This principle states that it is the citizens of a school district, not the elected members of the school board, ultimately determine the moral values and standards to be taught to the children in that district. In other words, a school board’s actions, policies, and practices must reflect the moral values and standards of that community. This issue has been at the heart of many highly contentious meetings between school boards and the parents and other citizens of communities across America.

Owasso School Board Election – Tuesday, April 2, 2024

The two men who are competing for the Owasso School Board position appear to differ on this principle. Either Brent England (20-year incumbent) or Brandon Shreffler (challenger) will occupy this school board position for the next five years.

The positions and promises of both candidates appear similar. Both men stress the need to lobby the state legislature for more money for more buildings and programs for the school system. Also, both promised to make bullying a top priority if elected. In February 2024, bullying became an issue that caused the City of Owasso and the Owasso Public Schools to receive national attention from the White House, various governmental officials, national news media, and the homosexual lobby and its defenders as a result of an incident at Owasso High School.

Mr. England made the following comments with regard to bullying:

“There’s a lot of interest now in trying to eliminate bullying, and that’s going to be an ongoing discussion,” England said. “Yes, I want to eliminate bully;…it’s something that needs to be addressed. What the answer is, I really don’t know right now. I think we’re really going to need a lot of public support behind those decisions, and I’m hoping we get that support.”[1] [emphasis added]

Mr. Shreffler mirrors England’s efforts with regard to bullying.

“We’ve had issues in our personal family with bullying in the district. My kids are friends with other kinds with parents that had similar issues with bullying in the district, so obviously that’s my main reason to run.”[2]

Like England, Shreffler offers no solutions to eliminate bulling at Owasso Public Schools. When solutions are sought, it is likely that the Owasso School administrators will use materials from the United States Department of Education, National Education Association, various organizations promoting homosexuality and its agenda, and similar left-wing progressive socialist organizations. The solutions offered invariably will not be representative of beliefs and desires of the citizens of local communities across America.

The issue is the same as discussed above: The citizens of a school district, not the elected members of the school board, ultimately determine what is reflective of community morals and standards and that includes what and how the children in that district will be taught. There is a difference in how the two candidates view this principle.

Mr. England chooses sovereignty of the school board

Mr. England chooses sovereignty (supreme power) of the school board in making decisions, policies, and practices regarding what and how the district’s children are taught.

In Mr. England’s statement above, notice that we (the board) “…are really going to need a lot of public support behind those decisions, and I’m hoping we get that support.” Implicit in this statement is that the Board of Owasso Public Schools will make those decisions with regard to designing and establishing policies and programs to eliminate bullying. However, it is evident that public input is not required, needed, or wanted by the administration of OPS. Just give them the money and support their decisions. [emphasis added]

If anyone doubts that the OPS Board and administrators vigorously oppose parental and community involvement in the decision making at OPS, I refer them to the considerable efforts of the Board and Superintendent in the fall of 2022 to shut down parental and community involvement in their efforts to have significant amounts of pornographic materials removed from the libraries and classrooms at OPS.

Following a school board meeting where a vocal parent opposed the presence of pornographic materials in school libraries and classrooms, the Superintendent with board acquiescence banned the parent from access to the school property. After the parent obtained legal counsel, U.S. District Judge John F. Heil issued a temporary restraining order on November 1st 2002 that prevented the Owasso school district from barring parent’s access to the campus. Heil wrote, “While it is true that injunctive relief is an extraordinary relief, this Court finds that the First Amendment is an extraordinary right, deserving of extraordinary relief.”[3]

The Owasso school board subsequently met on November 9th and altered the parent’s ban so it was no longer tied to his interaction with board member Brent England. Instead, the ban was kept in place because of parent’s interaction in the parking lot with Art Haddaway of the Owasso Reporter. Subsequently on November 14th, Judge Heil converted the restraining order to a temporary injunction that prevented Owasso Public Schools’ efforts to ban the parent from attending school board meetings, dropping off and picking up his children from school, and attending parent-teacher conferences and other extracurricular activities. The judge noted that it “is clear” that Owasso’s ban was “substantially motivated as a response to Plaintiff’s criticism of the Board’s decision and his petition for a redress of grievances” which is protected under the First Amendment.[4]

Mr. Shreffler chooses “Parent and Community Engagement”

Whether or not Mr. Shreffler embraces ultimate sovereignty of the community in matters relating to the education of its children, his campaign mail piece at least tips his hat toward parent and community involvement with the school board.

“Parent and Community Engagement: Fostering strong partnerships to ensure a collaborative effort in education, keeping the door always open for feedback and ideas.”

Are you a “domestic terrorist” because you want the policies and practices of your local school district to reflect the moral values and standards upon which America was founded?

On October 4, 2021, the Biden administration through Attorney General Merrick Garland sent

“…a memo to the federal law enforcement agency directing it to coordinate with the nation’s 14,000 school districts. This action comes after the Biden administration received a plea from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to protect schools from the ‘imminent threat’ of parents sending ‘threatening letters and cyberbullying’ school officials. The association considers such activities to be akin to ‘domestic terrorism’.”[5] [emphasis added]

The Biden administration and its Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. have taken the position that parents challenging boards should be considered “domestic terrorists.” If you don’t agree with this administration’s assessment, you can push back with your vote on April 2nd or whenever the next school board election is held in your school district.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Art Haddaway, “Owasso school board president faces challenger in April 2 election,” Owasso Reporter, March 22, 2024. https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/owasso-school-board-president-faces-challenger-in-april-2-election/article_e439d7c2-e7c9-11ee-a1d3-57d049df4510.html (accessed 3-29-2024).
[2| Ibid.
[3] Burt Mummolo, “Owasso parent banned from school grounds after asking for pornographic book to be removed,” KTUL Channel 8, October 17, 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/owasso-parent-banned-from-school-grounds-after-asking-for-pornographic-book-to-be-removed/ar-AA134R0f (accessed 11-7-2022).
[4] Ray Carter, “Court prevents Owasso school from banning parent critic,” Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, November 2, 2022, https://www.ocpathink.org/post/court-prevents-owasso-school-from-banning-parent-critic (accessed 11-7-2022).
[5] Robby Soave, “A.G. Merrick Garland Tells FBI To Investigate Parents Who Yell at School Officials About Critical Race Theory” reason, October 6, 2021. https://reason.com/2021/10/06/ag-merrick-garland-fbi-critical-race-theory-parents-schools-domestic-terrorists/ (accessed 3-31-2024).

The post Vote for Brandon Shreffler – Owasso Public School Board – April 2, 2024 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The death of Nex Benedict on February 8, 2024, was tragic. After Part II of this series was posted about the incident at Owasso High School, the results of the toxicology report revealed that Nex Benedict died of suicide. “The medical examiner’s report listed the probable cause of death as ‘combined toxicity’ from two drugs, one of which is available over the counter and the other by prescription.”[1] Another report indicated the probable cause of death “was a suicide, an overdose caused by a combination of diphenhydramine (commonly known as Benadryl) and fluoxetine (commonly, Prozac).”[2] However, there was no explanation as to how the medical examiner distinguished between death by suicide and death by accidental means.

Many are attempting to fix the blame for Benedict’s suicide on: (1) an alleged bullying incident at Owasso High School and (2) the supposed anti-LBGTQ+ policies and pronouncements of Ryan Walters, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction. In the first instance, Benedict initiated and participated in the fight when she threw water on one or more of the girls. Benedict was guilty of initiating the fight after an exchange of words with the three girls. Also, she was equally guilty along with her friend of fighting in the school bathroom. In the second instance, The LBGTQ+ lobby and the left-wing media have accused Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters as indirectly causing Benedict’s death and have launched a strong campaign to have Walters removed from his office to which he was elected by Oklahoma voters.

(New York, NY – March 12, 2024) GLAAD, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, is announcing the launch of an ad calling out the ways in which Ryan Walters, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, is unfit for office, and encourages viewers to call their state representatives to advocate for Walters’ removal. The 30-second spot, which will run in Oklahoma starting today, is supported by a five-figure buy. Released just a month after the tragic death of Nex Benedict, the ad highlights a number of actions from Walters that call into question his ability to properly lead Oklahoma’s students. The ad asks viewers to ask their representatives to remove Walters from office.[3]

In Part II of this series, it was noted that Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, Ryan Walters, and the great majority of both houses of the Oklahoma State legislature have enacted legislation and established regulations in support of the education, safety, and well-being of students and families in Oklahoma. The homosexual lobby’s litany of supposed anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and regulations are almost exact counterpoints to Oklahoma’s legislation and regulations enacted to by the State of Oklahoma to protect Oklahoma children from becoming victims of mental and physical abuse by the national and Oklahoma LBGTQ+ juggernaut and its agenda.

As stated in Part I of this series, the homosexual lobby and their supporters in every facet of American culture do not really care about Nex Benedict and multitudes of children and teenagers like her. The priority of the homosexual lobby’s agenda is to impose their actions, ideas, and philosophy on every facet of society and therefore every American. These actions, ideas, and philosophy stand in direct contradiction to the Judeo-Christian/biblical worldview upon which America was founded. This conflict is what the culture wars are about, and the agenda of the homosexual lobby is just one battle in this war of worldviews. It is this war to which the remainder of this article will address.

Homosexuality vs. the Judeo-Christian Worldview

The Judeo-Christian worldview is based on the Bible. The Bible gives a very explicit condemnation of the practice of homosexuality.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Romans 1:24-27 [NLT]

The Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible and inerrant. In other words, the truth of God’s word is objective, not subjective, and therefore unchanging over time.

Homosexuality has been present in societies since the creation of mankind and was often venerated in various civilizations through ages, e.g., ancient Greece and Rome. However, none of those societies and cultures survived. Quoted at the end of Part II of this series, Richard Weaver gave the reason for their destruction in his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time written 65 year ago. Weaver stated that when a culture, “…‘by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements’ imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the ‘nature of things’.”[4]

Homosexuality is one of those disorganizing concepts with regard to human relationships, and as it becomes successfully imposed on a society, it is ultimately disorganizing in building a stable, enduring society. Where traditional views of marriage and human sexuality declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur. In modern America, the homosexual view of human sexuality has become a political concept whose advocates wish to legitimize and impose on American society which is substantially built on the Judeo-Christian worldview and upon which the nation was founded. Only one of these two worldviews will ultimately prevail – the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview as recorded in the Bible or the lie of humanism’s man-centric interpretations of existence.

Those who advocate for the cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle or variations thereof argue that the biblical two-gender view of mankind (i.e., God created male and female) is outdated in modern times. Therefore, they argue that, “In the 21st century, the gender binary is increasingly considered to be a social construct that reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, a tendency that harms even those who are cisgender (that is, identify with the gender assigned at their birth).”[5]

According to the homosexual worldview, the requirement to limit human sexual relations between a male and a female is merely a social construct. Therefore, homosexuality, transgenderism, and various combinations thereof are not objectively evil as described in Roman 1:24-27. As the narrative typically goes, those that are wedded to the idea that only heterosexual view of human sexuality is allowed can’t accept that the world is moving on from these outdated attitudes.

In William Bennett’s book The Broken Hearth, he describes the battle of worldviews between homosexuality and the Judeo-Christian worldview. The following are quotes from Bennett’s book included in my 2011 book Ye Shall be as gods – Humanism & Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision.

If the arguments of the proponents of homosexuality fail to diminish the importance and exclusivity of the reproductive act in defining marriage, the proponents fight on other fronts. One tactic with which they have been very effective and successful is casting the proponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as commanding the moral high ground. They present themselves and their cause as morally superior to their opponents who are cast as villains in the morality play widely disseminated in popular culture. To oppose homosexuality is deemed the moral equivalence of racism, bigotry, ignorance, and homophobia. Those persons who are not accepting of homosexuality are labeled as intolerant. But Bennett identifies the humanists’ perversion of the concept of tolerance. He calls it “…the disfigurement of the idea of tolerance at the hands of the agenda- pushers of our day…that would brand as bigots those of us who exercise our elementary responsibility…to make firm moral judgments in matters touching on marriage and the raising of our children.” The humanist would force all to worship at the shrine of tolerance, but their price of admission is a tolerance rooted in moral relativism with no room for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that fail to enter the humanist shrine, they become the objects of intolerant harassment through restrictions on free speech (speech codes), coercion, and intimidation. To the proponents of homosexuality, tolerance means forced acceptance, and such acceptance necessitates “normalization, validation, public legitimization, and finally public endorsement.”[6]

Why have so many of the religious elite fallen into the camps of the proponents of homosexuality? Writing 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, warned of religions that depend upon the principles of this world.

…when religion aims to depend upon the principles of this world, it becomes almost as vulnerable as all other powers on this earth. By itself, it may aspire to immortality but, linked to fleeting powers, it follows their fortunes and often collapses together with those passions which sustain them for a day.[7]

Many of mainstream Christian churches have linked themselves to the humanistic worldview, and their affinity for the cause of homosexuality is one of the principles of this (humanistic) worldview upon which they have come to depend. Those churches which have embraced the homosexual agenda have seen their number of adherents decline dramatically. By contrast, those churches which have grown are the ones that have stood against the assaults of secular culture and taught unequivocal biblical morality and salvation.[8]

Now it appears that the large numbers of evangelical churches have embraced the homosexual agenda or at least become silent in faithfully and regularly preaching the biblical standard against homosexuality as shown in Romans 1:24-27. Franklin Graham said, “Those who are afraid to address moral issues are no better than those who commit transgressions.”[9] This fear of speaking out about homosexuality has silenced much of the evangelical church.

Eric Metaxas, in his 2022 book, Letter to the American Church, captures the essence of how the church has become silent in the face of evil.

…those who behave as though there is really nothing to worry about, who seem to think—as such prominent pastors as Andy Stanley and others do—that we ought to assiduously avoid fighting these threats and be “apolitical” are tragically mistaken, are burying their heads in the sand and exhorting others to do the same …Do we not realize that no good ever can come of such silence and inaction, that human beings whom God loves suffer when His own people fail to express boldly what He has said and why they fail to live as He has called them to live?[10]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Death of Transgender Student Nex Benedict ruled Suicide by Medical Examiner,” NBC News, March 12, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nex-benedict-suicide-death-oklahoma-student-lgbtq-rcna143298 (accessed 3-16-2024).
[2] “The unanswered questions surrounding the tragic death of Nex Benedict,” VOX, 3-13-2024.https://www.vox.com/culture/24092224/nex-benedict-death-what-happened-okhlahoma-anti-trans-laws-backlash (accessed 3-16-2024).
[3] “New Ad Campaign calls for the removal of Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters,” Glaad.org, March 13, 2024. https://glaad.org/releases/new-ad-campaign-calls-for-removal-of-oklahoma-superintendent-of-public-instruction-ryan-walters/ (accessed 3-16-2024).
[4] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.
[5] “Nonbinary gender,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/nonbinary-gender (accessed 3-3-2024).
[6] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism & Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Books, 2011), pages 356-357. Quoting William Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pages 105-107, 121, 138.
[7] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Translated by Gerald E. Bevan, (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), p.348.
[8] Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, (New York: Regan Books, 1996), p. 286.
[9] Mario Marillo, “Is He Right?” MarioMurillo.org, 2-12-2024. https://mariomurillo.org/2024/02/12/is-he-right/ (accessed 3-16-2024).
[10] Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church, (Washington, D.C.: Salem Books, 2022), p. 51

The post Battle of Protesters: Westboro Baptist Church v. LBGTQ+ Supporters & Agenda – They both win! – Part III first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Theater of the Absurd

The long anticipated clash of protesters and counter-protesters at Owasso High School ended peacefully on a sunny March 6th Wednesday afternoon. The Westboro Baptist Church protesters initially met in front of the Owasso School District’s administrative offices at 2:15 PM. At 2:30 PM the WBC protestors had moved to a sidewalk next to Owasso High School where they were met with hundreds of counter-protesters from at least five LBGTQ+ organizations from various states which included The Rainbow Youth Project headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Diversity Center of Oklahoma.[1] Owasso Police had separated the protest and counter-protest groups by placing each on the opposite side of the street from the other.

The colorful Parasol Patrol based in Denver, Colorado, was led by co-founder Eli Bazan who spoke on camera with the Fox 23 News reporter to express the Parasol Patrol’s support of LGBTQ+ students in Owasso.

The Fox 23 News camera crew recorded the husky Mr. Bazan, sporting a beard, shaven head, and a pink knee-length skirt, as he led a large contingent of his supporters across the street to a point adjacent to the Westboro protesters. It was very apparent that this was contrary to police instructions. Consequently, the two groups now very close to each other and not separated by a street but only a few police officers. Fortunately, a physical confrontation was avoided, and loud cheers arose from the counter-protesters when the Westboro protesters eventually ended their protest and left.[2]

A Fox 23 News commentator reminded the viewing audience that the Westboro Baptist Church was considered a hate group according to the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and it was the policy of Fox 23 News to not film any hate group. He stated the news channel did not normally cover hate groups but that they decided to cover the afternoon’s protests and counter-protests because of the safety concerns raised by Owasso Public Schools.[3]

While Fox 23 News correctly identifies Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group, it failed to identify the LGBTQ+ counter-protesters as groups embracing the beliefs of far-left radical organizations such as the SPLC. It behooves news reporters and their listening audience to check the integrity and agenda of any organization that proposes to identify hate groups before one similarly designate that organization as a hate group. Without doubt the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a hate group. But Fox 23 News based their decision in part on the SPLC’s hate list. However, the SPLC is notorious for labeling many organizations with conservative political views, espouse traditional family values, and in general support the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which America was founded. The SPLC’s lack of credibility and agenda is exposed when its blacklist of supposed Anti-LGBT hate groups is examined. Some of the most well-known and respected organizations in America have been designated as hate groups by the SPLC: American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, American College of Pediatricians, and D. James Kennedy Ministries.[4]

They both won!

The national attention devoted to the incident that occurred on February 7, 2024, at Owasso Public Schools is astounding. This incident at the center of these protests was described in Part I posted on culturewarrior.net on Monday, March 4, 2024. The two opposing protest groups each achieved their goals—publicity for their respective causes.

In the first group of protesters were members of the tiny unaffiliated Westboro Baptist Church cult of seventy individuals in Topeka, Kansas. WBC is nationally known for their absurd and nonsensical distortion of the Bible and inflammatory denigration of atheists, Jews, Muslims, other Christian denominations, homosexuals and transgender people, and a host of other targets. WBC’s goal is to gain attention and publicity through their outrageous slogans and actions at protests around the nation on a schedule published on their website. If publicity was truly the goal of their protest, they were wildly successful.

But the degree of WBC’s success is infinitesimal compared to that of the second group – the homosexual lobby in the United States. Even before WBC’s planned protest was known, the LBGTQ+ movement mobilized and coordinated efforts to accomplish their agenda through their allies in government and bureaucracy from national to local levels, business, media, and educational institutions at all levels.

Based on this single incident at Owasso High School, the well-funded and well-oiled machinery of the LBGTQ+ movement thrust Owasso, Oklahoma, into a frenzy of national scorn and derision based on incomplete information, half-truths, and outright lies. The following are just a few of many thousands of stories promoting the LBGTQ+ agenda based on the incident at Owasso High School.

• “WWhite House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre at the daily press briefing on Friday addressed the media about the heart-wrenching death of Nex Benedict, a nonbinary teenager from Owasso High School in Oklahoma who died recently after being bullied. Jean-Pierre opened her remarks with a personal acknowledgment of the tragedy.”[5]

• “In a powerful condemnation of the circumstances leading to the tragic death of nonbinary, Indigenous teenager Nex Benedict in Oklahoma, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, is calling on the federal government to take decisive action…Robinson expressed profound concern over the hostile environment fostered by anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and rhetoric in the state (Oklahoma)… Robinson criticized Oklahoma’s rank as fifth in the nation for moving anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, including gender-affirming care bans, bathroom bills, and attempts to ban books, highlighting the violent political rhetoric from state officials as a significant contributing factor to the dangerous climate.”[6]

• “In response to a formal complaint the Human Rights Campaign lodged last week regarding the handling of sex-based harassment incidents, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has initiated an investigation into Owasso Public Schools. The investigation, announced late Friday, aims to address the Oklahoma school district’s response to harassment that may have contributed to the tragic death of Nex Benedict, a 16-year-old transgender student of Choctaw heritage.”[7]

• “As an Oklahoma community near Tulsa comes to terms with the death of a transgender high school student in early February, many critics of Republican policies in the state are voicing concerns about the anti-LGBTQ+ environment fostered by the right that enables bullying. In a poignant display of defiance and solidarity, Sean Cummings, an Oklahoma City business owner and local politician, went viral after a video posted online showed him laying blame for what happened on Ryan Walters, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, during a public meeting held by the Oklahoma Department of Education Thursday morning.”[8]

• “More than 350 LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and celebrities are urging the removal of Ryan Walters as Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction, saying he has encouraged ‘a climate of hate and bigotry.’…‘We are outraged that a climate of hate and bigotry has been not only allowed to thrive, but encouraged by the person who is responsible for education in the state of Oklahoma. State officials must be held accountable for bringing the politics of hate into Oklahoma’s schools and making our most vulnerable youth pay the price…Superintendent Walters’ reprehensible conduct shows a willful rejection of his duty to protect the health and welfare of the children in Oklahoma’s public schools and instead has created an environment that allows for hostility and harm for youth like Nex.’”[9]

Oklahoma legislation: Anti-LBGTQ+ OR Pro-child and Pro-family?

These articles purport that Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, and the Oklahoma legislature elected by the citizens of Oklahoma have enacted anti-LBGTQ+ legislation “including gender-affirming care bans, bathroom bills, and attempts to ban books, highlighting the violent political rhetoric from state officials as a significant contributing factor to the dangerous climate.”

The various LBGTQ+ groups will most certainly consider the following to be anti-LGBTQ+ legislation:

• Prohibition of instruction on LGBTQ+ topics in the public schools
• Bars transgender student athletes in K-12 and college from playing on sports teams that match their gender identities.
• Prohibits instruction on human sexuality to students in pre-kindergarten and elementary grades.
• Prohibit the promotion and use of cross-sex hormones, surgical procedures, and puberty-blockers, all based on the child’s perceived gender identity.
• Prevent drag queen story hours in schools and public libraries.
• Prevent the requirement to use pronouns based on the perceived gender identity.
• Removal of pornographic books and other materials from Oklahoma school libraries and classrooms including sexually explicit homosexual books and materials.

Time, space, and the reader’s patience do not allow this writer to respond to each of these and dozens of other legislative initiatives necessary to protect children from becoming mentally and physically victims of the LBGTQ+ juggernaut and its agenda.

Perhaps, the best description of the position of Governor Stitt, Superintendent Walters, and the State legislature when dealing generally with these types of issues in Oklahoma Public Schools is to examine the one issue that appears to be the most offensive to LBGTQ+ supporters and their advocates. That issue is the so-called “bathroom bill” signed into Oklahoma law in May 2022 and which has been labeled by the homosexual lobby and their supporters as a prime example of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

An Oklahoma bill limiting access to public-school bathrooms by a person’s birth sex is now law…School districts and charter schools that don’t comply face a 5% deduction in their state funding. That could subtract thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the school system. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed Senate Bill 615 into law Wednesday. An emergency provision in the bill caused it to take effect as soon as the governor wrote his signature. “Governor Stitt believes girls should use girl restrooms and boys should use boy restrooms,” Stitt’s spokesperson, Carly Atchison, said in a statement Wednesday evening.

All public-school restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms or shower rooms are now to be designated for exclusive use of the female or male sex. Use of these rooms is restricted to the sex listed on a person’s original birth certificate. The law requires schools to offer single-occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms for those who don’t want to use the facility that aligns with their birth sex.[10]

The vast majority of parents of k-12 students in public schools endorse this legislation. Parents do not want schools to allow use of school bathrooms by students based on their assumed LBGTQ+ gender identity. Parents do want their children to use bathrooms that align with their child’s birth sex. Therefore, the Governor, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and state legislature have enacted laws and enforce those laws that reflect the will of the people of Oklahoma.

Battle of Worldviews

The more one understands the blazing culture wars in America, the more one realizes that there cannot be and will not be a compromise on these hot-button issues because in their essence these are fundamental issues of two differing worldviews, and only one worldview will prevail. In America, this conflict of worldviews is between the truth of Christianity’s belief in the Judeo-Christian God as recorded in the Bible and the lie of humanism’s man-centric interpretations of existence.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time written 65 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[11] Homosexuality is one of those disorganizing concepts with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional views of marriage and human sexuality declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

In Part III we will present an in-depth examination of:

• Homosexuality as a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and society
• The consequences of the tsunami of homosexual activism in its effort to undermine Judeo-Christian foundations of America society
• Why the American church allowed the disorganizing concept of homosexuality to “tamper with the nature of things?”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1]Amy Hybels, “Planned Protest and counter protest outside Owasso High School ends peacefully.” Fox 23 News, March 7, 2023. https://www.fox23.com/news/planned-protest-and-counter-protest-outside-owasso-high-school-end-peacefully/article_560edaf0-dc12-11ee-9b1d-3fae72469bc9.html (accessed 3-8-2024).
[2]Ibid.
[3]Ibid.
[4] “List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups (accessed 3-8-2024)
[5] “Karine Jean-Pierre ‘absolutely heartbroken’ over Oklahoma teen Nex Benedict’s death,” Advocate, 2-23-2024.
https://www.advocate.com/news/white-house-highlights-nex-benedict (accessed 3-6-2023).
[6] “HRC president demands federal investigations into Nex Benedict’s death amid Oklahoma’s anti-LGBTQ+
climate,” Advocate, 2-22-2024. https://www.advocate.com/news/kelley-robinson-doj-nex-benedict (accessed 3-6-2024).
[7] “Federal investigation opens into Owasso Public Schools after death of Nex Benedict,” Advocate, 3-1-2024.
https://news.yahoo.com/breaking-federal-investigation-opens-owasso-191300199.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall (accessed 3-6-2024).
[8] “Oklahoma politician roasts Ryan Walters for Nex Benedict’s death to transphobic superintendent’s face,”
Advocate, 2-27-2024. https://www.advocate.com/news/oklahoma-nex-benedict-viral-video (accessed 3-6-2024).
[9] After Nex Benedict’s death, 350 LGBTQ+ groups, activists, and celebs urge Oklahoma superintendent’s
removal,” Advocate, 2-28-2024. https://www.advocate.com/news/activists-demand-ryan-walters-removal (accessed 3-6-2024).
[10] “Oklahoma’s Gov. Stitt signs bill restricting school bathrooms to birth sex, effective
immediately,” The Oklahoman, May 25, 2022. https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2022/05/25/stitt-
signs-oklahoma-bathroom-bill-restricting-transgender-school-access-birth-sex/9900609002/
[11] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.

The post Battle of Protesters: Westboro Baptist Church v. LBGTQ+ Supporters & Agenda – They both win! – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Members of Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas, plan to protest at Owasso Public Schools on March 6, 2024 in response to the death of a self-described nonbinary individual[1] (see endnote for definition) one day following an incident at Owasso Public Schools on February 7, 2024. The Westboro protest is not about the unfortunate death of an Owasso Public School student, the Owasso Public School student body, the City of Owasso, and most certainly does present the true message about homosexuality as found in the Bible. What the protest is about is (1) publicity for a tiny sect of misguided false teachers, and (2) a massive public relations campaign to gain sympathy and support for the LGBTQ+ agenda and its followers.

What is the Westboro Baptist Church and what do their followers they believe?

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American, unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps. It is widely considered a hate group, and is known for its public protests against homosexuals and for its usage of the slogans such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” It also engages in hate speech against atheists, Jews, Muslims, transgender people, and other Christian denominations…WBC has been protesting against homosexuality since 1989. Within a few years, the group expanded to protesting across the country. They often protest at public and private events, including funerals, sports games, and concerts…In 2016, Forbes stated WBC had about 70 members…The group is known to deface the American flag or fly it upside down while protesting. It also draws counter-protests. The group primarily consists of members of Phelps’s extended family, although many of its members have either left and/or been excommunicated.[2]

WBC is a cult that has clothed itself in a distorted form of Christianity and therefore is not Christian but a cult. Although WMC members vigorously teach and preach the five points of Calvinist doctrine, they twist or distort the true meaning of the Scripture such that it bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the vast majority of Baptist churches or other churches that adhere to five-point Calvinism.[3]

Although the message of WBC is almost universally repugnant, the vast majority of Americans are substantially ignorant of what the Bible and Christianity actually teaches about homosexuality and how to engage its practitioners. They condemn the WBC’s message but do not realize that their message is an absurd and nonsensical distortion of the Bible and the meaning of Christianity. Based on WBC’s miniscule size, we can unequivocally know that the WBC protests have been and remain one of Satan’s greatest successes in legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle and the LGBTQ+ agenda in the minds of Americans over the last thirty-five years since WBC began protesting homosexuality in 1989.

Satan’s success has occurred in two ways:

(1) Because most Americans (including many Christians) are ignorant or blind to WMC’s perversion of Scripture and the precepts of Christianity, their knee-jerk reaction is to paint Christianity as morally evil and/or the Bible as irrelevant when it comes to the moral condemnation of the practice of homosexuality and its many branches.

(2) Satan is also successful in using WBC’s message to silence a large number of American pastors and their congregants (including large numbers of evangelical churches) with regard to speaking the truth about the sin and consequences of homosexuality for fear of being tarred with the same brush as used to condemn the WMC and their followers. The consequences of this silence have been disastrous for America and its culture for over a half-century.

Since 2013 when President Obama and Vice President Biden openly and forcefully endorsed same–sex marriage, the legitimization of homosexuality and transgenderism has come to dominate every facet of American life: government, politics, military, education, arts and entertainment, media, education, business and economics, and the family. Not one facet has escaped the draconian force of this evil because the American evangelical church ceded its moral authority through its silence. This was predicted in the very first article posted on culturewarrior.net on March 6, 2013.[4]

To mark the 10th Anniversary of this website, an Culture Warrior article was posted on March 4, 2023, that described the astounding success of the LGBTQ+ agenda through the infiltration and corruption of every sphere of American life as noted above.[5] This article reveals how the initial 2013 Trojan horse of equality in the battle for cultural acceptance of gay marriage was just the beginning of the homosexual agenda’s efforts to dramatically undermined America’s moral foundations informed by the Bible and the founders’ Judeo-Christian worldview.

Events leading up to the March 6th protest by Westboro Baptist Church

The events preceding the death of Nex Benedict (born Dagny Ellis Benedict) is just a microcosm of the culture wars swirling in American in 2024. What is known at this time is that a 16-year old girl by the name of Nex Benedict, who identified as nonbinary, was involved in an altercation with three other girls in a restroom at Owasso High School. The timeline of events at Owasso High School and thereafter is found on the Owasso Police Departments website.[6]

Investigation Update 02-21-2024:
Since February 7th, 2024, the Owasso Police Department has been actively involved in an investigation into a physical altercation that occurred at the Owasso High School and Owasso Public Schools has been cooperative throughout the investigation. The students involved in the incident were all juveniles and juvenile files are confidential and inaccessible to the public in most circumstances.

From reports, records, and statements of witnesses, it appears that:
• On February 7, 2024, a physical altercation occurred in a restroom at the Owasso High School West Campus.
• The physical altercation was broken up by other students who were present in the restroom and a school staff member who was supervising outside of the restroom.
• All students involved in the altercation walked under their own power to the assistant principal’s office and nurse’s office.
• School administrators began taking statements from the students present in the restroom and began contacting parents/guardians of the students involved in the physical altercation.
• Each of the students involved in the altercation was given a health assessment by a registered nurse at the school and it was determined that ambulance service was not required.
• While it was determined that ambulance service was not required, the school nurse recommended that Nex Benedict visit a medical facility for further examination.
• On the afternoon of February 7, 2024, an Owasso School Resource Officer was assigned to respond to Bailey Medical Center where Nex Benedict was being examined. The School Resource Officer interviewed Nex and their parent concerning the altercation at the Owasso High School.
• The following morning, the School Resource Officer followed up with the parent.
• On the afternoon of February 8, 2024, Owasso Fire Department medics were dispatched to a medical emergency involving Nex Benedict, who was transported to the St. Francis Pediatric Emergency Room where they later died.
• While the investigation continues into the altercation, preliminary information from the medical examiner’s office is that a complete autopsy was performed and indicated that the decedent did not die as a result of trauma. At this time, any further comments on the cause of death are currently pending until toxicology results and other ancillary testing results are received. The official autopsy report will be available at a later date. The invesigtion is ongoing.

A 21-minute video from the body camera footage from School Resource Officer Caleb Thompson captured a critical conversation in the emergency room between Thompson, Nex, and Sue Benedict, the teen’s grandmother and adoptive mother. This video is available on the internet on YouTube.[7]

The essence of the video and police report is that three girls in a girls’ restroom at Owasso High School were making derogatory remarks about how other girls in their presence were dressed. One of the other girls (Nex Benedict) threw water from a container on at least one of the girls who had made derogatory remarks. An altercation began between the three girls and Nex whose friends joined the fight. Nex stated that she threw one of the girls from the opposing group into a towel dispenser (According to another report, the girl was thrown by Nex with such force that the towel dispenser was broken open and the door hung by one hinge). Nex states that she was thrown to the floor and they “were beating the sh*t out of me.” The above police report shows that the school’s registered nurse performed a health assessment of all participants after the altercation, and it was determined that ambulance service was not required. However, the nurse recommended that Nex Benedict visit a medical facility for further examination.

As noted in the above police report, preliminary information from the medical examiner’s office indicated that a complete autopsy was performed and indicated that the decedent did not die as a result of trauma. The police will make no other comments on the cause of death pending receipt of the results of a toxicology report and other ancillary testing. It should be noted that forensic toxicology testing is performed after a person’s death and is known as postmortem drug testing to identify and quantify potential toxins, which include prescription medications and drugs of abuse and interpretations of the findings.

Regardless of the cause, the death of Nex Benedict is a tragedy as is the death of all young people at such an early age. Unfortunately, the scheduled protests and counter-protests on Wednesday, March 6, will continue to poison the civil discourse in America and advance the agendas of both Westboro Baptist Church and the LBGTQ+ movement and its supporters.
We shall take another look at these issues in Part II following Wednesday’s protests and counter-protests.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] Nonbinary gender, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/nonbinary-gender (accessed 3-3-2024). “A nonbinary gender identity is adopted by individuals who feel that they do not fit into the traditional male/female gender binary. In the 21st century, the gender binary is increasingly considered to be a social construct that reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, a tendency that harms even those who are cisgender (that is, identify with the gender assigned at their birth). Those who identify as nonbinary may not feel that they are a man or a woman… Nonbinary is an umbrella term under which many labels fall: bigender and pangender individuals may identify with both or all genders at once, while genderfluid or genderflux individuals may feel that their gender identity fluctuates over time…Those who identify as nonbinary generally consider themselves a part of the LGBTQ+ community. They may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or any other sexual orientation.”
[2] Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church.
[3] Westboro Baptist Church website. https://www.godhatesfags.com/index.html
[4] Larry G. Johnson, “Equality – The Homosexual Agenda’s Trojan Horse in its Battle for Cultural Acceptance,” culturewarrior.net, 3-6-2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/03/06/equality-the-homosexual-agendas-trojan-horse-in-its-battle-for-cultural-acceptance/
[5] Larry G. Johnson, “Tenth Anniversary of CultureWarrior.Net – March 6, 2013 – March 6 2023,” culturewarrior.net, March 4, 2023. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2023/03/04/tenth-anniversary-of-culturewarrior-net-march-6-2013-march-6-2023/
[6] Owasso Police Department, Investigation update 2021-2024, Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=797096819120305&id=100064599824990
[7] OPD 2024-3316 Community Release, YouTube, originally recorded 2-7-2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaBumoyRGg&t=12s (accessed 3-4-2023)

The post Battle of Protesters: Westboro Baptist Church v. LBGTQ+ Supporters & Agenda – They both win! – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.

On February 7-8, 2024, one thousand Assemblies of God pastors gathered at the “1000+ AG Lead Pastor Connect” conference in Miami, Florida. This gathering was designed for lead pastors from the largest one thousand churches among the thirteen thousand plus AG churches in the United States. John Maxwell was the featured speaker, and the core of his message to the pastors was “to avoid politics, because it is polarizing.” Maxwell’s message has created a firestorm among the faithful inside and outside of the denomination.

Who is John Maxwell? The biography in the 1000+ AG Lead Pastor Connect Internet brochure[1] advertising the conference reads as follows:

John C. Maxwell is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, speaker, coach and leader who has sold more than 34 million books. He is the founder of Maxwell Leadership—a leadership development organization that has trained tens of millions of leaders in every nation. Having been recognized as the #1 leader in business and as the world’s most influential leadership expert, Maxwell continues to influence individuals and organizations worldwide—from Fortune 500 CEOs and national leaders to entrepreneurs and the leaders of tomorrow.[2]

Here we have an expert on business and leadership advising pastors on what to preach! However, what preachers preach is determined through a process of prayer, rightly dividing the Word, and leading of the Holy Spirit. This is the same John Maxwell who glowingly endorsed Andy Stanley’s new book Not in it to win it-Why choosing sides sidelines the church (2022). Andy Stanley is a false teacher but highly influential evangelical leader who also wrote Irresistible-Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World (2108) which teaches Christians to reject the Old Testament’s teachings (including Ten Commandments) because they are not applicable to Christians today. Maxwell also endorsed Stanley’s book Irresistible in which he states that he was challenged to “do more connecting and less correcting of others…I love how Andy loves people…”

What were General Superintendent Doug Clay and the rest of the Executive Presbytery thinking when they determined to invite Maxwell to speak to and influence one thousand pastors from the AG’s largest churches to stay out of American politics? Where were their discernment, knowledge of the Word, and critical thinking skills?! Mario Marillo asked the question, “Why did these 1,000 AG ministers not drop everything and cry out to God for mercy on America? Is it because they are more interested in the hottest new business model for church growth?”[3]

Effectively, the actions of the AG leadership in allowing Maxwell to speak have encouraged AG pastors to remain silent in their pulpits about politics only eight months prior to the most critical political moment in our nation’s history. The outcome of the November 2024 elections will determine if it will be the last election in which the destiny of America will remain in the hands of the people or be vested in an all-powerful ruling elite of anti-God socialists/Marxists bent on world domination. Apparently, John Maxwell and the AG leadership have been living under a rock and are unaware of what is happening in America.

The Big Lie – Churches must avoid politics inside and outside the church

A brief look at Scripture exposes Maxwell’s lie that the church must avoid all politics, inside and outside the church. That has always been the goal of Satan in American churches. Beginning significantly in the 1960s, churches and Christians have been coerced to keep their opinions inside the walls of the church and not interfere or influence the remaining spheres of American life: government, politics, business and commerce, physical and social sciences, media, arts and entertainment, education, and the family. There is not a single sphere where churches, Christians and Christianity are not under a full frontal assault from Satan and his minions. Without restraint exerted by the church, how would Maxwell and his sycophants combat the carnage that has spread across America? Their typical response is that “we should pray about it.”

Do the scriptures encourage Christians to stay out of politics? The words of Christ and the early church leaders expose the lie that pastors and churches should avoid politics. When Christians speak truth, it is polarizing because Satan is a liar and is the father of lies. Truth can be offensive to many and does not bring peace. Mario Marillo presents three examples that expose the Big Lie.[4]

• In Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” [NKJV]

• John the Baptist confronted King Herod in Luke 3:18-20, “And with many other exhortations he preached to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him concerning Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, also added this, above all, that he shut John up in prison.” [NKJV]

• Peter and John refused to obey an evil government in Acts 5:23-29: “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council (Sanhedrin). And the high priest asked them, saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” [NKJV]

Silence in the pulpits of American churches began long before Maxwell and Stanley arrived on the scene

The modern evangelical church since the 1960s began embracing the Big Lie that the church must avoid politics. Many evangelical churches in the 1960s to the present day ignored the voices of earlier 20th Century giants beyond our shores who defended the freedom to speak truth not only from the pulpits of churches but for all mankind. The following are excerpts from Chapter 12 of my sixth book published in 2020, Defending the Good Society – The Assault on Order, Justice, and Freedom.[5]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) was born in Russia and studied mathematics, philosophy, literature, and history at the university level. He was a thrice decorated for personal heroism as a Russian Army Officer during the fight against the Nazis in World War II. In 1945 he was arrested for criticizing Stalin in private correspondence and sentenced to an eight-year term in a labor camp. From that experience he wrote One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which was published in 1962, the first of many books. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 1974, he was stripped of his citizenship and expelled from the Soviet Union whereupon he moved to Vermont with his wife and four sons.[6]

Solzhenitsyn’s background, experiences, and powerful words in defense of truth speaks far louder than the din of lies shouted by egalitarianism’s Ministry of Truth and its toadies including spineless politicians, the corrupt media, universities in name only, complicit mega-corporation billionaires, ranting Hollywood leftists, self-proclaimed “intellectuals,” and many corrupt voices and false teachers in the church. However, such lies cannot long stand against timeless truth of which God is the author and finisher.

Solzhenitsyn gives both the diagnosis of the plight of the good society and a prescription for preserving its Judeo-Christian cultural heritage and its attendant freedom.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it (evil) will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers . . . we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.

The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.[7]

The defenders of the good society must raise their voices in the defense of the language and free speech from the lies and distortions of radical egalitarians. Silence only emboldens the evil doers and digs the graves of our children and grandchildren’s moral and civil order, justice, and freedom.

Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer

At the beginning of 1933, the German church stood at a crossroads. The great majority of German Lutheran churches chose the path of Hitler and the Nazis instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ.[8] There was a minority of Christians and churches in Germany that opposed Hitler and the apostatized German Christians. The resistance centered within the new “Confessing Church” led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemöller, and a few others. As Nazi pressure was ratcheted up against the dissenting churchmen, Bonhoeffer and Niemöller 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.”[9]

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.[10]

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.[11]

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.[12] 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.[13]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was discussed in chapter 8 (Defending the Good Society) with regard to his views on church-state relationships. Bonhoeffer knew well the cost of silence in the church when faced with evil in the public square. His ardent faith and boldness in confronting evil cost him his life. He called silence when faced with evil what it was…sin.

We have been silent witness of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretense; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open…Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?[14]

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil, God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.[15]

The words of Solzhenitsyn, Niemöller, and Bonhoeffer all carry the same message. Defenders of the good society must not remain silent. We must speak out with truth and take action to confront the evil of humanism and its handmaidens—egalitarianism’s lies and falsehoods and socialism’s corrupt order.

Silence in the face of evil occurs because of cowardice in the leadership of local churches

Franklin Graham said, “Those who are afraid to address moral issues are no better than those who commit transgressions.”[16] The truth of his powerful words is confirmed in Revelation 21:8, “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (emphasis added) [NKJV] In his commentary on this verse, Donald Stamps states that,

The “cowardly” are those who lack faith in God and who fear the disapproval and threat of people more than they value loyalty to Christ and the truth of his Word. Their personal security and status among others on earth mean more to him than faithfulness to God. The “cowardly” include the compromisers among God’s people who give up the spiritual light and do not overcome evil.[17]

There are many facets of cowardice including fear of retribution, fear of being accused as intolerant and judgmental, fear of being culturally exiled, and desire for acceptance. However, in spite of the cost, the church, individual Christians, and other defenders of the Judeo-Christian worldview are called to soldier in a much larger ongoing conflict which I described eight years ago in my book Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity.

In addition to the liberal apostate church of the last 120 years, there is also a faithful but mostly silent church in America that is content to preach the gospel and ignore the culture. But Erwin Lutzer disagreed with hiding behind the gospel while ignoring the culture. He wrote, “whether in Nazi German or America, believers cannot choose to remain silent under the guise of preaching the Gospel…we must live out the implications of the cross in every area of our lives. We must be prepared to submit to the Lordship of Christ in all ‘spheres’.”[18] [emphasis added]

As we live out the implications of the cross in every area of our lives, we must understand that the culture wars in which we soldier for Christ are not about maintaining the American dream however one may define it. Rather, the culture wars are about restoring the biblical understanding of truth in all spheres of our national life. To do so one must speak the truth in the face of lies, stand on biblical principles when others compromise, and take right actions in spite of consequences.[19]

If we are not actively living out our faith by fighting the wickedness in society and the culture of our time (in the schools, government, business, popular culture, arts, entertainment, media, and so forth), God will view our inaction (neutrality) as participation in the enemy’s wicked cause. In other words, God will not find us guiltless. Here we speak of individual and collective guilt.

In closing, we must note that perhaps there is no arena of public affairs where the silence of the local churches is more heartbreaking than their silence with regard to the welfare of our children in America’s K-12 educational system. The very youngest of children in most local schools are being fed pernicious ideas on the subject of sexuality—ideas with which their young minds are quite unable to cope, and to which their own parents object. Older children are being so confused by sexual activists that they agree to have their bodies mutilated, so they can never become the men and women God has created them to be. We cannot help but wonder where are all of the leading American pastors today on the issues of sexuality and transgender craziness. Are they afraid to speak? Like lemmings, it appears that local pastors across the nation have also lost their voices and backbones in their failure to consistently and repeatedly address these issues in their pulpits and at local school board meetings.

Eric Metaxas in his 2022 book, Letter to the American Church, captures the essence of how the church has become silent in the face of evil.

…those who behave as though there is really nothing to worry about, who seem to think—as such prominent pastors as Andy Stanley and others do—that we ought to assiduously avoid fighting these threats and be “apolitical” are tragically mistaken, are burying their heads in the sand and exhorting others to do the same …Do we not realize that no good ever can come of such silence and inaction, that human beings whom God loves suffer when His own people fail to express boldly what He has said and why they fail to live as He has called them to live?[20]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] 1000+ AG Lead Pastor Connect, https://churchmultiplication.net/1000plus (accessed 2-21-2024
[2] Ibid.
[3] Mario Marilla, “Politics in the Pulpit?” Mario Marillo Ministries, February 12, 2024. https://mariomurillo.org/2024/02/12/is-he-right/ (accessed 2-22-2024).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Defending the Good Society – The Assault on Order, Justice, and Freedom, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2020), pp. 109-112.
[6] “Biography,” The Aleksandra Solzhenitsyn Center, https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-life-overview/biography (accessed June 18, 2020).
[7] Solzhenitsyn, AZ Quotes. https://www.azquotes.com/
[8] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 44.
[9] Ibid., pp. 19-21.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 197.
[11] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, p. 32-32.
[12] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, pp. 293, 295.
[13] Ibid., p. 192.
[14] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison Quotes,” goodreads. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1153999-widerstand-und-ergebung-briefe-und-aufzeichnungen-aus-der-haft (accessed June 29, 2018 (accessed June 29, 2018).
[15] “20 Influential Quotes by Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Crosswalk.com. https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/inspiring-quotes/20-influential-quotes-by-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html (accessed June 29, 2018).
[16] Marillo, “Politics in the Pulpit?”
[17] Donald Stamps, Commentary on Revelation 21:8, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, Gen. Ed. Donald Stamps, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, Copyright 2009 by Life Publishers International, Springfield, Missouri), p. 2565.
[18] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, pp. 31-32.
[19] Larry G. Johnson, “Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – Will local churches remain silent?” CultureWarrior.net, November 8, 2022. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2022/11/08/pornography-in-owasso-public-schools-silence-of-the-local-churches/
[20] Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church, (Washington, D.C.: Salem Books, 2022), p. 51

The post Silence in the face of Evil – The Modern American Evangelical Church first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The mission of CultureWarrior.net is to participate in the redemption of culture in all of the institutions of American life through sharing the truth of the biblical worldview which was the heart of the American cultural vision upon which the United States was founded.

The mission statement is followed by six strategies for accomplishment of that mission. Over the last ten years more than two hundred articles have been written and posted on CultureWarrior.net.

The first article written for CultureWarrior.net was a prophetic warning about the agenda of homosexual leaders and their supporters. The recognition of marriage between homosexuals was merely the first salvo in their war to utterly transform American culture by destroying the Judeo-Christian moral foundations upon which America was built. Over the last ten years the sin of homosexuality and its many tentacles have been deeply woven into the fabric of every institution of American life – marriage, family, the organized church, education, government, business, media, and arts/entertainment.

During February 2013, there was considerable debate and press coverage of the efforts of the homosexual lobby to overturn all bans against gay marriage. Although marriage between homosexuals was widely supported among liberal politicians, the Democratic leadership was dithering about how to deal with this divisive issue. Vice President broke the dam of opposition when he boldly spoke in support of gay marriage. Sensing a favorable outcome, President Obama cast his support for gay marriage on March 1, 2013.

This was a defining moment of victory for the homosexual lobby, and ten years later, America has become a moral cesspool. Leaders of the American government now require flying the homosexual’s rainbow flag alongside of the American flag at our embassies around the world. Against their moral and religious beliefs, business owners are required to provide services for homosexual-themed products and events. The LGBTQ+ agenda for K-12 schools includes promotion and use of cross-sex hormones, surgical procedures, and puberty-blockers, all based on the child’s perceived gender identity. Drag queen story hours are common in our school houses and public libraries. Vast numbers of people in business, the military, and government offices are schooled in the proper use of pronouns so as not to offend members of the LGBTQ+ crowd. These are just a few examples of the pervasive reach of the homosexual agenda into every nook and cranny of American life.

Printed below is the first article written for CultureWarrior.net. It reveals how the initial 2013 Trojan horse of equality in the battle for cultural acceptance of gay marriage was just the beginning of the homosexual agenda to dramatically undermined America’s moral foundations after March 2013.

Equality – The homosexual agenda’s Trojan horse in its battle for cultural acceptance – March 6, 2013

“Trojan Horse” is a term used to refer to someone or something intended to undermine or subvert from within. The term derives from a tale of the Trojan War in which the Greeks built a giant wooden horse and hid forty soldiers inside. Then, the Greeks, appearing to have abandoned the fight and wooden horse, sailed their ships over the horizon. The unsuspecting Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the hidden soldiers crept out of the horse, opened the gates for the Greek army that had returned under cover of darkness. The Greeks invaded and destroyed Troy, decisively ending the ten-year siege.

America is in the midst of a battle for supremacy in the central cultural vision of the nation. The battle between the biblical worldview and the humanistic worldview (under the guise of secularism, liberalism, progressivism, etc.) is popularly known as the culture wars and has been ongoing far longer than ten years. One of those battles centers on the homosexual agenda’s quest for legitimacy, respect, recognition, acceptance, and affirmation by American culture. The battle has escalated, and the homosexual agenda now requires the removal of all bans against gay marriage.

This past week President Obama, citing the principle of equality that drove the nation’s founding, spoke out against California’s ban on gay marriage and said that the Supreme Court should strike it down.[1] This tactic has been very effective and successful is casting the proponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as commanding the moral high ground. They present themselves and their cause as morally superior to their opponents who are cast as villains in the morality play widely disseminated in popular culture. To oppose homosexuality is deemed the moral equivalence of racism, bigotry, ignorance, and homophobia. Those persons who are not accepting of homosexuality are labeled as intolerant.[2]

But William Bennett identifies the humanists’ perversion of the concept of tolerance. He calls it “…the disfigurement of the idea of tolerance at the hands of the agenda-pushers of our day…that would brand as bigots those of us who exercise our elementary responsibility…to make firm moral judgments in matters touching on marriage and the raising of our children.” The humanists would force all to worship at the shrine of tolerance, but their price of admission is a tolerance rooted in moral relativism with no room for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that fail to enter the humanist shrine, they become the objects of intolerant harassment through restrictions on free speech (speech codes), coercion, and intimidation. To the proponents of homosexuality, tolerance means forced acceptance, and such acceptance necessitates “normalization, validation, public legitimation, and finally public endorsement.”[3]

Effectively, the advocates of gay marriage are using the Trojan horse of equality as a means to breach the gates of American culture built on the foundation of a biblical worldview. But the case against homosexuality entails far more than just the argument that it is contrary to the cultural traditions upon which America was founded. The accumulated weight of history> speaks loudly against the homosexual agenda. The author has described this “weight of history” in his book Ye shall be as gods .

