besides the Christ within? People who continue to commit egregious sins (biblical abominations) after being “saved” need a new gospel so they can sleep at night- AND THAT’S WHAT THE EMERGENT CHURCH PROVIDES- a different gospel.
MacArthur is big, but Hybels is bigger so let’s not start that- OK? MacArthur preaches truth and Hybels preaches half truth, and that’s THE TRUTH. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn]-MacArthur is an approved workman and Hybels is not. Hybels is a Contemplative proponent (aka Transcendental meditation) that’s where all this Emergent church “spiritual” baloney comes from. It’s man-made my brother.
Keith the SeekerSensitive/Emergent therapeutic gospel of “felt needs” is a snake-oil sham, we’re here to glorify the Son not edify ourselves into delusion. Sorry for the bad news Keith, but without it the GOOD NEWS MAKES NO SENSE!
Go ahead now, call me harsh, call me legalist, call me Pharisee… Whatever you need to do to meet your “felt needs.”
Eph 4:15
2Th 2:10
Who “needs” more than His sustenance? Not Christians I pray!
Hey Don Sands, call me back!
PS. I fixed a neighbors (a widow) water heater last night in my pajamas, and I’m not even a “missional” Emergent—Nope, just a Christian.
Calvinism believes that an eternal, merciful God sacrificed His Son in order to save millions of people, not one of which did anything to deserve His grace.
That doesn’t sound “gloomy” to me.
Do you think so highly of yourself that you can actually question the Creator about how He plans to utilize that which He has created (some for honor, some for dishonor)? How arrogant.
Every single person in the world deserves eternity separated from God but because He is a loving, gracious, and merciful God He has chosen (within Himself) to save some.
This is the GOOD NEWS!!!
Pastor John MacArthur’s name is marketable for the same reason George Whitfield was a household name in the Great Awakening, He preached the Word of God without compromise. I cannot say the same about Mr. Hybels.
Absolutely excellent article!! I struggle with this very same mentality in church AND seminary today. Why do we have to dumb down what God has given us? By becoming a fad church you are dumbing down The Word. Can’t wait for tomorrow’s edition! Thanks Grace Church, John MacArthur and Phil Johnson.
Steve, Amen!
Context. See this previous post for my explanation of the label “Calvinist.”
I can understand why someone who rejects the truth of God’s sovereignty and trusts human willpower would think Calvinism gloomy, but trust me: it’s not.
I ask readers to note that I made no mention of Mr. Hybels in the above excerpt.
And in answer to those who have asked: No, Kieth did not take his own advice and contact me personally before posting these public criticisms of my views.
An excellent, short, concise, and well written statement on the perils we face. We are in a church plant work in Europe and have been at it a few years. Slow work, but God is doing a great work. We started with just Bible studies and a focus on the word of God.
Just down the road is a new brand church plant (being planted by Americans as well). The key issues for them getting the right sound and A/V systems. All their talk is about sound boards, projectors, bands, and acquiring the right worship team so they can get started.
Whatever happened to inviting friends and neighbours over for a cuppa tea to study God’s word?
Calvin’s TULIP:
T: Totalitarian Government
U: Unloving God
L: Lord’s Supper as a Sacrament
I: Infant Baptism
P: Predestined to Hell
Has anyone ever read a conversion account of Calvin?
Phil,
I think that I read something in the Bible about the blessed hope…yes! In Titus 2. Something about “Looking for the blessed hope…Calvinism”
Catholics optimism is in the pope and baptism (which was also Calvins’ and Luther’s hope), Muslims hope Mohammed. Now, most evangelicals would call that heretical and idolatrous.
Along the same lines, you stated your optimism is rooted in your Calvinism…interesting that you would not base optimism on the work of Jesus Christ. But, it is all about Calvinism.
By the way, didn’t Calvin teach that God gave a deceptive kind of faith also? So how do you know your faith is real? If you think your faith is real – then you are not a true Calvinist.
I know you like church history, and I have visited your website many times. Now it is time for you to be intellectually honest. Or did God predestined that you should be deceitful?
Vince,
What do you think that Calvinists believe about baptism? I hope that you do not think that all Calvinists believe in infant baptism (I certainly don’t).
As far as the Lord’s Supper, Christ said, “this do in remembrance of me.” That is why it is done.
I don’t even need to say anything about what you put under U in TULIP because, Vince, you know as well as I do that absolutely no Christian believes that.
Here are the beliefs that make a Calvinist a Calvinist (so please do not assume that Calvinists believe everything that you associate with Calvinism).
T-Total Depravity (1 Cor.2:14, Jer. 17:9)
U-Unconditional Election (Eph. 1:4-6, 11; 2 Tim. 1:9)
L-Limited Atonement (John 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28)
I-Irresistible Grace (John 6:37-39)
P-Perseverance of the Saints (Phil. 1:6 Rom.8:28-30)
Dan,
Thanks for TULIP, I didn’t know what it stood for.
You mean to tell us that Calvin didn’t believe in Infant Baptism? or the Lord’s Suppper as a Sacrament? or in the marraige of church and state, and so on?
