Evan-jello-calism
November 16th, 2007
(By Phil Johnson)
This is a continuation of yesterday’s discussion on the Fad-Driven Church.
Some of you are probably thinking: Shouldn’t we be enthusiastic about the way the ranks of those who label themselves “evangelical” have swollen over the past fifty years? Isn’t it a good thing evangelicals now have enough clout to help elect a president and be recognized by most of the secular media as a movement to be reckoned with?
Think about it: in the late 1970s, when Jimmy Carter became President and the secular media discovered the expression “born again,” the average person in mainstream American culture didn’t even know what an “evangelical” was. But evangelicalism has ballooned so much in size and visibility and political savvy that in February 2005, Time magazine did a feature photo-essay and cover article titled “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America.”
Here’s why I don’t think that’s a particularly encouraging development: I read the Time magazine list of 25 influential evangelicals. That article by itself would have been enough to convince me the evangelical movement is in serious trouble. The list included people like T. D. Jakes, who denies the Trinity; former Lutheran-turned-Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus; Joyce Meyer, the jet-setting charismatic prosperity-gospel preacherette; and Brian McLaren, the postmodern pastor who denies the authority of Scripture and wants to see the church make a radical break with just about everything that’s rooted in historic Christianity.
Thirty years ago, not one of those people would have even been included in a list of “evangelicals.” They are not evangelicals in the historic sense of the word. What’s changed? It’s not that more people became evangelicals, but that the concept of evangelicalism has been expanded to become all-inclusive. The word evangelical has lost its historic meaning. These days it means everything—and it therefore means nothing.
It’s clear where Time magazine thinks evangelicalism’s clout is being felt the most. It’s not in spiritual matters, but in the realm of politics and culture. And you know what? They are right. The word evangelical used to describe a well-defined theological position. What made evangelicals distinct was their commitment to the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ. Now evangelicalism is a political movement, and its representatives hold a wide variety of theological beliefs—from Neuhaus’s Roman Catholicism to Jakes’s heretical Sabellianism, to Joyce Meyer’s radical charismaticism, to Brian McLaren’s anti-scriptural postmodernism. There’s only one person in the entire list who would remotely qualify as an evangelical theologian, and that’s J. I. Packer. But Packer himself has been on a quest for the past 20 years to make evangelicalism as broad as possible.
Frankly, none of these people I just named would even agree among themselves on any distinctive points of doctrine. They wouldn’t even agree on the essential points of the gospel message. The one thing they do agree on is that they’d like to see the evangelical movement become as broad and inclusive as possible. But that’s not really historical evangelicalism, is it? That kind of latitudinarianism has always belonged to Socinians and Deists and modernists and theological liberals. It’s antithetical to the historic principles of the evangelical movement.
But I’ll get off my subject if I’m not careful. There’s another common trait shared by many of the people on Time magazine’s list of 25. For the most part, these are the fad makers. These are the people who have designed the programs that are peddled by the out-of-control Christian publishing industry and purchased and implemented with little critical thought or concern by hundreds of thousands of people in the evangelical movement. Rick Warren, who heads the list, is the father of the hottest prefabricated program of the moment, “Forty Days of Purpose.” Tim Lahaye is co-author of the best-selling fad of all time—the “Left Behind” series. Packer and Neuhuas have been the prime movers in the ecumenical fad—probably the last bandwagon we would have expected evangelicals to jump aboard 20 years ago. Bill Hybels masterminded the “seeker-sensitive” fad. And McLaren took that to the next level with the “emergent church” fad. (Too bad for Bruce Wilkinson that Time magazine didn’t do this piece several years ago when the “Jabez” fad was still hot, or he would have almost certainly made the list.)
Now, I have labeled all these trends and programs as “fads,” because that is what they all are. They are popular for the moment, but they have nothing to do with historic evangelicalism or the biblical principles that made evangelicalism an important idea. Not one of these movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. They will all eventually fade and die, just like the Jabez phenomenon. And some poor publisher or wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelets, and Purpose-Driven merchandise (complete with the authorized trademark symbol).
Why has the recent culture of American evangelicalism been so susceptible to fads? Why are evangelical churches so keen to jump on every bandwagon? Why do our people so eagerly rush to buy the latest book, CD, or cheap bit of knockoff merchandise concocted by the marketing geniuses who have taken over the Christian publishing industry?