The ordered family structure is part of the human constitution, a universal truth, one of the permanent things, and exists in every known society. The family attains status within society—legitimacy, social identity, legal recognition, cultural tradition, and an estate. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring. It is the fundamental unit upon which societies are built.[4]

By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Proponents wish to lift the status of homosexuality in society through its attainment of legitimacy, legal identity, and respect as a cultural tradition, a place at the table so to speak. These efforts involve court challenges to long-standing and culturally established norms, enactment of laws which favor the homosexual agenda and that diminish marriage, and promotion of homosexuality in the popular culture.[5]

As marriage is the central organizing concept in society, it is critical for proponents of homosexuality to redefine what it means to be a family, and this has become the primary field of battle. There are two general conceptions of marriage in society. The first is that marriage is at its core about the children born of that marriage and by default is limited to heterosexual marriage relationships. The second concept held by the humanists is that marriage is essentially a private relationship. This is from whence comes the attack by the proponents of the homosexual agenda. The legislative and legal efforts to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples of either gender, whether under the law or in culture, would weaken the idea of a mother and father for every child.[6]

This is a seismic shift not only in how one views life but of culture itself. We have stated that culture is the central vision that binds, unifies, and gives direction to society, without which a society disintegrates. Individuals may think, feel, and act upon their personal and private liberties in any society as long as their actions fall within the limits of the laws that express the central vision of that society.

Heterosexual marriage is a universal, and the strength and unity provided by traditional marriage is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Although traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, that does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.[7]

America continues to invite cultural disintegration if we endorse homosexual marriage hidden within the Trojan horse of equality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] Julie Pace and Mark Sherman, “Obama says no way to avoid gay marriage case,” Associated Press, March 1, 2013. On-line source: http://news.yahoo-says-no-way-avoid-gay-marriage-case-172022149–politics.html (accessed March 5, 2013). No longer available.
[2] William Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 107.
[3] Ibid., p. 121.
[4] Larry G. Johnson’s Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 354.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid. 365.

The post Tenth Anniversary of CultureWarrior.net – March 6, 2013 – March 6, 2023 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In 2018, sixty percent of Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved legalization of marijuana for medical purposes (SQ 788). Just four years later Oklahoma leads the nation with 2,300 marijuana dispensaries and is also the leading source of marijuana trafficking nationwide due to cheap land, cheap licenses, and the most lax regulations on marijuana in the country.[1]

Beth Wallis, writing in State Impact Oklahoma, call’s Oklahoma the “Wild West” when it comes to marijuana policies and regulations.

With the relatively low cost of starting a business, few regulations on facility placement, and the ease of obtaining a medical card, the Sooner State has become a prime destination for businesses looking to cash in on the Green Rush. Compared to Colorado — a state with legal medical and recreational marijuana — Oklahoma has nearly seven times the number of grow licensees.[2]

Escalation of the carnage by legalizing Recreational Marijuana

Like the 2018 legalization of medical marijuana, 2023’s State Question 820 to legalize recreational marijuana was written by individuals in the marijuana industry and presented through the petition process for a vote. Over $3 million has been spent by organizations and individuals in the marijuana industry to promote SQ820. The complete language of SQ 820 is found at the Oklahoma Secretary of State Website.[3]

Proponents of legalization of recreational marijuana point to the large amount of tax and licensing revenues projected to be generated through sales of recreational marijuana. However, these revenues are dwarfed by the massive societal costs due to loss of life, declining mental and physical health, increased criminal activity, and increased cost of public services (police, judicial system, over-burdened infrastructure and health systems, etc.).

Dumbing Down America

The Center for Disease Control has reported that marijuana is the most commonly used federally illegal drug in the United States, with an estimated 48.2 million people using it in 2019. Marijuana use may have a wide range of health effects on the body and brain. The cannabis plant contains more than 100 compounds (or cannabinoids). These compounds include tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is impairing or mind-altering, as well as other active compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD). CBD is not impairing, meaning it does not cause a “high”.[4]

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Service presents a frightening picture of the destruction of the mental and physical health of a growing number of Americans using marijuana:

Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is addictive. Research shows that:

• 1-in-6 people who start using the drug before the age of 18 can become addicted.
• 1-in-10 adults who use the drug can become addicted.

Over the past few decades, the amount of THC in marijuana has steadily climbed; today’s marijuana has three times the concentration of THC compared to 25 years ago. The higher the THC amount, the stronger the effects on the brain—likely contributing to increased rates of marijuana-related emergency room visits. While there is no research yet on how higher potency affects the long-term risks of marijuana use, more THC is likely to lead to higher rates of dependency and addiction.[5]

Even though the proposed law restricts usage of recreational marijuana by persons under age 21, the ease with which marijuana will be obtainable and used by minors will markedly increase if recreational marijuana usage is approved. Minors are the ones most prone to long-term mental and physical declines due to marijuana use.

Marijuana use can have negative and long-term effects:[6]

• Brain health: Marijuana can cause permanent IQ loss of as much as 8 points when people start using it at a young age. These IQ points do not come back, even after quitting marijuana.

• Mental health: Studies link marijuana use to depression, anxiety, suicide planning, and psychotic episodes. It is not known, however, if marijuana use is the cause of these conditions.

• Athletic Performance: Research shows that marijuana affects timing, movement, and coordination, which can harm athletic performance.

• Driving: People who drive under the influence of marijuana can experience dangerous effects: slower reactions, lane weaving, decreased coordination, and difficulty reacting to signals and sounds on the road.

• Baby’s health and development: Marijuana use during pregnancy may cause fetal growth restriction, premature birth, stillbirth, and problems with brain development, resulting in hyperactivity and poor cognitive function. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other chemicals from marijuana can also be passed from a mother to her baby through breast milk, further impacting a child’s healthy development.

• Daily life: Using marijuana can affect performance and how well people do in life. Research shows that people who use marijuana are more likely to have relationship problems, worse educational outcomes, lower career achievement, and reduced life satisfaction.[6]

Oklahoma must not compound the damage already done to the citizens of Oklahoma by approving recreational marijuana. However, those promoting recreational marijuana are also encouraging a get out the vote campaign in order to pass SQ 820. The Tulsa County Election Board has reported that there has been a significant jump in new voter registrations in the last two months presumably to vote yes on the state question.[7]

Your Personal Action Plan to stop the legalization of Recreational Marijuana in Oklahoma

• Vote on Tuesday – March 7
• Get your family and friends to vote against SQ820
• Use Facebook and other social media to send this post to your contact list.
• Contact your pastor and ask him to publicly encourage congregational members present on Sunday, March 5, to vote against SQ820 on Tuesday – March 7 (Some pastors have given lengthy resentations two or three times to their congregations of the reasons to vote against SQ820.)
• Pray daily for the defeat of SQ820

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] Karen Hardin, SQ 820 Recreational marijuana vote March 7, Tulsa Beacon, February 23, 2023, 1.
[2] Beth Wallis, “Where does medical marijuana stand in the state legislature?” State Impact Oklahoma, February 17, 2022, https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2022/02/17/where-does-medical-marijuana-stand-in-the-oklahoma-legislature/
[3] Oklahoma Secretary of State website: https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/questions.aspx (Click in the search box 820 and then click on the number to download the document.)
[4] “Health Effects of Marijuana,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/index.html (accessed 2-27-2023).
[5] “Learn About Marijuana Risks,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana (accessed 2-27-2023).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Karen Hardin, Tulsa Beacon, 1.

The post Vote NO – March 7 – Oklahoma State Question 820 – Legalization of Recreational Marijuana first appeared on Culture Warrior.

School board elections have a low voter turnout. This means your vote carries a lot of weight. The following Voter Guide was supplied by Chris Wills [chris@votebible.com]:

VINCENT DONALDSON – OUR PICK

Vincent believes our school board needs an overhaul. He upholds biblical values and desires to bring morality back int our school systems. Transparency and accountability are extremely important to him.

NEAL KESSLER

Neal has served on the owasso School Board for the past five years. The current board lacks transparency with its decisions. Neal voted unanimously with the rest of the board to ban a concerned parent from the campus. The parent wanted pornographic material removed from the school library. The case went to court, where the judge ruled for the parent and his right of free speech.

KRISTY MOON

Kristy agrees that our school board needs to be transparent and accountable for its actions. At the same time, she believes teachers should be able to choose and create their own curriculum instead of being decided by the school board. She does not believe our nation’s founding Christian values of morality are necessary.

—————————————–

If you want to know more about the about the issues and occurrences surrounding the pornography found in the Owasso Public Schools’ library, please read my two articles by clicking the following links:

Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – Will local churches remain silent? https://www.culturewarrior.net/2022/11/08/pornography-in-owasso-public-schools-silence-of-the-local-churches/

Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – How it happened and what is being done about it https://www.culturewarrior.net/2022/12/17/pornography-in-owasso-public-schools-how-it-happened-and-what-is-being-done-about-it/

Larry G. Johnson
​

The post Owasso School Board Election 2-14-2023 – Vote for Vincent Donaldson first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Events leading up to Owasso Public Schools change in library policies that deal with pornography

The story began when a Tim Reiland opened a book his 14-year old daughter had randomly checked out from the Owasso Public Schools library. He discovered its contents were blatantly pornographic and lodged a complaint about the offending book with school officials. Reiland attended a school board meeting on October 10th and spoke at the meeting with hope that the board would establish a district policy that addressed his concerns about pornographic materials in the school’s libraries. The board did not establish a policy with regard to the presence of pornographic materials. Reiland was subsequently banned from all Owasso Public Schools’ grounds following his contact with a board member in the parking lot following the meeting. On October 17, 2022, KTUL Channel 8 aired a story about Reiland’s banishment because of his efforts to have the graphic novel removed from the school library.[2]

Reiland obtained legal counsel, and on November 1st, U.S. District Judge John F. Heil issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the Owasso school district from barring Reiland’s access to the campus. Heil wrote, “While it is true that injunctive relief is an extraordinary relief, this Court finds that the First Amendment is an extraordinary right, deserving of extraordinary relief.”[3]

The Owasso school board subsequently met on November 9th and altered Reiland’s ban so it was no longer tied to his interaction with board member Brent England. Instead, the ban was kept in place because of Reiland’s interaction in the parking lot with Art Haddaway of the Owasso Reporter. Subsequently on November 14th, Judge Heil converted the restraining order to a temporary injunction that prevented Owasso Public Schools’ efforts to ban the Reiland from attending school board meetings, dropping off and picking up his children from school, and attending parent-teacher conferences and other extracurricular activities. The judge noted that it “is clear” that Owasso’s ban was “substantially motivated as a response to Plaintiff’s criticism of the Board’s decision and his petition for a redress of grievances” which is protected under the First Amendment.[4]

On that same Monday night, November 14, 2022, the Owasso School Board unanimously approved an update of the school’s library policy and specifically addressed the presence of pornographic books and other associated materials found in the school library. A copy of this policy may be found on the Owasso Public Schools website.[5]

The OPS Board is to be commended for its changes to the School Library Book Selection Policy #1.86 [6]

1. The opening paragraph of the amended policy includes the following statements:

The library media program shall be reflective of the community standards for the population the library media center serves when acquiring an age appropriate collection of print materials, non-print materials, multimedia resources, equipment and supplies…All students shall have access to age appropriate material from any collection in the district, however parents or legal guardians shall have the right to restrict access to library materials for their student(s). [emphasis added]

2. Just as important as the additions may be, the deletions are often just as important.
The following are representative of the deletions:

• Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be prescribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

If continued, this deleted policy statement would have allowed the inclusion of materials promoting Marxism, socialism, critical race theory, and sexualization of children through the radical LGBTQ+ agenda, all of which do not reflect the “community standards for the population the library media center serves.”

• Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

If continued, this deleted policy statement would have allowed OPS administrators to continue to allow pornographic materials in OPS libraries. Likewise, if a state law passed in 2021 had not prohibited teaching and promotion of critical race theory, this policy would have allowed OPS administrators to challenge those who wished to prohibit teaching and promotion of critical race theory (including library and classroom books and materials).

• Materials shall be selected in accordance with the principles established by the School Library Bill of Rights as approved by the American Association of School Libraries. The American Association of School Librarians affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic ideals should guide their services…

The removal of this policy statement effectively replaces the selection principles of the American Association of School Librarians with selections reflective of local community standards. It is highly doubtful that the leadership of any national secondary or university-level education association or organization reflects the community standards of parents and citizens of Owasso, Oklahoma. For decades academia in America at all levels have been indoctrinated with a liberal-progressive-socialist worldview by the vast majority of American colleges and universities which stands in stark contrast to the Judeo-Christian values and worldview of most Americans.

3. The Criteria for OPS’s School Book Selection Policy #1.86 include two
commendable changes:

Paragraph 2. As school library media center resources are finite, the library media program shall be reflective of the community standards for the population the library media center serves when acquiring an age appropriate collection of print materials, non-print materials, multimedia resources, equipment and supplies… [emphasis added]

Paragraph 5. Materials are selected for validity, currency, and appropriateness of content. This includes an inspection of every graphic novel, prior to placing in the collection, for potential material involving sexually explicit content and extreme vulgarity. [emphasis added]

Significant Problem remains with OPS Policy #1.86 as amended 11-14-2022

The problem with OPS Policy #1.86 as amended resides with the person(s) charged with the Responsibility for Selection. Those responsible for book and materials selection remain unchanged. The board of education is the governing body of the school district and is legally responsible for selection of instructional materials including library books and materials. This authority is delegated to the professional personnel of the district for the selection of these books and materials. The policy states that the books and materials for the library are primarily selected by the Library Media Specialist with input from the Selection Review Committee composed of a minimum of three certified staff members which may include the Library Media Specialist, principal, counselor, and classroom teachers(s).[7]

Yet, these are the same people charged with selecting or rejecting library and classroom books and materials under the prior policy that now must select books and materials that reflect community standards (discerning, understanding, and interpreting the community’s values, moral standards, and worldview).

Although the board and professional personnel may or may not personally approve of pornographic material, nevertheless, they allowed significant amounts of pornographic materials to be available to Owasso students. One wonders how many years has this been happening. The enormity of their malfeasance becomes clear when the perniciousness of pornography is understood. Pornography is widely defined as depicting erotic behavior and intended to cause sexual excitement, and is morally reprehensible, offensive, and insidious. Pornography distorts a child’s understanding of healthy human relationships.

Establishment of a Community/Parent Oversight Committee to interact with the OPS Selection Review Committee with regard library and classroom books and materials

The policy continues to state that, “However, no stakeholder has the right to determine the reading material for students other than his/her own children.”[8] Here, stakeholder implies parents of children at OPS. However, given the reference to community standards, the stakeholders must include members of the local community at large.

The only means to insure that pornography does not creep back into the libraries of Owasso Public Schools over time is to establish an oversight committee comprised of parents and community members. Representatives of this committee would interact with the school’s Selection Review Committee. The structural and operational parameters of such oversight committee have been successfully developed and implemented in many other school districts across the nation.

• The Parent/Community Committee will review all books and materials presented to the Selection and Review Committee and make comments and recommendations.
• Although the Parent/Community committee may not always agree with the decisions of the Book Selection Committee, in some cases of significant disagreement, the Parent/Community Committee may appeal to the Superintendent and subsequently, if necessary, to the Board of Education.
• The Parent/Community Committee should be allowed to annually examine the books and materials available to students in the OPS libraries.

An election to select a representative for Owasso School Board Office No. 3 will be held on February 14, 2023. Three candidates are running to fill the position that has a five-year term of office: Vincent Donaldson, Neal Kessler (incumbent), and Kristy Moon.[9] All voters in that ward are encouraged to examine the candidates qualifications, views, and especially their position with regard to recent events surrounding the pornography in OPS libraries. Each candidate should be asked if he/she will support the establishment of a Parent/Community Book Selection Committee to have input and a degree of oversight in selection of books and materials for OPS libraries and classrooms that reflect community standards.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] Larry G. Johnson, “Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – Will local churches remain silent,” culturewarrior.net, 11-08-2022. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2022/11/08/pornography-in-owasso-public-schools-silence-of-the-local-churches/
[2]Burt Mummolo, “Owasso parent banned from school grounds after asking for pornographic book to be removed,”
KTUL Channel 8, October 17, 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/owasso-parent-banned-from-school-grounds-after-asking-for-pornographic-book-to-be-removed/ar-AA134R0f
[3] Ray Carter, “Court prevents Owasso school from banning parent critic,” Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,November 2, 2022, https://www.ocpathink.org/post/court-prevents-owasso-school-from-banning-parent-critic
[4] Ray Carter, “Parent reaps second court victory against Owasso schools,” Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, November 15, 2022, https://www.ocpathink.org/post/parent-reaps-second-court-victory-against-owasso-schools
[5] Owasso Board of Education Regular Meeting, November 14, 2022 at 6:30 PM – Attachment to Agenda item VII.D. Selection of Library materials Policy #1.86 (4), https://meeting.assemblemeetings.com/Public/Agenda/601?meeting=537856
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Tulsa County Municipal and School Board filings,” Tulsa Beacon, December 15, 2022, 1.

The post Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – How it happened and what is being done about it first appeared on Culture Warrior.

There was children with their penises showing that were urinating in each other’s faces. There was scenes, and this is graphic, images of ejaculation. There are scenes of teen sex. There are also scenes of a child, a child being raped in the book, and all in graphic depiction.[1]

The parent stated that when he first told school officials about it, they didn’t pay him much mind until he brought copies of the pages to the assistant superintendent who then, he says, pulled the book for review. The parent stated that he was very happy with that and thanked him and sent emails thanking them.[2]

The parent then attended a school board meeting on October 10, hoping the district would establish a policy that addressed his concerns about pornographic materials in the school. Apparently other parents in attendance voiced similar concerns to the board as well. According to the parent, those wanting pornographic materials removed from the school were accused of “just trying to ban books or burn books” in spite the parents claims that they were just trying to protect their children from pornography. In spite of their efforts, the board took no action to address a policy change on what books would be allowed in the school.[3]

After the meeting the parent spoke to school board member Brent England in the parking lot about the concerns of the parents. Within three or four days after the meeting the parent received a letter from Owasso School Superintendent Margaret Coates informing him that he had “committed one or more acts” that interfered “with the peaceful activities on District property.” Specifically, the letter stated, “You are hereby directed to leave the Owasso Public Schools and all of its grounds including sports events, sports venues, and not return.” The Channel 8 news reporter asked the parent if he could pick up his kids. The parent responded that, “I cannot pick up my children without written permission from Margaret Coates. It feels very retaliatory.”[4]

Subsequently, U.S. District Judge John Heil issued a temporary injunction that prevents Owasso Public Schools’ efforts to ban the parent from attending school board meetings, dropping off and picking up his children from school, and attending parent-teacher conferences and other extracurricular activities. The judge noted that it “is clear” that Owasso’s ban was “substantially motivated as a response to Plaintiff’s criticism of the Board’s decision and his petition for a redress of grievances” which is protected under the First Amendment.[5]

Pornography in Oklahoma’s K-12 schools is widespread and deeply embedded

Owasso Public Schools is not the only school system that has been found to have pornography in its libraries and classrooms. The State Board of Education recently voted to sanction Tulsa Public Schools, Oklahoma’s second largest district, by significantly reducing its accreditation status to “accreditation with warning” for violating the provisions of House Bill 1775 passed by the Oklahoma legislature in 2021. HB 1775 prohibits the promotion or teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in Oklahoma K-12 classrooms. The recent vote to sanction Tulsa Public Schools for violation of HB 1775 occurred the same week that the Twitter account, Libs of Tik Tok, highlighted two books available to Tulsa students in the school library—“Gender Queer” and “Flamer.” The Twitter account reported that the books contain sexually explicit and pornographic content. When the sexually-explicit images from the books were posted on Facebook, the tech giant quickly shut down the post citing its graphic content.[6]

Oklahoma Senate Pro Tempore Greg Treat, called the news “appalling and nothing short of deplorable.” Further, he stated,

It is indefensible to have children exposed to images and material that is the definition of pornography. It makes no difference whether its same sex, opposing sex, or anything in between, children should never be able to view the images in a public school sanctioned library setting.[7]

State Representative Sherrie Conley, a former teacher and school administrator, warned that “materials such as these are not just in Tulsa Public schools but in other school libraries throughout the state.”[8]

Owasso is just one of many school boards across the nation that has tried to prevent parents and other critics from participating in school policy actions and decisions. Although present for years, these efforts significantly increased in 2021 with school administrators’ inclusion of critical race theory in classroom instruction. The National Association of School Boards in a letter to the Biden administration sought to label parental resistance as being equivalent to “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes” and requested that federal law enforcement officials investigate protestors under federal anti-terrorism and hate—crimes laws. This was quickly followed by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum to the FBI to meet with state and local officials to develop “strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” Many state school boards associations across the nation denounced the NSBA’s actions and announced their departure from the NSBA. However, the Oklahoma State School Boards Association has never publicly denounced NSBA’s action and has continued its affiliation with the group.[9]

Pornography is just one of several weapons used by the purveyors of the liberal-woke-Marxist agenda aimed at the overt sexualization of elementary and secondary school children throughout the nation. In addition to inclusion of pornographic materials in libraries and classrooms, this overt and well-organized sexualization process includes legitimization and promotion of the LGBTQ philosophy and lifestyle. The LGBTQ agenda for K-12 schools includes promotion and use of cross-sex hormones, surgical procedures, and puberty blockers, all based on their perceived gender identity. Parents of K-12 students must be on constant alert for these and a host of other issues that have infiltrated many public school systems such as Marxist/socialist indoctrination and criteria race theory.

How can local communities once again gain control of their local schools boards and administrators?

The first step is to elect school board members who respect and reflect the Judeo-Christian values and morals upon which the nation was founded. But when the local school boards actions or lack thereof no longer represent or reflect those values and morals, the parents and local citizenry have a powerful voice residing in almost every community. This powerful group is comprised of the local churches which means, first and foremost the pastor, followed by their staff and board of deacons, and backed by the congregations.

Unfortunately, the voice of the church in America became silent during the last half of the 20th century as most pastors and their churches have substantially ceased to speak into and influence their community beyond the walls of the church. For several decades the silence of the church has extended far beyond silence about local affairs. This is the foremost cause of the nation’s moral, social, political, and cultural turmoil and decline. It appears this failure to speak into the various spheres of American life has infiltrated into a large majority of Owasso’s churches.

“Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. God will not hold us guiltless.”

Many believe the above quote originated with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the World War II German pastor who resisted the Nazis and was martyred on the direct order of Adolf Hitler at the end of the war in 1945. Although not directly attributable to Bonhoeffer, “it so well sums up what he desperately tried to communicate to those who believed they could safely stand on the sidelines in the battle of that time.”[10]

If we are not actively living out our faith by fighting the wickedness in society and the culture of our time (in the schools, government, business, popular culture, arts, entertainment, media, and so forth), God will view our inaction (neutrality) as participation in the enemy’s wicked cause. In other words, God will not find us guiltless. Here we speak of collective and individual guilt.

Eric Metaxas in his new book, Letter to the American Church, captures the essence of how the church has become silent in the face of evil.

…those who behave as though there is really nothing to worry about, who seem to think—as such prominent pastors as Andy Stanley and others do—that we ought to assiduously avoid fighting these threats and be “apolitical” are tragically mistaken, are burying their heads in the sand and exhorting others to do the same …Do we not realize that no good ever can come of such silence and inaction, that human beings whom God loves suffer when His own people fail to express boldly what He has said and why they fail to live as He has called them to live?[11]

Such silence has led American schools to where they are today.

The very youngest of children in schools are being fed pernicious ideas on the subject of sexuality—ideas with which their young minds are quite unable to cope, and to which their own parents object. Older children are being so confused by sexual activists that they agree to have their bodies mutilated, so they can never become the men and women God has created them to be.[12]

We cannot help but wonder where are all of the leading American pastors today on the issues of sexuality and transgender craziness. Are they afraid to speak? Like lemmings, it appears that local pastors across the nation have also lost their voices and backbones as well. The question I have for Owasso pastors is this, have you regularly spoken to your congregations about these issues? God calls us to speak truth to power. John the Baptist spoke truth to Herod, and it cost him his head. Jesus spoke truth to the religious leaders of his day knowing they would bring about His crucifixion.

Plan of action for Owasso pastors

Pastors must organize, speak, and act for Owasso’s K-12 students who are unable to defend them themselves from the vicious attacks from the enemy of our souls.

1. Preach frequently and frankly to your congregations with passion fired by the Holy Spirit about the evils of pornography, the LGBTQ agenda, Marxism and socialism, and other evils facing our children in the public schools?

2. Pastors should deliver formal notifications of their churches’ opposition to any policies and practices that allow, tolerate, or encourage the presence of pornographic materials in Owasso Public Schools. This document should be signed by the pastor and every congregational member willing to do so and delivered to the Owasso School Board and Superintendent.

3. Encourage like-minded pastors willing to break their silence to come together as a group and attend an Owasso School Board with spokespersons prepared to demand changes to school’s policies and practices that would eradicate pornographic materials from K-12 classrooms and libraries, both now and in the future.

4. Using both social and print media, the Owasso ministerial alliance should publicly addressed the dangers of pornography and other philosophies and practices that promote sexualization of our children in public schools.

Removal of pornography from Owasso Pubic Schools is just one tiny skirmish in the culture wars. Fellow Christians and other defenders of the Judeo-Christian worldview are called to soldier in a much larger ongoing conflict which I described eight years ago in my book Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity.

Apart from the apostate church, there is also a faithful but mostly silent church in America that is content to preach the gospel and ignore the culture. Erwin Lutzer wrote, “whether in Nazi German or America, believers cannot choose to remain silent under the guise of preaching the Gospel…we must live out the implications of the cross in every area of our lives. We must be prepared to submit to the Lordship of Christ in all ‘spheres’.” Yet, as we live out the implications of the cross in every area of our lives, we must understand that the culture wars in which we soldier for Christ are not about maintaining the American dream however one may define it. Rather, the culture wars are about restoring the biblical understanding of truth in all spheres of our national life. To do so one must speak the truth in the face of lies, stand on biblical principles when others compromise, and take right actions in spite of consequences.[13]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] Burt Mummolo, “Owasso parent banned from school grounds after asking for pornographic book to be removed,”
KTUL Channel 8, October 17, 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/owasso-parent-banned-from-school-grounds-after-asking-for-pornographic-book-to-be-removed/ar-AA134R0f
The video version of this telecast may be viewed at: https://ktul.com/news/local/owasso-parent-banned-from-school-grounds-after-asking-for-poronographic-book-to-be-removed
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ray Carter, “Court prevents Owasso school from banning parent critic,” Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
November 2, 2022, https://www.ocpathink.org/post/court-prevents-owasso-school-from-banning-parent-critic
[6] Ray Carter, “Concerns over racism, porn lead to Tulsa school sanction,” Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
July 28, 2022, https://www.ocpathink.org/post/concerns-over-racism-porn-lead-to-tulsa-school-sanction
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church, (Washington, D.C.: Salem Books, 2022), p. 51.
[11] Ibid, pp. xiii, 51.
[12] Ibid, p. 84.
[13] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House
Publishing, 2016) p. 265.

The post Pornography in Owasso Public Schools – Will local churches remain silent? first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Many Protestant churches succumbed to the secularizing modernist culture during the first sixty years of the Laodicean period (1870 to the soon-coming Rapture of the faithful church). They became known as the liberal-modernist-progressive Protestant churches that have a strong history of following the episcopal form of church government (e.g., top down rule of the pope through church hierarchy to the local priest, and the laity at the bottom) or the presbyterian form (committee rule). During those sixty years, the Roman Catholic Church continued its 1,700 years of corrupt church government. Together, the Catholics and the liberal Protestant churches are false churches that claim to be Christian but are apostate.

Those faithful Protestant churches that came into the Laodicean period were generally described as conservative, fundamentalist, or evangelical and almost all kept their allegiance to the first century congregational model of church government. However, a disturbing trend began to emerge among evangelical churches in the 1950s and 1960s. Even though evangelical churches generally retained the congregational form of government in their constitutions and bylaws, many began adopting a CEO-corporatist style of church leadership which in many respects contains significant elements of the authoritarian episcopal and presbyterian forms of church government. This drift away from the first century model has significantly contributed to the emergence of a modern lukewarm evangelical church.

Congregational form of church government before its demise in the last half of the twentieth century

In the not too distant past, most evangelical churches had a preaching pastor leading the church, whether a seminarian, Bible school graduate, or self-taught. The first qualifications of pastors of that era were that they were God-called and had a leadership gifting as a preaching pastor. Seminary or Bible college degrees did not determine their gifting or call, but many sought training either before or thereafter. In Greek, the word “pastor” means to be a shepherd. The shepherd tends his flock by which is meant that he pastors the flock, gently rules them, associates with the flock as a friend and companion, keeps company with them, and feeds the flock.

Standing at the side of the preaching lead pastor in the pre-1960s were the elders of the church. Elders were men and women who had been given a leadership gift (sometimes more than one) as an evangelist, prophet, teacher, and possibly as an apostle being sent out and supported by the local congregation, i.e., missionary. As was the case in the first century church, most elders were not professionally trained or degreed in their gifting, but they functioned in their leadership gifts with equal status with the other elders of the local church. Their leadership gifts were just as important to the shepherding of the local church body as that of the lead preaching pastor. Otherwise, those churches could not have survived in the first century or the present day.

Growth of the CEO-corporatist leadership style in church government during the last half of the twentieth century

Just as the episcopal form of church government created an unbiblical division between the clergy and laity within the Roman Catholic Church, so does the CEO-corporatist style of leadership create an unbiblical division between the pulpit and the pew in Protestant churches. The CEO style of church leadership grew out of the mega-church phenomenon beginning after World War II and eventually became known as the Church Growth seeker-friendly method of doing church. This movement profoundly damaged a multitude of evangelical churches of all sizes. The pastors of smaller congregations soon began to imitate the teachings, methods, and mindset of the mega-church gurus who promised that their methods were the best way to build a church in the modern age. The mindset of these pastors changed from shepherds to managers.

To quickly give an overview of the outworking of the CEO-corporatist leadership style in church government in the modern evangelical church, I quote from a 2013 interview of Glen Newman, author of Pastors Move Over – Make Room for the Rest of Us. Although the author does not agree with many of his prescriptions for a return to the first century model of church government, he has correctly diagnosed the reasons for the departure of the evangelical church from that model and the consequences thereof.

Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12-14 shows a clear system of all believers ministering to one another and worshipping house to house. The elders were the leadership of that day and servant leaders at that. But they also recognized each other’s personal gift of ministry. In the New Testament there were no “CEO” type leaders and in fact there were multiple pastors within the flock, ministering and nurturing those that needed it…[Newman] attributes the origins of the senior pastor model to the Constantinian era in the fourth century and notes that it was later adopted as a part of the Roman Catholic tradition.

The pastor in that church (mega church) isn’t really pastoring anybody. What the people are doing is they are watching a show on the stage. When there is no service, behind the scenes the pastor is running the church like a business and his assistant pastors are like middle managers. I [Newman] believe that the elders should be leading the church. Not people who sit on a church board but spiritual leaders, and we have forgotten that the elders are the spiritual leaders…For many centuries the church has been run either like a monarchy or in the modern Protestant churches like a business.

This (the CEO led churches) have created passive, uninvolved congregations that in many respects are spiritually immature due to this dependency on the professional clergy to do what they should be doing themselves…the CEO-type approach to church government was of particular concern in megachurches where church members can easily be forgotten.[1]

Much of what Newman has said is correct. However, I believe that evangelical churches that emerged at the beginning of the First Great Awakening mostly followed the first century model in the context of modern times up to the 1960s. But adaptations of the first century model due to the “context of modern times” do not mean that gifts of leadership in the local church are to be deconstructed and refashioned to fit the demands of the modern world. Rather, the essentials of the five-fold ministry elements and their application in the local church must be retained but adapted to reach and minister to people in current cultural life (e.g., use of itinerant evangelists to preach in the local church on a periodic basis). The rise of the CEO style of leadership is an example of the deconstruction of the five-fold ministry elements and the local church model of government. CEO style pastors have significantly contributed to the decline or loss of the leadership giftings of other elder-pastors in the local church and a loss of the operation of the gifts of the Spirit in all believers because congregation members are transformed into spectators.

In the mega-churches and smaller churches led by want-to-be pastors of a mega-church, the church body is no longer a flock but a mega-herd or mini-herd as the case may be. Flocks are not driven but follow the shepherd for they know the master’s voice. Herds must be driven by their masters or seduced into following the goodies on the master’s hay wagon. The CEO style of pastoring is a complete distortion of the meaning of the word “pastor” and separates the office of pastor from its first century New Testament meaning of “shepherd” of the flock.[2]

Power and Control – The motivation for a CEO-corporatist style of leadership

The term “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is generally attributed to nineteenth century British politician Lord Acton. As we have seen in our study, this proverbial saying seems to have been proven true by the behavior of a great majority of church leaders during the entirety of the history of the Church Age. The author would add an addendum to Lord Acton’s axiom: The greater distance there is between those ruled and those with power to rule, the greater the abuse and corruption of that power.

This is a picture of what is happening as the evangelical church transitions from an elder-led, congregational style (local control by local members of the body of Christ) to a CEO-corporatist leadership led by a single ruling pastor aided by a complicit staff of pastors and a docile board of deacons. Any threat to the leadership’s regime endangers their control and must be avoided at all cost. Things to be avoided include controversies, conflicts, voicing of inconvenient truths, and disruptions in the appearance of unity. Above all, they must control and control requires power.

Signs that signal a transition to a CEO-corporatist style of leadership

• Incorporation into the local church of Church Growth seeker-friendly methods and practices. As churches grow, the elders are replaced by paid professional staff members who receive job assignments and instructions from the CEO. The middle managers interact with the congregation and report back to the CEO. Thus, the CEO is effectively separated from his flock and is no longer a true shepherd. In elder led churches, there are multiple shepherds that interact with the entire church while fulfilling their leadership giftings.

• A gradual tightening of authority over the laity and leadership below the senior pastor. In effect, this is a gradual return to an episcopal, top down, style of church government which sharpens the distinction and widens the gulf between the pastor and the laity as happened with the Roman Catholic Church and most authoritarian and mainline churches of the Reformation era.

• Complete control over the message, the microphone, the platform, and the messengers allowed to speak to the local congregation.

• Complete control over the dissemination of financial and attendance information. Financial reports to the congregation often lack important details, consistent standards of reporting, transparency, and in some cases accuracy. Voting membership rolls and the church’s constitution and bylaws are rarely or never disseminated to the membership.

• Suppression of descent by the implementation of “leadership agreements” whereby volunteer applicants are required to give unwavering allegiance to the leadership team and their decisions, plans, and direction of the church. To be part of any facet of church ministry (the team) applicants are required to agree to every aspect of the agreement. This is a new phenomenon sweeping through the evangelical churches, and there are numerous websites that promote and supply these agreements to churches. Many leadership agreement templates contain two key phrases placed among other relatively innocuous statements which in many cases are not the business of the church but must be checked in order to be a member of the “team.” The two key phrases that assure leadership’s power and control appear to be the heart of these agreements and are similar to the following:

(1) “Support the lead pastor, pastoral staff, and the direction of our church.”
(2) “Speak positively of our church’s leadership in public and private conversation.”

After checking all the boxes, the applicant must certify the application is complete, accurate, and not misleading in any way, and then sign the agreement.

This move toward ultimate control of what one does, thinks, and says in the church suggestive of the heavy hand of “big brother” found in a totalitarian society described in George Orwell’s book 1984.

• Tight control over the dissemination of contact information of congregation members that would allow direct communication between members, e.g., addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

• Removal from the local congregation of the “bother” of having to make decisions even if they have a congregational form of government. These congregations are seldom asked for guidance other than to vote for the propositions presented by the leadership. However, in the correctly functioning congregational model, ultimate authority resides with the local members of the church. The elected leadership roles are considered representatives of the entire congregation and subject to the local church.

• Minimize, disregard, or discourage operation of the gifts of the Spirit within the local body. Some of the gifts of the Spirit are regarded as having become unnecessary or non-operational following the first century apostolic age, e.g., divers kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, working of miracles, and divine healing to name five of the nine gifts of the Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Can there be any doubt as to why many evangelical churches have become lukewarm and powerless while being ridiculed and shunned by a hostile culture?

• Complete departure of the office of evangelist in the local church. There are people with the gift of soul winning in the local congregation, some by preaching and others by working with sinners around an altar or independently in other settings. One of the great disasters in evangelical churches over the last three decades is the almost complete removal of the ministry of the itinerant evangelist that in former times periodically came to local churches to preach to both saints and sinners with regard to their spiritual condition. The preaching of these evangelists often generated the spark necessary for the Holy Spirit’s revival of a local congregation. Supporting apostles sent out from the church (missionaries) are not a substitute for the office of evangelist in the local church.

• The office of prophet is no longer evident in most evangelical churches to deliver direct revelations from God; to expose sin, warn of judgments to come, uphold the righteous standards of God’s Word; battle worldliness and spiritual lethargy and false teachers; and to warn, challenge, comfort, encourage and build up God’s people. Prophets often point to sin in the camp that other elders do not quickly see. CEO type leaders fear prophets because these pastors do not want anyone to make waves or bring criticism which may reflect badly on their leadership and interfere with their goals of keeping the congregants uninformed but happy and supportive of the leadership and their agenda.

• Teaching from the pulpit by anyone but the preaching pastor is rare if non-existent unless that teacher is thoroughly vetted by the pastor as someone in substantial agreement with the pastor on almost any issue. There are many gifted teachers in full-time ministry or resident in the local church who are not allowed to exercise their leadership gift of teaching from the pulpit.

Repent, restore, and encourage

It is time for leaders and the body of Christ in the lukewarm evangelical church to repent for the abuse and corruption of the design, organization, and operation of the church as practiced by the first century New Testament church, the evangelical churches of the Philadelphian period, and those faithful evangelical churches thereafter. The congregational model of church government must be restored in full including the leadership gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Also, the body of Christ must be encouraged to seek the gifts of the Spirit and to exercise those gifts in the local church and elsewhere under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
______

The lukewarm evangelical church is interested only in its comfortableness, prosperity, and satisfactions in this life. But this present age is the end-time spiritual battleground between God and His children vs. Satan and the dark forces of this world. The ultimate prize in this battle is the souls of mankind. We know who the victor is, but the final score won’t be announced until the end of the Church Age which will occur at the moment the church is raptured. When that moment occurs, there will be a single individual known only to God who will be the very last to person to make his or her peace with God before He calls His bride home. We must ask ourselves, what could we have done in this battle to bring just a few more souls into His kingdom before that last person is saved?

Friends, we must expend every ounce of our being in His noble cause. Hold nothing back and when our life is over we can stand before Jesus knowing that we have left everything on the battlefield.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Leonardo Blair, “Megachurch Pastors Running Churches Like CEOs Unbiblical, says Former Pastor,” Christian Post, February 19, 2013. https://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurch-pastors-running-churches-like-ceos-unbiblical-says-former-pastor.html (accessed August 31, 2021).
[2] Glen Newman, Pastors Move Over-Make Room for the Rest of Us, (Acton, Texas: Glen Newman, 2010), p. 33.

The post Church, Inc. – Part VII – The modern lukewarm evangelical church first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In the Introduction to this series titled “Church, Inc.,” the author presented the following premises which are necessary to guide our understanding of the history of the organized church over two millennia to its present condition—the modern lukewarm church at the end of the Church Age just before the Rapture of the church.

1. Satan knows that separation of man’s relationship from God will occur if he can corrupt the truth of God’s Word and/or the Church.

2. Corruption of the truth of God’s Word comes through the infiltration of false teachers into the church to spread lies and false teachings. [See previous three-part series: “False Teachers in the Evangelical Church.”]

3. Corruption of the essentials and details of God’s design, organization, and operation of the church will damage or destroy God’s pattern for the church and its mission.

4. The essentials and details of this design, organization, and operation of the church are portrayed in the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the gifts of the Spirit given to all members in the body of Christ. To corrupt the operation of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit in the church is to damage or destroy God’s design, organization, and operation of the church.

The revelation of the seven periods of church history during the Church Age was given by Jesus to the apostle John on the Isle of Patmos and is recorded in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.

We have examined the seven periods of the Church Age, and it has become evident that the premises set forth in the Introduction of this series on Church, Inc. have confirmed the truth of those premises. The essence of the truth of these premises is that when the church adheres to the first century New Testament commands with regards to the New Testament doctrines and the design, organization, and operation of the local church, it will flourish. If it does not, the church will be compromised, then fully corrupted, and death follows.

With the brief exception of the faithful church in the Philadelphian period (1720-1870), the cycle of compromise, corruption, and death resumed at the beginning of the Laodicean period and continues to the present day (1870-to the soon-coming Rapture of the church). However, even during the darkest centuries of church history, the love and grace of God and the gifts of the Holy Spirit sustained generation after generation of that remnant of the organized church comprised of all born again believers (the universal church) even though many suffered and died for their King and His kingdom.

In Part V we examined the Philadelphian and Laodicean periods of church history. These two back-to-back periods present a stunning miniature portrait of the entire Church Age over its two-thousand-year history of the once flourishing church and its dramatic decline.

In Part VI we continue our examination of the modern Laodicean period. However, the examination will transition from a historical perspective to a contemporary view of events, trends, and circumstances beginning in the mid-twentieth century and lasting to the present day that created the modern lukewarm evangelical church. The afflictions, failings, and weaknesses of the modern lukewarm evangelical church have caused its demise as a moral force necessary to stem the decline of American culture.

Modern evangelical church declines in the last half of the twentieth century

As the Laodicean period progressed into the second half of the twentieth century, major segments of evangelical Christianity began to mirror the lukewarm Laodicean church of the first century that Jesus described as being indifferent, subdued, apathetic, unconcerned, and half-hearted. Similar to the first century Laodicean church, many modern Protestant evangelical churches generally have become comfortable, prosperous, and well-satisfied. These churches pride themselves on their bank accounts, fine buildings, members of high standing, and being socially recognized and influential. But Jesus’ indictment of “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” continues to apply to these modern imitators of the first century church at Laodicea. As a result, the most important goal of the leaders of the lukewarm church is that they maintain their comfortableness, prosperity, and satisfactions in this life.

What are the ailments, failings, and circumstances that caused lukewarmness in the evangelical church over the last 60+ years?

The evangelical church is sick, a sickness unto death if rapid remedial action is not taken. Before action can be taken, we must know the causes of the sickness. Therefore, we must take a deep forensic dive into the pathologies of the evangelical church in America with regard to its doctrinal failures and its dysfunctional design, organization and operation of the church. It is important to remember that the essentials and details of this design, organization, and operation of the church are portrayed in the operation of the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the gifts of the Spirit given to all members in the body of Christ.

• Doctrinal failure

We begin with what is most important. Doctrinal failure is akin to heart failure in humans. Doctrine is the heart of the Christian faith. We may limp along because of faulty organization and operation issues, but doctrinal failure quickly brings death. God is truth, and God especially hates its opposite—lies. Thus, there is no greater lie than to lie about God’s truth. We have dealt with the subject of false teachers in the previous series titled “False teachers in the evangelical church.” Note that that truth is singular. There is one truth. Lies are plural. When one lie fails to defeat the truth, another lie replaces it. Truth remains unchangeable and irreplaceable.

Our main purpose in the “Church, Inc.” series is to examine the church’s failing to adhere to the first century model for its design, organization, and operation of the church. To this end it will be beneficial for the reader to review Part I of this series.

• The failure to follow the design, organization, and operation of the first century New Testament Church

In the remainder of Part VI we shall describe those gifts as established and modeled in the first century New Testament church. In Part VII, we shall compare and contrast the failure of the modern lukewarm evangelical church to follow the first century New Testament church’s design, organization, and operation. The failures are caused by a corruption or abandonment of the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the significant absence of the operation within the church of the gifts of the Spirit made available to all members in the body of Christ.

(1) Leadership gifts – the first century model

Apostles – The term “apostle” is applied in two ways. In the unique sense, apostle refers to those who were the Spirit-inspired witnesses to Christ and His ministry. They were personally commissioned by Christ to preach His original message and establish the church. Here we are referring to the original core group of disciples including Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot and Paul following his Damascus Road encounter with Jesus.[1]

In the general sense, the term “apostle” was used for “a commissioned representative of a church, such as a messenger appointed and sent as a missionary (i.e., to take Christ’s message into another land or culture) or for some other special responsibility…and dedicated to establishing churches according to the true and original message of Christ.” Apostles in this general sense continue to be critical in accomplishing the mission of planting churches at home and throughout the world.[2]

Prophets – Prophets in the New Testament were spiritual leaders and uniquely gifted in receiving and communicating direct revelation from God by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The role of the prophet continued throughout the Church Age following the establishment of the church in the first century. Having the calling of God upon them, prophets were Spirit-filled and called to warn, challenge, comfort, encourage, and build up God’s people. They expose sin, warn of judgment to come, uphold the righteous standards of God’s Word, battle worldliness and spiritual lethargy, and are alert to the danger of false teaching.[3]

However, the NT prophet’s message (if not specifically recorded in Scripture) is not to be considered infallible, and the message must be evaluated by the church and other prophets. Above all, the message must be consistent with the Bible and its principles and patterns. NT prophets, like their OT counterparts, can expect rejection in a church that is lukewarm or in a rebellious condition. Yet, the work of NT prophets continue to be vitally necessary to the spiritual health of churches, especially during the current end times Laodicean period of the Church Age.[4]

Evangelists – New Testament evangelists were godly ministers, gifted and commissioned by God, to present the gospel of spiritual salvation to those who did not know Christ. Their chief gifting is soul winning as they help establish new ministries and Christian works in cities and among people who need to be awakened to the faith in Christ. The work of the evangelist includes (1) preaching to the lost and those who are spiritually weak in the faith, (2) bringing lost souls to salvation through Christ and baptism in water, (3) bringing revival to the church, (4) miracles, healings, and rescue from the control of evil spirits, and (5) working with and encouraging believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Failure of the church to value and support the ministry of the evangelist will increase the number of souls lost for eternity.[5]

Pastors – Pastors are considered to be a part of the elders of the church and have the God-given gift of overseeing (overseers) and caring for the spiritual needs of a local congregation. The pastor’s task is to nurture individual believers and the local church body to fulfill their God-given roles of Christian service. Essentially, pastors function as shepherds, and they must care and protect their “flock,” the church. This care and protection includes communicating God’s Word through accurate preaching and teaching, and coming against false beliefs, ideas and teaching. In effect the elder with the leadership gift of pastor is the principal preaching elder. According to Donald Stamps, “The NT shows a number of pastors directing the spiritual life of the local church.”[6] [emphasis added]

This raises a question as to the duties of the pastors (elders). Did all of the other pastors (elders), apart from the overseeing preaching pastor, preach and exercise their leadership gifts in the local church (prophet, evangelist, and teacher)? The answer is yes. We may infer that the other elders took the lead in exercising their particular leadership gifts as well as the gifts of the Spirit made available to all believers. The point is that the “preaching” pastor, the shepherd charged with care and protection of the local flock, was not the only preaching/teaching pastor. The other elders in the local church presented an evangelical message, prophesied, or taught, and all supported the ministry of the apostle (missionary) to other regions and countries.

Teachers – “Teachers are those who have a special, God-given gift to clarify, explain, and communicate God’s Word in order to build up the body of Christ.” The core of the teacher’s leadership gift is to guard, by the Holy Spirit’s help, the original message of truth embodied by God’s Word. The purpose of the presentation of truth is to produce holiness in all believers (i.e., moral purity, spiritual wholeness, separation from evil, and dedication to God). As the exercise of the leadership gift of teaching declines, Christians lose their concern for the truth and authority of the message.[7]

(2) The gifts of the Spirit

The gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) in the lives of all believers in the local church are just as critical to the proper design, organization, and operation of the local church as are the leadership gifts. Without the gifts of the Spirit working in the lives of believers, the leadership gifts would have no substantive effect on the spiritual life of the church. We will mention but not expand on the gifts of the Spirit because the emphasis in this series is on the leadership gifts.

• Revelation gifts: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and the discerning of spirits
• Power gifts: faith, healing, and the working of miracles
• Utterance gifts: prophecy, divers kinds of tongues, and interpretation of tongues

______

The design, organization, and operation of the first century New Testament church was achieved through the proper operation of the leadership gifts and the operation of the gifts of the Spirit within the body. With the exception of the Philadelphian period, the church abandoned the first century model of the New Testament church beginning in the early to middle second century to the present day. In its place the church adopted an episcopal from which placed church government and its operation in the hands of a single individual beginning in the fourth and fifth centuries until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. But church reform in the Reformation period did not extend to a return to the first century model of church government. That return occurred at the end of the Reformation period with the Separatists and Puritans in America. The congregational model of the Separatists and Puritans laid the foundations for evangelicalism and the three Great Awakenings that brought about the faithful church and spanned the entirety of the Philadelphian period (1720-1870).

In Part VII we shall examine the ascending CEO-corporatist leadership style that has significantly caused many evangelical churches gradually over the last sixty years to become the face of the modern lukewarm evangelical church.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald Stamps, “The Ministry Leadership Gifts for the Church,” Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, Ed. Donald Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 2009), pp. 2259-2260.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., pp. 2260-2261.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., pp. 2261-2262.
[6] Ibid., p. 2262.
[7] Ibid., pp. 2262-2263.

The post Church, Inc. – Part VI first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In Part V we shall examine the last two periods of the Church Age – Philadelphian (the faithful church) and Laodicean (the lukewarm church).

• Philadelphia – The faithful church (AD 1720-1870). It was a church of revival and spiritual progress. The church had proved itself faithful and obedient to the Word. As its name implies, it was a church of love and kindness to each other. Because of their excellent spirit, they were an excellent church. They kept the word and did not deny His name. No fault was attributed to the church, only mild reproof for having only a little strength or power. The Philadelphian period began about 1720 with the early stirrings of the First Great Awakening in America and the British Isles.

The sixth period is named after the church at Philadelphia (1720-1870). For the first time since the first half of the second century (the early-mid 100s) the universal church, comprised of all born again believers, created a society that made possible a substantial return to the doctrines and the design, organization, and operation of the first century New Testament church. This return came of age at the beginning of the Philadelphian period in 1720, almost exactly one hundred years after the Pilgrims landed on the shores of America. The faithful church of the Philadelphian period was made possible and was sustained by the Three Great Awakenings that occurred over the next one hundred and fifty years.