Please Dan. Actually Calvin is well represented today in the so called Covenant/Reformed churches. And those believe exactly as I described TULIP – true Calvinism.
T: Totalitarian Government
U: Unloving God
L: Lord’s Supper as a Sacrament
I: Infant Baptism
P: Predestination to Hell
Read Calvin, and be accademically and historically honest. Perhaps the L should be: Lack of integrity.
Vince,
I do not know what Calvin believed about infant baptism, the Lord’s supper, or the marriage of church and state. But just because he believes something does not make it what I believe, so please do not assume that. As I have said before, I call myself a Calvinist because of my beliefs about the above 5 TULIP points of Calvinism and not because of any other of Calvin’s beliefs. I follow scripture, not Calvin.
For my knowledge, could you tell me what you believe the Lord’s Supper is?
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Calvin did not believe in the marriage of church ans state.
‘Christians had flexibility, though, because they had grown up on the two theological works that (besides the Bible) were the most influential in colonial America, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536-64) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1644-46).
Some portray Calvin as a theonomist, but he emphasized the lessons of the biblical books I’ve cited and noted in his blunt fashion (Book IV, Chapter 20, section 14), “There are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations.” He called such a view “perilous and seditious… false and foolish,” …
The hard question then and now concerned the third kind of law, that known to the ancient Israelites and defined by Calvin as “the judicial law, given to them for civil government.” He opposed the idea that the legal code of ancient Israel should be transplanted into different societies: “The statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain.” Legislators should pay attention to “times, place, and nation… For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere.”‘
Add Don’t Subtract
Phil,
Don’t get me wrong. I like you and John MacArthur. I think you are smarter than me and more successful than me. I just disagree with your theology on some points. I am sorry if I sound mean or arrogant. I have listened to John MacArthur since 1979. I like you guys because you will at least discuss these topics with me. Many people won’t. For me Calvinism is depressing. All I see is God torturing 99% of people to Hell. And Calvin says babies go to hell too. But John MacArthur says “instant heaven” for babies on “Larry King”. So John is a Calvinist, but he does not agree with Calvin on many things. Am I right about that? Calvin was just a man. Hybels is just a man. Me too. John MacArthur an Phil are just men. Maybe Hybels should preach more in depth. I would love to hear Phil or John MacArthur debate the christian Universalists like Gary Amirault and Tom Talbott. Thanks for replying to my comments. You people are very interesting. I don’t think you are harsh or Pharisees. I think you feel passion for your beliefs, thats all. Thanks for “reasoning together” with me.
Keith
Ok, a few things here. I believe we need to quit calling ourselves Calvinists, non-Calvinists, ect. and call ourselves what we are, Christians — we follow Christ. I say this because man is not perfect — Calvin, Luther, Zwingle (I probably misspelled that), etc. were not perfect and did some things we would not tolerate today. We’re guilty of taking the man out of his century. They all agreed, including Knox, that there were wrong teachings of the Roman Catholic church; teachings that were not scriptural. There were 10 things they agreed on totally, except for Luther who agreed with 9 and departed on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. The others taught that the Lord’s Supper was in memorial of Christ and that he wasn’t physically present in the wine and bread, being continually present because He is omnipresent already.
Having said that, they all agreed on what are called today the Doctrines of Grace, the aforementioned TULIP. John MacArthur aptly renames them: Total Inability (to get to God on our own merits), Actual Atonement (those who are saved), God’s Effectual Call (those whom he calls respond like Lazarus coming alive from death – a dead man can’t respond unless he is called by God). Perserverance of the Saints is the doctrine that one cannot lose their salvation that God has called them to because He will not lose anyone from His hand.
The Doctrine of Election is difficult because it is a paradox, but it is Biblical (read Romans 9). It was difficult in Paul’s day as well, because after stating it he goes on to say, who are we to question the way God has decided to do things… There are things we cannot understand like why did God choose to love Jacob and hate Esau; the virgin birth; the trinity. But just because we cannot totally understand them doesn’t make them not true or not from God. In fact, the more I study the Scripture, I come to believe that just in the fact that I cannot understand some of the paradoxes I find says more about how they are from God. If I could understand everything, the doctrines would be man-made. Who can know the mind of God? How unsearchable and unfathomable are His ways.
All that to say, if the Word was consistantly taught from the pulpit, maybe we would learn to study it on our own and know it and be able to pass it on.
@Keith
“But when was the last time Benny Hinn had anyone burned at the stake for getting the doctrine of the Trinity wrong?”
This was hilarious, considering what Benny Hinn said about the Trinity:
“God the Father, ladies and gentleman, is a person and He is a triune being by Himself, separate from the Son and the Holy Ghost… See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person; but each one of them is a triune being by himself. If I can shock you and maybe I should, there’s nine of them! What did you say? Let me explain. God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with his own personal spirit, with his own personal soul and his own personal spirit body. You say, I never heard that! Well, you think you are in church to hear things you heard for the last fifty years?”