By the way, my background is publishing, and I love the historic influence Christian literature has made on the church. But the Christian Publishing industry has changed dramatically in recent years as Christian publishing has become big business. Companies once run by godly Christians, such as Zondervan, have been bought out by men like Rupert Murdoch and made part of huge secular publishing empires. And it has changed the face of Christian publishing. To a large degree, it is the publishing industry that fuels this bizarre hunger for more and more fads and programs.
And I have sat in meetings with publishers who have tried to convince John MacArthur to tone down his message, soften his hard stance on controversial issues, ignore things that are unpopular, and tell more funny stories. Publisher after publisher has tried to tell him he could broaden his audience and sell more books if he would just broaden his message a little. One publisher looked at some of his material—it was the series on the twelve apostles—they looked at it and told him, “It’s just too biblical.” I kid you not. They said it sounded too much like Sunday School material; they wanted more contemporary stories and hip language, and less Bible. That book was published anyway, without dumbing it down or removing a single Scripture reference. It was titled Twelve Ordinary Men, and despite the experts predictions, it stayed on the bestseller list for more than two years.
But that’s how all these fads are crafted. They are deliberately dumbed down, made soft and generic and nonthreatening, so that they don’t rebuke anyone’s sin; they don’t endanger anyone’s shallowness; they don’t threaten anyone’s comfort zone; and they don’t challenge anyone’s worldliness. That’s the way both the publishers and the people want it.
That is the culture the evangelical movement deliberately created when it bought the notion that religion is something to be sold to consumers like a commodity. It created an environment where unspiritual and unscrupulous men could easily make merchandise of the gospel. It conditioned people to be like “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.” That’s Ephesians 4:14, and it is a perfect biblical description of the faddism that has overtaken the evangelical movement in recent years.
(To be continued next week)
Absolutely dead on Phil! Let’s extrapolate a bit further: The reason Christian publishers are staffed with men and women willing to “sell the gospel” publicly is because privately they’ve become as spiritually shallow as the material they peddle.
No one rises above the level of their personal devotion to Christ. Their ready-compromise is evidence of their superficial walk with Christ, the theologically thin churches they attend, and the vacuous notion of truth their peer groups hold to.
A great part 2. You are nailing it with this series. From a very conservative IFB background myself I have been re-evaluating much of what I have known from the past. It is vital though that we keep Bible truth in mind without just letting the pendulum swing.
I think we should be grateful PULPIT is now open to all not only to Pastors,(lest we forget this). Many times these forums rabbit trail into a persons certain stance, or calvinism,… too bad they couldn’t filter comments to the article ALONE. Strange how many who disagree with J.MacArthur find THIS FORUM as an outlet to express it! I don’t agree with all his stands but I love the man and would personally write to him if I thought it was so important an issue, I believe he would respond - actually he did! (at least for me). In all things love
but of course I guess the temptation to “be heard” is too great. May God have mercy when we open our mouths.
Phil,
What an excellent seminar. I have done a little research of the emerging church for seminary and found that “dumbing” things down or muddying the water when it comes to Gods Word is all these fads are about. I don’t understand the idea that we must become like the world in Christian belief and worship to reach the world. Is not God in all His sovieriegnty able to bring His own unto Himself? Why do we, the weak broken vessel think we need to “help” God attract people to Him? I think if we stay on task, much like Dr. MacArthur and others in his league, Gods Word will spread like wild fire!
Look at it another way. If you wrote a book of things you thought were very important and several years after it has been proven to “work” but someone thought they could make it “better” by adding things that you denounced in your book, wouldn’t you be a little upset??
Steve
To change the topic from Calvin….
Phil (or others at Pulpit):
Who would you rank as the top 25 Evangelicals today?
Wow! I just found this blog and I’m so glad I did. The first two parts of this series are FANTASTIC and spot-on!
(But I don’t know why the comment threads seem to veer off into Calvinism or John MacArthur.) That’s not what the posts have been about.
I am reading a lot in these postings about the “emergent” church. I am certain someone has already addressed this, but I get lost going back through the articles and responses. If someone has the time, would you please provide some links to sound information, not only about the “emergent” church but “Calvinsim” as well. I am clearly un-read. More background information will help me follow everyone’s “discussions.
Through the process of seeking and searching the Truth, may we all be about that which would glorify the Father.