Prior to 1720, there were a number of isolated revival outpourings of the Holy Spirit in the late 1600s and early 1700s. Out of these early stirrings came a renewal movement called evangelicalism that fundamentally changed many churches and denominations and helped birth the First Great Awakening in the 1720s. The churches that embraced evangelicalism emphasized a revivalist style of preaching, personal conversion, personal devotion and holiness, individual access to God, and de-emphasized the importance and authority of church government.[1] [emphasis added]

Evangelicalism in its outworking essentially followed a congregational form of church government as described by B. K. Kuiper.

Each local church is self-governing. It chooses its own pastor, teacher, elders, and deacons. Churches have no authority over each other, but it is their privilege and duty to help each other. It is highly desirable that from time to time they hold assemblies in which all the churches are represented, and in which matters of concern to all are carefully considered and discussed. The churches, however, are not required to adopt the decision of the assemblies.[2]

The exact date of the beginning of the Great Awakening in America and its conclusion are a matter of supposition. If the long view is taken and correctly includes the revivals in the early 1720s and concludes with the waning of the Awakening’s long-term effects on society, then The Great Awakening can be said to span from about 1720 to the American Revolution in 1770s.[3] There were even some revivals that occurred during the years of the Revolutionary War.

Thomas Kidd points to an extraordinary series of revivals in towns along the Connecticut and Thames Rivers in 1720 and lasting until 1722. The Connecticut revival was “the first major event of the evangelical era in New England” and “…touched congregations in Windham, Preston, Franklin, Norwich, and Windsor.” One of the largest of the Connecticut revivals occurred in the Windham church during 1721 with eighty people joining the church in six months. Over the three-year course of the revivals, several hundred new members and possibly more conversions were reported. The significance of this revival has been generally forgotten because of its lack of publicity through print media which may also account for the revival not spreading beyond its regional borders.[4]

In A History of the American People, Paul Johnson again distills the essence of The Great Awakening and its importance in the founding of America.

…There was a spiritual event in the first half of the 18th century in America, and it proved to be of vast significance, both in religion and politics…The Great Awakening was the proto-revolutionary event, the formative moment in American history, preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible…The Revolution could not have taken place without this religious background. The essential difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event.”[5]

If one considers the one-hundred and fifty-year history of the faithful church during the Philadelphian period (1720-1870), the three Great Awakenings and their continuing influence on the nation covered the entire era with the exception of three brief periods of spiritual decline: The First Great Awakening (1720-1760s), the two phases of the Second Great Awakening (1794-1812 and 1822-1842), and the Third Great Awakening (1857-1858).

Each of the three Great Awakenings played a decisive role in the history of the nation. The Great Awakening was the formative moment in American history preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible. The Second Great Awakening was the stabilizing moment whose effects lasted until the 1840s and saved the new nation from political and moral destruction. The Third Great Awakening was the sustaining moment that prepared the nation to endure the national conflagration of the Civil War and made possible its reunification and survival in the war’s aftermath. The revival of the late 1850s caused men and women, in both the North and South, to be spiritually prepared for the coming struggle in which the nation would exorcize the demon of slavery and recover its national unity.

One of the most remarkable occurrences of the Philadelphian period was the significant rejection of the episcopal form of church government and a return to the practice of local control of the organization through a congregational form of church government. Part of the reason for the changes can be attributed to the Pilgrims and Puritans. Although the Puritans were wealthy, claimed far greater numbers in the Massachusetts colony, and came with a staunch Church of England episcopal form of government, they soon exchanged the episcopal form for the congregational model supplied by the radical, much despised Pilgrim Separatists. The Pilgrims set the standard of church government in the Bay Colony.[6] As previously mention, this de-emphasis of the importance and authority of church government was a strong characteristic of the evangelical renewal movement born at the beginning of the Great Awakening and which fundamentally changed the form of church government in many churches and denominations to the present day.

One of the outstanding features of the Great Awakening in America was the beginning of a broad belief by evangelicals that the heart of the Christian faith was the “new birth” of an individual soul. Inspired by the preaching of the Word, the doctrine of the “new birth” invigorated even as it divided churches. The Evangelical supporters of the Great Awakening who championed the “new birth” were the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists, and they became the largest American Protestant denominations by the first decades of the nineteenth century. These denominations held a predominantly congregational form of church government. Opponents of the evangelical supporters of the Awakening and their call for a “new birth” were either wholly opposed or were split in their response. These were the Anglicans, Quakers, and Congregationalists that generally declined towards the end of the 1700s.[7]

It is important to understand that the congregational form of government did not mean that all churches embracing congregationalism were in favor of the revivalism of the Great Awakening. Congregationalism more readily makes possible revival but does not insure that it will occur. Other factors may play a role. For example, a church with a congregational form of government that allows false doctrine to remain within the church will not see a move of the Spirit that leads to revival. However, it is an obvious conclusion that churches who follow a congregational form of government and rigorously hold fast to and defend the inerrant truth of the Scriptures are most likely to seek and receive periodic outpourings of spiritual revival by the Holy Spirit.

The Philadelphian period in church history is a remarkable expression of the grace and goodness of God poured out upon a people who sought to establish His kingdom and a nation upon the inerrant and indestructible Word of God. The great blessings of God were the result of a return to the doctrines and patterns of organization and operation of the first century New Testament church.

By the end of the American Revolution and establishment of the American republic, the populist wing of evangelicalism had become the dominant branch of Christianity.[8] These denominations predominantly held to a congregational form of government most similar to the first century New Testament church.

• Laodicea – The lukewarm church (1870 to the Rapture of the Church). Laodicea was the worst of all of the seven Asian churches. There was nothing good to commend it. Its great sin was that it was lukewarm—neither hot nor cold. Its indifference arose from self-conceitedness and self-delusion. It believed itself rich and in need of nothing but in reality was wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Christ reminded them of where true riches may be found, without which severe punishment would follow.[9]

As it has been for two thousand years of church history, the central conflict within the church is the truth and authority of the Bible. Recall that the forces of the anti-religious Enlightenment exploited the two hundred years of strife within the church following the Catholic-Protestant split that began in 1517. Those same anti-religious forces dressed in the clothes of modern humanism and secularism also exploited the division between the liberals and fundamentalists between 1870 and 1930. During those six decades, the American church surrendered to secular humanists leaders and institutions a significant majority of its power and authority to direct and influence American culture.

To retain a modicum of social power, cultural authority, and institutional influence in the wake of the onslaught of humanism and secularism, the late nineteenth century, liberal Protestant leaders and their churches began embracing secular human sciences (psychology and sociology) to lend credibility and cultural relevance to their religious pretensions. Put another way, the focus changed from an eternal relationship with God to the health and well-being of one’s self in this life. The liberal Protestant leaders and their churches who sought survival through accommodation of the spirit of the world brought poisonous compromise to the few remaining vestiges of their long-abandoned doctrines and faith and produced a profane and powerless church that had lost its saltiness and was “…no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.” [Matthew 5:13b. RSV]

Some may suppose that the fundamentalist opponents of liberal Protestants were the original silent majority. But in reality, the conservative leaders of the once dominant populist evangelical churches (and the new holiness denominations that separated themselves from the liberal churches) were not silent but just didn’t have the cultural clout or platform from which to mount significant opposition to the liberal churches and their newly found secularist allies.

Nancy Pearcey described the mindsets of the fundamentalist conservatives’ loss of cultural dominance after their sixty-year battle with theological modernism and the emergence of their post-World War II offspring – the neo-evangelicals.

They (the fundamentalists) circled the wagons, developed a fortress mentality, and championed “separatism” as a positive strategy. Then in the 1940s and 50s, a movement began that aimed at breaking out of the fortress. Calling themselves neo-evangelicals, this group argued that we are called not to escape the surrounding culture but to engage it. They sought to construct a redemptive vision that would embrace not only individuals but also social structures and institutions.[10]

Just as the modernist churches had lost their saltiness, the fundamentalists hid their light as they abandoned the culture and its institutions, and the forces of secularizing humanism were freed to wreak havoc in American culture.

Following World War II, the evangelicals engaged the culture through church membership and evangelization. However, the beginning and rapidly accelerating dramatic cultural disorientation of the late 1960s eventually allowed secular humanists to capture the culture as faith was substantially driven from the public square. As a result, the muffled voices of the faithful were confined within the four walls of the local church. And as the fundamentalists did in the early twentieth century, a large portion of the evangelicals began to increasingly abandon the culture and its institutions beginning in the late 1960s to the present day.

With the demise of resistance from the evangelical church in a secularizing culture, Satan intensified his attack on American evangelical churches from within. Many evangelical churches, as did the liberal churches a hundred years earlier, accommodated the world as a means of survival.

Following the cultural turmoil that began in the mid-1960s, many modern evangelicals began centering their redemptive efforts on the individual rather than a powerful presentation of the truth and authority of the gospel. The truth of the gospel was replaced by a therapeutic gospel that accommodated the seeker and catered to his felt needs. These evangelicals had either forgotten or ignored Paul’s admonition to the Romans:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. [Romans 12:2. KJV]

______

As we have examined the seven periods of Church Age history, it is evident that the premises set forth at the beginning of this Church, Inc. series have proven to be true. The essence of the lessons learned is this: To corrupt or abandon the operation of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit, as established in the first century New Testament church, is to damage or destroy God’s design, organization, and operation of the local church in every period of Church Age history.

In Part VI we shall continue to track the decline of the evangelical church during the Laodicean period since the 1960s which has to a great extent become the modern pattern of the first century church at Laodicea.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), pp. 253, 256-257.
[2] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 261.
[3] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening-The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 9-10.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997), pp. 110, 116-117.
[6] Kuiper, The Church in History, p. 328.
[7] “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html (accessed August 27, 2021).
[8] Gordon S. Wood, “Religion and the American Revolution,” New Directions in American Religious History, ed. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp.185-188.
[9] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 1970-1974.
[10] Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 18.

The post Church, Inc. – Part V first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In Part IV we shall look at the fifth (Sardisean) period of the seven periods of history in the Church Age. The Reformation era (1517-1720) is described as similar to the church at Sardis (the dead church) in the first century. In this period the Bible’s doctrines, leadership gifts, and the gifts of the Spirit continued to be substantially ignored, compromised, corrupted, or abandoned altogether.

• Sardis – The dead church (AD 1517-1720). It was representative of the church that is dead or at the point of death even though it still had a minority of godly men and women. The great charge against this church was hypocrisy. It was not what it appeared to be. The ministry was languishing. There was a form of godliness but not the power. This description of the dead church fits both the Roman Catholic Church and the warring factions of Lutheranism and Calvinism in the Protestant Reformation period between 1517 and the late 1600s.

It is interesting if not confusing to most Protestants that the Reformation period is called the dead church by Jesus. We may think this description best fits the Roman Catholic Church after a thousand years of corruption within, and it does fit. However, a close examination of the first two hundred years of Protestantism reveals that it also was not a holy, vibrant church. Although it moved away from many aspects of the corruption in the church, in many ways it was not much different from the Roman church from which it had broken away. Yes, the supreme authority of the Bible was reaffirmed and many man-made traditions of the church were cast off. However, the continued presence of many false doctrines and practices and the reliance on the sword of state to impose Christianity on whole regions and countries were major obstacles. These obstacles prevented an infusion of spiritual life into the partially reformed but dead churches and the cleansing of the cadaverous odor emanating from their forms of godliness.

Martin Luther and John Calvin were the two men most responsible for planting Protestantism in the West and from which its two great branches grew. The writings of these Protestant Reformers and others addressed many of the failings of the Roman church up to that point in history. Luther may have struck the match, but it was Calvin and many other reformers such as Ulrich Zwingli who provided much of the kindling that aided in spreading the flames of Protestantism.

The Reformers readily affirmed their allegiance to “the scriptures alone” as the authority of the church and guide for living the Christian life. However, it was a far more difficult matter to shed centuries of corrupt church doctrines and practices that conflicted with or undermined faithful adherence to the Scriptures. Therefore, the implementation of the reforms in the new Protestant churches often carried with it many of the old Roman Catholic ways of doing the business of church.

Even though there was a general consensus among Protestants that the church’s authority came under the authority of the Bible alone, the various reformers had different ideas on charting the way forward with regard to the finer points of interpreting scriptures as they related to doctrinal matters and the organization and operation of the church. It must be remembered that the Reformers had been deeply immersed in Catholicism, and those doctrines and practices were not quickly, easily, or entirely cast off. It must also be remembered that most priests and the people were exceptionally ignorant of the Bible. The Reform leaders faced the daunting task of both organizing the church and educating the Protestant faithful in their respective countries.

By 1550, the church in the west had divided into three distinct branches: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism (Christianity allied with the state), and Calvinism (theocracy). The branches were similar in that each was a compulsory religion, had strong ties with the state in one way or another, and attempted to use the state to impose a religious monopoly in those states where each had prevailed.[1]

The most distinguishing feature of the Lutheran church was the power given to the state. Luther supported the principle that the state should be above the church. However, Calvinists took the opposite view and denied that the state had any power over the church. To the contrary, Calvin believed the church had power over the state. Both responses were nonbiblical as to God’s design of the roles of church and state in society and the relationship between church and state. The church must let the state bear the sword of state but at the same time admonish the state when it overreaches its proper biblical mandate and role in society.[2]

Luther and Calvin’s continuing affinity for many aspects of Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines and practices is evident in their admiration of Augustine (354-430), considered by many as the greatest teacher in Roman Catholic Church history. One of the Roman church’s false teachings, strongly promoted by Augustine, was the persecution of both the heathen and heretics. The doctrine of persecution was an important practice the Roman Catholic Church used a thousand years after Augustine to severely persecute Protestants during the time of the Reformation.[3] On the one hand, it seems ironic that Martin Luther and John Calvin, the two most important figures of the Reformation era, continued to revere Augustine and his teachings. On the other hand, Augustine’s appeal to both Luther and Calvin may not be surprising given their own extreme persecutions of other Christians and non-Christians.

The years between 1520 and 1562 were a time of bloody martyrdom for the Protestants. But the worst was to come between 1562 and 1648 when Protestants fought for their very survival. In a belated and half-hearted effort to reunite the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants, Pope Paul III called for a council to meet in the little town of Trent in the mountains of northern Italy to consider reforms within the Catholic Church. The efforts of the Catholics at Trent were an attempt to revitalize the church following the shock of the Reformation and spurred the Roman church’s efforts to stamp out Protestantism. Between 1562 and 1618, the Calvinistic Protestants suffered the greatest martyrdom. In 1618, the Lutherans were also dragged into the conflict with the Catholics. The Catholic-Protestant wars eventually ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia which fixed many of the boundaries of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism in Europe to the present day.[4]

By the end of the 1600s, the church, beginning at its birth on the day of Pentecost, had traveled on a seemingly incomprehensible and tortuous path through persecution, compromise, corruption, triumphs, defeats, and tragedies. Along the way the Roman Catholic Church had accumulated an enormous amount of wealth, excess doctrinal baggage and false teachings, and a large measure of worldliness. But in spite of the faults and corruption within the corrupt church, the true church’s sustaining life preserver to which it clung, however tenuously, for a millennium and a half was (1) the power of the inerrant truth of the divinely inspired New Testament and its doctrines, (2) the Holy Spirit dwelling within each believer, and (3) the gifts of the Spirit made available to all true believers.

The Church of England did not consider itself Protestant but not fully Catholic because Henry VIII placed himself at the head of the Church of England, not the pope. Therefore, the changes in the church were more political and organizational than religious and doctrinal. As a result, the dissenters’ unrest and desire for freedom from the attacks of the Church of England continued for a long time after the Reformation had run its course and had become settled in other countries. This unrest manifested itself in two ways: complete separation from the Church of England and reform of the Church of England from within.

• Separatists, including the Pilgrims, were those who believed the process of reforming the hopelessly Church of England was not possible. They chose to separate from the church altogether. The Separatists were called Congregationalists or Independents.
• Those members of the Church of England who pushed for a more thoroughly purified church were called Puritans. They objected to the rites, ceremonies, and episcopal form of government of the Church of England; however, they wanted to remain in the church and work for reform from within. Eventually, the Puritan segment of the Church of England believed that it was not possible to reform the mother church in their homeland. Nine years after the Separatist Pilgrims had sailed for America, the Puritans followed and establish a reform-minded outpost of the Church of England at the Massachusetts Bay Colony.[5]

In 1620, one hundred and three years after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, (midway through the Sardisean period of church history 1517-1720), a singular event produced a document that was perhaps as important in the revival of New Testament Christianity as Luther’s 95 theses nailed to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517.

It all began as a tiny ship approached the shores of a primitive continent called America. Historian Paul Johnson in his massive A History of the American People called the arrival on December 11, 1620 of an old wine ship at New Plymouth as “…the single most important formative event in early American history.” The Mayflower contained a mixture of thirty-five English Calvinist Christians including some who had lived in exile in Holland to escape religious persecution in England. All were going to America for religious freedom. They were Separatist Puritans who had despaired of reforming the Church of England and its episcopal form of government and heavy influence of Catholic teaching. They were accompanied by sixty-six non-Puritans. The two groups contained forty-one families. Having endured two months of a winter voyage in the turbulent North Atlantic amid the discomforts of a tiny and crowded ship, forty-one heads of households gathered in the main cabin of the ship and signed the Mayflower Compact which pledged them to unity and the provision of a future government.[6]

In the Name of God, Amen…Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country…Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politic, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid….[7] [emphasis added]

This event was not the beginning of the Philadelphian period of church history. However, the monumental influence of the Pilgrims in shaping future generations of Americans made possible the faithful church that ushered in the Philadelphian revival of New Testament Christianity one hundred years later.

The Reformation era was a time of casting off much of the church’s excesses, failures, and worldliness, but it would be a painful and imperfect parting for both Catholic and Protestant churches. Satan used the church’s distractions and disruptions to further his efforts to destroy the church of Jesus Christ during their contentious and painful separation. Satan thrust into the church’s fractures the humanistic dregs of the waning Renaissance of the sixteenth century and the ascending humanism of the era of Enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (the late 1600s and all of the 1700s).[8] Those poisons would loom large in the church’s descent from the Philadelphian period to the Laodicean period beginning in the 1870s.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976), p. 288. (paragraph from Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, p. 45.)
[2] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), pp. 184, 200.
[3] Ibid., pp. 45-46.
[4] Ibid., pp. 244-245.
[5] Ibid., pp. 240-252.
[6] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), pp. 28-29.
[7] Henry Steele Commager, ed., “Mayflower Compact,” Documents of American History, Vol. 1 to 1865, (New York, F.S. Crofts & Co., 1934), p. 15-16.
[8] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), pp. 43-44.

The post Church, Inc. – Part IV first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In Part III we shall examine the third and fourth periods (Pergamum and Thyatira) of the seven periods of history in the Church Age and how the Bible doctrines, leadership gifts, and the gifts of the Spirit were substantially compromised, corrupted, or abandoned altogether. These periods encompass the rise of the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century (300s) to the Reformation era beginning in 1517.

The Church enters the era of compromise

• Pergamum – Church of compromise (AD 312-590). It was labeled as the “throne of Satan” and the church where Satan dwelled. This church mixed with the world. They were faithful in spirit but filthy in flesh. They communed with persons of corrupt principles and practices which brought guilt and blemish upon the whole body. This period saw the beginnings of the Catholic Church (both Roman and Eastern Orthodox) in the late 4th century and 5th centuries.

Here we must return in our walk through church history back to the beginning of the fourth century (the 300s). Given that the first century was the most momentous century in church history, the fourth and sixteenth centuries would be runners-up. The fourth century may be characterized as: (1) the beginning of the Pergamum age in church history (church of compromise), (2) the world invades the church, and (3) the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church, all occurring in the context of the accelerating fall of the Roman Empire. All of these events began with the Roman Emperor Constantine’s 313 Edict of Milan that legalized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

Christianity’s legalization in 313 (fourth century) had ended much of the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. Christianity became the professed religion of the Emperor and was now seen as the avenue to material, military, political, and social success. Thousands joined the church, but many were Christians in name only as the narrow gate was made wide which allowed a flood of corruptions to flow into the church.[1] The legalization of Christianity and the end of persecution followed by recognition as the official religion of the state laid the foundations for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century.

By 381, Christianity was officially deemed to be the state religion of the Roman Empire. Not only did the church suffer much corruption from within, it quickly learned that Constantine and his successors would extract a most severe price for their newfound liberty. Separation of the church from the Roman state soon disappeared as the state demanded a say in church affairs.

The corruption in the church was disturbing to many church leaders in the fourth century, but their remedies appear to have only worsened the decline. Augustine (354-430) is considered the greatest of the fathers and doctors of the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine’s teachings dominated the Middle Ages.[2] Augustine’s life straddled the formative years of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of his teachings became the foundation of much of the Catholic Church’s false dogma and traditions. Just two of the false teachings advocated by Augustine were his great promotion of monasticism (one of the outstanding aspects of life in the Middle Ages) and his advocacy of persecution of both the heathen and heretics. The Roman Catholic doctrine of persecution became an important practice a thousand years later when Protestants were persecuted during the time of the Reformation.[3]

As the Empire drew to a close, Rome was sacked in 410 and eventually all provinces of the western part of the Empire were conquered (Italy, North Africa, Spain, Gaul including the Netherlands, and Britain). The Empire officially fell with the conquest of Rome in 476, but the church survived because many barbarian tribes had become Christians and, as a consequence, respected the bishop of Rome.[4]

False doctrines introduced by the Roman Catholic Church

The Christian church that survived at the end of the fifth century bore little resemblance to the church that entered the fourth century. Over the course of 150 years, the bishop of Rome gradually became recognized as superior to all other bishops in the Western half of the Roman Empire. By 461 the papacy was fully established, and in this march to papal supremacy, many of the doctrines and the first century organization and operation of the church’s leadership and laity had been completely turned upside down. The episcopal form of church organization grew rapidly into a centralized power structure. The leaders of the episcopate took the plain meaning of the words of the Bible and allegorized them to mean what they wanted. To the corrupted Word were added traditions of men. By the end of the fifth century, the Roman Catholic Church became the fount of unscriptural doctrines, practices, and the traditions of men and their organizations.[5] The following list is not meant to be all-encompassing:

• Prayers for the dead
• A belief in purgatory (place in which souls are purified after death before they can enter heaven)
• The forty-day Lenten season
• The view that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice and that its administrators are the priests
• A sharp division of the members of the church into clergy (officers of the church) and laity (ordinary church members)
• The veneration (adoration) of martyrs and saints, and above all the veneration of Mary
• The burning of tapers or candles in honor of the saints, martyrs, and Mary
• Veneration of relics of martyrs and saints
• The ascription of magical powers to these relics
• Pictures, images, and altars in the churches
• Gorgeous vestments for the clergy
• More and more elaborate and splendid ritual (form of worship)
• Less and less preaching
• Pilgrimages to holy places
• Monasticism
• Worldliness
• Persecution of heathen and heretics[6]

To mortal eyes, the future of the church of the Living God at the end of the fifth century appeared to be headed for oblivion, just another Jewish sect that rose to prominence and then faded into history. The church had been compromised and weakened with false teaching and practices, the Roman Empire lay in ruins, and the barbarians ruled much of the former Empire. The outlook for the true church of Jesus was bleak.

The Church enters a thousand years of corruption

• Thyatira – The corrupt church (590-1517). Although commended for their charity, service, faith, and patience, evil grew and idolatry was practiced in the church at Thyatira. The church contained unrepentant and wicked seducers who drew God’s servants into fornication and the offering of sacrifices to idols. In the West, the Roman Catholic Church consolidated its power under the papacy beginning with Pope Gregory I which lasted for almost a thousand years.

With the installation of Pope Gregory the Great in 590, the papacy had reached the pinnacle of its secular and religious power and closed the door on the Pergamum period of church history (the church of compromise 312-590). The church then entered the opened door of the Thyatiran period (the corrupt church 590-1517).

Although the Roman Catholic Church claims that the first Pope was Peter, most scholars state that the first Pope was Gregory the Great because the power of the papacy (papal supremacy) did not fully develop until around the time of Gregory the Great. Born in 540, Gregory the Great was the first monk to become pope and ruled from 590 until his death in 604. It had been over a hundred years since the new barbarian kingdoms began to be built on the ruins of the Roman Empire in 476.[7]

Gregory the Great represented the most distinctive traits of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and beyond: (1) He was the first pope to assume broad political powers, and (2) he assumed the role of a secular ruler by appointing the leaders of cities, raising armies, and making peace treaties. In exercising these tasks, he undertook many of the political and administrative duties and powers the failed Roman Empire had relinquished such as the work of education, care of the poor, and maintaining a semblance of justice and civil order. Had he and the church not done so, the valley of darkness in Europe would have been much deeper.[8]

Yet, to achieve the power necessary for civil order, the church made a bargain with the Devil. When the church began adopting the episcopal form of government to defend against doctrinal heresy, the church also began to undermine the organizational pattern prescribed for the church. This eventually led to great compromise within the church. Likewise, the assumption of the secular role of government in the sixth century to achieve civil order coupled with the heresies and false teachings of Roman Catholicism led to a thousand years of corruption within the church and continues within the Roman Catholic Church to the present day.

During the thousand-year Thyatiran period of church history, the New Testament doctrines of the Bible and the organization and operation of the church were for all practical purposes obliterated. This is summed up by the following quotation from Don Stewart which describes the Roman Catholic view that the Bible is not the final authority for the church. By “church” is meant the Roman Catholic Church for they believe that if one is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that person is lost and will go to Hell.

The result is this: the Bible is not the final standard of truth—rather it is the Roman Catholic Church and their infallible interpretation of it. They believe that the Scriptures are authoritative, but they are incomplete. This is important to understand. The Roman Church believes that God has more to say to humanity than that which is contained in the Bible. Oral tradition supplies what is lacking in written tradition, the Scriptures, and thus is an authority alongside of the Bible. Only the Roman Church can correctly interpret both Scripture and sacred tradition. And because sacred tradition is ongoing, Roman Catholic theology is constantly evolving. Thus, if we want to hear God’s voice today, we must listen to the Roman Church.[9]

Beginning at the fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church spread their brand of Christianity for a thousand years throughout the West to the extent that it became known as Christendom (which generally includes much of Western Europe, the British Isles, and Ireland). Countries became Christian in name only, usually through various political and religious alliances or at the point of the sword. But the apparent complete apostasy of the church poses a huge question. How did the true heart of the Christian church survive and later revive first century New Testament Christianity?

We must remember that even though the New Testament doctrines of the Bible and the leadership of the church established in the first century had been thoroughly corrupted, there remained a remnant of true believers who had the Holy Spirit within and therefore access to the gifts of the Spirit that gave guidance and fostered hope. The existence of this remnant became evident beginning with the stirrings of church reform in the twelfth century. But first we must mention final separation of the two great wings of the Christian faith.

The Great Schism – 1054

The Medieval church (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) was a powerful monolithic structure throughout the Middle Ages. But after the first millennium the unity within the church ended with the Great Schism in 1054 when the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the church were irretrievably separated following six centuries of smoldering conflict. The foundations of the western Roman church soon began to be challenged by other influences outside of the church. The Crusades encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church did much to break down the feudal system that opened the door to new economic and intellectual advances in the West.[10] The Crusades began as a noble concept but was misguided by a perverted religious purpose, ineffective leadership, and faulty execution of mission.

Stirrings of church reform – twelfth through the fifthteenth centuries (1100s-1400s)

In addition to political and cultural changes faced by the powerful Roman Catholic Church from without, the life of the church was being stirred from within. Beginning in the twelfth century various remnants of the church began to appear and challenge Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

• Peter Waldo and the Waldenses

Peter Waldo believed that the Bible and particularly the New Testament should be the only basis for faith and living the Christian life. Around the year 1176 he sold his merchandise and gave his money to the poor. He and his followers became known as the Waldenses. They memorized large portions of the New Testament, dressed simply, fasted three days each week, used only the Lord’s Prayer, and did not believe in purgatory, masses, and prayers for the dead. Men as well as women were allowed to be lay preachers. The pope enlisted some of the nobles to help in eradicating the Waldenses and other groups, and as a consequence it was said that “blood flowed like water” for twenty years in southern France. But a remnant of the Waldenses survived and found refuge in the Alps of western Switzerland and three hundred years later accepted the teachings of Protestantism.[11]

• John Wycliffe and the Lollards

Englishman and Oxford professor John Wycliffe began to criticize the clergy in 1376 because of the corruption within the church and its quest for wealth and political power. He called for a return to the poverty and simplicity of the apostles and declared that the Bible and not the church should be the only determinant of faith. Since the people could not read the Bible written in Latin, he translated it into the English language. Wycliffe died in 1384. His followers were called the Lollards and continued to preach that the only standard for doctrine was the Bible. Throughout England many Lollards were martyred at the stake and only a small remnant survived in secret until the time of the Reformation.[12]

• John Huss and the Hussite movement

The teachings of Wycliffe did not die with the Lollards but spread to Europe and eventually to Bohemia. John Hus was only fifteen when Wycliffe died. Hus eventually became the head of the University of Prague and enthusiastically welcomed Wycliffe’s teaching. He began to preach boldly about the corruption of the clergy, and many of his ideas became the central teachings of the future Reformation. Hus claimed that only Christ was the head of the church and popes and cardinals were not required for its governance. He challenged the sale of indulgences which was a monstrous practice that contradicted the doctrines of the Bible. For his brashness, Hus was excommunicated, imprisoned, and subsequently burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. For the next twenty-two years the church battled the Hussite movement which resulted in a great slaughter.[13]

These are only three of the dissenting groups that challenged the corruption within the Roman Catholic Church during the twelfth through fifteenth centuries (1100s-1400s). During this period the church grew weaker as the corruption within increased along with increased repression of dissenters. The flashpoint came with the Roman Church’s sale of indulgences in which the penitent sinner was able to substitute the payment of a sum of money in lieu of other forms of penalty or satisfaction for his or her sins. In 1517, this abuse was the seemingly tiny spark that led to the great inferno within the church called the Reformation. It is here we end the corrupt thousand-year Thyatiran period of church history. After 1517, the Roman Catholic continued its corruptions to the present day, but the dissenting remnant would have to wait another two hundred years before they could establish “the pure and stainless church” during the Philadelphian period.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 27.
[2] Ibid., p. 39.
[3] Ibid., pp. 45-46.
[4] Ibid., pp. 49-51.
[5] Ibid., p. 44.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., pp. 57-58.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Don Stewart, “What is the Roman Catholic Claim as to Where Ultimate Authority Resides?” Blue Letter Bible,
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-ultimate-authority/question4-roman-catholic-claim-ultimate-authority.cfm (accessed August 23, 2021).
[10] Kuiper, The Church in History, pp. 140-141.
[11] Ibid., pp. 141-143.
[12] Ibid., pp. 143-144.
[13] Ibid., pp. 144-147.

The post Church, Inc. – Part III first appeared on Culture Warrior.

To summarize, Satan has continually sought to compromise and corrupt God’s design, organization, and operation of the church (i.e., “church government and operation”) during the seven periods of the Church Age. This church government and operation is portrayed by and rests upon the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the gifts of the Spirit given to all members of the body of Christ. When Satan corrupts the operation of the leadership gifts as well as the gifts of the Spirit, he has successfully corrupted the organization and operation of the church. When the local members of the body of Christ abandon, misuse, compromise, or corrupt these gifts, it creates disarray and dysfunction within the church and hinders the accomplishment of the church’s mission outside of the church. Satan’s attacks are blocked to the degree that the church follows God’s plan and pattern for the church’s organization and operation established in the first century New Testament church.

In the study of church history, it will be helpful for the reader to read Revelation chapters 2 and 3 where John records Christ’s message to the seven churches of Asia Minor. These local churches were selected by God to give a timeless and cautionary message to His people throughout the centuries to the end of the age. The messages to the Seven Churches of Asia represent seven time periods over the past 2,000 years and give a panoramic prophetic view of church history beginning at the day of Pentecost and which will end in the twinkling of an eye at the Rapture of the church.

The works of each of the seven Asian churches revealed certain distinctive characteristics that symbolized a similar distinctive characteristic in each of the seven periods of history during the Church Age. With three exceptions (the first century church at Ephesus and the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia), the history of the Church Age reveals how far the church has drifted from the original design, organization, and functioning of the first century church. The three exceptions were periods when the church most closely followed the example of God’s design, organization, and functioning of the local church as expressed through a more faithful exercise of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit as found in the first century New Testament church.

In Part II we shall look at the first two of the seven periods of history in the Church Age (Ephesus and Smyrna) and how the Bible doctrines, leadership gifts, and the gifts of the Spirit were intermittently defended or compromised, corrupted, and abandoned.

The Growth of the church during its first three hundred years was concerned with two major issues—its doctrine or beliefs and its organization. Both its doctrine and organizational structure were established in the first century through Christ’s ministry, the actions of the apostles, and their divinely inspired writings which became known as the New Testament.[1]

• Ephesus – Lost its first love (AD 30-100). Ephesus was a typical first century church that had many great works and had labored and endured without growing weary. Their sin was that they had left their first love. This period ended with the death of John, the last apostle.

Little needs to be added with regard to the church’s faithful adherence to the teachings given to the church for this was the age of Jesus incarnate and the apostles who lived in and recorded the inspired biblical history of the first century. When the first century churches veered away from the faithful exercise of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit, Peter, John, Paul, and other apostles were there to minister correction in person and/or through their epistles and other canons of the faith.

Yet, in spite of all their good works, faithfulness, defense of the truth, and hardships endured, the first century church failed to maintain their deep love and passion for Christ that they once had. Christ’s message to the first century church of their fallen condition was written by John near the end of the first century (c. AD 90-96). Therefore, in less than seven decades after the church was born, its love and passion for Christ had cooled to the point that they were in danger of losing their place and destiny in God’s kingdom.

• Smyrna – The persecuted church (AD 100-312). They suffered tribulation, poverty, and slander. They were encouraged to not fear the coming suffering, imprisonment, and for some even death because a crown of life awaited the faithful.

The second period of church history was marked by persecution, suffering, poverty, and death. When such occurs at any time in history, the only recourse for the faithful is to trust in God and follow his commands including exercising the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit. In this regard the church during the second and third centuries was generally found to be faithful.

Doctrines of the faith

During its first three hundred years of existence (the Ephesus and Smyrna periods), the church not only grew spiritually and numerically, it grew organizationally out of necessity. From its beginning church councils have been held to deal with problems within the church, almost all of which arose from doctrinal issues. The challenges from the heresies of Gnosticism and Montanism in the last half of the second century led the church to the Apostles’ Creed and clarified the heart of Christian doctrine for everyone in the church. From this struggle came the canon (list) of books that comprised the New Testament.[2]

The rise of church councils dealt almost exclusively with doctrine. Even as the canon of the New Testament emerged as a result of the controversies surrounding various heresies, many leaders of the church still did not have a deep knowledge of the Bible. As a result, there was an on-going misunderstanding of many fundamental articles of the faith which led to questions and controversies.[3]

Although faced with many doctrinal challenges by false teachers in the second century (the 100s), local churches continued to operate under the guidance of multiple elders derived from the local church who exercised their leadership gifts as shepherds of the local flock. The gifts of the Spirit given to the body of Christ continued to be made manifest with little outside interference. However, during the third century (the 200s) there were signs that the first century design, organization, and functioning of the local church was about to change.

As has been noted, the church’s beliefs established in the first century came under severe attack during the following two centuries (the 100s and 200s). After the apostles of the first century died (the last was John who died in the late A.D. 90s), those who were personally taught by the apostles became known as the apostolic fathers in the first half of the second century (and included Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas). Although the church had spread rapidly around the known world at that time, the church had very little depth in understanding the truth as revealed in the New Testament Scriptures. At the same time heathens attacked the church through lies and falsehoods that mischaracterized Christianity and brought Christians under great persecution. The foremost of the defenders of the faith was Justin who wrote his famous Apology in 153. In 165, he was beheaded in Rome for his beliefs and became known as Justin Martyr.[4]

The attacks against the church in the first half of the second century (100s) largely came from outside of the Church. In the second half of the second century, two great heresies (false doctrines) arose within the church. Gnosticism was a heresy that brought into question Jesus’ incarnation, i.e., Christ never dwelt on the earth in human form. Montanism was a heresy that taught that the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) promised by Christ in the upper room the evening before his crucifixion did not come at Pentecost but was now at hand and that the end of the world would soon occur. The defense against these and other heresies fell to the church fathers, successors of the apostolic fathers during the last half of the second century (100s) and throughout the third century (200s). The church fathers included Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen.[5]

The Apostles’ Creed, a summary of the Apostles’ teachings, was adopted as a means to distinguish what the church believed to be true Christian doctrine as opposed to the heretical doctrines of the Gnostics and Montanists. As new heresies attempted to infiltrate the doctrines of the church, it was necessary to identify and consolidate the canon (list) of authentic and inspired works of the New Testament writers. By doing so, the New Testament canon was separated from other writings that were of a historical nature or were false teachings.[6]

Important point: The church owes to the church fathers a huge debt in defending the faith at a crucial moment in church history. The right understanding of the New Testament came through much study, thought, and action on the part of the church fathers. However, they too were learning from the original texts and from each other, and their writings, however illuminating, contained some seeds of error that would bear tainted fruit in future generations of the church and its leadership.

Church government

We now turn from the doctrines of the church to its organization and operation. The organizational and operational patterns of the first century church were presented in Part I. The elders of the local church of the first century were known as presbyters (the Greek word for “elder”) and were all the same rank. Kuiper states that,

…it was natural that in each congregation one of the presbyters should take the lead. He would be president of the board of presbyters, and he would lead in worship and do the preaching. The presbyters were called overseers. The Greek word for “overseer” is episcopos, from which we get our word “bishop.” The title bishop was given to the presbyter who in the course of time became the leader of the board of presbyters. So the other presbyters gradually became subordinate to the presbyter who was their overseer, or bishop, and the bishop came to rule the church alone.[7]

Here we see the early signs of erosion of pattern of organization laid down in the first century church.

Out of the struggles with the heresies of Gnosticism and Montanism came the first challenges to the foundations of the congregational/local control form of church government laid down in the first century. How was the church to establish its position as the authority who decided the meaning of the Bible? Defense of the true faith was difficult to accomplish through a loose coalition of leaders from individual churches. Therefore, certain leaders of the larger churches presumed to speak as having authority over a group of churches in deciding issues of biblical interpretation. Many spoke as representing the decisions of the group for whom they spoke. But the frailties of their successors’ human natures caused them to succumb to the charms of pride, power, and avarice and thus perverted the episcopal answer to the challenges presented by false teachers and false doctrines.

The organization of the first century church was very simple and contained two offices: elders and deacons. But as the hierarchy of the church developed beyond the local level, an episcopal form of church organization (government) began to emerge with a decade or two after the death of the apostle John at the end of the first century. Beginning early in the second century the church began to adopt (gradually at first) the episcopal form of church government which lasted to the late 1600s, almost two hundred years after the beginning of the Reformation in the early 1500s.[8] The episcopal form of church government continues in the Catholic Church, in the Protestant liberal-modernist-progressive churches, and a few other denominations.

The following is a brief but important description of the episcopal hierarchy (and its harm to the church) that developed within the church. Because churches were first established in the cities, people in the cities became Christians first and the country people surrounding the cities were considered pagan (heathen) and were the last to be converted. The city and the surrounding countryside became a district called a diocese. As churches and their ruling bishops were added within a diocese, the first bishop in the diocese became a diocesan bishop with authority over the other bishops in the diocese. In time several diocesan bishops began looking to certain other diocesan bishops in larger and/or more influential cities. The bishops in the larger, more influential cities became monarchical bishops. These bishops were thought to be the successors of the first century apostles, and as such, they held great authority within the church.[9]

During the growth of the episcopal form of church government in the various cities in the second century, the connection between churches was very loose and informal. However, by the year 200, the church had been molded into one unified body. This unified body was known as the Catholic (universal) Church, sometimes called the Old Catholic Church. But it should not be confused with the Roman Catholic Church which came later.[10]

Over time further layers were added to the top of the church hierarchy. The bishops of the largest cities began to be looked upon as of a higher rank than monarchical bishops and other bishops of smaller churches. These were called metropolitan bishops. Eventually, five churches were considered to be the most important of all in the Christian world: Jerusalem (Israel), Antioch (Syria), Alexandria (Egypt), Constantinople (Turkey), and Rome (Italy). The bishops of these cities became known as Patriarchs. Rome was in the western and Latin part of the Roman Empire, and the remaining four cities were in the eastern and Greek part of the Empire. Because Rome was considered the first city in the Empire, the churches in both the East and West looked to the authority of the bishop in Rome. The bishop of Rome eventually was called the pope (the Latin word for “father”). The church over which he ruled came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.[11]

In time the Roman Catholic Church adopted the belief in papal supremacy, an anti-biblical extreme belief and false teaching that stands at the pinnacle of the episcopal government hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Roman Catholic Catechism (religious instruction) notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”[12]

In the centuries to come Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were conquered and ruled by pagans and lost their position and influence over the Christian world. Only Constantinople would survive and become Rome’s counterpart in the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church. For centuries this tenuous and tension-filled relationship continued until the Great Schism of 1054 when a complete separation occurred between the two great branches of the Christian faith.
_______

In Part III, our examination of the seven periods of church history will continue with the third and fourth periods—Pergamum and Thyatira.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 14.
[2] Ibid., p. 18.
[3} Ibid., p. 15.
[4] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[5] Ibid., pp. 17-18.
[6] Ibid., pp. 16, 18
[7] Ibid., p. 17
[8] Ibid., pp. 18-19.
[9] Ibid., pp. 19-21.
[10] Ibid., p. 21.
[11] Ibid., pp. 39, 41-42.
[12] “Papal Supremacy in the Bible and Church Fathers,” Catholic Faith and Reason, https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html (accessed August 22,
2021).

The post Church, Inc. – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Satan hates God but has no power to strike directly at Him. Satan’s arrogant pride caused him to attempt to raise himself to the level of God. Perhaps this was the first time any being ever chose to sin against God. As a result, Satan and one-third of all the angels who cast their lot with Satan were cast out of Heaven to earth. The only means left for Satan to strike back at God was to separate mankind from God by causing men to sin and thus destroying mankind’s eternal relationship with their Creator. Satan’s attack on mankind began in the Garden when he deceived our first ancestors and caused them to be cast out of the Garden just as Satan was once cast out of Heaven.

Christ’s completed work on the cross provided for the remission of the sins of mankind and a means to re-establish relationship with God. Forty days after Jesus’ resurrection from the grave, the church was established on the Day of Pentecost. Thereafter, the universal church was and remains populated by all born again believers around the world. This became Satan’s new target to separate God from His people. Satan knows that separation of believers from God will occur if he can corrupt the truth of God’s Word and/or the Church.

(1) Corruption of the truth of God’s Word. This corruption came through the infiltration of false teachers to spread lies and false teachings in the church. The subject of doctrinal compromise (heresy, false teachings) was previously presented in the three-part series “False Teachers in the Evangelical Church.”

(2) Corruption of the design, organization, and operation of the church. Satan continually seeks to undermine the design, organization, and operation of local church bodies from the beginning of the Church Age until the present day. But Satan’s plan was not a surprise to God. Jesus revealed through John (Revelation chapters 2 and 3) the spiritual condition of the seven churches of Asia Minor. These individual churches were Jesus’ prophetic picture of the seven periods of Church Age history, and the church is now in the last period of church history identified as the lukewarm Laodicean church. The modern lukewarm evangelical church has emerged at the very end of this period, the last days immediately precedes the Rapture of the church.

The attack on biblical doctrines and the design, organization, and operation of the church is the subject of this series of articles titled “Church, Inc.” In Part I we begin with the design, organization, and operation of the first century church as established by God. The essentials and details of this design, organization, and operation of the church (all born again believers, i.e., the body of Christ) is portrayed in the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the gifts of the Spirit given to all members in the body of Christ. To corrupt the operation of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit in the church is to damage or destroy God’s design, organization, and operation of His church.

The design, organization, and operation of the first century church

1. The Leadership Gifts

To understand the design, organization, and operation of the church, the fourth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is perhaps the most succinct and clear expression of God’s design, organization, and operation of the church that encircles individual Christians, the local church, and as the unified body of Christ.

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [Ephesians 4:1-6. NKJV]

Paul begins with an admonition to every member of the church to walk worthy of their calling. They were to endeavor to walk the walk in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace. Here Paul recognizes that even in the spiritual family of the local church, there are differences, many of which may bring division and conflict. Those divisions and conflicts cannot be resolved by reaching a compromise or a consensus, or by ignoring the issues at hand. The divisions and conflicts can only be resolved and unity restored as the church is led by the Spirit to a return to the purity of the unchangeable truth of God’s Word.

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift… 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be 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, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. [Ephesians 4:7, 11-16. NKJV]

Beginning in verse 11, Paul describes the establishment by Jesus of five leadership ministries and the combined job description of those ministries. Essentially, those who were given these leadership gifts were members of the local congregation whose specific gifts were used “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” In their various leadership roles they became elders, as the leaders in the local churches were called, and were selected by the local church from their midst. Essentially, certain members of the congregation were given various gifts of leadership by Jesus. In time elders with various gifts of leadership were formally recognized (commissioned) within the local church (see: Acts 14:23).

In the first, second, and third centuries, all five leadership gifts operated through the elders of the local church. However, apostles were usually called to an itinerant ministry to other cities, regions, or countries (as were the original apostles of the first century) while the remainder of the elders (prophet, evangelist, preacher/pastor, and teacher) generally continued to operate at the local church level.

One can gain an understanding of the status and work of elders by a quick review of what the New Testament says about elders:

So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. [Acts 14:23. NKJV]

And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. [Acts 15:4. NKJV]

And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. [Acts10:17. NKJV]

For this reason I [Paul] left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. [Titus 1:5. NKJV]

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed. [1 Peter 5:1. NKJV]

Here we see the inspired writers of the New Testament set the church in order. In summary, Jesus established the pattern for organization and operation of leadership in the local church in the first century, and that pattern is very clear. Certain individuals in the local church were given specific leadership gifts. The common term used for these leaders was “elder” as shown in the above Scriptures. The elders were called from the ranks of the local congregation for specific leadership assignments based on their gifting and who almost always were those having authority by virtue of age and experience. The above verses in almost every instance speaks of elders (plural) in the local church which confirms that local churches did not have one but several elders to serve the needs of the local congregation.

2. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit to the body of Christ

4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. [1 Corinthians 12:4-11. NKJV]

The pattern for organization and operation of the local church did not end with the leadership gifts. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul described the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit to operate in the lives of individual Christians and in the overall life of the church for the purpose of promoting spiritual growth and development of the church.

Donald Stamps in his article “Spiritual Gifts for Believers” states that these gifts are not the same as the leadership gifts discussed in Ephesians 4:11-16 above. Leadership gifts are God-given abilities given to empower and commission some individual Christians to exercise leadership gifts in a more permanent or full-time manner in the local congregation and beyond.[1]

Paul listed nine gifts of the Spirit but does not include every God-given gift or ability that Jesus’ followers may possess. Stamps states that “…there are many desires and abilities God gives his people that may seem more common (compared to leadership gifts) but are equally important as God accomplishes his purposes.” Stamps also includes “abilities, talents, and expressions” given by the Holy Spirit which God uses to serve his purposes in a variety of practical ways.[2]

Did Jesus intend for the five-fold ministry gifts for leadership and the gifts of the Spirit given to all in the body of Christ to continue in operation throughout the Church Age up to and including the present day?

The answer is clearly a resounding yes! The verses dealing with the five-fold ministry for leadership (Ephesians 4:11-16) and the various gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the entire body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) plainly indicate that all of these gifts are still needed in the church today and must remain operational until the entire body of Christ comes into a unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to the level of Christian perfection as measured by Christ’s standard (see: Ephesians 4:13). In other words, God intended that all of these gifts remain in operation until Christ returns for His bride.

When Satan succeeds in weakening or destroying the operation of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit in individual believers, it is a direct attack on the organization and operation of the local church body in order to destroy the life of the church from within.

In Parts II through V, we shall examine the outworking of Satan’s efforts to compromise and corrupt God’s design, organization, and operation of the church during the seven periods of the Church Age. Lastly, in Parts VI and VII, we shall examine the reasons for the disarray and dysfunction in the modern lukewarm evangelical church during the last days of the seventh and last period of the Church Age as a consequence of the abuse of the leadership gifts as well as the decline in the operation of the gifts of the Spirit within the universal church.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald Stamps, “Spiritual Gifts for Believers,” Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, Ed. Donald Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 2009), p. 2175.
[2] Ibid., pp. 2175-2177

The post Church, Inc. – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The God of the Bible is the God of order, and this order can be readily seen and understood. The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:1 that “In the beginning God created…” What did he create? He created the heaven and the earth and much more. In all of His creative efforts he had a purpose. He revealed to humanity that He was a glorious God and that He was their creator.

1 The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. 2 Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. 3 They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. 4 Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. [Psalm 19: 1-4. NLT]

His creation was not an accident that brought chaos. His creation was a complex delicately balance order encompassed within the universe. At the beginning, God’s revelation was for all humanity, but sin entered His creation and broke the intimate relationship between the creator and His special creation—mankind. In time He chose a single man through whom He revealed His promise of redemption. Abraham and his descendants were designated as God’s messengers and example through whom all nations would be blessed. However, the promise was not fulfilled through the Hebrew people because they rejected their own kinsman, the promised Messiah. Jesus was the Messiah who was the fulfillment of the promise made to the Old Testament people. Because of the Hebrews’ rejection of Him, the gospel was sent to the Gentiles.[1]

In the fullness of time, Jesus was born, preached the good news, was crucified, died, buried, and raised from the dead for the atonement of the sins of the world. By His death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus transferred the mantle from the Old Testament Hebrew nation to the universal Church born on the Day of Pentecost. This church would be of a spiritual nature and include all born again believers throughout the world. Their message would be a message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. The message was found in the inerrant, inspired Scriptures of the New Testament.

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. [Matthew 16:24-25. NKJV]

Here we see the two essential pillars upon which mankind came to know and receive His invitation to take up their crosses and follow Him—The Scriptures and the Church.

In this extensive series titled “Church, Inc.,” we shall examine the condition of these two pillars in the last days of the seventh and final period of the Church Age. Presently, we are living in the last days of this final period just before the Rapture of the church. Given that we are living in a time of the Great Apostasy, a multitude of false teachers, and widespread worldliness within the church, it should be no surprise to most that all is not well with the modern lukewarm organized evangelical church, the last stronghold of first century New Testament Christianity.

Methodology

First, we must examine how (1) the defense of the doctrines of the inerrant Word of God and (2) the church’s organization and functioning have fared throughout 2,000 years of church history. With some exceptions it has not been a pretty story.

Second, we shall compare and contrast the present modern lukewarm evangelical church with the 2,000-year history of the church. This comparison will reveal that many of the teachings, methods, and practices of the modern church will be exposed as compromising, corrupting, and even opposing the church and the doctrines and teachings of the Bible.

Premises

This examination will be based on the following premises which are necessary to guide our understanding of the history of the organized church over two millennia including the rapidly declining condition of the present church—the modern lukewarm church at the end of the Church Age just before the Rapture of the church. This revelation of the church’s history by Jesus was given to the apostle John on the Isle of Patmos and is recorded in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.

1. Satan knows that separation of man’s relationship from God will occur if he can corrupt the truth of God’s Word and/or the Church.