Phil,
Your blog invites me to leave a reply. That is why I did leave a reply in this public forum without contacting you personally first. I thought you wanted me too.
We agree on many things I am sure. I believe,like you, that God’s purposes are being fulfilled and will be fulfilled perfectly in the end.
I believe God will save all humans He wants to save.
He will be merciful to whom He wants.
He will harden whom He wants.
He is soveriegn.
He has the power and the wisdom to draw all men unto himself.
If He is lifted up He will do just that.
He is the Savior of the WORLD after all.
The gospel is GOOD Tidngs of GREAT JOY which shall be to ALL people.
He will use me, you, Hybels, MacArthur or a donkey to speak His word and accomplish His will.
What is God’s purpose; His will?
The Lord is not willing that any should perish.
His will be done.
He wants everyone to repent.
Amen.
God desires all men to be saved.
God is merciful to all.
God is not pleased with the death of the wicked.
He wants them to turn and live.
God can do all things.
With God all things are possible.
God does whatever He pleases.
God will bring all things into subjection to Christ.
God will reconcile all things in Christ.
God will bring to acquittal and life to all persons through Christ.
As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Love Never fails. God is Love.
God will not cast off forever.
God is Love.
God’s tender mercies are over all His works.
God does not forbid: opinion polls, public relations, salesmanship, merchandizing, and customer satisfaction.
God does not forbid: The culture and the study of marketing techniques, opinion polls and listener responses helping preachers to preach.
God does not forbid: Adapting our message to the preferences of the audience, or risk having them reject the message?
I say use all of these tools without excluding the Bible.
No, Paul told Timothy: “But you . . . fulfill your ministry.” “Preach the word! . . . in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
That is what we are called to do as pastors. True
But fads and fashions of our culture are not wrong in and of themselves.
What Fads are you talking about that are wrong?
Which fads and the programs are killing the evangelical movement?
If you are just trying to say preaching the Bible is more important than DRAMA, MUSIC, and THREE PC SUITS, I agree.
Maybe Hybels needs more Bible Preaching than skits. OK. Keep on praying for him. And so will I. Rebuke him, reprove him, admonish him, exhort him…etc And I’ll pray for you too. I have sure learned alot through GRACE TO YOU.
I am hoping not for the death of the fad-driven churches, what ever a fad-driven church is. I am hoping that churches will all grow and mature. I hope I live long enough to see that.
Who are the fad driven churches?
What are the bad fads?
What sins do you want them to repent of?
Keith
Brian,
I am not a Benny Hinn fan. Its just that I am glad we live in a land of freedom you can be wrong about the Trinity and not be burned at the stake.
Keith
PS Have any of you heard the Twisted Sister Christmas CD?
Keith: “Calvin says babies go to hell too.”
Really? Care to quote him to that effect?
In point of fact, Calvin did not believe that.
However, this thread isn’t about Calvin’s views on baptism, government, infant salvation, or whatever. See the link I already posted, where I explained exactly what I mean when I accept the label “Calvinist.”
Future comments need to be about the actual material in the above post, or I will ask moderators to delete them.
Thank you.
Phil,
Good points about the dangers of the fad-driven church. Yet, we must remember that we will be worshipping with these brothers in glory one day and should come alongside and support and love them in whatever way possible. We should rather see the reformation of these churches than their “death.” I used to be so critical of these churches until the Lord convicted me of loving all believers regardless of their theological or ecclestical positions. This does not mean we don’t stand for the truth, but must do so in love.
Keith,
In the context of this blog, a fad is…
Anything that detracts from the primacy of the bible.
Anything that would would be seen as making up for supposed limitations of biblical teaching.
Anything that would be used to replace the efforts of the Holy Spirit in drawing people to Christ.
Anything that would attempt to fill the God-void in ones life with pop-psychology and worldly wisdom.
So much has been written in supporting these new ways (fads) of reaching our post-modern culture. I am sure there were fads that were used in the past for this purpose that have long since faded away. The only certain thing that is of God is His Word which will outlast any fad.
His Word stands alone.
Regards,
Tim
Wow, talk about openin’ a can ‘o worms. Anyway, the hucksters on TBN and now occupying so many church pulpits fit the description given by Peter in his second letter; they have indeed and continue to make merchandise of their followers’ souls (2:1-3). They do view the church-going public as the market place.
Too, I have gained tremendous insight from Grace to You. I have listened to John MacArthur for thirty years. He has a passion for the scripture and I have learned to have that same desire, to learn, and use his teachings to help me lead a better life. I have passed his tapes on to friends and young women I mentor, they in turn, play them for their spouse’s and children, small groups. I recently studied Johm’s book,on the Apostles, and it has made the Gospels come alive. Hybels tought bad doctrine, made a feeble repent, and is now on the path to teaching contemplative prayer and the Emergiing Church. He should rethink his next move. I have been a Christian for 76 years and will be ninety years old this coming August. I currently live in a retirement community, and will start a Bible study this month. I will be ninety years old in August and still have that love for reading the scripture everyday. It is the only way to live your life.