I will read all of the writings suggested to me. Thank you. I seek wisdom, but realize it may not be in the mind’s of men (women). Discussion and zeal, I think, are healthy as long as we don’t use ‘our’ doctrines as ramparts from which to attack one another. May we remain humble enough to remember who is God and who isn’t. May our differences not keep us from serving Him in love. Those in need do not care which of us agree with Calvin or not. The things on which we all do agree are enough to evangelize the world!
I hope everyone enjoys their weekend.
Sandy,
Sometimes differences have merit and are worth having. We are instructed to practice discernment, “search the Scriptures” and “test the spirits”.
Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven…Matthew 7:21-
The links were provided as “extracurricular” reading and not intended to replace the word of God.
Have a great weekend and God be with us all!
I believe there are a plethora of other venues for the Calvnism/Armenianism debate. Can we rather have dialogue on topic?
Phil,
“Latitudinarianism” WOW! That’s a 17 letter word. I won’t rest until I use this word in a sentence.
This is why I like reading your posts Phil; they not only provide me with deep truths from God’s word but also teach me more about the proper use of language.
It is at this point of language that these “fad” movements deceive the masses. Language is important but can be destructive.
In every era of church history there has always been at least one voice that is representing the truth as it is found in God’s word. You my friend are one of those people in this era – press on!
Mike said:
“The 5 points presuppose each other. If man is totally depraved, unable to contribute anything to salvation, election must be unconditional, grace must be irresistible, the atonement has to be limited in its extent but unlimited in application because a depraved sinner can’t “activate its potential,” and that same man can’t do anything to fall out of grace the same way he couldn’t do anything to get grace. Take away anyone of those things and I’ll show you how you don’t really believe any of the others beyond lip service.”
I think this may be the best paragraph I’ve ever read on this topic. thank you Mike.
Jonathan, I apologize for furthering the discussion though wonder what the majority of those behind the fads actually do believe. Often they are “broad and inclusive” synergists concerning salvation and that overflows into other areas to draw folks in.
Mike, was up late last night and up early this morning with God taking me over words of Phil’s post and comments. Thank God for the blessings and convictions that He brings through you and others here.
Have a “God is good” day all ~
Wow!
How did this thing get off track to TULIP?!
Anyways, evangelicalism is in a sorry state, but I agree w/ Phil that there are 2 basic divisions:
1) Assimilate to the culture and water down the Gospel
2) Do not assimilate and try to shower the culture with the Gospel.
*Arminians and Calvinists can be in group #2
Vince (and others):
I’ve been unable to read the comments under this post until now, and I’m sorry to see the topic derailed so quickly and so badly from the very start.
Please note that this is not a forum for people to post on whatever theological hobby-horses they like to ride, and it’s not a wall for people to spray whatever graffiti they want to use to insult John MacArthur. Pulpit live is a forum designed primarily for pastors to engage in serious dialoge about serious issues. On-topic comments are welcome. Deliberate violators of the posting guidelines will be deleted and banned without compunction or hesitation.
Fair warning. Please keep all future comments on-topic with the post, and don’t use the post as a springboard into different topics.
Note: I deleted all the comments in this thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the post. Sorry to those who didn’t start the rabbit trail but only offered reasonable answers, but to be fair, I just dumped everything that was completely off-topic.
I hated using the nuclear option, but some of the comments were so over-the-top insulting AND so far off-topic at the same time that it seemed the only way to deal with it.
I haven’t banned the deliberate troublemakers…yet. So if everyone will simply play nice and stay on-topic, you may now resume the conversation.
Phillip Johnson,
I apologize for my participation in the off-topic conversation. It was not my intention to be a troublemaker. It will not happen again.
“What made evangelicals distinct was their commitment to the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ.”
Amen.
Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate … narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Many hate the narrow way, and take the broad and wide road to perdition. And it’s very very deceptive with Satan in the wings directing his cohorts to blind the eyes, and tickle the ears, which he does through his ministers of pseudo-righteousness. 2 Cor. 11
Reminds me of what Hugh Latimer once said concerning the state of the church during his time - “When the devil gets influence in a Church, up go candles and down goes preaching”. The only difference then was the existence of a centralized, corrupt and apostate RCC. By opposing the RCC they opposed all false doctrines it espoused. but now we have a plethora of decentralized ‘churches’ along with the RCC preaching false doctrines or not preaching what they should. wonder how hard it would be now to reform/change/oppose all these corrupt churches?
Emergent Church has emerged… McLaren teaching at Willow Creek in ‘08…
enough said.