2. Corruption of the truth of God’s Word comes through the infiltration of false teachers into the church to spread lies and false teachings. This was dealt with extensively in the previous three-part series “False Teachers in the Evangelical Church.” Although corruption of the Bible doctrines and teachings in the church are inextricably intertwined with the history of the church, most of the emphasis in this series will be on the church.

3. Corruption of the essentials and details of God’s design, organization, and functioning of the church will damage or destroy God’s pattern for life in the church and its mission.

4. The essentials and details of this design, organization, and functioning of the church are portrayed in the leadership gifts given to the elders of the church and the gifts of the Spirit given to all members in the body of Christ. To corrupt the operation of the leadership gifts and the gifts of the Spirit in the church is to damage or destroy God’s design, organization, and operation of the church.

It is exceptionally difficult to cover seven periods of church history over two millennia in a very condensed manner (Parts II through V). To do so the author has used The Church in History by B. K. Kuiper as an outline to condense but hopefully bring clarity and understanding of the causes and outcomes of the lukewarm evangelical church at the end of the Laodicean period of church history (Parts VI and VII). Apart from Kuiper’s outline, any information attributable in part to his writings will be identified by endnotes.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 4.

The post Church, Inc. – Introduction first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In Part II we learned:

• The reasons Christians should be concerned about false teachers and false teaching in our supposedly more enlightened modern times
• The definition of False Teaching
• Not all who disagree with us on some biblical doctrines and other interpretations of Scripture are false teachers
• Identifying marks of false teachers

Examples of False Teaching and False Churches & Movements

Before we name false teachers in the evangelical church or claim some association therewith, it seems appropriate that we identify many of the teachings that are being taught, more or less, by various false teachers. This list of false teachings include (1) specific teachings that are false and (2) movements and denominations that teach false doctrines and practices based on the philosophies that are diametrically opposed to, placed above, or are substituted for the truth of God’s Word. Any church that teaches false doctrine is considered a false church.

Not included in this second group are religions that do not claim at least some association or connection with Christianity (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). By their denial of Christianity altogether, these religions are without doubt classified as being false religions. The list below is not meant to be inclusive of all false teachings found in the evangelical church. Also, many of the false teachings identified have various subcategories or variations not listed here.

False Teachings:

• Doctrine of a Divided Christ (Christ is accepted as one’s Savior but not followed as the Lord of his or her life, i.e., does not lead a pure and holy life.

• Cheap Grace (Non-judgmental love and acceptance without the requirement of repentance).

• Universalism (There are many paths to God other than through Jesus.)

• Prosperity gospel

• Dominionism (Dominionism, Kingdom Now, Latter Rain theologies, and similar philosophies.)

• Ecumenism (Merging of Christian denominations and doctrinal persuasions. Unity overrides doctrine, i.e., truth. Unity is supposedly achieved through compromise and consensus and not truth.)

• Replacement theology (The belief that the Christian church has replaced Israel, and Israel no longer has any significance from a biblically prophetic point of view.)

• Mind over matter (Power of positive thinking, possibility thinking, positive confession.)

• Contemplative Prayer (Various New Age techniques of meditation in which the mind becomes thoughtless, empty, silent in an attempt to draw closer to God. Similar to centering prayer.)

• Grave Soaking or Grave Sucking (A process by which someone lays on the grave of a deceased Christian in order to absorb their mantle or anointing which supposedly still resides in their physical remains.)

• Emergent Christianity (Churches that promote a redefinition of Christianity. They focus on social justice, cultural relevancy, and mysticism among other non-biblical practices.)

• Progressive Christianity (Beyond Emergent. An advanced “Christian” who has shed the old stale ways of traditional Christianity.)

• Toronto Blessing (One of several false revivals that focus on one or more counterfeit manifestations of God’s presence but which are not inspired or poured out by the Holy Spirit, e.g. holy laughter.)

• Social Justice (Shifts emphasis from repentance and righteous living to humanistic concerns of equality/racism, entitlement, empowerment, esteem-building, the environment, socialism, etc.)

• Seeker-friendly (More emphasis placed on making people comfortable in church and less on salvation and discipleship. Practical Christianity.)

• New Age Spirituality (Elements of the beliefs and practices of the occult and mystical religions that have been incorporated into various aspects of Christianity and the church.)

• Spiritual Formation (Non-scriptural disciplines and practices used to supposedly become more Christ-like.)

• Spiritual Awakening (Awakening the God within, i.e., pantheism.)

• Interspirituality (God is in all things, and the presence of God is in all religions, i.e., pantheism and universalism.)

• New Apostolic Reformation (Apostles and prophets in the church today are equal to or greater than the apostles and prophets who wrote the Bible.)

• New Thought (Merger of classic occult concepts and practices with Christian terminology, e.g., Christian Science and Unity Church.)

• Mindfulness (Buddhist meditation technique adapted to many areas of human endeavor, e.g., stress reduction, education, medicine, religious practices, etc.)

• Alpha Course (Evangelistic course designed to bring an easy-going method of exploring the “big questions” of life from a Christian perspective. Very emergent, ecumenical, and mystical.)

False Churches:

• Christian Science Church
• Church of Scientology
• Eastern Orthodox Church
• Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Most Liberal-Progressive Protestant Churches
• Roman Catholic Church
• Seventh Day Adventists (denial of an eternal Hell)
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church)
• Unitarian Universalist Churches

Naming names — Identifying and marking false teachers, both present and past, in the 20th and 21st centuries

In these three articles about false teachers in the church, the author would have been remiss, if not hypocritical, in failing to obey the numerous New Testament commands to expose false teachers. This list generally includes men and women that have some degree of affiliation or connection with the evangelical church as loosely defined. For each false teacher named herein, there are hundreds of others that could have been added. In this list I have included many that are widely known in Christian circles and/or whose names are widely known in in the secular world.

It should be stated that the below named false teachers may fall anywhere on the wide spectrum between those who are generally faithful in correctly teaching God’s Word except for one or a two false teachings and those who teach multiple full-throated and wild heresies and outright lies. This last group may be so deeply involved in numerous false teachings that they have been given over to a reprobate mind (degenerate, debased, decadent, immoral, and perverted).

As noted above, some false teachers may be only peripherally involved with one or two false teachings; however, most false teachers fall into this category. Bear in mind the comment made in Part II that most people are deceived by Bible teaching that is 95% biblically correct and only 5% that is false teaching. A few former false teachers not given over to a reprobate mind have in subsequent years discontinued, disavowed, and/or repented of their false teaching.

Some readers may disagree with the author’s designation that one or more of the preachers and teachers listed below are false teachers. However, in naming a teacher as false, I have attempted to follow the standard as presented in Part II: False teachers are those who teach false doctrines that oppose or deny (1) some fundamental truth in the Bible or (2) some doctrinal truth that is essential for one’s salvation.

Space and time does not permit presentation of a detailed connection between the false teachings listed above and the names listed below. However, the author has studied and written about the false teachings listed above and most of the men and women named below. These writings which make this connection have appeared in various articles posted on CultureWarrior.net and in two of two of the author’s books: Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity and True Revival – Reviving the Church in Every Generation.

False Teachers – Past and Present (listed in alphabetical order by last name)

Todd Bentley, Ruth Haley Barton, Mike Bickle, Jack Canfield, Tony Compolo, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, Tony Evans, Richard Foster, Bryan Furtick, Benny Hinn, Brian Houston, Rodney Howard-Browne, Bill Hybels, T. D. Jakes, Bill Johnson, Bob Jones, Rick Joyner, Carl Lentz, Bryan McClaren, Joyce Meyer, Thomas Merton, Beth Moore, Larry Osborne, Henri Nouwen, Doug Pagitt, Norman Vincent Peale, Eugene Peterson, Frederick K. C. Price, Joseph Prince, Joel Osteen, Priscilla Shirer, Andy Stanley, Leonard Sweet, C. Peter Wagner, Dallas Willard, John Wimber, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, Robert Tilton, Sarah Young, William P. Young

This list contains over forty names, but there are many more false teachers that could have been added. Also, the author believes there are several names that perhaps should be considered for inclusion on the list. However, the author did not believe his sole judgment was sufficient to make that decision because those teachings are so close to the borderline between false teaching and denominational differences.

Origins of false teachers

As mentioned in Part I of this three-part series on false teachers, we must remember that false teachers do not all have the same origins.

• Some false teachers started out as born again Christians who faithfully taught the truth of God’s Word. But over time their teaching gradually became questionable and eventually was unquestionably false.

• A second group contains those false teachers who never taught the unadulterated truth of God’s Word from the beginning of their careers. These cannot be said to be apostate (fallen away from the faith) because they were never a part of the body of Christ to begin with.

There is a third group of teachers who faithfully teach or have taught the truth of God’s Word throughout their entire careers but made their ministry a lie by their hidden, deep-rooted, and on-going moral failure. Upon exposure, they brought great shame to their followers, supporters, and admirers and great harm to the reputation of Jesus and the body of Christ. Since this series deals with inherent or basic false teaching, those that fall into this third group have not been named.

Reasons why the evangelical church tolerates false teaching in its midst

It appears that there is a deafening silence in most evangelical churches with regard to exposing and avoiding false teachers and false teaching. The following is not an exhaustive list of reasons and excuses as to why these leaders do not expose and avoid false teachers.

1. The evangelical church is in the time period of the lukewarm church as prophesied in the Bible.

The characteristics of the Laodicean period in the Church Age are found in the synonyms for lukewarm: tepid, warm, hand-hot, cool, unenthusiastic, half-hearted, unexcited, indifferent, subdued, apathetic, and uninterested. Because they are lukewarm, they aren’t excited about exposing and avoiding false teachers because such is disruptive and may interfere with their status quo of being comfortable, prosperous, and well-satisfied.

2. The evangelical church is also in the period of the Great Apostasy as prophesied in the Bible (the great falling away of many of the faithful at the end of the last days before the Rapture of the Church).

3 For 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; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. [2 Timothy 3:4-5. NKJV]

3. Worldliness

Because of an accommodation of the spirit of the world in many evangelical churches, Satan and his followers have been allowed to find a home in those churches. False teachers are messengers for their father, Satan, and there is no truth in his message for he is a liar and the father of lies.

41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. [John 8:41-44. NKJV]

4. An incorrect understanding of Matthew 18:15-17.

Many people point to Matthew 18:15-17 as the correct method to resolve differences between Christians with false teachers. However, this passage in Matthew does not deal with heresy but private and personal differences, grievances, and misunderstandings between two or more people that are Christians.

Christians should have dialogue with other Christians with whom they disagree about matters that concern denominational disagreements and other scriptural issues. These disagreements deal mainly with secondary issues that are not biblical doctrines, practices, and interpretations considered critical fundamental doctrinal issues and those that deal with one’s salvation.

Jesus never dealt with false teachers in the manner described in Matthew 18:15-17 for they were not brothers and sisters in the faith. Jesus dealt with false teachers harshly, publicly, and immediately. He never pulled the false teacher aside for an amiable and pleasant private conversation about their differences of opinion or scheduled an appointment for a more convenient time. Paul and other disciples followed Christ’s example in these matters. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1:8. NKJV] [emphasis added]

5. The unbiblical quest for unity through ecumenism (which is sought through compromise and consensus rather than truth).

Many evangelical denominations and churches fail to expose and avoid false teachers because of a fear of offending those with whom they wish to be unified. In this they have followed the path of Catholicism and the liberal-progressive Protestant churches in seeking unity through ecumenism. Under duress from a secularized culture heavily saturated with humanistic concepts of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion, many evangelical leaders and Christian organizations have embraced an ecumenism that reaches beyond the boundaries of the Christian faith. In their efforts to be ecumenical and culturally relevant, they have wrongly attempted to find common ground with organizations and false religions that stand in opposition to God’s word.

6. Other excuses for failure to expose and avoid false teachers

There are many other excuses that may be listed: cowardice; laziness; fear of retribution; fear of being accused as intolerant and judgmental; fear of being culturally exiled; desire for acceptance; etc.

The evangelical church’s failure to expose and avoid false teachers

Perhaps the principle cause or reason false teachers and false teaching has exploded in evangelical denominations and churches is the failure of many in leadership to expose false teachers and their teachings (identified, marked, noted) and failure to avoid false teachers and their associates (do not have fellowship or association with false teachers). This failure is occurring in almost every denomination and the majority of evangelical churches and associated religious organizations throughout America.

If one doubts this assertion, the author challenges the reader to research the internet and other sources. The reader will discover that almost every week there many denominations, churches, or other religious organizations that are having conferences and convocations throughout America whose programs feature a number of Christian speakers, many from solid, conservative Christian denominations and churches. But a closer examination of the featured speakers will usually reveal one or more blatant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing) that are sprinkled throughout the program. This is an unequal yoking of light and darkness that gives credibility to false teachers and brings confusion to the faithful. This mixing of the truth with the lie is an affront to God and a violation of the scriptural command to expose and avoid false teachers.

Preachers, pastors, evangelists, teachers, and laity—now is the time to repent and begin exposing and avoiding false teachers.

Larry G. Johnson

The post False Teachers in the Evangelical Church – Part III first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In Part I we learned:

• The modern evangelical church contains many high profile false teachers who call themselves Christians. These false teachers occupy various roles within the church including pastors, evangelists, teachers, missionaries, writers, and leaders of various para-church organizations. These false teachers are influencing uncountable millions of Christians in evangelical churches across America and around the world. This invasion has allowed many false teachings to infiltrate and lead astray the hearts and minds of individual Christians, the local church, denominations, and other Christian organizations from the lowest to highest levels.

• The source of false teachings (lies and deceptions) is philosophies and traditions of men, the principles of the world, and false religions.

• Finally, we looked at multiple warnings in the New Testament from Paul, Peter, Jude, and Jesus about false teachers and false teachings in the church. The essence of the warnings was that false teachings are a dangerous threat to the church and must be exposed and avoided.

Why should Christians be so concerned with false teachers and false teaching in our enlightened modern times?

One of the greatest dangers to the church recognized by the apostles and other leaders of the first century church was that of false teachers and false teachings. And one of the great appeals in the acceptance of false teaching is that many Christians have embraced the modern age of belief in man’s presumed enlightenment by which is meant that modern man is rational, progressive, open-mined, tolerant, informed, and educated. However, one’s supposed enlightenment is not a guard against false teaching. To the contrary, the various philosophies of the enlightenment era are the lures that Satan uses to draw millions of Christians into acceptance of false teachings that stand in opposition to God’s Word.

False teachers are addressed in almost every book of the New Testament. In Part I we saw that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude among others warned many times about false teachers and the infiltration of false teaching into the church.

Almost 2,000 years after the New Testament was written, many Christians seem to believe that the church ought to be well-schooled in spotting false teachers and false teaching. That is not the case, and as biblical literacy in evangelical churches continues to deteriorate, false teaching has become a much bigger problem. Jesus said that at the end of the age many false prophets would appear and deceive people, “At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” [Matthew 24:10-11. NIV] Jesus was speaking of the time in which we are presently living—the end of the last days just before the Rapture of the church. Therefore, recognizing false teachers and avoiding them are even more important today that in the first century church.

What is false teaching?

Most religions and philosophies have a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true. These are usually referred to as doctrines and are often called principles, canons, dogmas, creeds, rules, codes, or teachings. Biblical doctrines are teachings aligned with the revealed Word of God, the Bible. False doctrine is any idea that adds to, takes away from, contradicts, or nullifies the doctrines given in God’s Word. A doctrine or teaching is false doctrine if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.

False doctrines are those which opposes some fundamental truth or that which is necessary for salvation. The following are just a few of many examples of false teaching of certain beliefs that lead to the codifying or establishment of a false doctrine upon which false churches are built:

• Cheap grace that presents grace as a license to sin – This is a false gospel that leads to the doctrine of a divided work of Christ wherein one may accept Christ as their Savior but not
accept him as the Lord of their lives.

• Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus.

• Denial that Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross atoned for the sin of all mankind.

• Denial that Jesus arose from the grave on the third day after His resurrection.

• The Bible is not God’s Word.

• The teaching that there are many paths to God – This is the doctrine or teaching of universalism which means that there many paths to salvation other than Jesus.

• Teachings that change the nature and/or character of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

• Adding to or taking away from the Bible – Man’s philosophies, traditions, and teachings are often treated as superior to or to supplant God’s Word.

• Denial that there is a real Satan and a real Hell.

Just as there are false teachers within evangelical churches, there are evangelical churches that have been so corrupted with false teachings to the point that they must be judged as false churches along with the Catholic Church, the liberal-progressive Protestant churches, and those whose doctrines are fundamentally incompatible with the teachings of the Bible. That is not to say that all individuals attending those churches are lost and going to Hell. Some are truly born again and love God with all of their hearts. That is why God looks upon the heart and not church affiliation to determine who His children are. We can look upon their church affiliation, words and actions, and fruit of their lives, but we do not have the power to look upon the heart as God does.

Not all who disagree with us on some biblical doctrines and other issues are false teachers

Now, we come to what can be a more difficult assignment—the difference between false doctrine and denominational disagreements. These disagreements deal mainly with secondary issues which are not always due to false doctrine on either side of the disagreement. Some denominational disagreements are minimal (methods of baptism) and some can be very substantial such as eternal security (Calvinism) versus conditional security (Arminianism). All should be open for discussion and debate but not argument. Some denominational disagreements may be addressed in Scripture but are interpreted differently while some may not be directly addressed at all. These debates are between sincere, born again Christians who will spend eternity with each other in Heaven. Even those issues that are addressed in Scripture are often debated by equally sincere disciples, but differences in interpretation and/or practice are not necessarily evidence of a false doctrine, and they should not divide the Body of Christ.

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. [1 Corinthians 1:10. NKJV]

That is and should be our worthy goal as fellow Christians, but given our fallen nature, it will be one that is not likely to be universally reached throughout the body of Christ before we stand on those celestial shores in the New Heaven. Therefore, how do we conduct ourselves as we work toward that noble goal? Once again we look to the divinely-inspired writings of Paul.

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. [Romans 14:1-6. NKJV]

Identifying marks of false teachers

Jesus warned His disciples about false teachers fourteen times in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If Jesus was so concerned about false teachers in that day, ought we also to be very concerned about modern false teachers who mislead people by twisting the truth into a lie. As an evangelist (mentioned in Part II) recently said, it is not the obvious misrepresentation of the truth that seduces people away from Christ. Most people are deceived by Bible teaching that is 95% biblical and only 5% error. Rarely do they fall for teaching that is brazenly and profoundly in error. As evidence of the subtlety of false teaching, we again point to Satan’s whispered words in Eve’s ear. First, plant the doubt (Did God say…?”) followed by the lie (“You will not surely die…”).[1]

Donald Stamps wrote an article about false teachers in the Fire Bible-Global Study Edition which included steps that must be taken to test and evaluate church leaders and then identify, expose, and avoid those found to be false teachers.

1. Discern their Character: Observation points include active and consistent prayer lives; heartfelt and pure devotion to God; people of honesty, integrity, and moral discipline; show “fruit of the Spirit,” hate wickedness and love righteousness; and avoids and preaches against sin.

2. Discern their Motives: Observation points include (a) honoring Christ above all, and (b) leading the church into spiritual growth and holiness, (c) leading those who are spiritually lost into the light of forgiveness and a personal relationship with Jesus, and (d) proclaiming and defending the true message of Christ as revealed throughout the New Testament.

3. Evaluate the “fruit” of their lives and messages: People produce what they are. A person with an ungodly character will eventually show the fruit of ungodliness. Their message will hide the truth, confuse people, and cause division in the church. Sometimes the followers and converts of false teachers have little depth of character and are not totally committed to all of God’s Word.

4. Discern their level of reliance on God’s Word: This is the key factor in determining if someone is a false teacher. Is his or her preaching consistent with the Old and New Testaments? If not, their message should be rejected. Does he or she believe the entire Bible is fully inspired by God and that we are to submit to its teachings? If not, then their preaching and teaching can never be fully trusted.

5. Test their integrity (truth and honesty of character) in the handling of money: Do they handle all finances with the highest sense of truth and responsibility? Do they further the growth of God’s work in ways that are godly and in line with New Testament standards for ministry leaders? Do they take large amounts for themselves which reflects poorly on their integrity in handling of money?[2]
______

In Part III we shall examine:

• Examples of False Teaching and False Churches & Movements

• Naming names: Identifying and marking false teachers, both present and past, in the 20th and 21st centuries

• Origins of False Teachers

• Reasons why the evangelical church tolerates false teaching in its midst

• The evangelical church’s failure to expose and avoid false teachers.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Tiff Schuttlesworth, “What does the Bible say about Eternal Security?” Lost Lamb Association, LostLamb.org. https://www.facebook.com/115658798450688/videos/665661097591646 (accessed August 8, 2021).
[2] Donald Stamps, “False Teachers,” Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, New International Version, Ed. Donald Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 2009), pp. 1806-1807.

The post False Teachers in the Evangelical Church – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The modern evangelical church contains many high profile false teachers who call themselves Christians. These false teachers occupy various roles within the church including pastors, evangelists, teachers, missionaries, writers, and leaders of various para-church organizations. Unfortunately, these false teachers within the evangelical church and its errant offspring that have arisen in recent years are influencing uncountable millions of Christians in evangelical churches across America and around the world. The message of these false teachers is implanted into the hearts and minds of the millions that that listen to them on television, radio, and podcasts; attend conferences at which these false teachers speak; receive regular communications from their organizations’ websites and through the mail; subscribe to their podcasts; give financial support; and promote their false teachings within local congregations. The besetting sin of many evangelical leaders that are faithful to and preach the truth found in the Bible is that they have failed to expose these false teachers and avoid them.

Identifying the source of false teaching

In Paul’s letter to the church at Colosse, he described the source of false teaching as philosophies and deceptions based on the traditions of men and the principles of the world.

Beware lest anyone cheat you (plunder you or take you captive) through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. [Colossians 2:8. NKJV]

Paul warned Christians to be on guard against all philosophies, false religions, and traditions that emphasizes human functioning independently from God and his revelation found in the Bible. The greatest of these false philosophies (and the father of many other false philosophies) is humanism, a philosophy that is described as being secular, worldly, non-spiritual, material, and irreligious. Humanism is a worldview or belief system based on the values, characteristics, and behaviors of unfallen mankind without need of redemption by any supernatural god and especially God as revealed in the Bible. Humanism is only one of many false philosophies.

At the heart of false teaching are all lies and deceptions that stand in opposition to or challenge the truth of God’s Word. The foundations upon which these lies and deceptions are built are philosophies and traditions of men, principles of the world, and false religions. False teachings are mixed with a grain of truth, seasoned with doubt (as Satan said to Eve, “Did God say…?), and contain a large measure of lies (“You shall not surely die”).

False teachers enter and gain influence in the church in two ways

Donald Stamps described two groups of false teachers that enter and gain influence in the church.

Some false teachers/preachers begin their ministry with right motives, devoted to Spiritual truth, moral purity, and genuine faith in Christ. Then through pride (often due to insecurity, a desire for acceptance, or a drive for success) and immoral desires, they gradually lose their love for and commitment to Christ. As they continue on this path, their devotion dies, and they lose their place in God’s kingdom (1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5-6). As a result, they become instruments of Satan, while still disguising themselves as ministers of truth (see 2 Cor 11:15).[1]

Other false teachers/preachers have never been genuine followers of Christ. Satan has planted them within the church from the start of their ministry (Mt 13:24-28, 36-43). He uses their abilities and charismatic or appealing personalities to affect others and to move them further along toward “success.” The devil’s strategy is to place them in positions of influence so they can weaken and hinder the genuine work of Christ. Satan knows that when these dishonest and deceitful leaders are exposed, ever more damage will be done to the message and reputation of the church. But even worse, the name of Christ will be put to open shame.[2]

Scriptures in the New Testament warn about false teachers

• Paul warns the church at Rome

17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. [Romans 16:17-18. NKJV] [emphasis added]

With urgency, Paul warns the church to be alert to those who bring harm to the church by corrupting the original “teaching” of Paul and the other apostles. Two actions must be taken when false teaching is detected. First, they are to note them (the King James Version says “mark” them). This is not a private or quiet matter. The presence of false teachers in the church must be made known to the body. Second, the church is to keep away from them and their ministry.

In Donald Stamps commentary, he states that these verses probably referred to those who were against the law, taught that because salvation is by grace, saving faith does not necessarily require obeying God’s moral laws.[3] Today, we have the same false teachers who now call it the gospel of the divided Christ—Christ the Savior and Christ the Lord. According to this doctrine, a sinner may accept Jesus Christ as Savior without immediately (or ever) surrendering to Him as the Lord of their lives.[4] This doctrine is especially prevalent among the Church Growth movement’s seeker-friendly/seeker-sensitive churches. This false teaching is just as false today as it was 2,000 years ago.

• Paul warns the church at Ephesus

11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose (reprove) them. [Ephesians 5:11. NKJV] [emphasis added]

Again, as he had done with the church at Rome, Paul warned against the unfruitful works of darkness. He told the Ephesians to take the same two actions he admonished the church at Rome to take: have no fellowship with them (avoid) and expose (mark) them.

In this verse Paul is talking about the unfruitful works of darkness and immoral behavior. Unfruitful works of darkness certainly includes false teaching. Donald Stamps states that Christians “…must be prepared to challenge, expose, correct, and speak against wickedness in all forms, while being careful that they are not secretly caught up in some of the same issues.”[5] [emphasis added]

• Paul warns Timothy and the church at Ephesus

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge (command) some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere (un-hypocritical) faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. [1 Timothy 1:3-7. NKJV]

Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy when Timothy was serving at the church in Ephesus. Several years earlier (estimated to be 3 to 7 years), Paul had written to the church at Ephesus warning them that false teachers would try to deceive them by distorting and changing the true message of Christ. Once again false teachers were again at work in the church at Ephesus. Paul exhorted Timothy to boldly confront the corruption of: (1) both God’s law and the gospel-the message of forgiveness, (2) a personal relationship with God, and (3) eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

• Peter warns Christians of false prophets and false teachers

1But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. [2 Peter 2:1-3. NKJV]

• Jude warns of false teachers

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. [Jude 1:3-4. NKJV]

The book of Jude contains only 25 verses. Yet, it is a powerful expression of the great danger of allowing false teachers in the church and the apostasy that flows from their false teachings. With great earnestness, Jude challenged all true followers of Christ with great intensity to rise up and “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v. 3).

• Jesus warns of false teachers in the last days before the Rapture of the Church

Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. [Matthew 24:11. NKJV]

As the last days draw to a close, false teachers and preachers will be very common. As we saw in the previous article “The Lukewarm Evangelical Church just before the Rapture,” the world has entered that period when all prophecy that must fulfilled, before the Rapture of the church, has been fulfilled. This is the time about which Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:11, and that time is now.

The Great danger of False Teachers in the Church

The combined Scripture verses about false teachers and false teaching reveal two central themes:

• There is great danger posed by the presence of false teachers among the Church of Jesus Christ. This danger is no less than the deception of millions of once faithful followers of Jesus Christ during the last days and their eternal damnation in Hell. Here we mean “church” as being the true, born-again followers of Jesus Christ around the world (the universal Church) and the local church where members of the universal Church assemble and meet together on a regular basis. This danger to the church has been present throughout the Church Age from the day of Pentecost. However, those dangers have increased dramatically as the church approaches the end of the Church Age just before the Rapture (Matthew 5:11).

• When false teachers are found in the church, the church must without hesitation expose them (mark them) and avoid them (have no fellowship with them).

______

In Part II we shall examine:

• Why should Christians be so concerned with false teachers and false teaching in our more enlightened modern times?

• What is false teaching?

• Not all who disagree with us on some biblical doctrines and other issues are false teachers.

• Identifying marks of false teachers.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald Stamps, “False Teachers,” Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, New International Version, Ed. Donald Stamps,(Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 2009), pp.
1806-1807.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Stamps, Commentary on Romans 16:17-18, Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, p. 2131.
[4] A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 1966), p. 95.
[5] Stamps, Commentary on Ephesians 5:11, Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, p. 2266.

The post False Teachers in the Evangelical Church – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The Seven Churches of Revelation – Chapters 2-3 [1]

In the first chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, while in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, John was given a vision and instructed to write what he saw in a book and then send it to seven churches in Asia. One by one, John recorded the revelation of each of their works (good and bad) and the condition of their heart.

The seven Asian churches identified in Revelation were not the only first century Christian churches. However, they were selected by God to give a timeless and cautionary example to His people throughout the centuries to the end of the age. The works of each of the seven Asian churches revealed certain distinctive characteristics that would symbolize each of the seven subsequent periods of church history. Although each period was characterized by the principal traits of its first century counterpart, all of the sins of the Asian churches have been present in all Christian churches to varying degrees throughout the Church Age.

The messages to the Seven Churches of Asia represent seven time periods over the past 2,000 years of history which gives a panoramic view of church history beginning at the day of Pentecost and which will end at the Rapture of the church.

• Ephesus – Lost its first love (AD 30-100). Ephesus was a typical first century church that had many great works and had labored and endured without growing weary. Their sin was that they had left their first love. This period ended with the death of all of the Apostles.

• Smyrna – The persecuted church (AD100-312). They suffered tribulation, poverty, and slander. They were encouraged to not fear the coming suffering, imprisonment, and for some even death because a crown of life awaited the faithful.

• Pergamos – Church of compromise (AD 312-590). It was labeled as the church where Satan dwelled. This church mixed with the world. They were faithful in spirit but filthy in flesh. They communed with persons of corrupt principles and practices which brought guilt and blemish upon the whole body. This period saw the beginnings of the Catholic Church (both Roman and Eastern Orthodox) in the late 4th century and 5th century.

• Thyatira – The corrupt Church (590-1517). Although commended for their charity, service, faith, and patience, evil grew and idolatry was practiced in the church at Thyatira. The church contained unrepentant and wicked seducers who drew God’s servants into fornication and the offering of sacrifices to idols. In the West, the Roman Catholic Church consolidated its power under the papacy beginning with Pope Gregory I which lasted for almost a thousand years.

• Sardis – The dead church (AD 1517-1720). It was representative of the church that is dead or at the point of death even though it still had a minority of godly men and women. The great charge against this church was hypocrisy. It was not what it appeared to be. The ministry was languishing. There was a form of godliness but not the power. This description of the dead church fits both the Roman Catholic Church and the warring factions of Luther and Calvin of the Protestant Reformation period between 1517 and the early 1700s.

• Philadelphia – The faithful church (AD 1720-1870). It was a church of revival and spiritual progress. The church had proved itself faithful and obedient to the Word. As its name implies, it was a church of love and kindness to each other. Because of their excellent spirit, they were an excellent church. They kept the word and did not deny His name. No fault was attributed to the church, only mild reproof for having only a little strength or power. The Philadelphian period began about 1720 with the early stirrings of the First Great Awakening in America and the British Isles.

• Laodicea – The lukewarm church (1870 to the Rapture of the Church). Laodicea was the worst of all of the seven Asian churches. It had nothing to commend it. Its great sin was that it was lukewarm—neither hot nor cold. Its indifference arose from self-conceitedness and self-delusion. It believed itself rich and in need of nothing but in reality was wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Christ reminded them of where true riches may be found, without which severe punishment would follow.[2]

The Laodicean period in Church history

The last of the seven Churches of Revelation was Laodicea, and the sins of the church at Laodicea of the first century are descriptive of the church in the last period of the Church Age (especially the last days of the Laodicean period just before the Rapture of the church which is followed by the seven-year tribulation period). Several Bible scholars and authors (e.g., Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and Daymond Duck) place the beginning of the Laodicean period at about 1900. However, the author dates the beginning at about 1870 as Christian churches began embracing the social gospel and the humanistic elements of Higher Criticism, Darwinism, and socialism that began spreading throughout the Western world in the early and mid-1800s.

Not all churches in the Laodicean age are lukewarm. Any church or church member will fall into one of three categories: cold, hot, or lukewarm. Cold signifies form without power or without spiritual life. Hot expresses passion or zealousness. Lukewarm means indifference, apathy, or straddling the fence.

The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church became compromised at their beginnings and corrupt for substantially all of their histories. But what occurred within the Protestant churches—the last stronghold of first century Christianity?

As the Protestant church emerged from the Philadelphian period in the late 1800s, some became cold and dead or near death. The death spiral of the liberal-progressive wings of the Protestant church began with their growing apostasy in the late 1800s. During this time many of the holiness segments of the liberal-progressive churches began to withdraw and establish Holiness denominations dedicated to the biblical fundamentals of the faith as laid down by Jesus and the Apostles. At the same time many existing Protestant denominations and churches remained faithful to the Word of God and did not follow the apostasy of the liberal-progressive churches. Over time the fundamentalists and the remaining Protestant churches who did not succumb to the liberal-progressive wave of the late 1800s generally became known as evangelicals after World War II.

As the Laodicean period progressed into the second half of the twentieth century, major segments of evangelical Christianity began to mirror the lukewarm Laodicean church of the first century (indifferent, subdued, apathetic, unconcerned, and half-hearted). Like the first century Laodicean lukewarm church, they became comfortable, prosperous, and well-satisfied. They prided themselves on their bank accounts, fine buildings, and members of high standing, and being socially recognized and influential. But Jesus’ indictment of “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” continues to apply to these modern imitators of the first century church at Laodicea.

The modern lukewarm evangelical church at the end of the Laodicean period

We know from Scripture that we are living in the last days, the present and final period of the Church Age, the Laodicean period which culminates with the Rapture of the Church. As the malaise of the lukewarm church spreads, fervency and zeal for Christ are fading in many evangelical churches.

The one-word label that Jesus pinned to the door of the church of Laodicea was lukewarm. The word “lukewarm” is an adjective. We get a picture of the meaning of lukewarm by examining its synonyms: tepid, warm, hand-hot, cool, unenthusiastic, half-hearted, unexcited, indifferent, subdued, apathetic, and uninterested.

However, adjectives are not helpful in determining why these churches became lukewarm. In most languages, adjectives typically serve as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else. When we say a church is lukewarm, that term describes its kind or condition but does not explain why or how its lukewarm state came to exist. We know its condition is lukewarm and that it is wretched, poor, miserable, blind, and naked. But describing a church as lukewarm does not tell us the causes of their lukewarm state and how Christians (both individuals and churches) can avoid becoming lukewarm or how they can return from their lukewarm state.

Causes of the lukewarm condition of the evangelical church

The Bible clearly describes the causes of the church’s lukewarm state at the end of the last days. The three main causes are the growing apostasy (falling away of the faithful) of the church, the growing number of false teachers within the church, and the invasion of worldliness within the church. All of these things were prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments.

• The Great Apostasy

When we read about the latter days in the Scripture, the reasons for the Great Apostasy of the end-times church emerges.

3 For 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; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. [2 Timothy 3:4-5. NKJV]

Michael Youssef has said, “The greatest threats to the church have always been internal. The greatest threats have come from those who claim to be Christians, who are leaders in the church, but whose teachings and doctrines are contrary to God’s Word.”[3] These false teachers and those who follow them would not endure sound doctrine and have replaced their first love with human wisdom in their efforts at doing church. As the church becomes apostate, the number of false teachers within the church grows. The more false teachers that arise within the church, the greater the apostasy. There is a symbiotic relationship between apostasy and false teachers.

• False Teachers

In Matthew 24, Jesus described one of the signs of the end of the age, “Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.” [Matthew 24:11. NKJV] Donald Stamps commentary on v. 11 gives insight into what the end-time apostate church will look like.

Many False Prophets will Appear. As the last days draw to a close, false teachers and preachers will be very common. They will gain influence in the church by claiming to have ‘new’ revelations and solutions to serious problems. Yet they will deny the proven teachings of God’s written Word (i.e., the Bible) as the answer to these issues. Much of Christianity will be in a spiritually rebellious and unfaithful condition. Those who are totally committed to living by the truth and standards of God’s word will be in the minority.[4]

The apostle Paul expands on Jesus’ Matthew 24 prophecy that false teachers will abound at the end of the age.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. [1 Timothy 4:1-3. NKJV]

• Worldliness

Because of an accommodation of the spirit of the world in many evangelical churches, Satan and his followers have been allowed to find a home in those churches. These worldly churches appear faithful in spirit but are filthy in the flesh. They commune with persons of corrupt principles and practices and have brought guilt and blemish upon the whole body. Some churches deliberately ignore unrepentant and wicked seducers and idolaters in their midst. Others are clothed in hypocrisy and maintain only a form of godliness but not the power. Lastly, many bear the mark of the Church of Laodicea—lukewarm and indifferent which arises from self-conceit and self-delusion.
______

Pastors, teachers, evangelists, and laity—you must recognize the reasons for lukewarmness in your churches: the great apostasy of the church at the end of the age is upon us, the presence of false teachers who have not been exposed and avoided by the leadership of the church, and the infiltration of worldliness into the church. These causes lead churches to become lukewarm, but Jesus gave hope and a remedy to the lukewarm church.

18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. [Revelation 3:18-22. NKJV]

However, Christian leaders and laity alike who choose to follow Christ and be overcomers must know there is a cost for their departure from the lukewarm evangelical church: The further the church drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Portions of the material for this section on the Seven Churches of Revelation were extracted from the author’s book Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, Chapter 24, “Doing Church’ the Purpose Driven Way,” pp. 171-177.
[2] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, , ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 1970-1974.
[3] Michael Youssef, Saving Christianity? (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), p. 4.
[4] Donald Stamps, Commentary on Matthew 24:11, Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers, 2009), p. 1741.

The post The Lukewarm Evangelical Church just before the Rapture first appeared on Culture Warrior.

In the second group are those who vigorously deny that homosexuality is a perversion and demand that their fellow citizens not only accept and affirm them but requires society to be ordered to promote their agenda through suppression of opposing voices; imposing or overturning certain laws; replacing history with fiction; denying religious freedom; denying freedom of speech; and aggressively indoctrinating children, young people, and society at large to accept their worldview. This group will be the most resistant and even hostile to the gospel message, but Christians should never underestimate the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and the saving power of God’s Word.

The evil and sneering face of the Gay Pride movement

The homosexual lobby’s vehicle for achieving cultural domination is spearheaded by the Gay Pride movement.

Gay pride or LGBT pride is the promotion of the self-affirmation, dignity, equality, and increased visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people as a social group. Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most LGBT rights movements. Ranging from solemn to carnivalesque, pride events are typically held during LGBT Pride Month…Common symbols of pride are the rainbow or pride flag.[1]

The first four letters of the acronym have been used since the 1990s, but in recent years there has been a push to include other (presumed) sexual identities to offer broader representation. To that end the acronym LGBTQ+ is used to represent a diverse range of sexualities and gender-identities, referring to anyone who is transgender.[2]

The Gay Pride movement as a formal organization was created following a police raid on a gay bar located at 43 Christopher Street in Greenwich Village, Manhattan, New York City. Early on the morning of Saturday, June 28, 1969, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons rioted. This riot was followed by other riots and protests and became the modern LGBT rights movement and impetus for organizing LGBT pride marches. On November 2, 1969, the first pride march was proposed to be held in New York City and was to be known as Christopher Street Liberation Day.[3]

But Isaiah specifically says that God will pour out misery upon those who call evil good and good evil as does the Gay Pride movement.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight! [Isaiah 5:20-21. NKJV]

Five examples among thousands of the great evils found in the Gay Pride movement’s agenda are presented in the Addendum at the end of this article.

God’s Word peels away the false face of the Gay Pride Agenda

Two thousand years ago the apostle Paul recorded God’s pronouncement of the condition and destiny of the unrepentant participants in homosexual activities including the modern LGBT/Gay Pride movement.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. [Romans 1:18, 24-28. NKJV] [emphasis added]

Donald Stamps in his commentary on verses 18, 24-28, expands our insight into Paul’s words.

In the present, God’s anger is seen in how he gives wicked and defiant people over to moral filthiness, spiritual corruption, and ungodly passions (v. 18)…A sure sign that God is strongly displeased and has abandoned a society is their increased focus on sexual immorality and perversion (v. 24). The three stages of God’s abandoning people to spiritual and moral impurity are: (a) giving them over to sinful sexual pleasures that are a shameful use of the body (v. 24); (b) giving them over to homosexual or lesbian passions (vv. 26-27); (c) giving them over to a corrupted mind (i.e., a twisted way of thinking by which they justify their ungodly actions and uncontrolled passions of sin, v. 28).[4]

Christians who suppress the truth in unrighteousness with regard to homosexuality

Many in the church in last days during the Great Apostasy are among those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness regarding the sin of homosexuality. Here we speak of Christians and churches who have fallen away from the faith who (1) Champion the false social justice agenda of the homosexual lobby and (2) present a partial gospel of non-judgmental love and tolerance to the homosexual sinner without the necessity of presenting the truth of God’s word as to the sinfulness of homosexuality, the imminent judgment of unrepentant sinners, the unrepentant sinners’ eternal damnation, the requirement for repentance for salvation, and thereafter the avoidance of all sin including participating in homosexual sin.

• Applying the mask of social justice to the cause of Gay Pride

The infiltration of the homosexual agenda is occurring to varying degrees in a great majority of denominations and churches in all parts of the world and corresponds to the present-day Great Apostasy (falling away of large numbers of the faithful) prophesied to occur in the end times leading up to the Rapture of the church. Many denominations and churches to varying degrees are accepting of homosexuality and transgender identity, support civil unions and/or marriage of same-sex couples, grant full acceptance of LGBT individuals and organizations within the church, permit ordination of gay and lesbian clergy, and have ministries that specifically promote and support the LBGT agenda.

Homosexuality has grown to such an extent in the Roman Catholic Church, beginning in the early decades of the 1900s to the present day, it has become rife within the Catholic Church from the local priesthood, seminaries, and hierarchies to the very top of the Vatican. The pervasive occurrence of homosexuality found in the Catholic Church was no accident. Bella Dodd was formally a deep-seated communist who left communism and converted to the Christian faith. She appeared before Congress in 1953 and testified of the communist-homosexual infiltration of the Catholic Church.

We got instruction from Kremlin in 1929 as to what we were to do…we were to take the best and the brightest, the guys who were smart enough to live a double life, good looking guys who were sociable so that they would be noticed by their bishops, and they would be promoted, they would become vocation directors… So what are we dealing with? We are dealing with a group of predatory homosexuals who became priests not to serve the Church but to destroy her from within. In this, they are at every level.[5]

By the middle and late 20th century large numbers of these priests had risen to leadership levels and assumed positions of unrestrained power. The staggering success of the Communist/homosexual infiltration is confirmed by the elevation of the Argentine Jesuit Priest Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the papacy in 2013. Thereafter, Pope Francis has roiled much of the Catholic Church’s 1.4 billion followers with his stunning departures from the Catholic faith with his proclamation of false doctrines, support for Marxism, promotion of one-world government, defense/cover-up of homosexual activities of predator priests and bishops, and denial that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Liberal Protestant denominations and churches were the earliest to promote the homosexual agenda and grant homosexuals and lesbians full acceptance and status as lay members and clergy within their churches and organizations. This break from biblical truth required little effort for liberal churches that emerged between 1870 and 1930. Early on the liberal churches abandoned belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, the Bible as the Word of God, the virgin birth of Jesus, the deity of Jesus, His miracles, atonement for sin through Jesus’ blood shed at Calvary, His resurrection from the grave, and His ascension to Heaven. Having been given over to a debased mind, these liberal theologians have little difficulty reinterpreting, twisting, and/or dismissing entirely the words of Paul in Romans 1. With the stain of sin removed from homosexuality, it is now sanitized and made acceptable within the liberal church.

The infiltration of the homosexual agenda began in various evangelical denominations and churches as early as the 1960s. Within two decades thereafter, many evangelical churches began allowing homosexuals and lesbians to become members and some were allowed to be ordained as ministers. Even when evangelical churches reject homosexuals and lesbians as members of the church, the strength of homosexual agenda has brought to bear on many evangelical churches a new hesitancy to boldly confront the sin of homosexuality. This hesitancy has arisen because of (1) secular society’s overwhelming promotion of a false narrative of social justice and (2) the mounting pressure for the acceptance and inclusion of homosexuality in society at large including the church. As a result one finds fewer and fewer messages in many evangelical churches which give a forthright presentation of the gospel regarding the sin of homosexuality. Even when those messages are given, they often contain only a partial gospel message of non-judgmental love and acceptance of the homosexual. This brings us to the second point in the suppression of truth in unrighteousness regarding the sin of homosexuality.

• Partial gospel of non-judgmental love and tolerance preached to the homosexual sinner

The truth of God’s Word is suppressed when the message of the church to the homosexual sinner contains only a partial gospel message. First, it invariably exhorts the Christian to exhibit non-judgmental love and tolerance of the homosexual and leaves the conviction of the homosexual to the Holy Spirit. Although the Holy Spirit does bring conviction of sin and prepares the sinner for repentance and salvation, it is the bold proclamation of the gospel that leads to salvation.

In place of a bold proclamation of the gospel, the homosexual sinner is assured that Jesus loves them which is immediately followed by an abundance of apologies from the pulpit for any hurtfulness the homosexual sinner may have felt or experienced from the church. However, the heart of the full gospel message has been left out or so badly mangled that it is unrecognizable and powerless to seize the heart of the homosexual sinner and draw him to salvation. Left out of this partial gospel message to the homosexual is the sinfulness of homosexuality, the imminent judgment of all unrepentant sinners, the unrepentant sinner’s eternal damnation, the requirement for repentance, and the requirement to live a holy life free from all sin including that of homosexuality.

The partial gospel has all the marks of the modern seeker-friendly church which offers a gentle seeker-sensitive message designed to not frighten away the sinner. Rather, the church awards the homosexual sinner the coveted status of “victim” and are thereafter welcomed into the church, made comfortable, and their felt-needs met until sometime in the future when the homosexual may decide to accept Christ. However, such acceptance must not be conditioned upon giving up his or her sins including homosexuality.

However, the Bible is very specific about not welcoming sinners into fellowship with Christians:

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. [2 Corinthians 6:14-16. NKJV]

Homosexuals should be invited to the church, told that God loves them so much that he gave his Son to die on the cross for atonement of the homosexual’s sin, and invite them to repent and make a public confession that they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This is not what being unequally yoked together with an unbeliever means.
_____

Given the great apostasy in the church in these last days before the Rapture of the Church, it is no surprise to any right-thinking and biblically knowledgeable born-again Christian when they see Gay Pride rainbow banners and flags flying from churches, draped on the arms of the crosses within, worn around the necks or peaking from the collars of priests and clergymen, and adorning the lapels of countless Christians and non-Christians alike. For many in society, homosexuality and its Gay Pride agenda have been embraced as a cause célèbre—a noble campaign for justice, equality, tolerance, and diversity for the homosexual and lesbian.

Preachers, teachers, and the laity within the church must NOT embrace the homosexual agenda or Gay Pride’s campaign to undermine and corrupt the church of Jesus Christ. Drink deeply from the truth of God’s Word and peel away Gay Pride’s happy face. Underneath will be found the reality of the evil and sneering face that affirms and promotes the sin of homosexuality in contradiction to the truth of God’s Holy Word.

Larry G. Johnson

Addendum

The following are just five examples of this depravity among thousands that lie beneath the smiling face of the homosexual lobby. Like a cup of cold water thrown in an unsuspecting face, these examples should be sufficient to jolt or shock many members of the apostate, lukewarm, and spineless church into soul-searching repentance.

1. In honor of Pride Month this past June, the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus released a song titled “A Message from the Gay Community” and outlines how they’ll “convert your children.” Portions of the song read as follows:

“You think we’re sinful, you fight against our right, you say we all lead lives you can’t respect. But you’re just frightened, you think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Funny, just this once, you’re correct.”

“We’ll convert your children, happens bit by bit, quietly and subtlety and you will barely notice it, you can keep them from disco, warn about San Francisco, make ’em wear pleated pants, we don’t care… we’ll convert your children… we’ll make them tolerant and fair.”

[Hannah Nightingale, “‘We’re coming for your children’: San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus pushes woke agenda,” American News, July 7, 2021. https://thepostmillennial.com/were-coming-for-your-children-san-francisco-choir (accessed 7-17-2021)]

2. “The World Health Organization (WHO), for which the Trump administration has halted U.S. funding pending a review, advises that in the sex education programs in Europe children age four and under be given information about ‘early childhood masturbation’ and the ‘right to explore gender identities.’”

“In addition, for children ages four to six, the WHO recommends they be given information ‘about friendship and love towards people of the same sex’ and ‘same-sex relationships,’ and be guided to develop ‘an open, non-judgmental attitude.’”

[Michael Chapman, “WHO: Give early info about ‘early childhood masturbation’ to kids ages 4 and under,” CNSnews, May 20, 2020. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3844309/posts (accessed July 7-17, 2021).]

3. “Common sense and the First Amendment won a significant victory in Florida recently. The city of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County had passed ordinances forbidding paid counselors to counsel children and teens who wished to overcome same sex attraction or gender dysphoria. All a counselor could do was affirm the feelings of the child as normal and council to consider transitioning by puberty blockers and mutilating surgery. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared that this was a violation of the free speech right. This ruling is important because it sets a precedent for other cases. Twenty other states have caved to the homosexual steamroller and put laws in place tying the hands of counselors who wish to help children overcome this delusion. This opens the door for other cases to succeed in overturning these restrictions.”

[“Homosexual attack on children blunted in Florida,” Battle Cry, March-April 2021, (Chick Publications). https://www.chick.com/battle-cry/article?id=homosexual-attack-on-children-blunted-in-florida (accessed 7-17-2021)]

4. “Maltese Labour MEP Cyrus Engerer, convicted of distributing gay revenge porn in 2014, is leading the European Union’s battle against Hungary’s law banning the teaching of LGBT and gender issues to children.”

“Hungary’s new law is intended to prohibit schools from teaching children about alternative sexualities and transgenderism and restrict similar content aimed at children in the media, with Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán insisting that decisions about such education should be up to parents, and that ‘parents also rightly expect that on platforms used by our children, pornography, sexuality for its own sake, homosexuality and gender reassignment programs should not be available.’”

[Chris Tomlinson, “Gay ‘Revenge Porn’ Convict Is Leading EU Charge Against Hungarian LGBT Law,” Brietbart, July 10, 2021. https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/07/10/gay-revenge-porn-convict-leads-eu-charge-against-hungary-lgbt-law/ (accessed 7-17-2021)]

5. The Washington Post featured an article about Ashlawn Elementary School in Arlington County, Virginia, which honored the National Education Association’s “Read Across America Day” by hosting a transgender spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The spokesperson read a story about a transgender child for a room full of kindergarten children. Prominent media outlets reported that parents were notified beforehand and that parents were allowed to not have their children attend the event. However, the letter was written solely in English despite the school’s sizable non-English-fluent population, and the letter in fact did not state that parents had the right to not have their child attend the presentation. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the NEA was an honored guest at Ashlawn’s transgender indoctrination event. Previously, the NEA welcomed LGBT groups to serve as official sponsors of the 2019 national reading event.

[Casey Chalk, “Va. Public School Indoctrinates 5-Year-Olds About Transgenderism Without Telling Parents,” The Federalist, March 18, 2019. https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/18/va-public-school-indoctrinates-5-year-olds-transgenderism-without-telling-parents/ (accessed 7-17-2019).]

Sources:

[1] “Gay Pride,” Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride#:~:text=Gay%20pride%20or%20LGBT%20pride%20is%20the%20pr
omotion,predominant%20outlook%20that%20bolsters%20most%20LGBT%20rights%20movements (accessed July
16, 2021).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Donald Stamps, Commentary on Romans 1:1,24-28, Fire Bible-Global Study Edition, ed. Donald Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 2009), pp. 2086-2087.
[5] “Communist/Homosexual Infiltration of the U.S. Catholic Church #1 of 2,” Cinops Be Gone, July 19, 2019.
https://wwwcinopsbegone.blogspot.com/2019/01/communisthomosexual-infiltration-of-us.html (accessed July 17,
2021)

The post Christians who suppress the truth in unrighteousness with regard to homosexuality first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Much of the American church is desperately trying to remain relevant in the rapidly deteriorating culture. Writing in 2001, Jim Cymbala warned 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…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.”[1]

From the pulpits in America and the conversations of many Christians, the rise of the homosexual agenda has been met by the church with a soft-soap message regarding the sin of homosexuality and how the church should engage homosexuals. These anemic messages and conversations always contain an element of truth to support the lie just as Satan had done when he whispered in Eve’s ear, “Did God really say…” For those that believe God has soft-soap, tolerant view of the sin of homosexuality, those beliefs will be quickly dispelled by a reading of the strong words of Paul in his letter to the Romans.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. [Romans1:18, 24-27. NKJV]

The word “soft-soap” can be used as a noun or verb. Soft-soap used as a noun describes a semi-fluid soap made especially from potassium hydroxide. Also, soft-soap is used as a noun to describe certain concepts such as flattery, overpraise, sweet talk, cajole, palaver, or wheedle. Used as a verb, soft-soap means to soothe or persuade with flattery or blarney.

As truth recedes in importance in the post-truth modern world, we see much of the church sliding into the Great Apostasy that is now occurring just before the Rapture at the end of the Church Age. Much of the modern evangelical church has embraced a soft-soap message in addressing the sin of homosexuality and presenting the truth of God’s Word to the homosexual community and their supporters. An example of this anemic teaching is found in a recent Facebook posting which contains several identifying marks of a soft-soap message.

• Creation of moral equivalency between the homosexuality and Christianity.

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation (evasion) and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other.

Christians often resort to moral equivalency to justify a seeker-friendly approach to the homosexual. For many, the seeker-friendly approach is the equivalent of a nonjudgmental, loving approach. But how can a Christian truly love the sinner if he or she is not forthright in telling the sinner the truth about the sinner’s approaching eternal damnation?

“I (the Christian) am no better than you (the homosexual).”

The fallacy in this statement is that a Christian is no better or no worse than a sinner, e.g., homosexual. To the contrary, Christians are sinners saved by grace and delivered from the curse of sin. Practicing homosexuals are sinners by definition (see Romans 1:18, 24-27). However, a homosexual, who is saved by grace and has turned from their sin, is better than any sinner regardless of what that sinner’s sins may be. The Christian is better because they have a relationship with God that will last for eternity whereas the sinner will experience an eternity in Hell without a saving relationship with God.

“Have you contributed to pushing someone away from God simply because their sin looks different than yours?”

In this type of moral equivalency, a soft-soap Christian message often focuses on the sin rather than the goodness or badness of the sinner when compared to Christians. Un-repented sin will keep the sinner out of relationship with God and condemn him or her to an eternal Hell. It doesn’t matter what the sin is: homosexuality, adultery, theft, lying, murder, rape, or any of thousands of other sins. However, the past sins of faithful Christians have been washed away by the blood of Jesus shed at Calvary. Therefore, born-again Christians cannot look at their forgiven sins and judge them to be more or less onerous than a homosexual living a sinful life. There is no moral equivalency. However, if that Christian continues to harbor un-repented sin, then they are in danger of eternal damnation just like the unrepentant homosexual.

“Even if you’ve never had a conversation with someone who experiences same-sex attraction it should tear you apart that we (Christians) are, in part, responsible.”

This form of moral equivalency attempts to make a born-again Christian equally responsible (in part) for a homosexual’s same-sex attraction, i.e., “You are a Christian; therefore you are responsible for at least some of the homosexual’s sin.” This is a fallacy which mimics the tactics of much of today’s humanistic social justice memes such as systemic racism, white supremacy, and toxic masculinity. One is guilty of being an oppressor because of skin color, ethnicity, gender, or being a heterosexual Christian.

• Minimize the sin of homosexuality

“My sin has equal weight on the cross.”

This is another example of moral equivalency and again deals with the sin and not the person. This statement implies that the sin of a practicing homosexual is no better or no worse than any other sin. In other words, every sin has equal weight with any other sin. This assumption is blatantly false at two levels.

First, an unrepentant sinner’s sin cannot have equal weight with that of a born-again sinner saved by grace because the sin of a born-again Christian has been wiped away and never to be seen again. To be fair, the speaker of the above quote may have been careless with his choice of words and may have meant to say that the atoning blood of Jesus is powerful enough to cover any and all sins of the human race who seek salvation regardless of the magnitude or heinousness of those sins. It is a true statement to say that I am a sinner saved by grace, and my former sin was no less sinful that that of a homosexual. In this context it is correct to say that my sins before I was saved, no matter how great or small, would have caused me to be damned to hell just as some engaged in the sin of homosexuality would be damned to hell if he or she does not repent and continues in sin. It is the state of being in sin, not the weight of the sin that damns one to Hell.

Second, regardless of the power of Jesus’ shed blood to blot out all the sins of mankind, all of those sins are not of equal weight. There are varying degrees of sin. Otherwise, there would no need for the Great White Throne judgment following the Millennial Reign of Christ (see Revelation 20:11-15). At this judgment the sins of unrepentant sinners of all time will be judged to determine the degree of the sinner’s punishment, and then all of those who appear before the White Throne judgment will be cast into Hell.

“Our culture has told you that your identity is centered around your sexual preference. A preference does not define a person.”

Although another form of moral equivalence, this statement primarily attempts to minimize the sin of homosexuality by labeling it as a preference. To the contrary, preferences DO define a person and their eternal destination if that preference is chosen. If a preference for adultery, homosexuality, fornication, lying, stealing, etc. are chosen, each of those preferences will define a person and lead that person to Hell even though he or she was created in the image of God. Following one’s salvation, a preference for leading a godly life, honoring God, following God’s commands, loving your neighbor, and all other things that define faithful Christians will lead to eternal life with God in Heaven. This includes Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction which they prefer to not have. A preference (desire for) is not something that is forever. With God’s help, those Christians who have a tendency toward same-sex attraction can conquer this desire. Even if the tendency persists, God will give them the strength to withstand the attraction and lead a godly life.

• Present a partial gospel of salvation when preaching or witnessing to homosexuals

“Your job is not to convict people…That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. Love people, show them who God is, and understand that everyone, including you (the Christian), needs to repent.”

The first part of this quote is correct. “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” [John 16:7-8. NKJV] [emphasis added.

The last part of the quote indicates that all the Christian has left to do is to love the sinner, show them that God loves them, and show them the need to repent. However, for most of the modern church this mindset quickly drifts into the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance which leads to preaching a soft-soap gospel. The rough edges of the gospel of the cross are smoothed to make it comfortable and more acceptable to the seeker-sinner, all under the guise of accomplishing the Great Commission.

But soon the complete work of the cross and its message becomes irrelevant and is replaced by what now passes for salvation and the Christian life in seeker-friendly churches. The world’s new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[2] But the world’s definitions of nonjudgmental love and tolerance are contrary to the very nature of God because He cannot tolerate sin. God is both loving and just, and if His love is conformed to the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance, then He cannot be both loving and just.
______

The problem for those presenting a soft-soap version of the gospel message is that they have left out an essential element—the Word of God. Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance. Cheap grace does not transform by washing away man’s sin but merely provides a transparent, temporal, and defective covering for his sin, but it does not eradicate it. Rather, cheap grace makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. It makes the shedding of His blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

In the era of seeker-sensitive preaching and witnessing, there is an inherent conflict between preaching the cross and the goal of being sensitive to the feelings and needs of the unchurched. In the book of Hebrews, we find the correct answer to this dilemma created by the purveyors of the seeker-friendly message.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12. KJV]

In his commentary, Matthew Henry explains the work of the sword in Hebrews 4:12. “It is quick; it is very lively and active, in seizing the conscience of the sinner, in cutting him to the heart, and in comforting him and binding up the wounds of the soul…It convinces powerfully, converts powerfully, and comforts powerfully.”[3] [emphasis added]

Here we see that the Word not only accuses and cuts but comforts and dresses wounds. In the seeker-sensitive/friendly church world, saccharine superficial messages attempt to massage and caress felt needs without the necessity of spiritual surgery. But the Word rightly applied cuts deeply beneath felt needs to the secret sin buried in the heart of man which Jeremiah called desperately wicked and deceitful (see Jeremiah 17:9).

The Word of God is the centerpiece between the conviction of sin brought by the Holy Spirit and the love of Christians welcoming a new creation into God’s kingdom. It is the Word of God that exposes the sin within and the work of the Holy Spirit that brings conviction to the heart of the sinner. How is the Word delivered? For the vast majority of people, the Word of God was and continues to be delivered verbally by the preaching and witnessing of Christians worldwide. A soft-soap message without the soul-shaking truth of the Word of God cannot deliver the full gospel of salvation to a lost and dying world.

We must remember that Christ was an outcast, an exile in the culture of His day, and the cross became an offense to the world because it declares that there is no other way to salvation but death to sin and self. Those preaching that the church must become relevant to the culture attempt to bypass the cross by accommodating their preaching to the opinions of those who reject the cross and God’s judgement against sin. By doing so they are damning millions to an eternal Hell.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 22-23.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV,” culturewarrior.net January 9, 2015,
culturewarrior.net. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/09/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-iv/
[3] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p.1914.

The post Modern Christianity’s soft-soap message to the homosexual first appeared on Culture Warrior.

“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”[1]

The above quote is from one of the twentieth century’s greatest truth tellers—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008). Born in Russia, Solzhenitsyn studied mathematics, philosophy, literature, and history at the university level. He was thrice decorated for personal heroism as a Russian Army Officer during the fight against the Nazis in World War II. In 1945 he was arrested for criticizing Stalin in private correspondence and sentenced to an eight-year term in a labor camp. From that experience he wrote One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which was published in 1962, the first of many books. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 1974, he was stripped of his citizenship and expelled from the Soviet Union whereupon he moved to Vermont with his wife and four sons.[2]

I have taken time to briefly describe Solzhenitsyn’s background because his experiences and quiet words in defense of truth from such a man speaks far louder than the din of lies shouted by Black Lives Matter and their toadies including spineless politicians, the corrupt media, universities in name only, complicit mega-corporation billionaires, ranting Hollywood leftists, self-proclaimed “intellectuals,” and many corrupt voices/false teachers in the Church. Such lies cannot long stand against the timeless truth of which God is the author and finisher.

Regardless of their self-professed good intentions, the devil-doing of those leading and promoting Black Lives Matter is exposed by its own words on BLM’s official website[3] with regard to its beliefs and true objectives.

Black Lives Matter Beliefs and Goals

A thoughtful examination of just three of BLM’s goals gives a clear and frightening understanding of the damage that is being done in the war against the soul of American life and liberty including the culture at large and the average American family, black or white.

1. “We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

BLM wishes to dismantle cisgender privilege. The term “cisgender” means “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[4] Although the word may be unfamiliar to many, the concept that the two sexes equate to two genders is obvious to the vast majority of Americans and needs no label to explain it unless one is of the “woke” crowd.

Carla A. Pfeffer expands on Merriam Webster’s definition: “I grew up in a family with a cisgender and heterosexually identified mother and father of the same race (White) who had 2 children when they were well into their late 20s and early 30s and after they legally married with the full support of both their families.”[5]

For BLM, cisgender privilege has been transformed to be equivalent to white privilege. Such privilege cannot be eliminated without suppressing the carriers of this disease (privilege) by denigrating their belief systems. Therefore, the supposed evil that adherents to BLM ideology desire to dismantle are the dominant Judeo-Christian beliefs in the nuclear family, heterosexuality, marriage, and monogamy from which “white privilege” supposedly arises. However, the fatal flaw of BLM’s ideology regarding cisgender families is that the very nature of these beliefs is color-blind. To the contrary, the strength of cisgender families (of whatever color) rests on the universal truth of the values, beliefs, and structure of Judeo-Christian families.

2. “We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Now we come to “trans” by which is meant transgender and defined as “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[6] And trans does not mean just male and female but a whole alphabet of identities such as LGBTQ+. However, deny it as they might, it is one’s biological sex that determines gender, and there are just two. BLM calls this belief being in the “tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

3. “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

BLM wishes to disrupt (disorder, upset) the nuclear family structure by supporting (replacing) it with extended families and “villages” (also infamously promoted by Hillary Clinton). This group care for children promises to limit such care “to the degree that mothers, parents, and children (what about fathers?) are comfortable.” Tell that to parents who have unsuccessfully objected to the things taught in their child’s classroom that made them uncomfortable (e.g., transgenderism).

History reveals the fatal flaw of BLM ideology with regard to the nuclear family, marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality.

1. Nuclear family, marriage, and monogamy

Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired from the United States Senate (Democratic Senator from New York) in 2000. Near the beginning of his career he was an assistant Secretary of Labor in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. At the time of his retirement, the senator was asked to describe the biggest change he had seen in his forty years of government service. Articulate and intellectual, the distinguished public servant, having served both Democratic and Republican presidents, replied, “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world” and had occurred in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” Author of the 1965 Moynihan Report officially known as “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”, Moynihan knew that of which he spoke.[7]

Enormously controversial at the time of its release, the report continues to be a topic of debate in the twenty-first century. The report characterized the instability of the black families in America and the importance of the family unit in providing that stability.

At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro Family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time…The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child…the child learns a way of looking at life in his early years through which all later experience is viewed and which profoundly shapes his adult conduct.[8]

Writing shortly after Moynihan’s perceptive summation of the condition of the family structure, William Bennett noted the deep concern of Americans with regard to the family. Bennett pointed to the general instability of the American family and the contributing factors such as the decline in the status and centrality of marriage in society, substantially greater percentage of out-of-wedlock births, and the significant increase in co-habitation. With the decline of social perception and necessity of matrimony, children are less valued, more neglected, more vulnerable to non-family influences, and have less resources devoted for their care and benefit. Bennett wrote that, “Public attitudes toward marriage, sexual ethics, and child-rearing have radically altered for the worse. In Sum, the family has suffered a blow that has no historical precedent—and one that has enormous ramifications for American society.”[9]

Two decades have elapsed since Moynihan’s diagnosis of the disintegration of the family unit as the major modern affliction of the Western world and Bennett’s reporting of Americans’ purported concern for the survival of the family. It is no longer the problem of the black population. The deterioration of the family unit is pervasive and crosses all ethnic, socio-economic, and religious lines although the poor and disadvantaged bear a greater portion of the misery. Yet, there has been no public hue and cry to reverse the decline, no urgency or sense of crisis in dealing with the problem, no new series of government studies explaining the situation, and no investigative reporting or meaningful media attention regarding the most profound change in society that has had no historical precedent. Why is this so? The answer is that the solutions to reverse the decline and devastation of marriage and the family unit stand as polar opposites of the prevailing and pervasive humanistic worldview of which Black Lives Matter is the current purveyor of this cultural carnage. Its own website condemns it.

2. Heterosexuality

Heterosexual marriage is the central organizing concept in society. By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Heterosexual marriage orders the soul whereas sexual intimacy outside of marriage, co-habitation, divorce (apart from infidelity and willful desertion), and homosexuality (with or without benefit of a civil union) are inherently disorderly and destructive. History and human nature attest to these assertions for according to researchers, heterosexual married life as opposed to all other similar social arrangements provides greater financial security, better health and sex, and a longer and better life.[10]

Bennett called marital love that rests upon a foundation of unconditional commitment as “…safer, more enduring, and more empowering that any sentiment yet discovered or any human arrangement yet invented.” He credits these attributes to the basic heterosexual complementarity of man and woman joined together as one in marital love. The complementariness of the relationship is based on the differences, not just the physical but also the emotional and psychological. As the physical differences make sexual union possible, so too do the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other.[11] The union becomes stronger than its parts.

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermine society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

God created heterosexual marriage as a cultural universal, and the strength and unity provided by this universal is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.
______

During the turmoil in America of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Russell Kirk wrote The Roots of the American Order, a book of exceptional scope and insight into the origins of America. Summarizing the words of Simone Weil, Kirk states that “…order is the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning. Above food and shelter, she continues, we must have order. The human condition is insufferable unless we perceive a harmony, an order in existence.” Kirk identified two roots of this order: the order of the soul (moral order) and the order of the republic (social order), and they are intricately linked and dependent on each other. Disorder of one leads to disorder of the other.[12]

The American order that was established by the founders was not an “ideology” nor a “thing” created for the moment. Rather, the American order is a living culture whose roots have grown over millennia and were watered by the sound principles of moral and civil social order arising from eternal truths and the revelation of God to the Hebrews and the first century Christians. America was established on these eternal truths and the revelation in which the Founders believed, and upon these pillars they built the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Kirk’s roots of order are the same roots of which Solzhenitsyn spoke in the quote given at the beginning of this article. BLM is attempting to sever those roots along with America’s cultural norms, traditions, beliefs, and even our history and that of Western civilization. Those severed roots are to be replaced with a humanistic cultural Marxist society whose citizens will be subject to machinations of an autonomous socialistic state and its evil overseers. Such a society will be devoid of the three essential elements of the good society: divine order, justice, and freedom.

Do not fool yourselves by blithely dismissing the challenge of BLM. Our present struggle is an existential war of the highest magnitude between good and evil, and the conflict is spreading around the world. What must Americans to do who love this nation and its history? For the answer we look once again to the wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in which he gives us both the diagnosis of our plight and a prescription for preserving America’s Judeo-Christian cultural heritage and its attendant freedom.

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it (evil) will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers . . . we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”[13]

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”[14]

Larry G. Johnson
June 19, 2020

[1] “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,” AZQuotes, https://www.azquotes.com/author/13869-Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn (accessed June 18, 2020).
[2] “Biography,” The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center, https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-life-overview/biography (accessed June 18, 2020).
[3] “What We Believe,” Black Lives Matter, https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ (accessed June 18, 2020).
[4] “Cisgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cisgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Transgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[7] William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 2, 85.
[8] Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, (Cambridge Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1967), p. 3.
[9] Bennett, pp. 1-2.
[10] Ibid., pp. 14-188.
[11] Ibid., pp. 186-187
[12] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington D. C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1991), pp. 3-5.
[13] Solzhenitsyn, AZ Quotes.
[14] Ibid.

The post The deadly hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Before we begin Part II, the manner in which this writer and others are publicly and forcefully challenging Andy Stanley and his false teachings should be examined. Many Christians disagree with these actions and quickly quote Matthew 18:15-17 as the proper biblical way by which Christians ought to deal with such presumed errors.

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. [Matthew 18:15-17. NIV]

Matthew never meant these verses to be used in addressing and dealing with false teachers. First, these verses deal with fellow disciples (brothers and sisters in Christ). Second, these verses deal with personal offences, grievances, or misunderstandings between two Christians. Neither applies when dealing with false teachers.

False teachers are not brothers and sisters in Christ but wolves in sheep’s clothing, and the Bible is plain as to how these people are to be dealt with. The above verses are about personal disputes between two Christians, but false teachers attack the very Word of God with their teachings in the same way Satan deceived Eve in the Garden. The following verses should be applied when confronting false teachers.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! [Galatians 1:8. NIV]

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. [Ephesians 5:11. NIV]

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. [2 John 1:10-11. NIV]

Jesus and His disciples dealt with heretics immediately, publicly, and severely. To do otherwise is to compromise the Word and accommodate the heretic and his teachings. Many in the modern evangelical church tolerate these false teachers and their work because they fly the flag of a false ecumenicalism. Therefore, false teachers are often accommodated and allowed to remain in the church.

Irresistible – Andy Stanley’s new covenant teachings[1]

Stanley spends the first thirteen chapters of his book denigrating the Old Testament and unhitching it from the New Testament.

Careless mixing and matching of old and new covenant values and imperatives make the current version of our faith unnecessarily resistible. This is why I insist that most of what makes us resistible are thing we should have been resisting all along. [p. 95] [emphasis in original]

According to Stanley, the rules and regulations (the Law and the Prophets) in the Old Testament are the things Christians must resist in order to make way for the irresistible Jesus of the New Testament. But Stanley also finds much in the New Testament that he thinks should be resisted.

He spends the last eleven chapters introducing “a new guiding ethical framework for the new covenant of Christ which has a new commandment that forms the new ethical framework for new covenant people. A framework that is far less complicated, but far more demanding.” [p. 170] [emphasis in original] Again, Stanley believes that those resistible parts of the Old Testament ways of doing things that have crept into the New Testament must be eliminated or at the least ignored.

Participants in the new covenant are not required to obey most of the commandments found in the first half of their Bibles (i.e., the Old Testament). Participants in the new covenant (i.e., the New Testament) are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another. [p. 196] [emphasis added]

Conspicuously absent from Jesus’ new-command instructions was an overt reference to his divine right to require such allegiance and obedience. [p. 198] [emphasis added]

Paraphrasing the words of another famous Church Growth movement leader,[2] Stanley is cutting the sinner some slack in the NT when it comes to that OT thing called sin. Stanley admits that Paul’s letters were often packed with exceedingly precise instructions as to how Christians should conduct themselves inside and outside the body of Christ, i.e., the Church. But according to Stanley, Paul explains away the importance of those instructions when writing to the Corinthian church. Paul supposedly admitted “that one of his applications is completely his idea. He goes out of his way to ensure nobody gives Jesus credit for what is his unique contribution.” [pp. 201-202] But Stanley’s interpretation is astounding when one considers the implications for the inerrancy of God’s Word. It would mean that Paul’s words in the NT have less standing than Christ’s words and needn’t be thought as constraining on the lifestyles of the Corinthians. Put another way, if the words of the NT are printed in red, they have greater authority and supposedly are more inspired than the words printed in black, especially if those words in black sound too much like those Old Testament “Thou shalt” and “thou shalt nots.”

Stanley’s justification of love over truth

Stanley justifies his teachings about the New Testament by calling Christians to a “horizontal morality” as opposed to the traditional “vertical morality.”

In the stream of Christianity I grew up in, sin avoidance was pretty much our guiding light…The whole thing was vertical. I was far more concerned about how my behavior affected my standing with God than I was about how my behavior affected anybody else. After all, the Bible says pleasing God is more important than pleasing people. [pp. 173-174]

At this point Stanley with a deft interpretational sleight of hand transforms the Old Testament vertical morality to a New Testament horizontal morality. He begins with Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisee regarding the greatest commandment.

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:35-40. NIV]

Stanley explains that the second commandment was not subordinate to the first but merely second in sequence. He says that for first century Jews loving God meant obeying his commands, but in the new covenant, loving Jesus is loving your neighbor. He has essentially shifted vertical morality to horizontal morality. [pp. 182-183] However, in doing so, Stanley sweeps aside many of the moral attributes of God.

We get a better insight into the meaning of Stanley’s substitution of horizontal morality for vertical morality by understanding that morality is more than a list of do’s and don’ts. A few synonyms are helpful in understanding the meaning of morality: principles, standards, goodness, decency, honesty, integrity, virtue, and perhaps most important, godliness or godlikeness. Has Stanley’s shift from vertical morality to horizontal morality redefined the meaning of morality itself? In a word, yes. Quoting Stanley, “Jesus issued his new commandment as a replacement for everything in the existing list. Including the Big Ten. Just as his new covenant fulfilled and replaced the old covenant, Jesus’ new commandment fulfills and replaces the old commandments.” [p. 196] [emphasis in original]

Essentially, Stanley is saying that those Old Testament definitions of morality that reflect the nature of God are no longer valid and therefore God must have changed. However, James tells us that God is unchangeable with regard to His attributes, His perfection, or His purpose for humankind. “ Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” [James 1:17. NIV] [emphasis added]

To summarize, Stanley’s New Testament theology places love above truth and virtually everything else in the New Testament. To prove his point Stanley quotes 1 John 2:10 but let’s also include the preceding verse.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. [1 John 2:9-10. NIV]

Based on this verse Stanley says, “That is remarkable. According to John, who got it straight from Jesus, if we love well, all is well. Period. That’s it. Love well and you’re in the light.” [p. 227] But Stanley’s “Period” is misplaced. It dismisses or ignores verses 15 through17 which commands his disciples to not love the world.

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [1 John 2:15-17. NIV] [emphasis added]

A complete reading of the 1 John 2 refutes Stanley’s statement that if Christians love well, all is well. The remaining verses of 1 John 2 show that other requirements (i.e., not loving the world) must be met in order to be in the light. Even though Christians love well, if they love the world the Father is not in them, they are not in the light, and all is not well. Once again Andy Stanley is revealed as being a false teacher.

Stanley’s gospel of cheap grace

Stanley’s dismisses vertical morality, but also substantially dismisses horizontal morality except for a Christian loving others well. Recall the excerpt from Stanley’s book quoted in Part I: “The new covenant would fulfill and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems reflected in just about every religion of the ancient world. His new command would serve as the governing behavioral ethic for members of his new movement.” [p. 24] [emphasis added]

What is this new behavioral ethic? Stanley wrote that “Participants in the new covenant are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” [p. 196] [emphasis in original] Stanley is saying that love is of sole importance, but this essentially sweeps away all other behavioral admonishments found in both the OT and NT and replaces them with “if we love well, all is well. Period.” When one reads Stanley’s book from cover to cover, it is plain to see that his new covenant model is not new but merely the latest and most virulent mutation of cheap grace that substantially eliminates all of the “behavioral” commandments found in the New Testament.

In America many evangelical churches have become apostate by abandoning any pretense of adherence to the gospel message. Biblical truths are twisted, mocked, or dismissed altogether. Others champion a social gospel or preach a gospel of health, wealth, happiness, harmony, and cheap grace in place of the cross and death to self. Eighty years ago, Bonhoeffer described “cheap grace.”

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]

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.[4]

Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love which attempts to redefine, hide, or deny sin but does not eradicate it. Rather, it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. Cheap grace makes the shedding of Christ’s blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

The preaching of nonjudgmental love occurs because the world’s definitions of love and tolerance have invaded the church and compromised the gospel message. As a result, the message of many churches is that God’s nonjudgmental love is so vast that he will overlook sin for a season if not altogether ignore it if one will only acknowledge Him. The new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[5]

But the world’s definitions of love and tolerance are contrary to the very nature of God because he cannot tolerate sin. God is both loving and just, and if His love is conformed to the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance, then he is cannot be both loving and just.

In this article the writer has attempted to expose Andy Stanley’s false teaching. If what has been written is correct, then Christians must follow Paul’s command written to the Ephesians and have nothing to do with his “fruitless deeds of darkness.” [Ephesians 5:11. NIV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources

[1] All page numbers in this article refer to Andy Stanley’s book: Andy Stanley, Irresistible – Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018).
[2] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), p. 216.
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117- 118.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV,” January 9, 2015, culturewarrior.net

The post Andy Stanley is a false teacher – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Andy Stanley is the east coast representative of the American Church Growth trifecta whose other two representatives are Rick Warren (Saddleback Church on the west coast) and Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Church in the central U.S. until his recent forced retirement). Stanley’s personal website outlines his background and extensive influence on the American church and culture at large.

Communicator, author, and pastor, Andy Stanley founded Atlanta-based North Point Ministries in 1995. Today, NPM is comprised of six churches in the Atlanta area and a network of more than 70 churches around the globe that collectively serve nearly 118,000 people weekly. A survey of U.S. pastors in Outreach Magazine identified Andy Stanley as one of the top 10 most influential living pastors in America.

In the digital world, his success reaches well beyond the Atlanta area. Over 1.8 million of his messages, leadership videos, and podcasts are accessed from North Point’s website monthly.

In 2012, Your Move with Andy Stanley premiered on NBC after Saturday Night Live and on CBS after The Late, Late Show with James Corden in 2017, giving him an even wider audience with which to share his culturally relevant, practical insights for life and leadership. Currently, over seven million episodes are consumed each month through television and podcasts, underscoring his impact not only as a communicator but also as an influencer of culture.[1]

If the title of this article is correct, then he also qualifies as one of the top ten false teachers in America.

Irresistible – Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World[2]

In September 2018 Stanley published the above titled book. It is the culmination of his Church Growth, seeker-friendly journey that has led him and millions of Americans to the door of the post-modern apostate emergent church. The response to Stanley’s book has been swift from both his defenders and those that who recognize the heresy in his teachings. Two admirers of his book among others described their favorable impressions of Irresistible on the flyleaf endorsements at the beginning of the book.

John Maxwell – Writer, speaker and author of The 360 Degree Leader.

This book challenged me to rethink my thoughts about the Old Testament, discuss with fellow believers what I was learning, do more connecting and less correcting of others, and be salt and light, making things better and brighter. I love how Andy loves people…ALL of them.[3]

In Irresistible, Maxwell appears to have mistaken Stanley’s salt-free and light (i.e., lightweight) brand of Christianity for the real salt and light that Christians must be to the world.

Kara Powell, PhD. – Executive director of the Fuller Youth Institute and coauthor of Growing Young.

More than any other book I’ve read in years, Irresistible has stretched my view of Scripture. I can’t hear or read a passage from the Old or New Testaments without thinking about Andy’s provocative insights. If you and I take this book seriously, our lives and our churches will never be the same.[4]

I agree with Dr. Powell’s assessment that if people take this book seriously, the lives of Christians and their churches will never be the same…but not in the good way she meant.

It is difficult to respond to every error written and promoted in the 334 pages of Stanley’s book, but in this response to Stanley’s aberrant theology an attempt will be made to fairly present the essence of Stanley’s teachings by using his own words. This will be followed by a refutation of his false teachings through reliance on God’s inerrant Word and other scholarly resources.

Stanley relegates the Old Testament to being old wine-skins of Judaism and paganism

The following are excerpts from Stanley’s book:

Churches gravitate toward the people who are already there. From day one I’ve insisted that reaching people far from God is more important than keeping folks who have already crossed the line of faith. [p. 9]

Jesus stepped into history to introduce something new. He didn’t come to Jerusalem offering a new version or an update to an existing thing. He didn’t come to make something better. Jesus was sent by the Father to introduce something entirely new. [p. 20] [emphasis in original]

Jesus was new wine. Judaism and paganism were old wine-skins. The new Jesus offered was a departure from the traditions of both…Specifically, Jesus came to establish a new covenant, a new command and a new movement. His new movement would be international. The new covenant would fulfill and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems reflected in just about every religion of the ancient world. His new command would serve as the governing behavioral ethic for members of his new movement. [pp. 23-24] [emphasis in original] [Note the word “behavioral” mentioned twice in this quotation. Its importance will become evident in Part II.]

…we find the people of Israel camping at the foot of Mount Sinai watching Moses descend with God’s instructions for the nation. We call it the Ten Commandments. But before it was over, it was more like the 600 commandments. Those famous first ten functioned a bit like the table of contents–the Cliff Notes version. [p. 29] [emphasis in original]

Careless mixing and matching of old and new covenant values and imperatives make the current version of our faith unnecessarily resistible. This is why I insist that most of what makes us resistible are things we should have been resisting all along…While Jesus was foreshadowed in the old covenant, he did not come to extend it. He came to fulfill it, put a bow on it, and establish something new. [pp. 95-96]

According to Paul (referring to Romans 7:4), Jesus followers are dead to the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments have no authority over you. None. To be clear: Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments. If that makes you uncomfortable, it’s because you have unwittingly embraced the version of Christianity the Jerusalem Council declared unnecessary—the version Paul spent his ministry warning against. You are attempting to straddle two incompatible covenants…The Ten Commandments didn’t even offer to rent you, much less buy you. The Ten Commandments never lifted a finger to help you. Worse, the Ten Commandments sat back and waited for you to screw up. And when you did, they finally spoke up not to defend you but to condemn you. [p.136] [emphasis added]

Last I Googled, there were 929 chapters in our English Old Testament. Abraham shows up in chapter eleven and the rest is history—Jewish history. The Old Testament is not a comprehensive book about God. The Old Testament does not tell us everything God was doing everywhere in the world. It’s not a biography of God’s early years. The Jewish Scriptures describe God’s activity in connection to one particular people group. [pp. 160-161]

The Old Testament is great for inspiration but not application. Don‘t do anything the Old Testament tells you to do because someone in the Old Testament tells you to do it or because they did it themselves. [pp. 166-167]

…I’m not sitting around and praying for revival either. I grew up in the pray for revival culture. It’s often a cover for an unwillingness to put the low rungs back on the ladder. Instead of doing what needs to be done, the revival crowd prays for God to do what he’s already done. First-century Christians prayed for boldness, not revival. [p.275] [emphasis in original] [5]

These quotations exemplify Stanley’s total rejection of the Old Testament’s importance in knowing God. However, the grand meta-narrative of the Bible encompasses the creation of the universe and all therein, the Fall, and the means of man’s redemption. Stanley’s blithe dismissal of the Old Testament eviscerates much of God’s revelation to mankind by rejection of the creation story and the fall of mankind as being immaterial to redemption and the faith walk of Christians. Stanley may believe he has effectively placed the Old Testament into a religious dumpster along with paganism and other ancient religions, but Isaiah wrote the real end of the story, “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.” [Isaiah 40:8. NIV]

J. I. Packer asked a question and then answered it with regard to the purpose of mankind: “What were we made for? To know God.”[6] John the Apostle gives the answer as to “why” knowing God is the most important quest of one’s life. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” [John 17:3. KJV] It is through both the Old and New Testaments and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men that we can know God.

In rebutting Stanley’s false teaching we turn to Paul’s second letter to Timothy.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:14-17. NIV] [emphasis added]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps states that 2 Timothy 2:15 refers primarily to the Old Testament but at that same time there were some New Testament writings that were viewed as inspired by which is meant that those writings were given directly by God to people through inspiration by the Holy Spirit.[7]

For us today, Scripture refers to the authoritative (i.e., completely reliable, supported by solid evidence and established authority) writings of both the OT and NT (i.e., “the Bible”). They are God’s original message to humanity and the only infallible (i.e. incapable of mistake, never wrong, completely true and certain not to fail in its teaching) revelation of himself and his saving activity for all people.[8]

Stanley attempts to divert the meaning of these plain-spoken words by saying that Paul used the Jewish Scriptures to teach, rebuke, correct, and train but that he “never sets his application ball on an old covenant tee. When it comes to how believers are to live, he was quick to point to Jesus as the standard.” [p. 168] However, Stanley’s argument makes no sense. Why teach something if it is not applicable to one’s life, either as a warning to refrain/avoid or an encouragement to imitate? Why would Paul use the Old Testament as a means to teach, rebuke, correct, and train if it was not to be applied to the Christian’s life in light of the redeeming work of Christ on the cross? The only credible answer is that Paul wouldn’t.

But it gets worse. Recall Stanley’s words from above. “The Ten Commandments have no authority over you. None. To be clear: Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments.” [p. 136] If Stanley’s teaching is true, we must ask two obvious questions. When did the once inspired Old Testament become uninspired? When did truth become untruth?

Exodus 20:1 says that “God spoke all these words” which were followed by God’s spoken delivery of the Ten Commandments over the next sixteen verses. God not only spoke the Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus, Deuteronomy 5:6-20 repeats what God said and then follows in verse 21 by stating that He also wrote them on two stone tablets which He then gave to Moses. Did God change His mind and no longer consider the Ten Commandments a reflection of His divine character after Christ’s death on the cross, burial, and resurrection?

Stanley cannot deny that his teaching say that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is no longer God’s inspired Word and that it somehow had become dis-inspired, relegated to being called the “Jewish Scriptures,” and placed on a level with paganism? This is blatant false teaching of the highest magnitude and fails on a number of levels. Donald Stamps explains why Stanley’s teaching about the Old Testament is false.

• In both the Old and New Testaments, keeping God’s commands was a matter of trusting him, taking him as his word and loving him…

• The law emphasized the eternal truth that obeying God out of love results in a fulfilling life with blessing from the Lord.

• The law expressed God’s character, including his love, goodness, justice, and hatred of evil…

• Salvation in the OT was never based on the ability to keep all the commandments perfectly. That is why part of God’s relationship with Israel involved a system of sacrifices that provided a means of forgiveness for those who broke the law but sincerely repented and trusted God to have mercy on them.

• The law and covenant of the Old Testament were not complete in themselves or intended to be permanent. Rather, the old law temporarily guided and protected God’s people until Christ came and the old covenant was fulfilled by the new covenant. Through this new “agreement,” God has fully revealed his plan of salvation—to rescue people from the ultimate destruction of sin and restore them to a personal relationship with himself. This does not mean that the moral principles of the law are no longer necessary or important for us today. God’s standards of moral purity and truth still apply, and God’s Spirit now helps us live by these standards in a way we never could have done without him. Under the new covenant, God promised to put his laws in his people’s minds and hearts…[9] [emphasis added]

Not only does Stanley reject the relevance of the Old Testament to New Testament Christianity, his teaching of the New Testament is fundamentally-flawed because it follows the Church Growth, seeker-friendly model of Christianity which will be examined in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Communicator, Author, and Pastor,” Andy Stanley. https://andystanley.com/about/ (accessed November 13, 2018).
[2] All page numbers in this article refer to Andy Stanley’s book: Andy Stanley, Irresistible – Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018).
[3] Ibid., flyleaf endorsements.
[4] Ibid., See page numbers referenced.
[5] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 1973), p. 33.
[6] Donald C. Stamps, “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 1990), p. 2360.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Donald C. Stamps, “The Old Testament Law,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers International, 1990), pp. 160-161.

The post Andy Stanley is a false teacher – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Os Guinness has described another of those pivotal moments playing out in the Christian West in his book, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization.

Christians in the West are living in a grand clarifying moment. The gap between Christians and the wider culture is widening, and many formerly nominal Christians are becoming “religious nones”…

We face a solemn hour for humanity at large and a momentous showdown for the Western church. At stake is the attempted completion of the centuries-long assault on the Jewish and Christian faiths and their replacement by progressive secularism as the defining faith of the West and the ideology said to be the best suited to the conditions of advanced modernity. The gathering crisis is therefore about nothing less than a struggle for the soul of the West…[1]

The battlefield upon which this grand clarifying moment is played out is the culture wars between the pervasive liberal/progressive forces mostly aligned with Satan’s master plan for humanity and the shrinking numbers of Americans who still adhere to the Christian worldview of reality.

How did the church allow the nation to get into this situation? A large part of the short answer is that American evangelical churches over the last 50 years have virtually abandoned the public square and have become weak and powerless in the process. Large portions of the evangelical church appear to have forgotten that Satan is attempting to destroy the church through the destruction of the Christian culture of America and all of Western civilization. He and his evil empire oppose righteousness, weaken the church through compromise, debauch the truth of God’s word in the minds of men, and pollute the land with a vile stream of wickedness that is flowing into every facet of life.

Just before the election in 2016, I wrote in culturewarrior.net the following words in anticipation that the election would be one of those pivotal moments in the nation’s history.

One aspect of this grand clarifying moment for Christians will occur as Americans go to the polls in in the November elections. The results will be more than a minor historical footnote and promises to be a pivotal event in deciding the direction of the nation and ultimately Western civilization.[2]

Given the course of events since the 2016 election, it appears the surprising and miraculous outcome of that election was of even greater importance than could have been imagined at that time. It also appears that another pivotal moment was again present in the 2018 election. Many people have mixed emotions about the results of the recent election. However, the election results were a significant if incomplete victory for those of the Christian faith. Although control of the House of Representatives was lost for the next two years, the retention and expansion of the majority in the Senate was vastly more important for the nation in the long-term given the importance of the judicial confirmations that will occur.

The nation is in a cycle in which evil abounds, and it is critical for Christians to fight the good fight of faith in every election. That is the price we pay for freedom, both religious and otherwise. It appears that our national elections for the foreseeable future will continue to be pivotal moments. This is occurring because the nation has spent its reserves of moral capital and the voiceless church has little cultural authority and suasion to turn the tide of immorality and spiritual degeneration.

Knowing this, Guinness believes that Christians must once again become those who in the eyes of the world are “impossible people” with

…hearts that can melt with compassion, but with faces like flint and backbones of steel who are unmanipulable, unbribable, undeterrable and unclubbable (i.e., coercion through comfortable conformity), without ever losing the gentleness, the mercy, the grace and the compassion of our Lord.[3]

Perhaps the best advice for the church in this troublesome age comes from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. First, he makes certain that we understand who the real enemy is that Christians are battling. Then, he instructs the Christian on how to prepare for battle.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. [Ephesians 6:12-13. NIV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps gives our modern minds further insight into what Paul is saying. Satan and a host of evil spirits are the spiritual rulers of the world. They empower ungodly men and women to oppose God’s will and attack believers. They form a “vast multitude and are organized into a highly systematized empire of evil…” [4] The church must confront this evil empire and does so by putting on the whole armor of God (see Ephesians 6:12-17). And when the battle is heated and defeat seems near at hand, having done all, the Church must continue to stand. It can do so because that itinerate preacher who trod the hills and valleys of ancient Palestine two thousand years ago really was the Son of God, and His kingdom will never fail.

So clothed and armed, Christians can and must boldly speak out as well as take actions to engage every facet of society for the cause of Christ: (1) in the halls of government and law, (2) in education from kindergarten through graduate school, (3) in science and medicine,(4) in business, economics, and places of commerce, (5) in the media, (6) in the arts and entertainment, and (7) and in a host of other areas of the public arena.

Charles Finney was the renowned leader of the second half of the Second Great Awakening in the middle third of the nineteenth century. His instructions regarding the body of Christ’s involvement in both politics and religion are indisputable and should be embraced by both church leaders and the laity.

Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take.[5]

Whether the church wins or loses elections as it does battle for the cause of Christ in the culture wars is not the issue. We must remember that the church is the body of Christ, and each and every member of the body has a duty to fight. John Quincy Adams said it best, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”[6]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), p. 22.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, “The Church Triumphant – Part I,” culturewarrior.net. November 4, 2016. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2016/11/04/the-church-triumphant-part-i/
[3] Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, pp. 31-32.
[4] 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), p.439.
[5] Charles Finney, Lecture XV “Hindrances to Revival” (Revival Lectures, 1855), quoted by Bill Federer, “When did duty cease being a virtue?” WMD, October 20, 2018. https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/when-did-duty-cease-being-a-virtue/ (accessed November 9, 2018).
[6] Bill Federer, “When did duty cease being a virtue?” WMD, October 20, 2018.
https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/when-did-duty-cease-being-a-virtue/ (accessed November 9, 2018).

The post The 2018 Election – Another pivotal moment in America’s history and destiny first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was the west Philadelphia abortionist whose clinic was described in a 2011 Grand Jury report as a “house of horrors.”

The 281-page report described how Gosnell and his staff regularly delivered full-term babies whom they then killed by “snipping” their spinal cords with scissors. Hundreds of infants were dispatched in this way. Despite numerous complaints to the state health department about the clinic conditions, Gosnell’s filthy abortion mill went without an inspection for sixteen years.[1]

Following the Grand Jury’s findings, Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder (reduced to 4 counts at trial) and one count of third-degree murder, as well as infanticide (dismissed at trial). The non-murder charges included 24 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s Abortion Act by performing illegal third-trimester abortions, 227 counts of violating a 24-hour waiting-period requirement, failing to counsel patients, and racketeering. On May 13, 2013, (three days after “Oh!? It’s only a matter of sanitation and not murder” was published), Gosnell was given three life sentences without possibility of parole.

Along the way, the story became about more than Gosnell himself. It became about the media blackout of his trial. A famous photo of the courtroom was circulated that showed rows of seats reserved for the press, empty. Apparently, the trial of an abortionist who had murdered born-alive infants wasn’t a story newsrooms wanted to cover—at least until they were guilted into it. All of this is why this movie is so important. And wait till you hear how it was funded. Almost 30,000 people donated to the Indiegogo campaign to make the film. In total, the producers raised over $2.3 million, making it the most successful campaign in Indiegogo’s history.

But, the project has faced serious opposition. The film’s distributors faced a libel lawsuit in 2015 that delayed its release for three years. Finally, five years after Gosnell was sentenced, the movie is hitting theaters.[2]

This article is also written in memory of the nameless millions of aborted babies known only to God.

Oh!? It’s a matter of sanitation and not murder – May 10, 2013

You may have followed the information (if you were able to find it in main stream media) flowing from the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion clinic operator accused of murdering a woman and seven babies born alive. I first wrote about Gosnell and Planned Parenthood on April 12, 2013 (See Archives: “Postcard from Hell”[3]). In that article I referred to the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist, regarding a bill before the Florida legislature that would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion. In response to being asked what would Planned Parenthood do if a live baby were born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”[4] With regard to her callus comment I said that, “Apart from lack of sanitation and improper licensing, Planned Parenthood would have little to no issues with Dr. Gosnell’s methods and decision-making process with regard to killing a live baby.” [emphasis added]

Referring to the heart-breaking and disturbing facts that occurred at the Philadelphia abortion clinic, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) attempted to have the Senate pass a sense of the Senate resolution that would have condemned illegal abortion practices. The resolution stated:

Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability in the United States, public policies regarding such, and evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations of the natural right to life of infants who are born alive or are capable of being born alive, and therefore are entitled to equal protection under the law.[5]

Given the facts coming out of the Philadelphia trial, it would appear that no reasonable person could object to Senator Lee’s resolution. However, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have found a way. A favorite ploy of Congressional Democrats is to resort to obfuscation in blocking solutions for problems when those solutions are in conflict with their interests and agenda and those of their allies. The issue is effectively muddled by enlarging the problem and then seeking “comprehensive” solutions instead of addressing the pressing issue of the moment. One example of this Democratic obfuscation is illegal immigration in which securing America’s borders is ignored or marginalized in favor of making it a part of a larger solution in dealing with “undocumented aliens.”[6]

Senator Blumenthal employed this tactic to defeat Senator Lee’s resolution and propose his own resolution which states that all “incidents of abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices should be condemned and prevented and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”[7]

Senator Lee sees clearly that the problem is immediate and of such compelling nature as to require Congressional action…it is about murdering born alive babies. But Notice Blumenthal’s subtle footwork. For the Senator, it is not about murder but “abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices.” Yes, murder is abusive and illegal, but it can never be labeled a health care practice. It appears that Congressional Democrats, like their ally Planned Parenthood, cannot distinguish between abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices and murder of born alive babies. While Congressional Democrats obfuscate and dither, little human beings are being killed.

Triage is a medical term. It means the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims to reflect the urgency of the patient’s need in order to maximize the number of survivors. The culture wars rage and both born and unborn babies are battle victims dying in America’s abortion mills. Senator Lee’s proposal pointed to the urgency of the need in order to maximize the number of survivors. But for Congressional Democrats, murdering born alive babies does not rise to the level requiring triage. It is part of a larger problem that must be investigated, mulled, discussed, considered…ad infinitum. Meanwhile, millions of little babies will never see their first birthday.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] John Stonestreet, “Gosnell – The Movie,” Breakpoint Daily from the Colson Center, October 10, 2018. https://mail.yahoo.com/d/search/keyword=gosnell/messages/70843 (accessed 10-12-18).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Larry G. Johnson, “Oh!? It’s a matter of sanitation and not murder,” culturewarrior.net, May 10, 2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/04/12/postcard-from-hell/
[4] John McCormack, “Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion,” Weekly Standard.com. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-for-right-to-post-birth-abortion (accessed October 13, 2018). [The original source was no longer available.]
[5] Dr. Susan Berry, “Sen. Mike Lee resolves to address “Gosnell-type” abortion crime,” Brietbart News, May 6, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/06/Sen-Mike-Lee-Resolves-To-Address-Gosnell-Type-Abortion-Crime (accessed May 10, 2013).
[6] “Blumenthal Delivers Floor Speech Objecting To Senator Lee’s Abortion Resolution, Introduces Broader Resolution Condemning Criminal Acts And Malpractice In All Health Care Settings” Richard Blumenthal, United States Senator – Connecticut, May 8, 2013.
http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-delivers-floor-speech-objecting-to-senator-lees-abortion-resolution-introduces-broader-resolution-condemning-criminal-acts-and-malpractice-in-all-health-care-settings (accessed May 10, 2013).
[7] Ibid.

The post Oh!? It’s a matter of sanitation and not murder – The Gosnell Movie first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was the west Philadelphia abortionist whose clinic was described in a 2011 Grand Jury report as a “house of horrors.”

The 281-page report described how Gosnell and his staff regularly delivered full-term babies whom they then killed by “snipping” their spinal cords with scissors. Hundreds of infants were dispatched in this way. Despite numerous complaints to the state health department about the clinic conditions, Gosnell’s filthy abortion mill went without an inspection for sixteen years.[1]

Following the Grand Jury’s findings, Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder (reduced to 4 counts at trial) and one count of third-degree murder, as well as infanticide (dismissed at trial). The non-murder charges included 24 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s Abortion Act by performing illegal third-trimester abortions, 227 counts of violating a 24-hour waiting-period requirement, failing to counsel patients, and racketeering. On May 13, 2013, thirty-one days after the following article was written, Gosnell was given three life sentences without possibility of parole.

Along the way, the story became about more than Gosnell himself. It became about the media blackout of his trial. A famous photo of the courtroom was circulated that showed rows of seats reserved for the press, empty. Apparently, the trial of an abortionist who had murdered born-alive infants wasn’t a story newsrooms wanted to cover—at least until they were guilted into it. All of this is why this movie is so important. And wait till you hear how it was funded. Almost 30,000 people donated to the Indiegogo campaign to make the film. In total, the producers raised over $2.3 million, making it the most successful campaign in Indiegogo’s history.

But, the project has faced serious opposition. The film’s distributors faced a libel lawsuit in 2015 that delayed its release for three years. Finally, five years after Gosnell was sentenced, the movie is hitting theaters.[2]

This article is also written in memory of the nameless millions of aborted babies known only to God.

Postcard from Hell – April 12, 2013

“It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place…I felt like a fireman in hell. I couldn’t put out all the fires.” [emphasis added] These are the words of Steven Massof, one of the employees in an abortion clinic operated by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, describing the busy times when the women were given drugs to induce contractions all at once. Gosnell is on trial this week for killing seven children and a young mother in a filthy, blood-splattered clinic near Philadelphia.[3]

The babies had the misfortune to be born live in Gosnell’s clinic staffed in part by teenagers posing as licensed anesthetists. The bodies of the tiny victims were stored in a freezer in the basement of the clinic. Massof admitted that killing babies born alive was standard procedure at the clinic. He estimated that at least 100 babies were born alive in the clinic and had their necks snipped, but the beheadings were so routine that no one could determine the exact number.[4]

Generally, such stories of horrific tragedies would be meat for the media grinder. However, you probably have not heard much if any reports from the great majority of news media. But thanks to the Family Research Council and other conservative organizations and leaders, the story which the media have ignored or censored is gaining some attention.