I’m sorry, Phil ~ will you forgive me?
Phil,
Thank you for the nuclear option. I will keep the “Comments” link in my aggregator a bit longer.
You can delete this note, too. I wanted you to know your decision was greatly appreciated.
Phil,
I too would like to thank you about your decisison. Perhaps this should be the no-spinning off zone.
However, Phil, let me encourage you and your staff to be consistent and non-hypocritical in the treatment of issues and persons.- call it like it is, stop being a respecter of man.
This is a great place to learn and exchange ideas - but it should be a place to promote inconsistent and heretical teachings - and you know what I mean.
Good decision
To Phil and Others,
Please accept my appologies for any inappropriate postings. I am so new to this forum and so new to the reality that there are people committed to descerning the Scriptures! I hunger and thirst after his Truth. It is so exciting to me to have a place to read and find this material. I will prayerfully consider all if any future postings, a task I am ashamed to admit that I had neglected before typing.
The site is a blessing to me. Thank you all.
Vince: “This is a great place to learn and exchange ideas - but it should be a place to promote inconsistent and heretical teachings - and you know what I mean.”
Actually, I have no clue what you mean, who you are, or why you have an agenda “to promote inconsistent and heretical teachings.” But this is definitely not the place for it. Please cease and desist.
/*the website doesn’t belong to me, but I am one of the leadership core of the youth group*/
Phil:
Thanks for the article and the included links.
I grew up in first a midwest methodist church until we were sent a hyperliberal pastor who insisted on a preaching series for the sunday morning worship on marital sex relations. I was in the eighth or ninth grade and decided to quit going. I was able to convince my Dad, who taught Sunday School there for about another 3 years or so, that it probably wasn’t beneficial for my spiritual formation to stay. /*though at that time I’m certain I didn’t use those words.
*/ Some friends at the local evangelical free church invited me to their youth group and the short story is that I ended up in the navigators in college and /*after seminary at TEDS*/ a missionary in germany for the board of overseas missions for the evangelical free church of america in the early to mid 80’s. Apart from a stretch of around 3 years or so /*in California*/ I’ve be in germany since, though not part of the mission since ‘88.
So, mostly as a result of being so far away, a lot of the people on the list are new to me, at least under the rubric of evangelical.
I got to know several people on the list personally through either joint speaking with them, taking a course from them or visiting a lectureship of theirs, but am most bemused, I guess, by the inclusion of the hyper-charisma-tics, Jakes and Meyers. The inclusion of the fundamentalists, like the LaHayes, is something I would have expected… though not greeted, even though it’s probably best understood in light of the following paragraph.
I think part of the “jello” factor is driven by media interests, which tend to view everything through “political-noticeability glasses”. However, since I don’t know what criteria the Times editorial staff used to work up their list of “600 senior pastors” for their inquiry, it’s difficult to know how much congruity my assumption in this case has with hard reality. Those criteria would naturally have something pretty close to a guiding hand in determining who the listees turned out to be. That Packer, for instance, is part of the group doesn’t, in my opinion, say so much about diversion from his root theology as about the tendency of the mature individuals to notice that it might be useful for the attainment of political goals to reach out _in politics_ on the basis of commonality on moral or other issues. If someone goes about this systematically and is noticed by the NAE and the US Catholic Church, that’s not too surprising, but that Packer showed up instead of someone like HOJ Brown or Ev Koop may say something specific about the 600.
I think your “fadism” labeling fits best on those who deviate most from what I consider the gospel. There are some on the list who I don’t think it fits on at all, like Mark Noll and Ralph Winter, but I haven’t heard much directly from them recently… so don’t really know if they haven’t done a Billy Graham and accepted something similar to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism… /* but I suspect not, they have much more emphasis on thought and biblical work than impressions… am I hinting they might be more calvinistic ? And this coming from a member in good standing of an open brethren assembly
*/
I picked up the blog url, by the way, thanks to Mike Corley and am looking forward to reading more of the coming pages.
Thanks for the commentary.
This is my first visit to PULIP and I loved the article and hope to read more. I know that I will not agree with everthing but I simply cannot ignore the POP culture’s destruction of religion. It really does not matter which denomination, or non, this “fad” mentality is infiltrating and causing many breaches. Thanks for helping in the repair…
rick
I have not responed to any of the articles and probably won’t but I look forward to reading them as soom as I get to my office. Thanks for the blog.
frank