Sherry West was another long-time employee of the clinic. She testified that she called the babies specimens “because it was easier to deal with mentally.” West recalled one incident of a “screaming baby that really freaked me out…I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien.” She estimated the baby to have been between 18 and 24 inches long, one of the largest she had seen during abortion procedures at the Women’s Medical Society clinic operated by Dr. Gosnell at that time.[5]

Perhaps you will recall President Clinton’s statement that abortions in America should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But his statement is just political sop to pacify the squeamish. The same sop to hide abortion’s grisly reality was used by Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist, in her testimony regarding a bill before the Florida legislature that would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion. In response to being asked what would Planned Parenthood do if a live baby were born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”[6]

Effectively, Planned Parenthood would leave the life or death decisions to the Dr. Gosnells of the world with regard to babies born alive after a botched abortion. Certainly the mother is in no emotional or physical shape to make a thoughtful and rational decision, and it is extremely unlikely that the doctor would consult the mother’s family (generally not present anyway) as the baby is lying on the table and struggling for life. Apart from lack of sanitation and improper licensing, Planned Parenthood would have little to no issues with Dr. Gosnell’s methods and decision-making process with regard to killing a live baby.

After January 22, 1973, the lives of unborn babies were no longer sacrosanct in America but placed in the hands of the deciders following the dictates of man’s law. It is estimated that over fifty two million abortions have fallen victim to man’s law in America from January 1973 through the end of 2008. These estimates came from direct surveys of abortionists by the Guttmacher Institute, once a research affiliate of Planned Parenthood. The number of abortions per day, if an average were calculated for the entire thirty-six year period, is over 3,900. This average number of abortions per day exceeds by over one thousand the number of lives lost in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.[7]

Numbers and statistics are sterile things and do not convey the horror of a single abortion as shown above. Euphemisms, platitudes, and legal arguments about rights, privacy, and choice attempt to soften the picture or divert our attention from the horror surrounding the abortion of an unborn child.

Legalized abortion was the wedge used to split open the historic Western commitment to the dignity of human life.[8] Now the humanist defenders of abortion continue attempts to drive the wedge deeper by sanctioning the taking of innocent life which effectively dispenses with concerns as to when human life begins. Thus, the abortionists’ coveted right of choice is attempting to move across the line from abortion to infanticide. Doubters only need to listen to the testimony of Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Alisa LaPolt Snow.

Many scientists and academics would not stop at aborting babies born alive as the result of a botched abortion. Some such as Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner for discovering the double helix in DNA, support screening newborns. For Crick, those that fail to meet certain health standards would be euthanized. Peter Singer, Princeton’s DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, believes that parents ought to be allowed to kill their disabled children. His reasoning is “…that they are ‘nonpersons’ until they are rational and self-conscious.” Singer extends his reasoning to the “…killing of incompetent persons of any age if their families decide their lives are ‘not worth living’.” Some would scoff that Crick’s and Singer’s opinions are extreme and would never gain cultural acceptance. However, legalized abortion in America was also once thought extreme by most Americans.[9]

Under the aegis of a majority of nine people on the United States Supreme Court, abortion became a choice in 1973, and unborn babies suddenly became mere fetal tissue with potentiality for human life. Contrast the Supreme Court’s decision and humanism’s convoluted defenses of abortion through fictitious rights and irrational moralizing about choice with the words of the Psalmist:

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! It is amazing to think about. Your workmanship is marvelous—and how well I know it. You were there while I was being formed in utter seclusion! You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your Book! [Psalm 139:13-16. Living Bible]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
[1] John Stonestreet, “Gosnell – The Movie,” Breakpoint Daily from the Colson Center, October 10, 2018. https://mail.yahoo.com/d/search/keyword=gosnell/messages/70843 (accessed 10-12-18).
[2] Ibid.
[3] “At Gosnell trial, Del. woman testifies scene ‘freaked me out,” delawareonline.com, April 9, 2013. http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130409/NEWS/304070067/ (accessed April 10, 2013). [The archives of this source as if the date of republication of this article are presently accessible only with a paid subscription.]
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] John McCormack,” Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion,” Weekly Standard.com. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-for-right-to-post-birth-abortion (accessed October 13, 2018).
[7] 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. 344.
[8] Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1999), p 120.
[9] Johnson, Ye shall be as gods, pp. 350-351.

The post Postcard from Hell – The Gosnell Movie first appeared on Culture Warrior.

According to one news report, approval by the voters occurred in spite of intense opposition from Oklahoma politicians, law enforcement officials, and churches. There was intense political opposition to the proposed law from such people as U.S. Senator James Langford and from law enforcement personnel who deal with the consequences of the drug crisis every day of the week. Although there were officials from the heads of various Oklahoma denominations including the Assemblies of God, various Baptist denominations, and the Catholic Church that spoke out against State Question 788, it is very apparent that concerted opposition to the new marijuana law did not come from the rank and file pastors and congregations within those Oklahoma churches.

The fallout from this horrible law will be enormous as families are damaged or destroyed as well as the loss of many innocent lives on the state’s highways. The substantial margin of approval of State Question No. 788 is unequivocal evidence that the great majority of evangelical pastors and congregations were silent about their opposition if not secretly supportive of the law legalizing marijuana in Oklahoma.

When did the day arrive that Christian pastors and other Christian leadership no longer stand up in the church and in the community to speak God’s truth without worrying that secular listeners (and many congregation members) may not agree with even our most basic Christian beliefs?

For decades the American Evangelical church has been silent not only in the public square but in the churches themselves about societal, moral, and political issues. The truth of this observation is confirmed by an article from Christian News in August 2014 which reported the results of a survey conducted by George Barna.

Barna’s organization asked pastors across the country about their beliefs regarding the relevancy of Scripture to societal, moral and political issues, and the content of their sermons in light of their beliefs.

“What we’re finding is that when we ask them about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, ‘Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues,’” Barna explained. “Then we ask them: ‘Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?’ and the numbers drop…to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.”

Barna’s group also polled pastors about what factors they use to gauge whether or not a church is successful. “There are five factors that the vast majority of pastors turn to…Attendance, giving, number of programs, number of staff, and square footage. What I’m suggesting is [those pastors] won’t probably get involved in politics because it’s very controversial. Controversy keeps people from being in the seats, controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs,” Barna said.[1]

Pastor Chuck Baldwin, a radio broadcaster and former presidential candidate, wrote about the results of the Barna survey in an article titled “Odds Are that Your Pastor is Keeping the Truth from You Instead of Preaching It.” Baldwin said that Barna’s research shows that most pastors deliberately refrain from speaking on the issues of the day even when they understand that Bible plainly addresses these social, moral, and political issues.

“That 90% of America’s pastors are not addressing any of the salient issues affecting Christian people’s political or societal lives should surprise no one,” Baldwin wrote. “It has been decades since even a sizable minority of pastors have bothered to educate and inform their congregations as to the Biblical principles relating to America’s political, cultural, and societal lives.”

“Please understand this: America’s malaise is directly due to the deliberate disobedience of America’s pastors—and the willingness of the Christians in the pews to tolerate the disobedience of their pastor. Nothing more! Nothing less!” Baldwin continued. “When Paul wrote his own epitaph, it read, ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.’ (II Timothy 4:7) He didn’t say, ‘I had a large congregation, we had big offerings, we had a lot of programs, I had a large staff, and we had large facilities.’”

“It is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors; they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers; they are performers. They are not shepherds; they are hirelings,” he said. “It is also time for Christians to be honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the Scriptures, or do they want a pastor who is simply trying to be ‘successful?’”[2]

These articles were written four years ago. Given that the evangelical church continues to be powerless and weak-kneed in defending the faith in the culture, I can’t help but feel the results of a new Barna’s survey would be even worse as the morality of American culture continues to spiral downward and anti-Christian sentiment grows.

The Bible is very explicit about a Christian’s duty to warn the transgressor.

When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself. [Ezekiel 3:18-19. NIV]

Donald Stamps wrote about these two verses in his commentary, “Those who fail to warn the unfaithful will themselves be accountable to God for people’s spiritual destruction.”[3]

When pastors and other church leaders are silent, they erroneously separate the gospel from the kingdom and culture, whether intentional or not. When Pastors and other church leaders remain silent, we have left the nation’s culture to be framed without the influence of a biblical pattern, and whatever area the church does not influence will soon try to destroy the church. Put in modern terms, speaking warnings to the people is not about winning but being obedient to God for the victory is His. Christians are called to the battle regardless of the outcome of the battle while on this earth.

There are no neutral places where Christianity and the world can peacefully co-exist amidst the raging culture wars. Yet, many churches seek to cultivate great reputations and be highly esteemed in the community because they erroneously believe they will be a more effective influence for Christ. But most of the time the price of this nebulous influence and esteem is compromise and accommodation. Writing six decades ago, A. W. Tozer describes the eventual outcome of this style of seeking influence and esteem in the community.

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…

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.[4]

Without question it is easier to keep silent and avoid controversy, but there is a price to pay for being silent just as there is a price to pay when one speaks out. Silence is complicity and complicity is the path of the coward. Pastors, church boards, and other church leadership who are silent about social, moral, and political issues of the day speak volumes to people both inside and outside the church because people will think the church has nothing to say about life beyond the church doors. Jesus was never silent but stood up to the Pharisees (whom he called a brood of vipers), the government, and even his own disciples.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian and martyr for the faith during World War II and was executed in April 1945 on the direct order of Adolph Hitler. Bonhoeffer knew well the cost of silence in the church when faced with evil in the public square. He called it what it was…sin.

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil, God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.[5]

We have been silent witness of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretense; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open…Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?[6]

So where does the evangelical church in Oklahoma and across America go from here? A good place to begin would be the upcoming election season which culminates in the first week of November, and this includes the primary run-off elections to be decided over the next several weeks.

In today’s pervasive culture wars, every political race is critical from the national level down to the local community including school boards and city governments. On the national level, it appears that Christians have an opportunity to have one or two more Constitutional originalists nominated to the Supreme Court if conservatives hold the Senate. These nominees will largely decide the course of the nation over the next several decades.

The first step for church leaders is to gather and disseminate information about upcoming elections, candidates, and issues. Find out about the candidates backgrounds and beliefs, talk about the issues, and encourage people to vote their Christian values. Forget about who might be offended. Speak the truth. These actions must not be confined to just a bland one-Sunday announcement from the pulpit a week before the election. Rather, it must be a constant flow of information to the congregation and reminder of the importance of the elections. These efforts and actions should start immediately with the primary runoff elections and should start 60 to 90 days prior to the general election in November (late August or early September).

But church leaders’ efforts to educate their congregations about social, moral, and political issues of the times and to encourage them to speak and act accordingly within the culture do not end in November 2018. It must be an ongoing effort in which every church leader and congregation member become watchmen on the wall.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Heather Clark, “Study Reveals Most American Pastors Silent on Current Issues, Christian News, August 12, 2014. https://christiannews.net/2014/08/12/study-reveals-most-american-pastors-silent-on-current-issues-despite-biblical-beliefs (accessed June 27, 2018).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Donald Stamps, Commentary – Ezekiel 3:18-19, Fire Bible – Global Study Edition, New International Version,
Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Springfield, Missouri: Life Publishers, 2009), p. 1397.
[4] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1950, 1978), pp. 115-116.
[5] “20 Influential Quotes by Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Crosswalk.com. https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/inspiring-quotes/20-influential-quotes-by-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html (accessed June 29, 2018).
[6] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison Quotes,” goodreads. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1153999-widerstand-und-ergebung-briefe-und-aufzeichnungen-aus-der-haft (accessed June 29, 2018).

The post The shame of the silent church – Passage of Oklahoma’s new marijuana law 2018 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

As noted in the previous chapter, there were reports in the press of scattered revivals in many areas of America between 1900 and 1904 that preceded the worldwide revival of 1905. To gain a broad perspective and penetrating insight into the events and outworking of the American edition of the 1905 revival and the 1906 Pentecostal revival, we can look to the life and work of a young minister who became both a participant in and historian of the great American awakening during the first decade of the twentieth century. Born in rural Pennsylvania in 1871, Frank Bartleman became a journalist and traveling evangelist for forty three years to the time of his death in 1936. His participation in both the American Awakening of 1905 and the Pentecostal movement’s embryonic stirrings in 1906 coupled with his extensive, first-hand accounts give the modern reader an unparalleled view of those momentous times in church history.

Bartleman grew up on his family’s farm but left at age seventeen. He was converted in the Grace Baptist Church of Philadelphia in 1893. Within a year he felt a call to full-time ministry and was soon ordained by the Temple Baptist Church. He ended his association with the Baptists in 1897 and chose “a humble walk of poverty and suffering” which characterized his wondering lifestyle for the remainder of his life. In 1900, he married Anna Ladd who at that time was the head of a Pittsburgh home for wayward girls. Following a brief pastorate of a Wesleyan Methodist church, he left for the more emotional and expressive Holiness movement. His departure from the Wesleyans eventually led to his departure from Pennsylvania. In 1904, Bartleman, his wife, and the first of their four children arrived in California where he became the appointed director of the Peniel Mission located in Sacramento, one of several Holiness rescue missions located in California. In December 1904, the family moved to Los Angeles where his daughter died in January 1905.[1]

It was only a week after the death of his daughter that the grief-stricken father plunged himself into ministry as he began preaching twice each day at the Peniel Mission in Pasadena. His labors bore considerable fruit as several young men experienced substantial spiritual growth, some of whom were called into full-time service for the Lord. In April, Bartleman was greatly inspired by F. B. Meyer, the great English evangelist, who while visiting California gave a first-hand account of the great revival in Wales. Recall from the previous chapter that Meyer, a close friend of D. L. Moody, was greatly used by God to minister many young Welsh ministers through the Keswick movement to deepen spiritual life. Meyer was instrumental in bringing revival to the British Isles in 1905. As a result of Meyer’s influence, Bartleman was inspired to write and distribute thousands of tracts in and around Los Angeles. He prayed incessantly for revival.[2]

A great revival broke out around the first part of May at the Lake Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Young men from the Penial Mission attended this church and began praying for a revival in Pasadena and then for Los Angeles and the whole of southern California. In June Bartleman attended the First Baptist Church which was pastored by Joseph Smale who had just returned from visiting Evan Roberts in Wales. The church was seeking the same visitation of the Holy Spirit as had been experienced in Wales. Bartleman continued writing articles, preaching, visiting various churches in the Los Angeles area, and praying in “soul travail” for revival throughout the remainder of 1905. He began corresponding with Evan Roberts and asked him to pray for a revival of the church in California.[3]

Praying for a Pentecost

Bartleman was unaware that a new tributary of the 1905 revival was about to surge forth in early 1906.

We had been for some time led to pray for a Pentecost. It seemed almost beginning. Of course we did not realize what a real Pentecost was. But the Spirit did, and led us to ask correctly. One afternoon, after a service in the New Testament Church, several of us seemed providentially led to join hands and agree in prayer to ask the Lord to pour out His Spirit speedily, with “signs following” (Mark 16:20)…We did not have “tongues” in mind. I think none of us had ever heard of such a thing. This was in February 1906…

On March 26, I went to a cottage meeting on Bonnie Brae Street (in Los Angeles). Both white and black believers were meeting there for prayer. I had attended another cottage meeting shortly before this, where I first met a Brother Seymour. He had just come from Texas. He was a black man, blind in one eye, very plain, spiritual, and humble. He attended the meetings at Bonnie Brae Street.[4]

Another account states that William Seymour actually lived at the cottage on North Bonnie Brae Street and was invited to also hold meeting there. At one of the meetings it was reported that a man was healed instantly after being anointed with oil. Following a second prayer, the man began to speak in tongues, but Seymour did not speak in tongues until April.[5]

On Sunday morning, April 15th, Bartleman went to Burbank Hall, the New Testament Church, where a black woman had spoken in tongues. When he learned that the Spirit had also fallen almost a week earlier on April 9th at the small cottage at Bonnie Brae Street, Bartleman went there that afternoon and found that the working of the Holy Spirit was still being manifested. The small group had been seeking for some time for an out pouring of the Holy Spirit. Many had been praying for months for a Pentecostal outpouring. Bartleman recognized that this little group that met outside of any established mission was the place where God “could have his way.” The Pentecostal pioneers at Bonnie Brae Street “had broken through for the multitude to follow.”[6]

On that same Sunday (April 15) when Bartleman attended the New Testament Church and learned of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the Bonnie Brae Street cottage, he felt a great burden to begin ten days of special prayer. On Wednesday three days later, the great San Francisco earthquake (April 18) occurred and devastated the city and surrounding region. The following day Los Angeles was struck by a small earthquake. When the earthquake struck the Los Angeles area, Bartleman was attending a noon meeting at Peniel Hall, 227 Main Street. He went home and then was impressed to go to a meeting that evening at 312 Azusa Street to which the Bonnie Brae group had moved since the previous Sunday because of the increasing size of the crowds. That evening Bartleman gave his first message at the Azusa Street Mission. After the message, two of those in attendance spoke in tongues, and many great blessings followed.[7] But it would be Friday, June 15th, before the Holy Spirit would “drop the ‘heavenly chorus’ into my soul. I found myself suddenly joining the rest who had received this supernatural gift.”[8]

Bartleman wrote that the April 18th and 19th earthquakes had opened many hearts to spiritual concerns, but most of those occupying the pulpits throughout the land were vigorously attempting to dispel the fears of the people by denying the earthquakes in San Francisco and Los Angeles were a judgement of God on a wicked people. But Bartleman believed the Holy Spirit was striving to reach the hearts the people by convicting them of their sin. By the following Wednesday Bartleman had received a message from God regarding the earthquakes in Los Angeles,had written it, had it printed, and began distributing thousands of tracts in Los Angeles. By May 11, Bartleman had finished his “Earthquake” tract distribution. In only three weeks, Bartleman had published and distributed with the help of others seventy-five thousand tracts in Los Angeles and other southern California cities. When describing the consequences of his tract distribution efforts, Bartleman wrote that, “All hell was stirred.”[9]

The revival at Azusa Street lasted about three years before the power was lifted in 1909. Bartleman wrote that by then (1909) those attending had come under bondage for there was a “spirit of dictatorship.” Every part of the meeting was planned and programed which did not allow for the Holy Spirit to move and work in freedom. Bartleman returned to Los Angeles from an overseas trip in late February 1911 and found that William H. Durham, a former Baptist minister from Chicago, had begun to hold meetings at the Azusa Street Mission (now called the Apostolic Faith Mission) in the absence of William Seymour. Under Durham’s preaching revival had broken out once again with as many as five hundred being turned away on one Sunday. But the trustees of the church quickly summoned Seymour back from the East Coast where he had been preaching. On May 2, 1911, Seymour and his trustees padlocked the doors of the Apostolic Faith Mission to keep Durham out because they didn’t like his message. But they also “locked God and the saints out from the old cradle of power.”[10]

The Pentecostal movement

The Topeka Bible School in north-central Kansas was under the leadership of Charles Parham. On December 31, 1900, at 7:00 p.m., just five hours before the beginning of the twentieth century, Agnus Osman asked Parham to lay his hands on her so that she might receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Parham did as she requested, and “a glory fell upon her, a halo seemed to surround her head and face.” As the eighteen-year-old Agnus received the baptism she began speaking in tongues. Revival historian Mathew Backholer wrote of Ozman’s experience. “This was the beginning of the first fruits of the Holy Spirit being poured out en masse at the very dawn of the twentieth century.”[11]

Prior to 1900, instances of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) had been reported in Tennessee which was followed by some fanaticism. After the occurrences at Topeka, the manifestations spread to other cities such as Houston, Texas. But the real explosion of Pentecostalism began with those who ministered at and participated in the Azusa Street revival. Soon the Pentecostal revival spread to Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the British Isles.[12]

Only a minority reached in the American revival of 1905 would become Pentecostals.[13] Dr. Orr estimated that in 1906 there were approximately ten thousand to fifteen thousand people considered to be Pentecostal, and twenty years later that number had increased ten-fold. By 1950, it was estimated that all Pentecostal denominations included more than a million adherents in the United States. The Assemblies of God established in 1914 was by far the largest of these. The Foursquare Gospel Church that grew out of the ministry of Aimee Semple McPherson’s Los Angeles ministry was another Pentecostal denomination of note.[14]

In describing the early Pentecostal movement, Dr. Orr wrote,

There was worldwide opposition to the new manifestations and the most violent attacks came from some of the most evangelical leaders and teachers among Protestants. In “Pentecost,” no John Wesley had risen to guide by wisdom or recommend by acknowledged scholarship. There were extremes and extravagances that the later Pentecostal leaders deplored…As opposition increased, Pentecostals began to withdraw membership from other denominations and form Pentecostal congregations…As early as 1907, missionaries were proceeding to far off mission fields from American Pentecostal Assemblies…[15]

The worldwide Awakening of the early 1900s and the Pentecostal revival that sprang from it were both similar and different in many respects. Of course the principal difference was that the widespread awakening of 1905, although charismatic in many ways, was not glossolalic. Early Pentecostalism also differed from the general awakening in that it stressed the spiritual gifts of tongues and healing. However, both movements rose from the common people, both were unmistakably interdenominational movements, both relied on the unplanned and sovereign ministry of the Holy Spirit, both were generally demonstrative in their worship and preaching, and both suffered from occasions of fabricated emotionalism and exploitation of feelings to achieve “religious” experiences when a genuine move of the Holy Spirit was not present.[16]

In defense of the early Pentecostal movement, it can be said that its failings in many respects were similar to the failings of the first century church which also sought to find its way without an historical pattern. Similarly, early twentieth century Pentecostals had to find their way given that the Pentecostal distinctives had generally not been operational within the body of Christ for almost two thousand years.

It was in the remainder of the twentieth century that the Pentecostal movement would span the globe and claim eight hundred million adherents by 2012.[17] By the middle of the century the Pentecostal movement had eclipsed the Awakening of 1905 to such an extent that modern historians and the church itself appear to be unaware of the magnitude and reach of the general awakening that occurred in the first decade of the twentieth century.[18]

Other American revivals in the twentieth century

There have been many revivals in America during the remainder of the twentieth century following the awakening of 1905 and the Pentecostal revival that sprang from it in 1906. However, most of these revivals occurred in the local church or community. But even local revivals have largely disappeared from the American evangelical landscape since the 1970s and 1980s as a result of the rise of the monolithic Church Growth movement which does not include the message of Holy Spirit led revival.

In the twentieth century, district and regional revivals were very rare, and it can be safely said that there has not been any true national revival or a general awakening in America since the first decade of the twentieth century. However, there have been some local revivals that have received national and even international notoriety but cannot be classified as having been truly national in character even though efforts to transplant these revivals to other parts of the country have met with very limited success. Realistically, the awakenings of the first decade of the twentieth century can be said to be the last chapter in the history of widespread American revivals and awakenings with one minor exception known as the Jesus Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The Jesus Movement contained some rudimentary but incomplete elements of revival among the hippies, druggies, bikers, and others in the late 60s and early 70s who found their drug-saturated, free-love lifestyle to be empty and unfulfilling. These West Coast counter-culturalists were drawn to Jesus’ teachings of love and peace. The movement was somewhat Pentecostal in its nature due to the emphasis on healing, signs, and miracles. Their new-found Christian faith included certain aspects of their old lifestyle such as communal living and modern music. A byproduct of the Jesus Movement was the development of Calvary Chapel and Vineyard churches, but the Jesus Movement as a separate recognizable entity largely died out in the 1980s.[19]

A unique occurrence in the twentieth century was the rise of several errant revivals that stand in fundamental opposition to the biblical nature and character of revivals from the first century through the worldwide awakening of the first decade of the twentieth century. These revivals have been deemed counterfeit when measured against biblical standards and the historical record of other evangelical revivals and awakenings in America.

It must be remembered that there are always those in every revival that come under the influence of self or demonic forces who knowingly or unknowingly attempt to inject the false or counterfeit into a revival. The influence of the counterfeit in revivals grew considerably in the last half of the twentieth century as the church entered the great end-times apostasy prophesied in the Bible. Apostate leaders, those who are merely deceived, and even those who lack a measure of discernment have made it possible for Satan to place false teachers and/or demonic leaders in the church in positions of power and influence to initiate, promote, and conduct counterfeit revivals that are unparalleled in church history.

The general decline of American revivals in the twentieth century

The general decline of American revivals in the twentieth century has occurred in both quantity and quality. There has been a dramatic decline in the number of local revivals coupled with a significant decline in the sustainability of the results of revival in churches and the lives of individuals. The quality of revival has been marred by increasing numbers and magnitude of counterfeit revivals based on false teachings and aberrant manifestations purported to be the work of the Holy Spirit.

The church has failed to distinguish between true revival and the counterfeit. True revival is measured by its impact on the individual, the church, and the community. Is Christ the center of revival? Is sin exposed and conviction present? Are believers revived? What is the depth of the spiritual renewal in the individual heart and church body? Is there a general spiritual and moral uplift of the individual, church, community, and beyond?

By contrast, counterfeit revivals are leader-centered; identified with bazaar manifestations that are not consistent with the history of authentic, biblically sound revivals and awakenings; are not Christ-centered; have brought widespread reproach upon the church; have little positive impact on the community; and substantially ignore sin, conviction, repentance, and living a holy lifestyle.

There are several elements that have greatly contributed to the decline of revivals in the twentieth century and include:

• The Protestant split between the liberals and fundamentalists during the early twentieth century.
• Two world wars and the Great Depression over the brief span of thirty years.
• The cultural suicide of Western civilization as it embraced and became dominated by humanism and its anti-God worldview that invaded the culture, the state, and much of the church.
• The substitution of mass evangelism for revival, the essential prerequisite for evangelism.
• The late twentieth century domination of the evangelical church by the Church Growth movement, its philosophies, and seeker-sensitive methods of doing church which stand in opposition to the message of revival.

These and other causes are discussed in the chapter on hindrances to revival.

For those contrite and lowly Christians who yearn for and seek revival of the church, it is difficult to close this section on the history of revivals on such a low note. However, we must remember the words of John, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will grieve, but your grief will be turned into joy.” [John 16:20. KJV] We must also remember that it is when the hour is the darkest and the situation the bleakest that Christians must pray with “soul travail” for revival. Heartfelt prayer has been the precursor for every revival in the history of the church, and it is no different for us today.

I close by repeating the words of comfort from Isaiah that I gave in the first chapter of this book. “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” [Isaiah 57:15. NIV] [emphasis added]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street, (New Kensington, Pennsylvania: Whitaker House, 1982), pp. 169-170.
[2] Ibid., pp. 7-8.
[3] Ibid., pp. 12, 14-15.
[4] Ibid., pp. 37-38.
[5] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), p. 85.
[6] Bartleman, Azusa Street, p. 39.
[7] Ibid., pp. 44-46.
[8] Ibid., p. 53.
[9] Ibid., pp. 47-49.
[10] Ibid., pp. 117-118.
[11] Ibid., p. 84.
[12] J. Edwin Orr, The Flaming Tongue – The Impact of 20th Century Revivals, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1973), pp. 179, 181-183.
[13] Ibid., p. 178.
[14] Ibid., p. 184.
[15] Ibid., p. 185.
[16] Ibid., p. 185.
[17] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 83.
[18] Orr, The Flaming Tongue, p. 178.
[19] “Who were the Jesus freaks? What was the Jesus Movement?” Compelling Truth.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-freak.html (accessed March 10, 2018).

The post Revival – 14 – Revival in the twentieth century – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Wales has been called the “land of Revivals.” No less than sixteen remarkable revivals occurred in Wales between 1762 and 1862.[1] Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom on the island of Great Britain. It borders England to the east, the Irish Sea to the north and west, and the Bristol Channel to the South.

In spite of its great history of revivals throughout the land, the church in Wales was in decline during the last decade of the nineteen century. According to revival historian Dr. J. Edwin Orr, the church suffered from a “loss of power in the pulpits and a worldly spirit in the pews.” Church attendance was low for Sunday services, prayer meetings, and general fellowship among the members. Bible reading and family worship was neglected by much of the church. These conditions greatly concerned many of the leaders of the Welsh churches, and most saw a great need for a spiritual revival through a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit.[2]

F. B. Meyer was a friend of D. L. Moody and one of several of Moody’s American and British preaching associates such as Reuben A. Torrey, J. Wilbur Chapman, and Henry Varley during Moody’s ministry in the latter part of the nineteenth century.[3] Meyer had become the spokesman for the “Keswick” movement in 1887, succeeding Andrew Murray, the leader of the South African revival of 1860. In 1875, the small resort town of Keswick in which the meetings were held became known as the Keswick Convention for the Deepening of the Spiritual life. The movement gained a worldwide influence and was supported in America by men such as Moody and R. A. Torrey, but its ecumenical nature generally was not well received in America due to the schisms between the holiness and liberal wings of the Protestant church.[4]

Meyer had taught many young Welsh ministers who eventually sought a Keswick-style convention in Wales. The convention was held at the beautiful Welsh spa located at Llandrindod Wells where the ministers prayed much for an awakening in Wales. A second convention was held in August 1904 at which Meyer and Dr. A. T. Pierson ministered. A number of these ministers began conducting meetings in support of the message of deepening the spiritual life of the church. Although Seth Joshua participated in these meeting, he was not an advocate of the Keswick teachings but appreciated the Keswick efforts to promote holiness. He considered the Keswick approach as one of many. Fearing the Keswick’s prevailing emphasis on spiritual qualifications would dampen the spiritual side, Joshua began praying that God would send revival to Wales through the efforts of a lowly young man from the mines or perhaps the fields. Not only would God grant Joshua’s prayer, this young man would be called from one of Joshua’s own meetings.[5]

But the seeds of the Welsh revival were planted months before Seth Joshua’s yet unknown young miner or ploughman arrived on the scene. It was at the chapel of at New Quay, Cardiganshire, in February 1904 that marked the lowly beginnings of the Welsh revival which along with other revivals would have a worldwide impact during the remainder of first decade of the twentieth century. Rev. Joseph Jenkins was appointed to the New Quay pulpit in 1892. Over the years of his pastorate, Jenkins became greatly burdened by the spiritual indifference among Christians generally and especially among the young people of his church. He began preaching to the young people about the necessity of obeying the Holy Spirit. In the late winter of early 1904 at a young people’s prayer meeting Rev. Jenkins asked for testimonies of their spiritual experience. The testimonies tended to drift to other topics, but the minister persisted in seeking to keep the young people focused on their spiritual experiences. Florrie Evans, a timid young girl, rose to speak. With a tremor in her voice, she said, “I love Jesus Christ, with all my heart.” The gathered young people were greatly moved and blessed by her sincere declaration. News of the Holy Spirit’s power and blessings that had begun with Flossie Evans’ eight words spoken at the New Quay young people’s prayer meeting soon spread throughout the area and opened the door for revival.[6]

Evan Roberts

By September 1904, the move of the Holy Spirit in New Quay had been sustained for six months. When Seth Joshua arrived he found a wonderful revival spirit prevailing. His meetings lasted far into the night, and on Sunday, September 18th, Joshua said he had “never seen the power of the Holy Spirit so powerfully manifested among the people as at this place just now.” After a week of unparalleled services, he traveled to Newcastle Emlyn to conduct meetings. Several ministry students from the Academy attended and were stirred by the services. Two of the students were Sidney Evans and Evan Roberts, roommates who arrived at the Academy that same month. The two traveled with other students the next night to Seth Joshua’s meeting at Blaenannerch. On Thursday morning Joshua closed the meeting with a prayer in which he cried out in Welsh, “Lord…bend us.” Evan Roberts went to the front, kneeled at the altar, and cried out in agony, “Lord…bend me.” A wave of peace passed over his soul which was followed by a concern for others. Joshua took note of the young man, but other leaders were disturbed by the young man’s intensity. They were concerned that such free expression would lead to a spiritual uproar as opposed to a quiet, Keswick-style meeting.[7]

Evan Roberts was twenty-six at the time of his life-altering encounter with God. He was the product of a devout home centered on Bible reading, family worship, and Sunday school at the Moriah Church in Loughor which was associated with the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist denomination. Roberts was obsessed with revival from his early youth. After his father was injured in the mines, the young Roberts went to work in the mines before he reached his twelfth birthday. After twelve years in the mines he became a blacksmith for a short while, but in 1903 he began preparation for the ministry.[8]

Immediately following his experience at the altar, Roberts knew that an extraordinary work of God was about to occur in his life. He began praying for his associates that would comprise his first ministry team, withdrew his savings for their support, and shared his vision with Sidney Evans, his college roommate and future brother-in-law.[9]

I have a vision of all Wales being lifted up to heaven. We are going to see the mightiest revival that Wales has ever known—and the Holy Spirit is coming soon, so we must get ready. We must have a little band and go all over the country preaching.[10]

Roberts immediately asked Evans, “Do you believe that God can give us a hundred thousand souls now?” Before launching out with his team, Roberts returned home on October 31st to convince his family and members of his home church in Loughor of his mission. He asked the ministers at the Moriah Church and its daughter church in Gorseinon if he would be allowed to speak. With permission, Roberts conducted a youth meeting on the evening of October 31st, 1904. Seventeen people were in attendance. Roberts shared his vision with the people and encouraged them to declare their Christian faith. Overcoming their initial reserve or shyness, all would give testimony of their faith that evening including three of Roberts’ sisters.[11]

Over the next twelve days, Roberts continued to hold nightly meetings alternating between the Pisgah Chapel near the Roberts’ home, the Libanus Church in Gorseinon, and at Moriah, the mother church in Loughor. On November 13th he was driven to Sunday services in Swansea where the results were disappointing as there was open criticism of the girl singers that accompanied Roberts’ ministry. But on Monday the 14th Roberts spoke at the Ebenezer Chapel in Aberdare which was crowded by a thousand people eager to hear the young preacher. The next day at the early morning prayer meeting, Roberts made a prophetic announcement that a great awakening was soon to occur in Wales.[12] It had been less than forty-five days since the unknown ministry student had knelt at an altar and cried out to God, “Lord…bend me!”

And so it was that the young ex-miner would become God’s chief instrument in initiating a great awakening in Wales and which would spread to many other parts of the world. Roberts began to receive invitations to speak from churches throughout Wales. Within six weeks, one hundred thousand Welsh men, women, and children came into the Kingdom of God (out of a population of one million at the time). Within eight months, one hundred fifty thousand had applied for church membership. Dr. Orr estimated that as many as a quarter of a million people could have been converted during the revival. Unfortunately, many Christians and churches in Wales rejected the message of revival and as a result many villages and towns were entirely bypassed as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit flowed across the land.[13]

The magnitude of the conversions had a profound effect on almost all daily life in Wales. A brief account of the remarkable transformation of the spiritual climate in Wales is found in Mathew Backholer’s Revival Fires and Awakenings.

The daily shifts at the coal mines soon started with a word of prayer…Mine shafts resonated with the hymns of the converted…pit ponies which were used to being commanded by the unconverted foul mouths refused to work as they could not recognize the sanctified tongues!…magistrates were given white gloves (a symbol of purity) as there were so few cases to hear—God’s spirit brought conviction of sin, brought about changed lives, sobriety and restraint. Aberdare on Christmas Eve was almost entirely free from drunkenness and on Christmas Day there were no prisoners at all in the cells…Whole football and rugby teams were converted and praying became more important than playing! Games were either cancelled or put off until a more convenient time, whilst other teams disbanded. Theatre attendance dropped, dance halls were deserted and pubs (drinking establishments) were emptied and closed; the proprietors were furious! Talented actors and actresses failed to draw the crowds…[14]

The magnitude of the worldwide impact of the news of the Welsh awakening is almost incomprehensible. The following list of revivals that were birthed almost simultaneously with the Welsh revival is not meant to be exhaustive: New Zealand, Scotland, North Africa, South Africa, Algeria, South Seas, India (six different revivals across the large nation), North America (including the Azusa Street Revival of 1906-1909), Mexico City, Sweden, France, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, China (Shanghai and Canton – 1906), and Korea (1907-1910).[15] Some of the revivals were sporadic such as in France while others blanketed entire nations such as North America and India.

Revival stirrings in America at the beginning of the twentieth century

Between 1900 and 1904, there were reports by the press of scattered revivals in many areas of America. However, these were generally considered to be local evangelistic meetings and were not comparable to the spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit such as occurred in 1858. As early as 1900, an increasing number of conversions were occurring as a result of various Methodist evangelistic campaigns conducted throughout the United States. There was a growing optimism and expectancy that a twentieth century awakening would occur. The Baptists both in the north and south were united in prayer for revival. Although the Presbyterians were “theoretically” opposed to revival in favor steady growth of their churches, that attitude changed in 1901. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) under the leadership of J. Wilbur Chapman organized an Evangelistic Commission which fielded fifty-six evangelists in 1902 and twelve hundred pastors united in prayer in 1903.[16]

At the turn of the century, the central and western valleys of Pennsylvania had become home to many thousands of immigrants from Wales. The majority of the immigrants had become members of Welsh-speaking or bi-lingual churches. It was only natural that many of the immigrants were in frequent contact with family and friends that were left behind in Wales. One of those was Rev. J. D. Roberts whose heart had been touched by the first-hand accounts of revival received by him and many other Welsh Pennsylvanians. As a result of the various reports, a sudden awakening arose in Rev. Roberts’ Wilkes-Barre church in which 123 converts were reported in one month. The revival spread to churches in many other towns and districts in Pennsylvania including New Castle and Pittsburgh.[17]

In 1905, news of the revival in Wales spread through all religious journals and newspapers of various denominations. Even the Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians in the United States had friendly opinions of the Welsh Revival brought about “by the strong breath of God’s Holy Spirit.” The Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists were all talking about the revival in Wales and praying for revival in America. Revival prayer meetings were held by the thousands throughout the nation.[18] By the end of 1905, the revival had spread throughout the United States—from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Canadian border to the Mexican border and all points in between. Churches in Canada were similarly affected from coast to coast.[19]

But the Revival of 1905 in America was more than a revival of the church but an awakening of the larger culture to the faith and principles of the Christian life. One report from Portland, Oregon, described the deep incursions of “religious enthusiasm” (revival) not only into the church and hearts of individual Christians but into the very fabric of the everyday life of the culture.

…for three hours a day, business was practically suspended, and from the crowds in the great department stores to the humblest clerk, from bank presidents to bootblacks, all abandoned money making for soul saving.[20]

Such was the spirit of cooperation in the revival that two hundred major stores agreed in writing to close between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to allow customers and employees to attend prayer meetings. Similar actions were taken by Seattle merchants.[21]

Characteristics of the worldwide awakenings and revivals of 1900-1910

The awakening of 1900-1910 spread across the globe and was the most evangelical of all of its predecessors.

In his comprehensive The Flaming Tongue – The Impact of Twentieth Century Revivals, Orr wrote of the origins and characteristics of the worldwide awakening that occurred in the first decade of the twentieth century.

The early twentieth century Evangelical Awakening was a worldwide movement. It did not begin with the phenomenal Welsh Revival of 1904-1905. Rather its sources were in the springs of little prayer meetings which seemed to arise spontaneously all over the world, combining into the streams of expectation which became a river of blessing in which the Welsh Revival became the greatest cataract.

The first manifestations of phenomenal revival occurred simultaneously among Boer prisoners of war in places ten thousand miles apart, as far away as Bermuda and Ceylon. The work was marked by extraordinary praying, by faithful preaching, conviction of sin, confession and repentance with lasting conversions and hundreds of enlistments for missionary service.[22]

The awakenings of 1900-1910 were thoroughly interdenominational and included many instances of various congregations sharing in the revival including Anglican, Baptist, Brethren, Congregational, Disciple, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches, but there was no evidence of revival involvement among Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches.[23]

There existed similarities between the Revivals of 1857-1858 and 1900-1910: their beginnings were found in prayer meetings, repentance within the church followed by an awakening of those outside the faith, evidence of great conviction of sin, and public confession of sin. The 1900-1910 revival exhibited many similarities with the evangelical revivals recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: awakenings began in prayer meetings, reports of a mighty rushing wind; many outpourings of the Holy Spirit: infilling of believers with the Holy Spirit; some glossolalic utterances (unknown tongue); prophesying of young men and women; reports of unusual dreams and visions; the hearts of many hearers were pierced upon hearing the message of Christ preached; under great conviction of sin, many cried out for help which was followed by repentance; fellowship and prayer were often spontaneous and guided by the Spirit; a great sense of the presence of God in meetings; and very little hostility or opposition from those outside the revival movement.[24]

Impact of the worldwide awakening of the early twentieth century

The nineteenth century was a period of massive evangelical renewal and advance in which the light of the Gospel of Christ spread across the globe.[25] The best method of gauging the impact of a revival of Christianity was to determine the number of people “revived” for Christianity and the extent to which a culture is awakened. A review of the history of the Christian church and revivals of Christianity through the centuries inevitably brings one to the conclusion that each successive evangelical awakening is more thoroughly New Testament in its emphasis and outworking than the preceding awakening. As evidence, one may point to the chain of revivals and awakenings in which each successively was more evangelical (i.e., a true reflection of New Testament Christianity): John Wycliffe’s Lollards of the thirteenth century, the Reformers of the sixteenth century, the Puritans of the seventeenth century, the Revivalists of the eighteenth century, the Revivalists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the Pentecostals of the twentieth century. Applying the same criteria as to the number of people influenced and the worldwide extent of the revivals, the awakening of 1900-1910 far exceeded the Revival of 1857-1858.[26]

Recall that in an earlier chapter it was noted that the Revival of 1857-1858 caused the nation and individual men and women, in both the North and South, to be spiritually prepared for the coming Civil War (1861-1865) in which the nation would exorcize the demon of slavery and recover its national unity. In much the same manner but on a far larger scale, the unprecedented worldwide awakening of the church and spread of Christianity that occurred in the first decade of the twentieth century prepared most of mankind for the cataclysmic global conflict that would engulf much of the world with the advent of World War I (1914-1918). The Revival of 1857-1858 was a harvest before the devastation of the American nation in the Civil War. The awakenings of 1900-1910 were a harvest before the devastation of Christendom during and after World War I.[27]

The worldwide outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not only for the revival of the church and awakening of nations, but the awakenings also served as reservoirs of strength, mercy, grace, and truth to be drawn on in times of extreme wickedness, devastation, and chaos during and after World War I. May we not compare the times of revival and great spiritual blessing of the church before the War and its aftermath with Joseph’s Egyptian grain bins filled to capacity during the seven good years which sustained Joseph’s brethren and the Egyptians during the lean years of drought and desolation?

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), p. 74.
[2] J. Edwin Orr, The Flaming Tongue – The Impact of 20th Century Revivals, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1973), p. 1.
[3] Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations – Evangelical Renewal and Advance in the Nineteenth Century, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1965), p. 194.
[4] Ibid., pp. 204-207
[5] Orr, The Flaming Tongue, pp. 1-2.
[6] Ibid., pp. 2-3.
[7] Ibid., pp. 3-5.
[8] Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[9] Ibid., p. 6.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., p. 8.
[12] Ibid., pp. 8-11.
[13] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, pp. 75-76.
[14] Ibid., pp. 76-77.
[15] Ibid., p. 78.
[16] Orr, The Flaming Tongue, pp. 66-67.
[17] Ibid., p. 70.
[18] Ibid., p. 68-69.
[19] Ibid., p. 80.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., p. 188.
[23] Ibid., pp. 195-196.
[24] Ibid., pp. 198-200.
[25] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 275.
[26] Orr, The Flaming Tongue, pp. 186-187.
[27] Ibid., p. 287.

The post Revival – 13 – Revival in the twentieth century – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.

J. M. Roberts in his definitive The New History of the World stated that the magnitude of societal change produced by industrialization was the “most striking in European history since the barbarian invasions”…and perhaps the “…biggest change in human history since the coming of agriculture, iron, or the wheel.” By 1850 Great Britain was the only country in the world that had established a mature industrial society. Yet, most industrial workers in England were found at businesses employing fewer than fifty people and those that worked in larger factories were concentrated at the large Lancashire cotton mills with their distinctive urban appearance and character. However, a significant increase in the number of large factories would soon occur because of the trend toward greater centralization, specialization of function, economies of scale and transport, and regimentation of labor. By 1870, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, and the United States had joined Britain in the race for self-sustained economic growth through industrialization.[1]

In “Shame of the Cities,” American historians Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen gave a vivid description of American life in the cities during the late 1800s.

…immigrants flooded into the seaport cities in search of a new life. Occasionally, they were fleeced by local politicians when they arrived. Often they melted in the American pot by starting businesses, shaping the culture, and transforming the urban scene. In the process the cities lost their antebellum identities, becoming true centers of commerce, arts, and the economy, as well as hotbeds of crime, corruption and degeneracy…in 1873, within three miles of New York’s city hall, one survey counted more than four hundred brothels housing ten times that number of prostitutes. Such illicit behavior coincided with the highest alcohol consumption levels since the turn of the century, or a quart of whiskey a week for every adult American. Some level of social and political pathology was inevitable in any population, but it was exacerbated by the gigantic size of the cities.[2]

The social gospel

Because compassion was the premier Christian innovation in all of history and an example of Christ’s concern for the hurting and sick, the church did not quietly cede Western civilization to the flood waters of industrialization throughout the nineteenth century. From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, Christianity invaded the cities to not only save the soul but provide for earthly needs and address societal ills afflicting the hurting masses. The social impact of the mid-nineteenth century evangelical awakenings fostered tremendous efforts for the betterment of social conditions including the issues of the working man, the protection of women and children, poverty, education, slum housing, and racial strife. Changes came through sharing the gospel message, the transforming of individual lives by the power of Jesus Christ, evangelism, and initiating reforms through the work of tireless individuals and societies.[3]

But out of Christian compassion and its concern for a hurting humanity eventually arose a liberal social gospel found within many Protestant churches that had become less concerned with saving the soul than fixing the ills of society by works of men and government. However well-intentioned the liberal church’s social gospel was, it was soon subjugated by the powerful forces of Enlightenment liberalism which quickly rolled over the nineteenth century Protestant establishment and the nation between 1870 and 1930.

Following the Civil War a perfect storm of societal dysfunction and pagan philosophies caused much of America to forget her Christian heritage and the blessings that flowed therefrom. The humanistic spirit of the age became a cultural force that inundated the Western world during the last half nineteenth century. Karl Marx in politics, Charles Darwin in biology, Christopher Langdell in law, and John Dewey in education and psychology were among the principle players of the nineteen century vying to introduce within society a “new way” to solve its seemingly inextricable problems. The end result was devastating to the American Protestant church.

The enormous changes that occurred in the six decades between 1870 and 1930 profoundly transformed the way Americans thought and acted in all spheres of American life. By 1870 the nation had been guided for 250 years by a central cultural vision infused with the collective Judeo-Christian worldviews of the great majority of Americans since the Pilgrims undertook to establish a colony…Although Protestant cultural authority was at its peak in 1870, a brief sixty years later it had been relegated to the shadows within every institution of American life, despairing of approval and hoping only for an occasional hint of recognition from the new masters of American culture. The once prevailing Christian Protestant dominion had surrendered substantially all of its social power, institutional influence, and cultural authority and did so without much of a whimper. For the first time in American history a vast schism had developed between the religious and secular.[4]

The Gilded Age in America 1870-1930

The Gilded Age is generally considered to be the American era from about 1870 to 1900. It was a time of immense growth and change in America which did not bode well for all Americans. Not long after the beginning of the disaster known as Reconstruction Act of 1867 following the Civil War, concern for the plight of the former slaves was supplanted by other issues which began to occupy the attention of the nation: the often chaotic westward expansion, the rise of big business, rampant political corruption, and community fragmentation and moral decline caused by the rapid growth of large cities.

The tentacles of the monumental graft and corruption within Ulysses Grant’s administration (1869-1877) spread over the whole nation—from the rural areas of the devastated Southern states to the cities of the north. In the first year of Grant’s two terms in office, the notorious stock promoters Jay Gould and Jim Fisk almost succeeded in cornering the gold market after lavishly entertaining Grant and bribing his brother-in-law. The cities were no less corrupt. New York City was robbed of seventy-five million dollars by the Tweed Ring, and Philadelphia’s city debt grew by three million dollars a year through the collusions of the Gas Ring.[5] In May 1869, the immensity of fraud and corruption in the world of government and business was epitomized by the Credit Mobilizer scandal which was a complicated scheme that involved using massive public funding for the benefit of transcontinental railroads (Union Pacific and Central Pacific). To keep government land grants and federal loans flowing to the railroads, a number of congressmen, senators, Grant administration officials, and even Vice President Schuyler Colfax were given generous Credit Mobilizer holdings.[6] These examples of corruption stand at the apex of a labyrinthine web of business and government graft, bribery, fraud, dishonesty, and greed that had infected almost all levels of American life during the Gilded Age.

The Great Divide – modernists and liberals v. fundamentalists and evangelicals

The American Protestant church, already divided by denomination, region, race, ethnicity, and class, would split again into fundamentalist and modernist factions between the late nineteenth century and the mid-1920s. Amid rising skepticism, positivism, and Darwinism emanating from Enlightenment liberalism, the new liberal and modernist Protestant leaders chose survival through accommodation by embracing their adversary’s doctrines of Science, Progress, Reason, and Liberation. But this compromise would only forestall the approaching “…final dominance of Enlightenment moral order in the public square and the relegation of Christian and other religious concerns to private life” that has gained increasing momentum since the 1930s.[7]

As modernism and liberalism ascended in many Protestant churches, many members began to feel uncomfortable with the growing formalism among the wealthier and more prosperous segments of the congregations. Of greatest concern was the disappearance of a heart religion that was the defining symbol of evangelicalism since its birth the early 1700s. As a result of these concerns the question of “holiness” became a topic of great concern. This was especially true for the Methodists because Christian perfection as taught by John Wesley was no longer a goal of most Methodists of the late 1800s. As a result, a large measure of worldliness had crept into the church. Holiness groups began forming within these churches to defend Wesley’s doctrines and ideals. Because the pastors and leading men of the most influential churches were opposed to Holiness groups and their concerns, the more orthodox and less powerful Holiness groups began to withdraw and form their own denominations.[8]

New Holiness denominations came from many churches and were mostly found in the rural districts of the Middle West. However, most Holiness denominations came out of Methodist churches. Between 1880 and 1926, twenty-five or more Holiness and Pentecostal denominations were formed in protest against the increasing modernism and liberalism they saw in the larger churches of America. [9] The new denominations included the Church of the Nazarene (formed in 1894 when eight smaller holiness groups combined), Christian and Missionary Alliance (1897), Church of God, Anderson, Indiana (1881), Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee (1896), the Pilgrim Holiness Church, Cincinnati, Ohio (1897), and the Assemblies of God (1914).[10]

Dwight Lyman Moody

As previously noted, Charles Grandison Finney dominated the middle third of the nineteenth century. The man who would dominate the last third during the Gilded Age was Dwight Lyman Moody (1837-1899). The contrasts between the two men could hardly have been greater. Compared to the well-educated, articulate, and polished Finney, Moody was born in poverty and had little formal education. He was one of nine children whose father died when Moody was only four. Moody was converted at eighteen and a year later moved to Chicago where he was profoundly affected by the Revival of 1857-1858. Moody quickly developed a passion for winning young people for Christ through Sunday school and the Young Men’s Christian Association. Moody’s Sunday school soon became a church, and in 1860 Moody devoted himself to full time ministry.[11]

In 1867, Moody traveled to Britain to seek out leaders of the evangelical movement such as of Charles Spurgeon, George Muller, and Harry Morehouse. Moody listen to Morehouse preach for a week on the love of God and was so profoundly affected that Moody’s preaching was forever changed. In 1872 Moody again traveled to England, and his preaching brought a local awakening to a church in North London. Other invitations followed, but the great breakthrough in his ministry came at Edinburgh, Scotland, where his meetings filled even the largest arenas. Moody continued holding meetings throughout Scotland, Ireland, and England. Attendance was enormous. Twenty thousand each night listened to Moody preach in London’s Islington Agricultural Hall. The London campaign lasted twenty weeks at which two and a half million people attended.[12]

Moody spent three years in Britain before returning to the United States in August 1875. As in Britain, vast crowds flocked to hear Moody preach all across the United States. Another trip to England was made in October 1881. Beginning in 1884, Moody began devoting much of his time to promotion of education at his institutes in Chicago and Northfield, Massachusetts, as well as conducting a number of evangelistic campaigns in smaller cities. In 1893, approximately two million visitors attended evangelistic services held by Moody during the World’s Fair, the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. With the help of Moody’s Bible Institute, three centers of preaching were established on the north, west, and south sides of Chicago. On Sunday’s, Moody preached in a large circus tent at the city’s lakefront on the east side. In November 1899, Moody preached his last campaign in Kansas City, Missouri. Exhausted, he withdrew from the campaign and returned home. He passed away December 22, 1899, after forty years of ministry.[13]

D. L. Moody’s success did not depend on his earthly attributes. He did not have a commanding physical appearance, was not a renowned theologian, and certainly was not a great orator. His theology and convictions were strongly conservative. His preaching was very simple but strong on scripture which he illustrated with homely stories presented in everyday language. [14]

The inspiration that led to Moody’s great contributions to the Kingdom of God occurred when Moody visited England for the first time in 1868. There he met Henry Varley, one of the great British evangelists, who said to him, “Moody, the world has yet to see what God will do with a man fully consecrated to Him.” Over thirty years later, the world had seen and heard Dwight Lyman Moody and now knew what God could do with a man fully consecrated to Him.[15]

Revival or evangelism?

Although the words “revival” and “evangelism” are often used interchangeably, Dr. J. Edwin Orr in his book The Light of the Nations explained that there is a difference. In English-speaking countries outside of North America, revival is generally used to identify a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the churches resulting in a renewed interest in religion after a period of indifference or decline. Although this is the correct meaning when the term “revival” is used in the United States, it is often used interchangeably to describe an organized campaign of evangelism or a series of evangelistic meetings.[16] Dr. Orr points out the differences.

It often happens that there are elements of revival in an evangelistic campaign, and effects of evangelism in a revival movement. Evangelism is what dedicated men do for God, but revival is what God does to earnest men to bring them to fuller dedication.[17]

Orr described Moody as an evangelist and not a revivalist in the historic sense whereas Orr used revivalist as the correct term to describe the works of George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Evan Roberts of Wales. Nevertheless, there are almost always elements of revival in evangelism and elements of evangelism in revivals.[18]

Revival and religion in the Gilded Age 1870-1900

Timothy L. Smith in his book Revivalism and Social Reform stated the primary feature distinguishing American religion after 1865 was “The rapid growth of concern with purely social issues such as poverty, working men’s rights, the liquor traffic, slum housing, and racial bitterness.” The Christian imperative of this concern eventually divided into two avenues. The first avenue was “militant modernism” in theology of the liberal branch which focused its energies on socialism, preaching a social gospel, and establishing a pre-millennial “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.” On the second avenue were found the footprints of Moody and other conservative evangelicals and revivalists who advocated social service and the post-millennial hope of the Kingdom of God while distancing themselves from the social gospel which abandoned the soul in its quest for humanistic answers to individual and societal pathologies.[19]

The Revival of 1857-1858 in America was often called the Layman’s Revival because of the broad inter-denominational support, absence of clerical leadership, and focus on prayer. According to Dr. Orr, the greatest achievements of the nineteenth century were brought about by dedicated lay men and women nurtured in the faith and worship of evangelical fellowships. Because of the Great Awakenings, it was individual Christian lay people who persuaded church leaders and parliaments to address the great issues of the century: “abolition of the slave trade, reform of prisons, emancipation of slaves, care of the sick, education of the young, protection of workers and the like…”[20]
______

In his final summation of the impact of the evangelical awakenings throughout the nineteen century, Dr. Orr wrote:

The nineteenth century proved to be a time of evangelical renewal and advance, in which shone widely the Light of the Nations. The phenomena of the Great Awakenings brought blessing untold to the Christian believer, to the congregation, to the Christian community, to the Church at Large, to the laboring man, to the world of women, to the welfare of children, to the care of the sick, to the shelter of the insane, to the protection of the unfortunate, to the education of the young, to the guaranteeing of liberty, to the granting of freedom, to the administration of justice, to the evolution of self-government, to the crusade for peace among nations—in fact, in the nineteenth century, the Evangelical Awakenings may be shown to be the foremost method of an almighty God to promote the betterment of all mankind and His chiefest instrument to win men to transforming faith in Himself.[21]

In the next chapter we will examine the great revivals in the first decade of the twentieth century and the gradual decline of revival and revivalism thereafter in America, Great Britain, and continental Europe, all former strongholds of evangelicalism but now in decline because of the absence of revival.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 708-709, 711-712.
[2] Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), pp. 443-444.
[3] J. Edwin Orr, The Faming Tongue – The Impact of 20th Century Revivals, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1973), p. xiv.
[4] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 77.
[5] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), pp. 182-183.
[6] Schweikart and Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States, pp. 182-183.
[7] Christian Smith, “Introduction,” The Secular Revolution, ed. Christian Smith, (Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 2003), pp. 58, 67; 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), pp. 213-214.
[8]B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 389.
[9] Ibid.
[10] “Holiness Movement,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Holiness-movement (accessed January 22, 2018).
[11] J. Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations – Evangelical Renewal and Advance in the Nineteenth Century, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1965), pp. 190-191.
[12] Ibid., pp. 191-192.
[13] Ibid., pp. 192-195.
[14] Ibid., p. 194.
[15] Ibid., p. 191.
[16] Ibid., p. 193.
[17] Ibid., p. 194.
[18] Ibid., p. 194.
[19] Ibid., pp. 229-230.
[20] Ibid., p. 229.
[21] Ibid., pp. 275-276.

The post Revival – 12 – America embraces Babylon 1870-1900 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The first stirrings of revival in what became the Third Great Awakening in America began on a Canadian farm in the province of Ontario. Dr. Walter Palmer was a wealthy physician who had turned evangelist. Both Palmer and his wife Phoebe held evangelistic meetings mostly in the United States but occasionally traveled to Canada. In August 1853, the Palmers preached at a camp meeting on a farm in an eastern township near Nappanee where over five hundred people were converted. They returned to Nappanee in 1854 and saw another great harvest of souls in which hundreds were converted. They came again in 1855 to Barrie and once again saw hundreds converted.[1]

Hamilton was a bustling Ontario community of 23,000 in October 1857. The Palmers were merely passing through Hamilton on their way back to Albany, New York, from Georgetown, Ontario, where three thousand were in attendance. The Palmers had planned to stay only one night but were forced to stay longer with friends because of the loss of their luggage. Two ministers soon discovered the couple’s presence in Hamilton and invited them to tea at which they were encouraged to speak at the Thursday prayer meeting. The three downtown Methodist churches joined together for the prayer meeting at which sixty-five people gathered in the basement of one of the churches. Those gathered were challenged to pray for a revival, and thirty raised their hands in agreement not only to commit to “fervent, personal prayer” for revival but to bring their fellow townspeople with them to church. The first revival meeting was held the next day and twenty-one were converted. Saturday’s meeting yielded another twenty, and Sunday saw an additional seventy conversions. After ten days conversions totaled four hundred. Soon the revival spread to Ancaster. The revivals lasted well into November of 1857.[2]

On October 28th, The Christian Guardian was the first Canadian newspaper to report the unusual events that had been occurring in Hamilton. A week later a New York newspaper, The Christian Advocate, gave the following report on the revival taking place in Hamilton, Ontario.

The work is taking within its range…persons of all classes. Men from low degree and men of high estate for wealth and position, all men and maidens, and even little children are seen humbly kneeling together pleading for grace. The Mayor of the city with other persons of like position is not ashamed to be seen bowed at the altar of prayer beside their humble servants.[3]

Unfortunately, the Hamilton revival was to be almost exclusively a Methodist affair. Hesitant over the “Methodist enthusiasm,” the Baptists and the Presbyterians were generally unaffected and the Anglicans remained indifferent.[4]

Revival stirrings were also happening in the United States well before the Hamilton revival began. On October 1, 1856, the Holy Spirit began to be “especially manifest” at the Stanton Street Baptist Church in New York City. At least five or six persons each week “presented themselves as inquirers to the Christian faith.” Interest increased in December 1856 and January 1857 such that revival meetings began to be held nightly in February. Sixty persons were baptized in March and April. Following a summer lull, revival fervor increased again in the fall and winter months.[5]

The Revival of 1857-1858 (aka The Third Great Awakening)

The Third Great Awakening began in 1857-1858 and has been called by many names including the Businessman’s Revival, the Layman’s Revival, and the Union Prayer Meeting. But it is most widely known as the Revival of 1857-1858. Much like the central theme of the Protestant Reformation, this revival was about personal religious transformation from which society greatly benefited. As noted at the end of the last chapter, the Third Great Awakening was the sustaining moment that prepared the nation to endure the national conflagration of the Civil War and made possible its reunification and survival in the war’s aftermath.

On July 1, 1857, Jeremiah Lamphier became the City Missionary in downtown New York. Converted fifteen years earlier in the Broadway Tabernacle built by Charles Finney, Lamphier was a quiet businessman. He was described as personable, capable, intelligent, and very ardent in his faith. He had been appointed to his lay position by the North Church of the Dutch Reformed denomination which was losing membership in downtown New York because many members had moved away to better residential neighborhoods. As a layman City Missionary, his task was to visit the immediate neighborhoods and encourage church attendance.[6]

The spiritual lethargy of his fellow businessmen weighed heavily on Lamphier’s mind and heart. He believed a weekly noonday prayer meeting would allow various merchants, businessmen, mechanics, clerks, and strangers “an opportunity to stop and call upon God amid the perplexities incident to their respective avocations.” Accordingly, Lamphier distributed a handbill setting the weekly prayer meeting on Wednesdays from 12 to 1 o’clock at the North Dutch Church at the corner of Fulton and William Streets in what is today lower Manhattan. At that first meeting on the 23rd of September, Lamphier anxiously awaited but no one joined him until about 12:30 PM six persons in succession quietly arrived. Two weeks later on October 7th, there were forty in attendance and it was decided to hold prayer meetings on a daily rather than weekly basis. In the same week, Walter and Phoebe Palmer began preaching revival meetings in Hamilton that resulted in extraordinary numbers of converts, but reports of the Hamilton revival would not reach New York until November 5th.[7] But God had an additional means of arresting the attention of a wayward nation consumed with things other than religion.

Financial and commercial prosperity had been building at a dizzying pace for over a decade as the nation rapidly expanded with the addition of new states to the Union. New cities sprang up, and cheap land became available as the frontier was pushed farther and farther to the west. But in 1856 and 1857, there were disturbing signs of financial instability. By fall of 1857, various events coalesced to bring about the third great panic in American history. Much of the speculative wealth of the nation was swept away as banks failed and railroads went into bankruptcy. Factories were shut down, merchants went out of business, and thousands were thrown out of work including thirty thousand in New York City alone.[8] The panic was triggered when a bank holiday was declared on October 14th to prevent a run on the banks. By the time the banks were reopened on December 14th, recession had spread over the nation and to other parts of the world. As a result of the panic, the noon prayer meetings received a significant boost in attendance from those working in nearby Wall Street and others who were unemployed, some seeking salvation while others killed time.[9]

By the end of March 1858 every church and public hall was filled to capacity in downtown New York City as ten thousand business men were gathering daily for prayer. Soon revival was occurring in Brooklyn, Yonkers, and in New Jersey towns across the Hudson River. By February the national press began covering the story.[10] With mass unemployment during the winter of 1857-1858, one would have expected the crime rate to increase, but it actually dropped as the wealthy looked after the physical needs of many of their less fortunate brothers and sisters in Christ.[11] J. Edwin Orr described the impact of the revival on the United States.

The national press from coast to coast carried news of the great awakening in the metropolis, and citizens everywhere were challenged by the movement. The “showers of blessing” in New York had caused a flood which suddenly burst its bounds and swept over New England, engulfed the Ohio Valley cities and states, rolled over the newly settled West, lapped the edges of the mountains in the South, and covered the United States of America and Canada with divine favour.

The influence of the awakening was felt everywhere in the nation. It first moved the great cities, but it also spread through every town and village and country hamlet, swamping school and college. It affected all classes without respect to their condition. A divine influence seemed to pervade the land, and men’s hearts were strangely warmed by a Power that was outpoured in unusual ways. There was no fanaticism. There was remarkable unanimity of approval among religious and secular observers alike, with scarcely one critical voice heard anywhere.[12]

After careful research, revival historian Dr. J. Edwin Orr estimated that approximately one million people were converted in the nation during 1858-1859. In other words, conversions amounted to over three percent of the population which was less than thirty million at that time. This seems a reasonable estimate given that some historians have estimated that conversions were occurring at the rate of fifty thousand per week at the height of the revival.[13]

The two revivals originating almost simultaneously in the United States and Canada also had a worldwide impact including many men and women across Great Britain. This influence led to revivals in Wales (1858-1860), Ireland and Scotland (1859-1860), and England (1859-1860). In 1858, two hundred thousand converts were recorded in Sweden in the first year of a two-year revival. The India Awakening began in late 1859 with the greatest revivals occurring in the south of India.[14]

The long-term consequences in America of the Revival of 1857-1858

The Revival of 1857-1858 influenced many young men who would later spark many revivals among troops on both sides of the Civil War. Large and widespread revivals in both Union and Confederate armies occurred between 1862 and 1865. Conversions during the war were estimated to be between 100,000 and 200,000 among Union troops and as many as 150,000 in the Confederate Army.[15]

One may ask how this can be—brothers fighting and killing each other while both called on God for protection and to save their immortal souls. To answer, we must remember that slavery was an institutional cancer on the national body. Regardless of slavery’s origins and protectors, it was slavery that was being cut from the body, not the Southern soldier and citizen. God was just as concerned for the individual Southerner as he was for those in the North.

As previously mentioned, the efforts to abolish slavery in America began early in the nation’s history as a result of the moral suasion of Christian people who saw slavery as morally unacceptable within the biblical worldview. It was a matter of right and wrong and not a matter of “rights” or equality. However, breaking the chains of injustice sometimes requires the hammer of state in the cause of brotherhood and fraternity. The Civil War cost 600,000 lives, billions of dollars, and loss of unity as the nation was tragically divided with few thoughts of Christian brotherhood on either side of the chasm filled with distrust.

The war years and the years following the draconian Reconstruction Act of 1867 left the South lying prostrate and ravaged. Called the Tragic Era, Sherwood Eddy paints a picture of the dozen years of life in the South following the end of the Civil War.

Often with flagrant disregard of civil liberties, Southern officials, courts, customs, and organizations were removed or swept away, and a government by Northern Carpetbaggers and Negroes was substituted under military tribunals. A Northern army of occupation of twenty thousand was aided by an irritating force of colored militia…The state administrations under Northern carpetbaggers were extravagant, corrupt, and vulgar. The state treasuries were systematically looted…The majority of the legislature and most of the important officers were Negroes and many of the rest were rascally whites from the North, or unsavory characters from the South. Taxes were levied by the Negroes, of whom 80 percent were illiterate, and were paid by the disfranchised whites…the future of the Negro was sadly prejudiced by these disreputable adventures in self-government.[16]

The post-war product of the hammer of state that broke the chains of injustice was dis-unifying, absent Christian principles and brotherhood, and was anything but moral. Should Abraham Lincoln have avoided the assassin’s bullet, his post-war efforts at reconciliation of the divided nation could have forestalled much of the tragedy and anguish experienced during the Reconstruction period. Richard Weaver described the precipice upon which the nation teetered following Lincoln’s death at the end of the Civil War.

There was a critical period when, if things had been managed a little worse, the South might have turned into a Poland or an Ireland, which is to say a hopelessly alienated and embittered province, willing to carry on a struggle for decades or even centuries to achieve a final self-determination…As it was, things were done which produced only rancor and made it difficult for either side to believe in the good faith of the other. It is unfortunate but it is true that the Negro was forced to pay a large part of the bill for the follies of Reconstruction.[17]

Therefore, we must ask how it was possible for the nation to survive the cataclysmic events of the Civil War and the subsequent Tragic Era in the midst of moral degradation and dashed hopes for brotherhood and unity. Once again we must look for the answer in the actions of Christians who originally provided the motivation and drive to end slavery and who, following the Civil War, would provide the motivation for the restoration and unification of the nation.

Restoration and unity would not come easily, and it would be decades before signs of healing were evident. The Northern and Southern churches continued to have different interpretations of the war and its outcome. Northerners viewed theirs as a righteous victory and themselves as guardians of the ideals embodied in the Constitution which were based on the same principles as found in Christianity.[18] Following the war main-stream Northern churches tended toward rectifying other ills of society through a social gospel with a consequent loss of focus as it switched its emphasis from perfecting the inner man to social justice.[19]

In spite of loss of the war, Southern evangelicals comforted themselves with the thought that their goals were spiritual and not temporal which resulted in the rise of an other-worldly mood within Southern Christianity. Thus, Christianity allowed the Southern culture to focus on spiritual victory in the midst of earthly defeat. Religion in the South became the bulwark of Southern culture and “…never appeared stronger than it did at the end of the nineteenth century.” From this détente between Northern and Southern churches during the remainder of the century, old animosities began to wane as reconciliation became a common political, literary and religious theme in both the North and South. “Religion which once played a role in breaking the nation apart, now aided the reunification of the South with the North.”[20]

In spite of differing views of the war and the rampant corruption and immorality that plagued both the North and South for decades after the Civil war, many of the faithful Civil War veterans who embraced Christianity during the war-time revivals returned to their homes with their religious fervor intact, filled the pews, spurred post-war revivals (particularly in the South), and brought healing to the nation.[21] As a result, the unifying common ground of Christianity and faithfulness of individual Christians sheltered the flame of brotherhood amidst the winds of secularism and materialism of the Gilded Age in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Without this unifying Christian faith, the rebirth of national unity would have been still-born which could have easily and likely led to a permanent balkanization of much of the South. Because of the Revival of 1857 and 1858 and its legacy of Christian revivals among the soldiers during the Civil War, the Republic was saved.

The nature of the Revival of 1857-1858 in America

Historians have debated the impact of the Revival of 1857-1858 as it related to nineteenth century social reform efforts. Some historians such as Kathryn Teresa Long point to the revival prayer meeting practice of avoiding any discussion of controversial topics such as slavery and abolitionism as evidence of little direct social impact caused by the revival.[22]

From this perspective, the 1857-1858 revival marked a shift in the public role of revivals in American life. It signaled a rejection of the combination of religious conversion and community moral reform that had been a part of the New England Calvinist tradition since the colonial revivals. Instead, a more limited, pietistic image of revivals emerged, one focused on prayer and evangelism and in which community meant experiences of shared feeling among middle class people. This shift of urban revivalism in a more inward direction reflected the changing nature of community in a rapidly industrializing society and promised northern evangelicals spiritual harmony in the midst of an increasingly complex society.[23] [emphasis added]

But there was not a shift in the public role of revivals to a more inward direction. The reality was that the 1857-1858 Revival was about personal religious transformation but with which society greatly benefited. It must be remembered that the ordering of society and the addressing of its social ills must begin with the individual through an ordering of his soul in right relationship with God. This must certainly be the greatest impact of the Revival of 1857-1858 as the nation was soon to be immersed in its greatest struggle for survival. As noted at the close of the last chapter, it was the Revival of 1857-1858 that caused men and women, in both the North and South, to be spiritually prepared for the coming struggle in which the nation would exorcize the demon of slavery and recover its national unity.

After the Revival of 1757-1758, the real shift away from revivals as an instrument through which religious, moral, and social reformation of society was periodically accomplished was caused by the rise of increasingly liberal elements within the Protestant church. This was not a retreat to an inward spirituality but an abandonment of the irreplaceable renewing power of revival by much of the liberal Protestant establishment in America. During the last third of the nineteenth century, the Protestant churches came under assault by a rapid secularization of the culture and the emergence of powerful new humanistic forces that sought to replace Christianity as the measure of cultural norms and authority. All of these factors led to a dramatic loss of cultural power by the once dominant Protestant preeminence. This transition will be discussed in the next chapter.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Gerald Procee, “Revivals in North America: The Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Revival of 1857, ReformResource.net.
http://reformedresource.net/index.php/worldviews/the-hand-of-god-in-history/124-revivals-in-north-america-the-hamilton-ontario-canada-revival-of-1857.html (accessed January 16, 2018).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), p. 61.
[6] Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations – Evangelical Renewal and Advance in the Nineteenth Century, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1965), pp. 102-103.
[7] Ibid., p. 103.
[8] Ibid., p. 100.
[9] Kathryn Teresa Long, “Revival of 1857-1858,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, Vol. 1, A- Z, ed. Michael McClymond, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007), p. 362.
[10] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 104.
[11] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 62.
[12] Orr, The Light of the nations, pp. 107, 109.
[13] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 63.
[14] Ibid., pp. 63-67.
[15] Darrell W. Stowell, “Civil War Revivals,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, Vol. 1, A-Z, ed. Michael McClymond, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007), pp. 117-118
[16] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), pp. 177, 179-180.
[17] Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver, Eds. George M. Curtis, III and James J. Thompson, Jr., (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, 1987), p. 216.
[18] Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., A Shield and Hiding Place – The Religious Life of the Civil War Armies, (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1987), pp. 129-130.
[19] Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), p. 497.
[20] Shattuck, A Shield and hiding Place, pp. 12, 125, 127-128, 130-131, 135-136.
[21] Stowell, “Civil War Revivals,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, pp. 120-121.
[22] Long, “Revival of 1857-1858,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, p. 365.
[23] Ibid., pp. 365-366.

The post Revival – 11 – The Third Great Awakening in America 1857-1858 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

During the first half of the Second Great Awakening from 1794 to the beginning of the second half in 1822, the expansion of Christianity rested on two pillars: revival and the evangelical organizations growing out of them, especially in the United States and Great Britain. It was in the first half of the Second Awakening that these Christian organizations were birthed and nurtured, but it was in the second half that they matured and spread Christianity’s evangelical mandate to a waiting world. Here we note but just a few of these Christian organizations brought about by the Second Great Awakening.

Baptist Missionary Society was founded in England by William Carey in May 1792 and is generally regarded as the beginning of modern Protestant missionary endeavors.

Wesleyan Missionary Society formed in 1817-1818 arose from the work of Thomas Coke’s Methodist mission to the West Indies during the 1780s-1790s.

Anglican evangelical Thomas Haweis led in founding the interdenominational London Missionary Society in 1795.

Church Missionary Society founded in 1799 based on an idea conceived by Charles Simeon and sponsored by the Church of England.

The Scottish and Glasgow Missionary Societies were formed in 1796 but did not send out missionaries until 1824 because of opposition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

The interdenominational British and Foreign Bible Society was established in 1804 for the purpose of dissemination of the Scriptures. The American Bible Society was founded in 1816.

Religious and Tract Society was established in 1799 at the urging of George Burder, a Congregational minister who had been influenced by George Whitefield. In 1825, the American Tract Society was founded to provide Christian literature to the religiously destitute.

The interdenominational Sunday School Union was formed in 1803 and was a direct result of the earlier work of Robert Raikes of Gloucester, England, who in 1780 organized a Sunday school to give religious and moral training to the poor children of his city.[1]

These organizations and many others supplied great energy and motivation to evangelicalism in America and Great Britain during 1822-1842 as well as to their corresponding missionary efforts around the world.

During the second half of the Second Great Awakening, almost all denominations experienced revivals. However, none were more involved in American revivalism during this period than the Methodists. In 1822, the Methodists participated in over a thousand camp meetings. But as the radical evangelicals had discovered during the First Great Awakening, the real work in all denominations began with the discipling of new converts after the revival fires died down, and none did it better than the methodical Methodists. A Methodist Bishop of the time told his preachers: “We must attend camp-meetings; they make our harvest time.”[2] But the harvest must be understood as being that brief season that stands between the enormous preparations and effort that must precede a bountiful harvest of souls and the great work of discipleship and training of the newly redeemed that must follow.

Even though revival fires burned hot in the years 1822-1842, there were still divisions among the denominations. The Baptists were divided not so much by doctrine or practice but of necessity due to reasons of geographical dispersion. An extensive network of small Baptist Associations comprised of local churches joined together in voluntary cooperation. These churches were usually guided by farmer-preachers with little formal education. The Presbyterians and Congregationalists were divided over the methods and manifestations of revival. Anglicans divided into Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical branches. Likewise, Lutherans were split between confessional orthodoxy and tolerant evangelism. Whatever their internal divisions, the Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran churches were cautiously supportive of revival but to a degree far less than their enthusiastic evangelical counterparts.[3]

Charles Grandison Finney

As previously noted, revival was widespread among the American churches in 1822-1842.
At the center of this great outpouring of the Holy Spirit was Charles Grandison Finney, born in Connecticut in 1792. He studied law in western New York. As a law student, Finney began studying the Mosaic legal code. His interest and study of the Bible grew to the point that he believed in the authority of the Word. Remarkably, but not surprising, Finney’s conversion came not from evangelism by others but from his private study and prayer. Revival historian J. Edwin Orr described young Finney and his path to the pulpit.

His conversion caused a great stir in his community, for he was already (at 29 years of age) a brilliant fellow, a splendid pagan, impressive in personality, and proudly conscious of his intellectual as well as his physical superiority.

Self-taught, but well-disciplined in theology, Finney rebelled against the rigid Calvinism of his Presbyterian fellows, yet he was ordained by a lenient presbytery in western New York. To the end of his days, he pursued his own way in theology, and adopted methods of evangelism which brought him into conflict with many of the leaders of the Calvinistic churches.[4]

Finney’s ministry virtually spanned the whole of the second half of the Second Great Awakening and extended well into the Third Great Awakening.

Finney began his ministry in 1824 at the age of thirty-two. He conducted a series of meetings in Evans Mills, Oneida County, New York, where he preached at a Congregationalist church without a pastor. Although the congregation seemed pleased with his sermons, Finney became distressed after several weeks of preaching without any conversions. Finally, Finney confronted the people with regard to their seeming obstinacy in not responding to the message of the gospel. Frustrated with their complacency, he challenged the congregation. “You who have made up your minds to become Christians, and will give your pledge to make peace with God immediately, should rise up.” [emphasis added] This challenge would be a milestone at the very beginning of Finney’s evangelical career for it was the first time he had asked for an immediate response. He then instructed those that had not risen and therefore had “no interest in Christ” to “sit still.” When no one stood, Finney pronounced judgement, “You have taken your stand. You have rejected Christ and His gospel.” He promised to preach just once more the following night. Finney spent the next day in fasting and prayer. That night the school house was packed “almost to suffocation” with “deists, nominal believers, infidels, Universalists, tavern keepers, respectable citizens, and a husband so angry with the evangelist for upsetting his wife that he would ‘kill Finney’.” Finney preached with all his might and the power of God fell. “Conversions began to occur, some accompanied with falling, groaning, and bellowing. Many inhabitants made ‘heart-broken confessions’ and ‘professed a hope’ of salvation…”[5]

At one meeting while at Evans Mills, Finney closed his sermon with an invitation to all that would give their hearts to the Lord to come forward and take the front seats. In later years this became a standard practice in all of his meetings and was called the “mourner’s bench” or “anxious seat.”[6]

Following the breakthrough at Evans Mills, Finney perfected his preaching style over the next six years in local awakenings in western New York State.[7] Finney described his evangelistic preaching style as “…simply preaching, prayer and conference meetings, and much private prayer, much personal conversation, and meetings for instruction of earnest inquirers.” Finney also served as his own song leader, but singing was never an important component at his revival meetings.[8]

The completion of the Erie Canal linked Lake Erie with the deep waters of the Hudson River near Albany which flowed into the Atlantic Ocean. As a result of this new pathway to the sea, the towns along and near the canal’s route boomed and grew rapidly. In this setting Finney’s ministry eventually transitioned to more urban settings in western New York.[9] Finney and his wife moved to Utica, New York, in October 1825; to Wilmington, Delaware, in December 1827; and then to other areas in the metropolitan east.[10]

In 1830, against the advice of friends, the Finneys chose to go to Rochester in western New York where they stayed from September 1830 to mid-June 1831. Although Rochester was the fastest growing city in the United States during the 1820s due to the completion of the Erie Canal, for ministry purposes it was still considered a smaller and more provincial town as compared to the opportunity to preach in the largest urban areas of the nation.[11]

The pulpit to which he was called to fill was at Third Presbyterian Church. The building housing the church had severe structural damage caused by dampness from the nearby canal and was dangerously near collapse. As a result, the doors of several local churches were opened to Finney’s message. A significant aid to furthering the Rochester revival was its alliance with the local temperance movement in the city. The symbiotic relationship between revival and the temperance movement “united evangelical Protestants like no other social movement had, and it would continue to do so for almost a hundred years.” 12] It was estimated that in Rochester alone, one-tenth of the city’s ten thousand residents were converted and twelve hundred admitted as members of the local churches during the revival of 1830.[13]

Finney wrote that the Rochester revival “spread like waves in every direction.” Without doubt Finney’s assessment was accurate in that the revival spread throughout the northeast with estimates of new church members ranging from 100,000 to as high as 200,000. Finney wrote in his Memoirs that “the very fame of it was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Spirit of God.”[14] Here again we see that the fame of certain revivals within a broad spiritual awakening tends to identify those revivals as the signature event of the era: Jonathan Edwards and the Northampton revival of the 1730s during the First Great Awakening, the Cane Ridge revival of 1801 during the first half of the Second Great Awakening, and now the Rochester revival that gave rise to the 1830-1831 revivals during the second half of the Second Great Awakening.

Dr. Lyman Beecher expressed his opinion of this remarkable work of the Holy Spirit that spread from Rochester to virtually all states in the nation.

That was the greatest work of God and the greatest revival of religion that the world has ever seen, in so short a time. One hundred thousand were reported as having connected themselves to the churches as a result of that great revival. This is unparalleled in the history of the church.[15]

As a result of the Rochester revival, Finney became nationally known and soon preached revival meetings to large crowds in Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and other large cities. He became professor of theology at Oberlin College in 1836 and the college’s president in 1851 where he remained until 1866. Over the years following the Rochester revival, Finney’s theology evolved from a Presbyterian-Congregationalist Calvinism to a middle path between Arminianism and Calvinism. By the end of his life he was a strong supporter of the doctrine of perfectionism.[16] Christian perfectionism was at the heart of John Wesley’s preaching. The essence of this doctrine is that the Christian pursues a life of sanctification or holiness in which one has been separated from a past life of sin and continues to live a life separated from sin and dedicated to God.

Charles Finney was and remains a controversial figure as are almost all who preach revival for to do so is to incur the wrath of Satan and the forces of the reigning world system. One of Finney’s most controversial beliefs dealt with how revivals begin. In his 1831 “Lectures on Revivals of Religion,” Finney wrote:

A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means…

I said that a revival is the result of the right use of the appropriate means. The means which God has enjoined [ordered] for the production of a revival, doubtless have a natural tendency to produce a revival. Otherwise God would not have enjoined them. But means will not produce a revival, we all know, without the blessing of God. No more will grain, when it is sown, produce a crop without the blessing of God. It is impossible for us to say that there is not as direct an influence or agency from God, to produce a crop of grain, as there is to produce a revival.[17] [emphasis added]

Throughout his entire life Finney believed that “regeneration is always induced and effected by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit.” He also believed the Spirit works through natural means and human agency.[18] Unfortunately, and as is often the case in spiritual matters, this reasonable understanding of the centrality and manner of working of the Holy Spirit was frequently reduced to conversational shorthand devoid of Finney’s intent and true meaning of his position. Thus, in the minds of many, “revivals of religion” amount to little more than human manipulation or fabrication resulting in salvation by emotion rather than salvation by faith. Dr. J. Edwin Orr described the consequences of this misunderstanding and misuse of Finney’s path to revival by many ministers and evangelists, both friend and foe.

[Finney’s] theory of revivals encouraged a brash school of revivalists and evangelists who thought that they could promote genuine revival by use of means chosen by themselves. The use of means was patently successful in the case of so many other Spirit-filled men. In the case of the less spiritual promoters, the theory gave rise to a brand of promotional evangelism, one full of sensationalism and commercialism…[19]

Although Finney fully embraced the religious enthusiasm of the common people, he was steadfastly opposed to fanaticism which damaged the prospects of spiritual renewal by “ranting irresponsible preachers.”[20] In spite of the objections to and misunderstandings of his methods and message, Charles Finney stands alone as the most brilliant evangelist of the nineteenth century. Although Finney was a master revival tactician and the undisputed revivalist leader between 1822 and1842, the footprint of the later years of the Second Great Awakening was far larger than Finney’s and included many other well-known revivals and evangelists of the era.

The decline of religious life in America 1842-1857

Religious life in the United States began a serious decline during the latter half of the 1840s and much of the 1850s as a result of the confluence of several religious, social, and political conditions.

One well-meaning but misguided evangelist of the 1830s and early 1840s brought reproach on the cause of Christ which helped cool the religious fervor of the Awakening. William Miller was a New England farmer, a sincere man, and a zealous leader of many evangelists. In 1831, Miller began preaching a message that the Lord was coming on March 21, 1843. In the dozen years leading up to the projected date, Miller had gathered a following variously estimated to be between 100,000 and one million. As the date approached, many of the Millerites, as they were known, sold their possessions, camped out in fields, or waited in white garments on nearby hilltops for Christ’s return. The date came and went as did two new dates in March and October of 1844 which were predicted for Christ’s return. As a consequence many of the Millerites became embittered and left the church as a result of their misplaced faith. In 1846, a remnant of the Millerites established the Seventh-Day Adventists. The denomination developed several new doctrines to explain the Millerite disaster. Many of these doctrines were blatantly heretical including the assertion that Christ had already come secretly. These doctrines and other beliefs effectively isolated the Seventh-Day Adventists from the rest of evangelical Protestantism.[21] As a result of the Millerite debacle, the Protestant church as a whole was diminished and frequently ridiculed. During the period 1845-1855, faith in religion was greatly diminished, and the church experienced severe losses.[22]

In the social realm, financial and commercial prosperity abounded to the point that the zeal for the material far outweighed the zeal for things religious. “Boom times caught the public fancy, and turned men’s hearts from God.”[23]

However, it was in the arena of politics that propelled the ship of state into uncharted and dangerous waters. The myths of Andrew Jackson as the hero of the common man and Jacksonian democracy as a watershed event in democratic processes is better described as a hypocritical reform movement steeped in corruption, spoils, and patronage. Elected in 1828, Jackson and his successors’ actions “…ensured the dominance of a proslavery party in national politics…” which continued to exacerbate the problem of slavery until the beginning of the Civil War in 1861.[24]

Slavery was an issue that had been a great cause for concern among evangelicals and an institution upon which they had expended great energy in hopes of bringing it to an end. The efforts to abolish slavery in America began even before the nation’s founding as a result of the moral suasion of Christian people who saw slavery as morally unacceptable within the biblical worldview. The case against slavery had been building among many evangelicals since the eighteenth century. But by the 1830s, it was an issue whose time had come, and none were better positioned to press the cause of liberation than Charles Finney and Oberlin College. Finney spoke strongly against slavery in his Lectures on Revivals. He told ministers that “their testimony must be given on this subject” and that failure to speak out implied “that they do not consider slavery a sin.” Finney believed that it would take a national spiritual revival to end slavery and warned that the ideological struggle over the issue of slavery was quickly driving the nation to the brink of civil war.[25]

Just as the Great Awakening was the formative moment in American history preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible, the Second Great Awakening was the stabilizing moment whose effects lasted until the 1840s and saved the new nation from political and moral destruction. The Third Great Awakening was the sustaining moment that prepared the nation to endure the national conflagration of the Civil War and made possible its reunification and survival in the war’s aftermath. The revival of the late 1850s caused men and women, in both the North and South, to be spiritually prepared for the coming struggle in which the nation would exorcize the demon of slavery and recover its national unity.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] . Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations – Evangelical Renewal and Advance in the Nineteenth Century, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1965), pp. 40-42.
[2] Ibid., p. 54.
[3] Ibid., p. 56.
[4] Ibid., p. 58.
[5] Charles E. Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), pp. 36-37.
[6] Ibid., p. 39.
[7] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 19.
[8] Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney, p. 38.
[9] Ibid., p. 47.
[10] Ibid., pp. 73-74.
[11] Ibid., pp. 100-103.
[12] Ibid., pp. 106, 110-111, 113.
[13] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 59.
[14] Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney, p. 113.
[15] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 54.
[16] Ibid., pp. 59-60.
[17] Charles G. Finney, “What a Revival of Religion Is,” Lectures on Revivals of Religion, Lecture I, 1835, TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-a-revival-of-religion-is/ (accessed January 13, 2018).
[18] Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney, pp. 220-221.
[19] Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 60.
[20] Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney, p. 39.
[21] Orr, The Light of the Nations, pp. 60-61.
[22] Ibid., pp. 99-100.
[23] Ibid., p. 100.
[24] Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), p. 219.
[25] Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney, pp. 173-174.

The post Revival – 10 – The Second Great Awakening in America – The Later Years – 1822-1842 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Changes in the American Protestant landscape

Before we proceed further in our discussion, it is important to step back and once again summarize the forces that preceded and later shaped the Second Great Awakening in the nineteenth century. Thomas Kidd identified several key factors that defined the flourishing American evangelicalism during the last half of The Great Awakening. These changes in the American Protestant landscape greatly influenced the shape and character of the Second Great Awakening at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The first influence was the disestablishment of the dominant moderate evangelical churches of the 1740s-1750s, primarily the Congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian (Anglican) churches. In 1760, these three denominations accounted for more than forty percent of all American congregations but declined to less than twenty-five percent by 1790. However, the number of populist evangelical churches grew dramatically. The Baptists grew from forty-nine churches in 1760 to 858 by 1790. The Methodists went from having no churches to over 700 congregations during the same thirty year period.[3]

The revivals of the 1760s proved to be a key moment of transition by the former radicals. Much of the leadership of the radicals from the revivals in the 1740s remained in place and had become prominent players in the revivals of the 1760s. These seasoned revival leaders now saw themselves in somewhat of a different, less-radical light. One reason was that by the 1760s the influence of George Whitefield on the radicals had waned. As new churches were birthed from the revivals, the once radical leaders found that they must not only stir revival but pastor the new congregants between revivals. A second reason was that the former radicals sought to carry their populist and egalitarian ideas into mainstream American Christianity. Although liberty of conscience and separation from the established churches continued to be of central importance, the former radicals saw the necessity of presenting new revivals as both “reasonable and enthusiastic.”[4]

A second influence on the America Protestant denominations was a decline in Calvinistic theology. To many in the new populist Protestant denominations during the last half of the eighteenth century, the Calvinist beliefs about predestination seemed doctrinally incompatible with the emerging individualist evangelicalism. The rejection of Calvinism was found among many North American evangelical denominations such as the Baptists and Methodists. The abandonment of Calvinism by the former radical evangelicals was a frequent occurrence during the revivals of the New Light Stir during the Revolutionary War.[5]

A third influence on American Protestantism was that the new birth had become permanently identified as the most significant feature of evangelical Christianity. For the individual, conversion by the grace of Christ became the most important and spiritually significant moment of one’s life. Whether radical or moderate, emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion had forever become the heart of evangelical churches’ reason for being.[6]

Anti-evangelicalism, deism, Unitarianism, Universalism

As a result of disagreement with certain aspects of The Great Awakening in the 1740s and thereafter, many churches become inclined toward formalism and rejected evangelicalism. As the influence of the anti-evangelical churches declined during 1760-1790, these churches eventually became powerful allies of those professing deism. Together, they would counter what they perceived to be the growing threat of evangelicalism. Deism had once again began to grow and expand during the last quarter of the eighteenth century as it had done for a season during the first quarter of the century before being displaced by the birth of evangelicalism. However, the new deism of the late eighteenth century was of a much more poisonous variety for it embraced a large measure of French rationalism which championed human reason over religious teachings. Although deists would not deny God, worship, or Christian ethics as the Enlightenment’s humanists did, the new deism directly attacked revivalism and its emphasis on a personalized heart religion. As a result, the growing influence of deistic rationalism on Protestant thought “had numbed conviction and cooled enthusiasm” in many Protestant churches. The latent deism that had crept into anti-evangelical New England churches which were in decline after 1760 paved the way for the even greater heretical philosophies of Unitarianism and Universalism. Proponents of these philosophies were able to gain control of many strategic and influential Congregational churches which eventually split over these false philosophies. Over time, many churches captured by Unitarian and Universalist philosophies completely abandoned evangelical Christianity as they drifted toward outright humanism.[7]

A call for a “concert of prayer” in the midst of desperate times

The influence of these anti-evangelical forces in the last quarter of the eighteenth century coupled with the spiritual and moral decline as a result of the debilitating effects of eight years of war quickly became a disastrous setback for evangelicals and the Christian cause in general. This general decline was evident in 1796 near the end of George Washington’s second term as president. A friend wrote to Washington of his concerns for the survival of the young nation.

Our affairs seem to lead to some crisis, some revolution; something that I can not foresee or conjecture. I am more uneasy than during the war.

And George Washington replied:

Your sentiment…accords with mine. What will be is beyond my foresight.[8]

Given the dominance of Christianity and revivalism in much of American culture during the middle years of the eighteenth century, many unbelievers may appear baffled by the new nation’s sudden poverty of Christian spiritual and moral fiber. But for Christians who are familiar with the biblical accounts of God’s people through the ages, great victories invariably lead to strong opposition by Satan, man’s great adversary. But Christians also know that when conditions are desperate and defeat is imminent, they must seek God’s face and pray the prayers of desperate men and women for they know that only divine intervention can save the day. On a national scale that means “nothing less than a revival could effectively deal with the situation.”[9] And so it was in 1794 America.

A brief synopsis of Isaac Backus’ life and ministry was presented in the previous chapter. Although he had pastored the Middleborough, Massachusetts, Baptist congregation for forty-six years, by 1794 Backus was a discouraged man because of the widespread personal impiety and blatant corruption of public morals. The churches in America appeared to be powerless in stopping the abandonment of religious principles and consequent declining moral state of the nation. Although many had given up hope, Backus still wavered between hope and despair. In his desperation Backus recruited Stephen Gano, a long-time friend and Baptist pastor, and twenty New England pastors to issue a call for a nation-wide “Concert of Prayer.” The call for prayer for revival went to pastors of every Christian denomination throughout the United States, and the prayer network almost universally adopted and followed the pattern of the British Union of Prayer which set aside the first Monday of each month for prayer.[10]

Whisperings of revival

Soon revival began in the most unlikely of places—the colleges in the longest settled parts of the nation. Although these schools had been founded by godly men for godly purposes, they had become known as brazen centers of infidelity and immorality. Revival began almost imperceptibly among a handful of students who assembled unobtrusively to pray at various colleges. A few students at Virginia’s Hampden-Sydney College, none professing Christians, attempted to conduct a prayer meeting, but ungodly students sought to disrupt the meeting. The president of the college quelled the disturbance and chastised the unruly students. Thereafter he invited the students wanting to pray to meet in his study. Very soon more than half of the students attending professed to have been converted and become Christians. Local churches also began to be roused from their spiritual lethargy by the students’ conversions.[11]

Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards, became the president of Yale College in 1795. Dwight soon encouraged his students to attack without hesitation the truth of the Bible. He answered their attacks in chapel with a series of powerful sermons such as “The nature and danger of Infidel Philosophy” and “Is the Bible the Word of God?” He then challenged the students with plain expository preaching regarding the problems of materialism and deism. Interest in religion grew to such an extent that by 1802, one-third of the entire student body had made public confessions of faith in Christ. Several new revivals at Yale College would follow in the years to come.[12]

During the summer of 1806, five students at Williams College in Massachusetts met for prayer in a grove of maples as they were accustomed. Caught in the open by a brief thunderstorm, they sought shelter beneath a haystack. There they prayed about evangelizing the heathen for Christ and determined to devise a plan to do so. The small band of five organized a society, met in secret, and recorded their minutes in code. Soon they recruited at least twenty other students who shared their burden. In 1810, the burden for lost souls still burned in the hearts of the students. Samuel J. Mills, one of the original haystack group at Williams College, and three of his closest friends were attending Andover Seminary. The four seminarians met with six ministers of their denomination in the parlor of an interested professor. The students presented their plan to reach lost souls, but it was met with skepticism by several of the ministers who pointed to various obstacles that would hinder their mission. The ministers eventually gave their blessing to the young men after being warned by one minister against trying to stop God’s purposes. From its humble origins under a New England haystack during a thunderstorm in 1806, the “whole modern missionary movement” was birthed.[13]

Small though they may have been, these initial college prayer meetings at several American campuses in the early years of the Second Great Awakening eventually led to revivals of religion in a multitude of colleges and subsequently to the churches. J. Edwin Orr described these revivals as beginning “…quietly and without fanaticism of any kind. There was undoubtedly an appeal to the hearts of the students, but first their minds and consciences were moved.” By the turn of the century the awakenings on the college campuses had produced many powerful revivals from Maine to the southern states and most areas between. This was providential for at that very time there were enormous numbers of people that sought to establish new lives in the unsettled regions west of the Allegheny Mountains. The college campus revivals eventually produced “a generation of evangelistic ministers to serve the opening western states.” But in 1798, the illiterate frontiers west of the Allegheny Mountains would not wait for revival to be brought by these future ministers.[14]

Fourteen states had been admitted to the Union by 1791. In the space of a single generation, ten more states were added, all west of the Allegheny/Appalachian Mountains by 1821. Such was the vast migration of people surging into these new states that Ohio soon had a greater population than all but four of the original states in the Union.[15]

Rogues’ Harbour and Cane Ridge Revivals

The revivals in the east were soon surpassed by revivals in the wilderness regions. Two legendary revivals occurred in Kentucky and set the tone for what was to come. By 1800, revival had reached the western extremities of civilization in Logan County in southern Kentucky. Perhaps civilized is too strong a word for Rogues’ Harbour was known for its wild and irreligious people including escaped murderers, counterfeiters, highwaymen, and horse thieves. Lawlessness was so rampant that local citizens formed themselves into regiments of vigilantes to fight the outlaws, often unsuccessfully, to establish a measure of law and order for the settlements. It was here that Presbyterian minister James McCready settled and became pastor of three small churches in 1797. All through the winter of 1799, McCready and several of his congregants joined the national monthly Monday meetings to pray for revival as well as holding weekly Saturday evening to Sunday morning prayer meetings.[16]

Following months of prayer, revival came in the summer of 1800. Toward the end of a sacramental service at the Red River congregation, Presbyterian McCready allowed Methodist preacher John McGee to address his congregation. This was an unusual occurrence, but McGee was the brother of one of McCready’s Presbyterian colleagues. McGee’s preaching so stirred the audience that “Suddenly persons began to fall as he passed through the crowd—some as dead.” McCready and his fellow Presbyterians were so stunned by the bodily manifestations they “acquiesced and stood in astonishment, admiring the wonderful work of God.” McCready soon began preaching in the Methodist-style of preaching at his other two congregations.[17] The spiritual hunger was so great that eleven thousand came to a communion service. Overwhelmed, McCready called for help from all denominations.[18]

The religious gathering in August 1801 at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, is considered to be one of the most famous religious events in American history. Cane Ridge was located a few miles northeast of Lexington in central Kentucky which at that time was the largest city in the state with a population of 2,000. The unique feature of the Cane Ridge revival was that people came prepared to camp at the site of the revival meeting which allowed a new intensity and level of religious experience. Although camp meetings were a part of several earlier localized revivals, the Cane Ridge revival was different in that people came from great distances and included rich, poor, black, and white who joined in prayer together.[19] Drawing from many recorded accounts of eyewitnesses, historian Ellen Eslinger pieced together a picture of the historic outpouring of the Spirit of God in the Kentucky wilderness for almost a week.

For more than half a mile, I could see people on their knees before God in humble prayer…Individuals, suddenly struck by their spiritual plight, began falling to the ground “as if dead.” At times the effect was awesome, with several hundred people “swept down like the trees of the forest under the blast of the wild tornado…Religion has got to such a height here, that people attend from great distances; on this occasion I doubt not but there will be 10,000 people, and perhaps 500 wagons.”…The meeting was presided over by the Cane Ridge pastor and 18 other Presbyterian ministers, at least four Methodists, plus several Baptist elders…Cane Ridge offered spectators a chaotic scene. When individuals were spiritually stricken and fell, a circle of curious onlookers gathered around them. The huge, unwieldy scale of the event necessitated parallel activities. Several ministers often preached at the same time in different sections of the grounds, and the only event that had been previously scheduled was the sacrament on Sunday afternoon.[20]

The fame of the Cane Ridge camp meeting revival was a pivotal event in evangelism and served as a pattern for other revivals in the early years of the Second Great Awakening much as Jonathan Edwards’ widely published descriptions of the Northampton revival during the First Great Awakening had done in the First Great Awakening over sixty years earlier.

Revival spreads

Soon the Kentucky revivals had swept south into Tennessee, the Western Carolinas, and Georgia and then north into Ohio Territory. The revival movement increased dramatically, and sometimes crowds of thirty or forty thousand illiterate pioneer settlers gathered and at which preachers from Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterians would preach in different parts of the campground. As always, Satan sowed tares in the revivals through extraordinary emotional excesses beyond the work of the Holy Spirit. However, in spite of the bad, far greater good for the kingdom of God was accomplished and was remarkably evident in the general religious awe that pervaded the country as “drunkards, swearers, liars, and the quarrelsome were remarkably reformed.” The college awakenings eventually provided a flood of well-educated Bible scholars for ministry in the western reaches of America.[21]

The War of 1812 slowed the waves of evangelism and revival, but during the years 1822-1842, thousands were added to the churches which far surpassed the results of the early years of the Second Great Awakening. The primary beneficiaries were those churches who were most evangelistic in word and action, primarily the Baptists and Methodists who evangelized the unchurched masses.[22]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] J. Edwin Orr, “Prayer brought Revival”,oChristian.com. http://articles.ochristian.com/article8330.shtml (accessed December 28, 2017).
[2] J. Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations – Evangelical Renewal and Advance in the Nineteenth Century, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1965), p. 54.
[3] Gordon S. Wood, “Religion and the American Revolution,” New Directions in American Religious History, ed. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp.185-188.
[4] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), pp.286-287.
[5] Ibid., pp. 312-313, 319.
[6] Ibid., p. 323.
[7] Orr, The Light of the Nations, pp. 15, 17, 20.
[8] Ibid., p. 17.
[9] Arthur Skevington Wood quoted by Orr, The Light of the Nations, p. 14.
[10] J. Edwin Orr, “Prayer brought Revival”, oChristian.com.
[11] Orr, The Light of the Nations, pp. 21-22.
[12] Ibid., p. 22.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., pp. 23-24.
[15] Ibid., p. 24.
[16] Orr, “Prayer brought Revival,”oChristian.com.
[17] Ellen Eslinger, “Cane Ridge Revival,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, Volume 1, A-Z, ed. Michael McClymond, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007), p. 89.
[18] Orr, “Prayer brought Revival,” oChristian.com.
[19] Eslinger, “Cane Ridge Revival,” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, p. 88.
[20] Ibid., pp. 88, 90.
[21] Orr, The Light of the Nations, pp. 25-27.
[22] Ibid., p. 18.

The post Revival – 9 – The Second Great Awakening in America – The Early Years – 1794-1812 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

To properly understand revivals that occurred during the later years of The Great Awakening, it is important to have knowledge of the contemporary events that impacted those revivals and religious life in general from the 1760s through the end of the Revolutionary War. During the 1750s the British had awakened to the importance to the British Empire of the few American colonies that clung to the eastern edge of a vast wilderness thousands of miles across the Atlantic. This new found interest was kindled by the French and Indian War being fought on the American continent (1754-1763). Britain’s interest and involvement in the affairs of the American colonists significantly increased following the war and ended decades of salutary neglect the colonists had come to expect and enjoy. The war left the British with massive debt, high taxes at home, and a permanent army of paid soldiers in the colonies that was costly to maintain. Accordingly, the British Parliament passed a series of revenue-generating measures which unilaterally imposed on the colonies many very burdensome taxes, duties, and tariffs, the most troublesome of which was the Stamp Act of 1765.[1]

Colonial unrest aggravated by British intransigence continued over the course of the next ten years and culminated with hostilities at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 which marked the beginning of the colonists’ eight-year struggle for independence. The war officially ended in January 1783 with the signing of the Articles of Peace.[2]

Even in war life goes on and so did the colonial revivals. Of particular note was a series of revivals from 1778 to 1782 which are called the “New Light Stir.” Although several evangelical denominations were successful during the Stir, the Baptists led the way with thirty six new churches planted in New England between 1778 and 1782. Isaac Backus had been involved in revivalism since the 1740s and knew well its history. He estimated that two thousand New Englanders received believer’s baptism in 1780 alone. Regarding the New Light Stir, Backus believed that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit “spread the most extensively and the most powerfully through New England than any revival had done for near forty years,” and it “was undoubtedly a great means of saving this land from foreign invasion, and from ruin by internal corruption.”[3]

In spite of the widespread success of the revivals, tensions between the rival moderate and radical camps of evangelicalism continued as it had for forty years. One of the most pronounced developments of revivalism’s New Light Stir was the growing abandonment of Calvinism among the radicals and would become even more common in the early years of the nineteenth century. Although Congregationalism began to decline during the late eighteenth century, it would remain a significant force in northern religious life and reform movements through the end of the Civil War. Moderate Baptist and radical evangelical growth continued during the war, but the bulk of the Methodists’ amazing growth would occur after the war.[4]

Revolutionary Revival

Irrespective of the abundance of primary historical evidence to the contrary, many if not most all early historians gave little to no credit to religion’s role in fostering the American Revolution. Most present-day historians of the American Revolution generally believe that religion was substantially displaced by politics as lawyers replaced the clergy as leaders which effectively “…transformed and secularized the intellectual character of the culture.”[5] They often point to declines in church attendance, number of publications devoted to religious matters, and other such statistics regarding the health of the church. However, a thoughtful response easily brings one to the natural conclusion that these declines resulted from dislocations caused by the war. Based on the appearance of a decline of religion in the public arena during the revolution, historians have leaped to the erroneous conclusion that the American people were significantly less religious. This is a blatant misreading of the mood and character of Americans during the Revolutionary period. Protestantism in whatever form it took remained the principle means by which Americans perceived and explained the world and ordered their lives.[6]

A brief look at the growth in the number of revivals and growth in the number of churches during 1760-1790 refute the historians’ assertions that concern for religious matters and religious fervor declined during the Revolutionary period. The number of church congregations doubled between 1770 and 1790. It is true that the older churches that dominated colonial society—Anglican, Congregational, and Presbyterian—declined or failed to grow relative to other groups. The Church of England which dominated the South and the powerful Puritan churches of New England accounted for more than forty percent of all American congregations in 1760 but declined to less than twenty-five percent by 1790. However, new denominations spawned by the Great Awakening were alive, well, and growing. The Baptists grew from ninety-four congregations in 1760 to 858 by 1790. During the same time period the Methodists grew from no adherents to over seven hundred congregations which nationally rivaled the numbers of the older Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches. American historian Gordon Wood wrote that, “The revolution released more religious energy and fragmented Christendom to a greater degree than had been seen since the upheavals of seventeenth century England or perhaps since the Reformation.” Stephen A. Marini (quoted by Wood) wrote that the extent of the profound changes in religious life and substantial religious growth in America between 1760 and 1790 can be described as nothing less than a “…Revolutionary Revival.”[7]

Spiritual and moral decline in America

History has proven that significant spiritual and moral decline occur during the years of war and for protracted periods thereafter. Even as revivals flourished during the Revolutionary War years, there was a simultaneous beginning of spiritual and moral decline among the general population. This decline continued following the end of the war in 1783 and especially during the last decade of the eighteenth century. Following eight years of war, all denominations and the new nation as a whole began to feel the effects of spiritual and moral decay. Revival historian J. Edwin Orr described the conditions in America.

The Methodists were losing more members than they were gaining. The Baptists said that they had their most wintry season. The Presbyterians in general assembly deplored the nation’s ungodliness. In a typical Congregational church, the Rev. Samuel Shepherd of Lennos (Lenox), Massachusetts, in sixteen years had not taken one young person in fellowship. The Lutherans were so languishing that they discussed uniting with Episcopalians who were even worse off. The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York…quit functioning; he had confirmed no one for so long that he decided he was out of work, so he took up other employment. The Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, wrote to the Bishop of Virginia, James Madison, that the Church “was too far gone ever to be redeemed.”…Tom Paine echoed, “Christianity will be forgotten in thirty years.”[8]

The churches had become almost totally irrelevant in curbing the nation’s downward spiral into immorality. During the last decade of the century, out of a population of five million Americans, six percent were confirmed drunkards. Crime had grown to such an extent that bank robberies were a daily occurrence and women did not go out at night for fear of assault.[9]

Christianity at the universities was just as destitute. Students at Harvard were polled, and not one Christian was found. Two admitted to being Christians at Princeton while only five members of the student body were not members of the filthy speech movement of the times. Few if any campuses escaped the denigration of Christianity and general mayhem. Anti-Christian plays were presented at Dartmouth, a Bible taken from a local church was burned in a public bonfire, students burned Nassau Hall at Princeton, and students forced the resignation of Harvard’s president. Christians on college campuses in the 1790s were so few “…that they met in secret, like a communist cell, and kept their minutes in code so that no one would know.”[10]

But America was not alone in her misery. Although the founding Americans had relied on an order that rested upon a respect for prescriptive rights and customs, the egalitarian notions of French philosophers fueled the bonfires of the French Revolution (1789-1799). The aberrant humanistic philosophies emerging from the late Renaissance and Enlightenment during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries nurtured the egalitarian notions of the French philosophers. These Enlightenment philosophies supplied the framework for the French revolutionists as they fostered societal changes based on the ethereal, imaginary, or invented “rights of man” as well as imposition of an ever increasing number of laws to address the failings of human nature. In spite of the French Revolution’s high-minded chorus of “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”, the French reality was “monarchy, anarchy, dictatorship” all occurring in a little more than a decade.

However, across the English Channel the course of Western civilization was taking a different turn throughout the British Isles. As noted in Chapter 4, the British Great Awakening over the course of five decades beginning in 1739 had so completely transformed that the character of the nation by 1791 that some historians credit the British Awakening for preventing a revolution in Britain similar to the bloody French Revolution of 1789.[11]

In the last two decades of the eighteenth century, immense social upheavals and change throughout the Western world began to occur during the initial stages of the Industrial Revolution. However, the seeds destined to flower as the Second Worldwide Awakening were being sown by Christians in Great Britain. Recall that it was the providential publication in England during 1737 of Jonathan Edwards’ account of the revivals in American that greatly influenced two key figures of the approaching British Great Awakening—John Wesley in England and Howell Harris in Wales.[12] Forty-five years later the powerful influence of Edwards’ writings would again impact the people of the British Isles.

Jonathan Edwards believed that concerted prayers of Christians would release the power of the Holy Spirit and result in converts which would be followed by worldwide revival. In 1745 Edwards had had heard of a prayer movement for revival that had begun among several Scottish evangelical ministers. This information may have come from John Erskine, a Scottish Presbyterian minister who began corresponding with Edwards in the mid-1740s. Edwards was inspired by the information he had received and felt led to write his own thoughts on the matter and in 1746 published “An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God’s People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, pursuant to Scripture Promises and Prophecies concerning the last Time.”[13]

John Sutcliffe (1752-1814) attended Bristol Baptist College from 1772 to May 1774. He became pastor of the Baptist church in Olney, Buckinghamshire, England, in 1775 where he began to earnestly study the writings of Jonathan Edwards. In the spring of 1784 John Ryland, Jr., a pastor friend, had received a copy of Edwards’ “An Humble Attempt…” from John Erskine, a Scottish Presbyterian minister. Ryland shared Edwards’ book with Sutcliffe. The book had a profound impact on Sutcliffe, Ryland, and another pastor friend Andrew Fuller. They soon enlisted sixteen other Baptist pastors to “establish monthly prayer meetings for the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit and the consequent revival of the churches of Great Britain.” By 1789 the prayer meetings among the Calvinist Baptist churches had grown considerably. Sutcliffe decided to reprint Edwards’ “An Humble Attempt…” By 1790 the prayer movement for revival had spread beyond the Calvinistic Baptist denomination and led to “copious showers of blessing” which later historians would mark as the Second Evangelical Awakening (1790-1830).[14]

But the story does not end there. The providential sequence of events beginning with Edwards’1746 treatise on praying for revival, the calls beginning in 1784 by Scottish pastors for concerted prayers, and the unfolding of the Second Great Awakening in Britain in 1790 also influenced an American pastor and allowed the new British Awakening to traverse the Atlantic to America in the late 1790s.

Isaac Backus – God’s agent for revival

Isaac Backus (1724-1806) was born into a “pure” Congregational church by which was meant that it was not part of an association of Congregational churches adhering to the Saybrook Platform. This association linked individual Connecticut congregations and provided for church discipline. Backus’ mother raised him to understand the necessity of conviction and conversion which was later reinforced by the preaching of Eleazar Wheelock and James Davenport. While “mowing alone in the field,” the young seventeen-year-old Backus experienced both conviction and conversion. He joined the Norwich, Connecticut, Congregational Church but later left in the summer of 1745 with about thirty men and a large number of women to become part of the “New Light” revivalist movement.[15] It appears that the principal dividing issues causing their departure were the relaxed standards for full membership as allowed by the Saybrook Platform and a de-emphasis on personal conversion testimonies for full membership. In other words, the Norwich church received people “to Communion who could not testify to a work of gracious conversion.”[16]

On September 27, 1746, Backus sensed a call to preach and did so the next day by “exercising the right of exhortation.” In 1748, after fourteen months of itinerant preaching in a style similar to George Whitefield, Backus was called to pastor a congregation in Middleborough, Massachusetts.[17] Backus was twenty-four when the original sixteen members signed the new church’s covenant in February. By year’s end, membership had grown to sixty-one. However, Backus continued to struggle with the issue of baptism, and by July 1751 he began preaching that he could find no scriptural basis for infant baptism. In August, he and six other members of his congregation were baptized by immersion to demonstrate their commitment to the requirement of believer’s baptism for full communion. Backus’ action threw the church into turmoil because the majority of members were opposed to believer’s baptism. Backus agreed to continue as pastor of the church under a mixed-communion plan that accepted either infant or believer’s baptism.[18]

The church struggled along for another five years, but Backus finally became convinced that infant baptism was not compatible with the requirement that a congregant must be saved by grace. In 1756, Backus and several other congregation members re-constituted the Middleborough church under a Baptist covenant of freedom of conscience and that the Lord’s Supper was only to be taken by those after profession of their faith and having been baptized by immersion. Backus eventually became the principle agent for Massachusetts Baptists’ quest for religious liberty in their struggle against power of the Congregationalists’ legalized religious monopoly. For decades after fully embracing the Baptist covenant, Backus was a tireless writer, spokesman, and defender of religious liberty through separation of church and state.[19] Here the reader must understand that the separation of church and state sought by Backus was that which would eventually be expressed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and not the aberrant modern interpretation of separation of church and state as expressed by humanistic and liberal political orthodoxy.

Isaac Backus was an enormously important figure in The Great American Awakening. His career spanned six decades beginning in the great revivals of the early 1740s. He joined the Congregationalists, became a Separatist, and then founded a Baptist church, all during the moderate and radical conflicts of the 1740s and 1750s. He was a strong advocate of revivalism and participated in numerous revivals from the 1750s through the end of the American Revolution and then into the Second Great Awakening. He was an itinerant evangelist; pastor of one church for fifty-eight years; revival historian; political activist; denominational speaker, debater, and essayist; Revolutionary War Patriot; and perhaps the most important Baptist figure of the entire Awakening. However, Backus’ most important work for the kingdom of God may have occurred after these events and during the last twelve years of his life. During this last chapter of his life which began in 1794, Backus called Christian churches throughout the spiritually struggling new nation to join the Union of Prayer and pray for revival. These prayers eventually ignited the Second Great Awakening in America and changed the course of history.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Richard B. Morris, Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1953), pp. 67-73.
[2] Ibid., pp. 85, 109.
[3] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), p. 313.
[4] Ibid., pp. 319-320.
[5] Gordon S. Wood, “Religion and the American Revolution,” New Directions in American Religious History, ed. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 174-175.
[6] 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. 131.
[7] Wood, “Religion and the American Revolution,” New Directions in American Religious History, pp. 185-188.
[8] J. Edwin Orr, “Prayer brought Revival,” ochristian.com, http://articles.ochristian.com/article8330.shtml (accessed December 16, 2017).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), pp. 29, 32.
[12] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 22, 44.
[13] Jonathan Edwards, “An Humble Attempt to Promote Prayer for Revival,” Revival Library. http://www.revival-library.org/index.php/catalogues-menu/revival-miscellanies/revival-prayer/an-humble-attempt-to-promote-prayer-for-revival (accessed December 22, 2017).
[14] Michael A. G. Haykin, “John Sutcliffe and the Concert of Prayer,” Reformation & Revival, Volume 1, Number 3, Summer, 1992, pp. 66, 68, 73-74, 82-83. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/01-3/1-3_haykin.pdf (accessed December 22, 2017).
[15] Thomas J. Nettles, “Backus, Isaac (1724-1806),” Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America Volume 1, A-Z, ed. Michael McClymond, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007), p. 43.
[16] Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. 182.
[17] Nettles, Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America Volume 1, A-Z, p. 43.
[18] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 184-186.
[19] Nettles, Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America Volume 1, A-Z, pp. 43-44.

The post Revival – 8 – Spiritual Conditions in America 1760-1790 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The Great Awakening matures amidst opportunities and challenges

By the end of the 1730s, revivalism in The Great Awakening was beginning to emerge from its youth, strengthen, and expand throughout the colonies. Revivalism’s developing maturity introduced many new and unforeseen opportunities and challenges to churches in the colonies. The essence of this flowering revivalism was best exemplified by the Northampton revival guided by Jonathan Edwards and the other New England revivals that arose from it. In this chapter we shall examine various facets of The Great Awakening that ultimately defined revivalism and established evangelicalism as a dominant force in America to the present day.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the call for revival in the colonies began in 1674 when Samuel Torrey, pastor of the church at Weymouth, Massachusetts, began preaching the need for revival among pastors and congregations because of the perceived general spiritual decline and loss of religious vigor among the Puritans. Torrey emphasized the “Work of Reformation.” He believed that churches would not be revived through moral efforts alone but only through an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.[1]

Torrey’s “work of reformation” easily resonated in the minds of the Puritans of New England for their very presence in their new colonial homeland was the result of their efforts to revive the church and continue the work of purifying the Reformation in America which they believed could not be accomplished among the corrupted brethren in England. So revival and revivalism was a natural fit with a mindset that already existed among most colonists who sought religious freedom from the strictures of authoritarian churches and kings.

In spite of their quest for religious freedom, the colonists still considered themselves English men and women and retained much of the English social order including many of the same ecclesiastical doctrines and practices brought from their former homeland. What the religious colonists sought was spiritual reformation, not extra-biblical innovation. But as every generation of the church must realize, the outworking of reformation and revival produce to varying degrees both the good and the bad. In every revival, the church body and individual Christians must distinguish between the Holy Spirit’s wheat and the tares of sinful human nature and demonic influence.

Historian Thomas Kidd wrote that, “The Puritan colonies had once been godly showcases for the Reformation but had forgotten their first love.”[2] And it was Torrey and other early Puritan church leaders who saw revival as the necessary path for a return to that first love. Prior to 1720, revivals generally occurred in the more formal confines of established local church. Revival spread as pastors heeded the example of other churches experiencing revival and began preaching and encouraging revival in their own churches. This was generally the accepted pattern for most revivals prior to 1740. But that pattern was beginning to change even before the arrival of the “Great Itinerant” George Whitefield.

Over the course of his life Whitefield made seven trips across the dangerous and often storm-tossed North Atlantic until his death in 1770. The first voyage in 1738 was for a stay in Georgia of less than four months which was consumed mostly with efforts to establish an orphanage in Savannah. Whitefield was a larger than life figure whose cultural and religious impact on England and America and the course of their histories is incalculable. Even before he landed in America for the second time, Whitefield’s reputation as an “evangelical superstar” preceded him. Whitefield’s powerful preaching style, outreach to various denominations, focus on the new birth, and effective use of the media would energize the growing revivalist movement throughout the colonies.[3] Whitefield did not invent revivalism or evangelicalism or cause The Great Awakening in America. However, his ministry would eventually personify their essential elements as he energized and hasten their ascendance on the American scene.

“New Light” Revivalists and “Old Light” Anti-revivalists in America

There were elements of the established American churches that opposed revivalism from its very beginning. Opposition centered on several issues including the operations of the Holy Spirit particularly as concerning physical manifestations that occurred during revivals. Jonathan Edwards was the foremost apologist for the “New Lights” who favored increased numbers of converts through revivals. “Old Lights” such as Rev. Charles Chauncy of Boston’s First Church thought revivalists to be misguided sensationalists who promoted powerful, passionate preaching and demonstrative conversion experiences to the detriment of true religious growth.[4]

The essence of the divide between evangelicals and traditional clergy was a disagreement as to the path to conversion or how does one receive divine grace. For evangelicals conversion was an immediate personal experience that occurred through repentance and acceptance of God’s grace which brought one into personal relationship with Him. For the traditional clergy, the path to conversion was gradual, progressive, and subtle which occurred within the “stabilizing” influence of the local church through “rational guidance of learned ministers.” Revival preaching was acceptable to the traditionalists and established clergy, but revivalism as practiced by Whitefield and the New Lights was in their view “the great abandoning” of the true path to divine grace.[5]

Although the conflict between the Old and New Lights revolved around the theology of conversion, three subsidiary issues would draw the battle lines: the growth of unrestrained itinerancy, the subject of unconverted ministry, and disagreement over bodily manifestations resulting from revival fervor. Within the New Light wing, disagreement on these issues eventually led to Separatism between the moderate and more radical elements of revivalism.[6]

Calvinist and Arminian differences among the Revivalists

Even though Solomon Stoddard and his grandson Jonathan Edwards were staunch Calvinists, there were many aspects in their Reformed theology that were compatible with the beliefs of many emerging evangelicals who held or at least were in sympathy with an Arminian understanding of salvation. However, there were certain fundamental doctrines developed by the leaders of the Reformed churches after Calvin’s death that continued to provoke conflict with those who held Arminian beliefs.

Briefly, the two camps’ points of agreement were: humankind is in need of salvation, God alone can provide that salvation, and Christ is God’s provision for man’s need. The principle differences between Reformed and Arminian believers dealt with the role of God and humans in salvation. Those of the Arminian view disagreed with the Reformed churches’ beliefs of unconditional election by God of those he will save, limited atonement in which Christ paid the price only for the sins of the elect, irresistible grace which meant that those whom God has determined to save will inevitably come to saving faith, and perseverance of the saints, that is, all who have been chosen by God (the “elect”) will continue in the faith (once saved, always saved).[7] To summarize, Arminians agree with the Calvinist on the need for repentance and the new birth but could not accept Calvinist predestination and its other accoutrements.

It was those differences that would ultimately cause a break in the relationship of the Wesley brothers and George Whitefield. Although the Wesleys’ Methodist theology generally mirrored that of orthodox Protestantism as practiced by the Anglican Church, John Wesley rejected and openly opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election which he believed would hinder the call to repentance and conversion. In its place Wesley embraced the Arminian doctrine of freewill or freedom of choice as the means whereby people accepted Christ.[8]

The break came in 1740 when Whitefield was in America and Wesley was preaching in England. While at Bristol, Wesley was offended by certain teachings of pointedly Calvinist doctrines which Wesley assumed represented Whitefield’s view that “God arbitrarily predestined (or ‘elected’) some to salvation and some to damnation (or “reprobation’) by an irreversible decree.” Wesley struck back against this teaching by preaching on “Free Grace.” All through 1740 Wesley and Whitefield exchanged letters across the Atlantic regarding their differences. The conflict remained unresolved, and Wesley eventually published his sermon on “Free Grace.” Whitefield received a copy and sent his reply which he saw as an attack by Wesley on the New Testament doctrines of God’s sovereign grace, foreknowledge, and electing love. In late 1740 Whitefield’s reply was sent to in London to be published on Christmas Eve.[9]

By March 1741, Whitefield was back in London and went to hear Wesley preach having heard of many unkind remarks made by Whitefield since his return from Georgia. Wesley wrote of the disagreement in his Journal, “He told me, he and I preach two different gospels; and therefore, he not only would not join with, or give me the right hand of fellowship, but was resolved to publicly preach against me and my brother, wheresoever he preached at all.” There were efforts to bring the two together, a meeting was held, and other exchanges made. Over time there was a softening of the hostilities between the men, but it would be a decade before Whitefield and the Wesleys were restored to their former unity. In January 1750, Wesley wrote, “I read prayers and Mr. Whitefield preached. How wise is God in giving different talents to different preachers.” Upon the death of Whitefield in 1770 and at the request of his executors, Wesley preached a memorial sermon in London.[10]

The public break damaged the ministries of both men and diminished the cause of Christ. Wesley was a brilliant organizer and better theologian, but Whitefield was a much better preacher. Whitefield’s biographer John Pollock wrote of the consequence of the separation of once close friends and laborers in the Christ. “Two streams would therefore flow from the evangelical revival, often crossing and coalescing, instead of one mighty river watering the land.”[11]

Moderate and Radical Revivalists

Division was also occurring between the revivalists’ moderate and more radical wings. As early as 1741, some members of the clergy in Connecticut called on civil government to prevent disorders and punish offenders without trial. This was an attempt by anti-revivalists and some moderate evangelicals to stop ministers and itinerant preachers from preaching and administering the seals of the covenant “without the consent of, or in opposition to, the settled minister of the parish.” To do so would cause disorder and require punishment. In May 1742, the legislature passed “An act for regulating abuses and correcting disorders in ecclesiastical affairs.” Soon arrests were made and fines imposed on those deemed to have violated the ordinance.[12]

Almost immediately a serious riff developed between the radical itinerants and most of the established powers in Connecticut and Massachusetts including moderate evangelicals. Radical itinerant James Davenport conducted a revival at Groton, Connecticut, in the winter of 1741-1742 and then went to Long Island where he led significant revivals at two churches. With concerns about the growing complaints of excess in the revivalist movement, the moderates latched onto accounts of Davenport’s “wild enthusiasm” as being “beyond legitimate evangelical limits.” They saw Davenport a sacrificial lamb that could separate the moderates from the perceived excesses of radical itinerants. In May, Davenport returned to Connecticut where he was promptly arrested and brought to court which banished him from Connecticut for violating the newly passed provincial law that prohibited itinerants from preaching in churches without the resident pastor’s permission and outlawed all non-Connecticut itinerants.[13]

Revivals continue to increase in number in spite of the growing conflict between the Anti-revivalists, moderate evangelicals, and radicals over the legitimacy and manifestations of revivals. Between 1740 and 1742 there were enormous numbers of revivals and conversions throughout New England. By the time the great numbers and intensity of revivals began to decline following 1743, evangelicalism had become a powerful movement in its own right.[14] No longer would the evangelical spirit rise and fall with revivals. The revivalist style of preaching, emphasis on immediate and recognizable personal conversion, personal devotion and holiness, and individual access to God that characterized evangelicalism during revivals would now sustain the church in those times between periodic revivals. Originally birthed by revivalism, evangelicalism had become the incubator from which revivalism would be encouraged over the years to come.

Evangelicalism’s divergent paths

Largely due to the aggravating effects of Davenport’s abrasive tactics in confronting non-radical revivalists, the evangelical movement in New England and the Middle colonies had publicly split by March 1743. But the radicals would continue to be a serious presence through the remainder of The Great Awakening as many New Englanders eventually believed that fulfillment of radical awakenings could only be achieved by starting separate illegal congregations.[15]

New England was the epicenter of church separations during the middle and late eighteenth century. Hundreds of Separate or Separate Baptist congregations were formed, and the rallying cry for radical evangelicals was liberty of conscience. In spite of numerous laws to curtail the activities of radical itinerants and the congregations formed by them, the momentum of the continuing radical evangelical revivals was difficult to contain.[16]

The split between the Separates and the established churches aggravated the split between the moderate and radical evangelicals. However, not all radicals left their churches and became Separates, and not all Separates became Baptists. Issues that united the Separates were commitments to immediate and discernable conversions and the right of uneducated laypeople to become involved in ministry (exhortation, itineration, and ordination). Baptists rejected both infant baptism and the halfway covenant. Both Baptists and Separates would challenge the legalized monopoly of religious life held by the established Congregational churches of New England.[17]

In time only a few of the hundreds of Separatist churches that began in New England survived, and many that did survive would become Baptist. Although the New England Baptist churches had great influence on the northern colonies, their most enduring achievement was exportation of the Separate Baptist movement to the middle and southern colonies. Eventually, the Baptists along with the Methodists and Presbyterians would utterly dominate the South.[18]

Following the public break between the moderate and radical evangelicals in 1743, revivals continued to occur throughout the colonies in the 1750s, 1760s, and during the revolutionary war years. The radical evangelicals were the most vigorous and productive arm of revivalism. Its maturation in the 1760s was reflected by their efforts to articulate a radical definition of revivalism in the public square. The key tenets of this narrative were freedom of private judgement and power to establish independent churches free from the dictates of competing ecclesiastical and legislative authorities. The revivals of 1762-1765 were particularly important in continuing the radical tendencies of the evangelical movement, furthering evangelical populism, and aligning the movement with the Patriot cause in separating from Great Britain.[19]

The conflict between moderate and radical evangelicals that emerged in the 1740s continued into the 1780s. The greatest area of disagreement was with regard to manifestations of the Spirit during revivals. Thus, evangelicalism remained deeply divided between moderates and radicals at the conclusion of the Great Awakening and foreshadowed the eventual abyss separating the liberal churches and conservative evangelicals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Evangelicalism grew in spite of the conflicts between moderates and radicals which, according to Thomas Kidd, “hinted toward the contemporary global evangelical expansion that remains split between Pentecostal and non-charismatic believers.”[20]

Perhaps one of the best and most succinct descriptions of the broad panoply of The Great Awakening was written by American historian Paul Johnson.

It crossed all religious and sectarian boundaries, made light of them indeed, and turned what had been a series of European-style churches into American ones. It began the process which created an ecumenical and American type of religious devotion which affected all groups, and gave a distinctive American flavor to a wide range of denominations. This might be summed up under the following five heads: evangelical vigor, a tendency to downgrade the clergy, little stress on liturgical correctness, even less on parish boundaries, and above all an emphasis on individual experience. Its key was Revelations 21:5: “Behold, I make all things new”—which was also the text for the American experience as a whole.[21]

The influence of The Great Awakening on America’s war for independence

How do we determine the extent to which The Great Awakening influenced the character and worldview of the colonists leading up to America’s war for independence? Here we turn to the words of two distinguished American historians. Sherwood Eddy in his 1941 The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, wrote, “No country on earth was ever founded on deeper religious foundations. This was America’s priceless heritage.”[22] Eddy captured the importance of the eighteenth century American religious awakening on the Revolution and later writing of the Constitution.

Throughout the Revolution and the framing of the Constitution, the religious and the secular life of America could not be separated. The very ideals of political freedom had grown out of the principle of religious liberty of the Reformation and out of the experience of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and protesting colonists. It was in the churches of Boston and Virginia that revolutionary meetings were held. The clergy of the free, dissenting, and popular churches were preaching liberty as a religious principle. The pulpit inspired the Revolution and summoned the faithful to patriotic service and to the realization of the American Dream.[23]

In A History of the American People, Paul Johnson again distills the essence of The Great Awakening and its importance in the founding of America.

…There was a spiritual event in the first half of the 18th century in America, and it proved to be of vast significance, both in religion and politics…The Great Awakening was the proto-revolutionary event, the formative moment in American history, preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible…The Revolution could not have taken place without this religious background. The essential difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event.”[24]

Following the American Revolution (1775-1783) and efforts to form a new nation, there was a second ebb-tide of religious fervor and an increase in secularism and irreligion, especially in the decade of 1790s. America’s spiritual and moral decline threatened the survival of the new republic. The conditions that preceded this decline will be examined in the next chapter as we move toward the Second Great Awakening at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 1-2.
[2] Ibid., p. 3.
[3] Ibid., p. 54.
[4] “‘Old Lights’ vs. ‘New Lights’ Debating the Great Awakening 1742-1743,” National Humanities Center Resource Toolbox. http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/ideas/text2/clergymendebate.pdf (accessed December 13, 2017).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. 116.
[7] “An Assemblies of God Response to Reformed Theology,” (Position Paper – Adopted by the General Presbytery in Session August 1 & 3, 2015), General Council of the Assemblies of God. https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Reformed-Theology-Response-of-the-AG-Position-Paper (accessed December 2, 2017).
[8] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 294.
[9] John Pollock, George Whitefield – The Evangelist, (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1973), pp. 173-175.
[10] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), pp. 33-34.
[11] Pollock, George Whitefield – The Evangelist, pp. 192-193.
[12] Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening – A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, Public Domain. Facsimile edition reproduced from original documents, pp. 302-304, 307-309. Originally published in Boston, Massachusetts by Tappan and Dennet, 1842.
[13] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 138-141.
[14] Ibid., p. 162.
[15] Ibid., p. 155.
[16] Ibid., p. 174.
[17] Ibid., p. 188.
[18] Ibid., p. 187.
[19] Ibid., p. 268.
[20] Ibid., pp. 319, 323.
[21] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p. 116.
[22] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941), p. 77.
[23] Ibid., p. 115.
[24] Johnson, A History of the American People, pp. 110, 116-117.

The post Revival – 7 – The Great Awakening in America – The Later Years first appeared on Culture Warrior.

The Great Awakening is a massive subject that covers decades and involves a host of revivals, participants, and consequences which are far beyond the scope of this book. Our purpose is to obtain a general understanding of these revivals, how they came about, what occurred during those revivals, and the long-term consequences after the revival fires had subsided. To do so we shall briefly look at some of the major revivalists of The Great Awakening, the conflicts and issues that arose between revivalists and anti-revivalists and between moderate and radical evangelicals, and the long-term consequences for the Protestant churches and the colonies both before and during the fight for independence from British rule.

Renowned revival historian J. Edwin Orr believed that The Great Awakening actually began with a revival among the Pietists in New Jersey. This revival occurred eight years earlier than the general consensus that the Awakening began in Jonathan Edward’s Puritan church at Northampton, Massachusetts, in the latter part of December 1734. The 1727 Pietist revival in New Jersey sprang from the preaching of a Dutch Reformed minister named Theodorus Frelinghuysen who arrived in New York City in the early 1720s. Through Frelinghuysen’s influence, revival spread to Scots-Irish Presbyterians under the leadership of Gilbert Tennent and then to the Baptists in Virginia.[4]

However, Thomas Kidd points to the beginning as an extraordinary series of revivals in towns along the Connecticut and Thames Rivers from 1720 to 1722. The Connecticut revival was “the first major event of the evangelical era in New England” which “…touched congregations in Windham, Preston, Franklin, Norwich, and Windsor.” One of the largest of the Connecticut revivals occurred in the Windham church during 1721 with eighty people joining the church in six months. Over the three-year course of the revivals, several hundred new members and possibly more conversions were reported. The significance of this revival has been generally forgotten because of its lack of publicity through the print media which may also account for the revival not spreading beyond its regional borders.[5]

The Tennent Brothers – Gilbert, William, Jr., John, and Charles

William Tennent, Sr. and his family left Ireland in 1718 and arrived in Philadelphia where he joined the Presbyterian Synod of that city and soon established the “Log College” in which he trained candidates for the ministry. The Log College became the well-known forerunner of the College of New Jersey which later became Princeton University. His four sons followed their father into the ministry. Gilbert and William, Jr. along with the graduates of the Log College became a powerful revivalist force in the Scots-Irish Philadelphia Presbyterian Synod of Northeast Pennsylvania and east New Jersey.[6]

While at New Brunswick, Gilbert’s work was described as one of steady success that resulted in a considerable number of conversions. At one revival on Staten Island in 1728, the Holy Spirit was “suddenly poured down upon the Assembly.” The congregation was initially passive or complacent, but after a while several fell to their knees and prayed for mercy. Others “cried out ‘both under the Impressions of Terror and Love,’ depending on their stage of conversion.” John Tennent, the third son, showed great promise as a powerful revivalist but died at young age in 1732. William, Jr. recalled that as a result of his brother John’s preaching at Freehold, several congregants began “sobbing as if their Hearts would break, but without any public Out-cry; and some have been carry’d out of the Assembly (being overcome) as if they had been dead.”[7]

During the 1730s there began a debate among the Presbyterian ministers of the Philadelphia Synod with regard to itinerancy and licensing. Disagreements arose between the pro-revivalists (“New Side”) and the anti-revivalists (“Old Side) Presbyterians. The conflict escalated in 1738-1739 over the appointment of John Rowland, a graduate of the Tennents’ Log College, by the New Brunswick Presbytery which was controlled by the Tennent camp. The Philadelphia Synod revoked Rowland’s license because of “disorderly” and “divisive” conduct. Some believed that Rowland’s preaching encouraged emotional outbreaks which “led not to solid piety but to dangerous enthusiasm.”[8]

In March 1740, the division between the two sides intensified with the publication of Gilbert Tennent’s controversial sermon, The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry, in which “he called supposedly unconverted ‘hireling’ ministers just about every bad name he could use in religious company.” Tennent believed that as a result of their un-renewed Nature they preached “easy, human-centered doctrines.”[9] The conflict between the New Side and Old Side Presbyterians was a preview of the deep divisions to come between evangelicals and the leaders of the more formal, institutional wings within other Protestant denominations. Those festering divisions eventually resulted in several denominational separations at various times during the Awakening and which continued to periodically occur over the next two hundred and fifty years.

Irrespective of the conflicts between the New Side and Old Side Presbyterians, the Tennents became the “single most influential family of the revivalist movement in the Middle Colonies”[10] generally considered to be the mid-Atlantic colonies (Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York) that lay between the New England and Southern colonies.

Jonathan Edwards

Although not the first, largest, or most widespread revival of the Great Awakening, the revival led by Jonathan Edwards at Northampton in 1734-1735 is perhaps the best known and most influential revival of the Awakening. Edwards had an impressive background. He was the grandson of the venerable Solomon Stoddard who led the Northampton congregation for sixty years until his death in 1729. Born in 1703, Edwards had a brilliant mind. At Yale University he earned his B.A. in 1720 and M.A. in 1723. Already an assistant in his grandfather’s church, the twenty-six year old became the pastor of Northampton Church in 1729 upon the death of his grandfather.[11]

The young Edwards was no stranger to revivals and was taught to expect seasons of revival characterized by special outpourings of the Holy Spirit. Timothy Edwards, Jonathan’s father, pastored the East Windsor Church and had led four or five revivals before 1734-1735. Two of these revivals occurred in the 1710s and had a great influence on the young Edwards. The Northampton Church had experienced six significant “harvests” as the revivals were called under Stoddard’s tenure (1679, 1683, 1687, 1690, 1712, 1718, and 1727). The 1727 revival occurred on the occasion of a major New England earthquake. This was the first revival to be highly publicized.[12]

When Edwards took the pulpit of Northampton in 1729, the spiritual state of the young people of the congregation was a cause for concern since they would not abandon their “carousing for the holy ways of the Lord.”[13] Thomas Kidd described Edwards’ efforts to curtain the continued waywardness of the young at the Northampton Church.

In 1733 Edwards began to notice the congregation’s young people had adopted a new “flexibleness” in their attitudes toward his preaching. He insisted that they give up their “mirth and company-keeping” on Sunday evenings, and he began to see in them a willingness to comply. At the time Edwards also organized neighborhood meetings (the settlements encompassed by the Northampton congregation were far-flung) of fathers concerning the governance of their children. Surprisingly, the fathers reported that their children needed no extra chastening to get them to remain faithful to the Sabbath. The youths themselves were convinced by Edwards’ preaching.[14]

It was the occurrence of two untimely deaths of young people that broke the complacency with regard to the young Northampton congregants’ dismal spiritual state. In Pascommuck, three miles from Northampton but in Edward’s parish, a young man had fallen ill with pleurisy and died in two days. Soon thereafter a young married woman fell ill and died but only after assuring those around her of her salvation. Edwards used the shock of those deaths to encourage the distraught young people to gather into small groups for “social religion.”[15]

But preaching and gatherings for “social religion” were not the primary impetus by which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Northampton congregation. For several years Edwards and his wife had prayed day and night for revival of their church. In the latter part of December 1734, there were five or six people who were wonderfully converted which created considerable excitement in the congregation. On the evening preceding the day the revival broke out several “Christians met and spent the whole night in prayer.”[16] Prayer was the kindling that set ablaze the Northampton revival of 1734-1735. Edwards reported the events that caused the revival to break forth.

…the Spirit of God began extraordinarily to set in and wonderfully to work among us; and there were very suddenly, one after another, five or six persons, who were, to all appearance, savingly converted, and some of them wrought upon in a very remarkable manner.

One of these converts was a young woman who had been notorious as a leader in scenes of gayety and rustic dissipation. Edwards was surprised at the account which she gave of her religious exercises, of which he had heard no report till she came to converse with him, apparently humble and penitent.[17]

Edwards was at first concerned that the conversion experience of a person with such questionable character would hinder the progress of the conversion of others. However, he was happily surprised when the news of her conversion became a great encouragement to other young people who went to talk with her and observed her remarkable transformation.[18]

Many miraculous and ecstatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit were present during the Northampton revival. These manifestations included emotional ecstasies and mysterious signs and wonders such as visions and healings. This was not unusual for these manifestations accompanied most of the major revivals that occurred during the eighteenth century. Edwards approved of emotional expressions in revivals, but he also knew the importance of balance because too much spiritual passion could lead to excess. Even though he did not understand some of the mystical experiences that occurred, Edwards did not condemn them when they were accompanied by “a great sense of the spiritual excellency of divine things.” Edwards believed that such ecstatic expressions in worship could be tested: “…did they lead the worshipper to a greater appreciation of God’s glory? Or did they encourage self-glorification?” If it was a greater appreciation of God’s glory, then “the expressions were likely to be incidental operations of the Holy Spirit in persons receptive to them because of their particular mental constitution.” He cautioned that worshippers must not “mistake the vain and imaginary for the truly spiritual.”[19] Within five years these manifestations would become the source of great conflict between the revivalists and anti-revivalists and between the moderate and more radical evangelicals.

Three hundred people were saved during the first six months of the Northampton revival including children, adults, and the elderly. Eventually, 220 families totaling 620 people were entitled to take communion at Edwards’ church which included almost all adults in the town. At the revival’s peak in March and April of 1735, an average of thirty souls were saved each week. During 1735 Edwards wrote, “The town seemed to be full of the presence of God…There were remarkable tokens of God’s presence in almost every house.”[20] The revival that began at Northampton in late December 1734 spread to the north and south along the Connecticut River to thirty-two communities about evenly divided between Massachusetts and Connecticut.[21]

By mid-1735, the revival at Northampton was coming to an end, but the effects of the awakening would reverberate for centuries afterward through the medium of print. Edwards’ account of the Northampton revival was published under the title Faithful Narrative. The publisher printed an abridged version in 1736 and a full edition appeared in London in 1737. Although the Northampton revival was just one in a series of earlier revivals that began in the 1720s, Edwards account of the revival “became the model revival of evangelicalism. It dramatically heightened expectations in Britain and America for new awakenings, and it provided a framework for local pastors to use to promote revival in their own congregations.”[22]

As the revival in Northampton and the other communities to which it spread began to subside, the effects would continue on as churches remained strong in numbers and piety. In 1739, the instances of revival once again began to increase in other parts of the country and also at Northampton. The church at Newark was originally established by New Englanders. Religious life in Newark was in a low state and exhibited little evidence of godliness among its people during the 1730s. This began to change in August 1739 when a revival began among the young people and spread to the whole church body by March 1740. The church at Harvard, Massachusetts, followed the same pattern. In September 1739 there began a spiritual stirring among the people who exhibited a noticeable increase of seriousness about spiritual matters, church attendance, and attentiveness to the preaching of the Word and sanctity of the Sabbath. From that beginning until June 1741 over a hundred came into communion through a steady procession of conversions.[23]

The effects of the Northampton revival had a lasting beneficial effect on the religious and community life of its citizens. However, compared to the conditions at the close of the revival in 1735, Edwards later wrote that there had been “…a very lamentable decay of religious affections, and eagerness for prayer and social religion.” But this began to change in the spring of 1740 as the church moved toward a renewed seriousness with regard to matters concerning religion and spiritual life, especially among the young people. This move of the Holy Spirit continued until October 1741 when George Whitefield arrived at Northampton.[24]

Theology of salvation: Debating who and how one may be “born again”

Much of the theology of conversion held by Solomon Stoddard was held by his grandson Jonathan Edwards. Stoddard believed that it was through the Holy Spirit that God drew sinners to salvation. Without the Holy Spirit conversions would not take place. He also considered powerful preaching as a tool used by God to draw sinners to God. The power in this preaching was a result of the Spirit who allowed ministers to effectively preach God’s judgment. Like other revivalists, Edwards believed there would be seasons of revival in which there would be special outpourings of the Holy Spirit.[25]

Although Solomon Stoddard and his grandson held similar views on revival and the theology of conversion, Edwards would significantly differ on two points embraced by his grandfather. Recall that in the last chapter the half-way covenant emerged from the Synod of 1662 which allowed the children of parents who were avowedly unregenerate and excluded from the Lord’s table to be baptized if the parents were otherwise qualified. Stoddard agreed with the halfway covenant. In 1707, Stoddard also began preaching that sanctification (to set apart, make holy) was not a necessary qualification for participation in the Lord’s supper and that “the Lord’s supper is a converting ordinance.” However, during his tenure at the Northampton Church, Edwards opposed these all-inclusive policies of his grandfather and preached that only the children of parents who were full communicant members of the church should be allowed to be baptized. This doctrinal stance was very unpopular compared to the beliefs preached by his grandfather. Edwards’ stance eventually led to his dismissal as pastor of the Northampton Church in 1750 and “signaled his own church’s bitter repudiation of his evangelical ideal of a pure church of converted saints.”[26]

The “heart religion” of evangelicalism

In Chapter 5 it was noted that first generation New England Puritans believed that a man must be “born again,” and this transformation was observable by both the person and others. They also believed there was a difference between the unregenerate and regenerate in which the latter would exhibit good qualities through their thought, feeling, and conduct. But these desired qualities are not a matter of works but flowed from a heart change which must invariably testify to the transformative power of true salvation. This was the central issue of the Reformation: justification by faith alone. And it was this same justification by faith alone that was at the core of evangelicalism’s “heart religion” which propelled the Great Awakening in America. However, there would continue to be differences with regard to the meaning of salvation and its related doctrines among the revivalists of The Great Awakening and thereafter as will be seen in the next chapter.

Before we leave the early history of The Great Awakening, we must once again clarify and better understand the core elements that precipitated the revivals. As previously discussed, revivals are necessary when the spiritual and moral conditions of the church and society at large are in various stages of decline or decay. However, it must be remembered that revival of the culture can never precede revival of the church. Revival of the culture is made possible only through the influence of a revived church (individual Christians who comprise the body of Christ). Therefore, revival is ultimately a matter of renewal of the hearts of individuals—both renewal of the hearts of the spiritually languishing Christians and the dead hearts of lost sinners.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. xix, 9-10.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), p. 27.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 9-10.
[6] Ibid., pp. 31, 35.
[7] Ibid., pp. 32-33.
[8] Ibid., p. 37
[9] Ibid., pp. 59-60.
[10] Ibid., p. 31.
[11] Ibid., pp. 13-15.
[12] Ibid., pp. 6-7, 9, 10, 15.
[13] Ibid., p. 15.
[14] Ibid. p. 16.
[15] Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[16] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 26.
[17] Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening – A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, Public Domain. Facsimile edition reproduced from original documents,
p. 12. Originally published in Boston, Massachusetts by Tappan and Dennet, 1842.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 19-20.
[20] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 26.
[21] Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. 18.
[22] Ibid., pp. 21-23.
[23] Tracy, The Great Awakening, pp. 18-21.
[24] Ibid., pp. 21-22.
[25] Kidd, The Great Awakening, pp. 6-7.
[26] Ibid, p. 194.

The post Revival – 6 – The Great Awakening in America – The Early Years first appeared on Culture Warrior.

During my lifetime I have probably looked at dozens of nativity sets and observed many Christmas plays depicting the night of Christ’s birth. The cast of characters includes baby Jesus, Mary, the shepherds, the three wise men (who actually appeared much later in time), assorted cows, chickens, sheep, and other animals typically found in a stable. Oh yes, we must not forget Joseph. In arranging our nativity scene, Jesus is always placed at the center with Mary hovering nearby or holding the child. Inconspicuous Joseph is standing there, seemingly as an afterthought, merely because of his status as the husband of Mary. In modern parlance, Joseph was the typical wallflower, a fifth wheel, the original invisible man. Never in the spotlight, Joseph was a man who always seemed to be in the shadows.

Prior to the birth of Jesus, Joseph is mentioned only once in Luke’s first chapter, “To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of house of David…” [Luke 1:27. RSV] In Chapter 2, Joseph is mentioned a second time when he traveled with his pregnant wife (but “who knew not a man” in the quaint phrasing of King James) from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be taxed in accordance with the decree of Caesar Augustus. [v. 4] Joseph’s unimportance in the events surrounding Christ’s birth appears to be confirmed by the sparse mention of his name in Luke’s record of that first Christmas. He receives far less discussion than the lowly shepherds who had a remarkable encounter with an angel and a multitude of the heavenly host telling of Christ’s birth. The shepherds then hurry from the fields where they tended their flocks to the stable to find “Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” [v. 16] When the days of Mary’s purification were completed according to the Mosaic law, Joseph and Mary traveled from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to present the babe to the Lord and to offer a sacrifice as commanded by the law of the Lord. When Joseph and Mary presented the child to Simeon and to receive a blessing as was the custom of the law, they marveled at Simeon’s prophecy with regard to the Christ child. [v. 22-35]

We must look to Matthew’s gospel to learn a little more of Joseph. Matthew tells us that after finding Mary was pregnant, “…her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” [Matthew 1:19. RSV] But an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him he should keep Mary as his wife because the baby was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that His name would be called Emanuel (God with us), and that He will save His people from their sins. “When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” [v. 24-25]

Some period of time after their return to Nazareth, wise men from the east hoping to find Him who was born king of the Jews followed his star. They found the child residing with His parents and presented their treasures to the child king. [Matthew 2:1-12. RSV] Soon thereafter an angel of the Lord appeared unto Joseph in a dream, warning him to flee with his family to Egypt. Joseph was obedient to the Lord and fled with Mary and Jesus because Herod sought to kill the baby. They stayed in Egypt until Herod’s death. [v. 13-15]

We have only one more reference to Joseph twelve years after Jesus’ birth. Mary and Joseph experienced every parent’s nightmare—a missing child. After a day’s journey on the way back to Nazareth following their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem where they attended the feast of the Passover, Joseph and Mary discovered that Jesus was missing. They had presumed Jesus was with their kinsfolk and acquaintances traveling with them. Returning to Jerusalem, they sought him for three days before they “…found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” [Luke 2:46-47. RSV]

It appears we have not discovered a lot of material in the scriptures to flesh-out the caricature of Joseph that most of us see as we look at our nativity sets. Yet, after a closer reading of the scriptures we gain new insights into the real flesh and blood Joseph who was far different than we have imagined. We see a man who was compassionate. He did not want to make a public spectacle of Mary because of the skepticism as to her explanation of her pregnancy. He favored a quiet divorce. But, he changed his mind after hearing from an angel from the Lord who told him not to divorce his wife. Therefore, he was obedient to God. Unlike many modern-day absent fathers, current live-in boyfriends, or uncaring stepfathers, Joseph loved and cared for his family as shown by a day’s journey back to Jerusalem and a three-day search for the missing twelve-year-old Jesus. Joseph was also a man who obeyed the laws of the land (he paid his taxes) as well as the laws of God (he took his child to the temple and presented him unto the Lord). Joseph protected his family as evidenced by their sojourn in Egypt.

Humble, compassionate, obedient to God, law-abiding, honest, concerned parent, protector, provider—all paint a picture of Joseph as a righteous (virtuous) man and loving husband and parent. What better set of adjectives could a man ask for when describing his life? However, for most people in this self-obsessed modern world, Joseph does appear to be a man whose life was lived in the shadows. But in God’s account book, a man’s worth is not measured by his popularity, bank balance, worldly success, or fame as evidenced by a pile of press clippings. When God looked at Joseph the shadows disappeared because the righteous “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” [Matthew 13:43. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

The post Joseph – Man in the shadows first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Holiday letter to my secular humanist friends,

The first signs of the holiday shopping season peek from store shelves in September. October’s chill warns that Halloween nears. We must select a costume that tops last year’s. November heralds that most wonderful time of the year—Black Friday. But Oh My! What shall we do with December and that highly embarrassing “other” holiday? You know the one I mean. We once masked it by calling it Xmas. But the X could be misconstrued as a cross. And a cross can be associated with you know who, and that will never do. Now we call that “other” holiday by many names such as Winter Solstice celebration, Festival of Lights, and Winter Carnival. Those are so inclusive, so democratic…so…so generic. (I almost said ecumenical, but that sounds too religious.) With these new names, the holiday season can mean whatever one wants it to mean rather than have a religious meaning crammed down our throats each December. Why must we be subjected to those old-fashioned myths and fables that have lingered for two thousand years? We have Santa Claus!

But there are still millions out there who haven’t gotten the message. They are generally backward, unintelligent, and remain culturally insensitive unlike those of us who have progressed beyond those crude expressions of faith. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to join our shining, non-offensive, tolerant, all inclusive, sensitive secular society.

You hear those sentimental Christians whining every year at this time. They are always hiding behind the Constitution which they say guarantees their religious freedom. Well of course they have religious freedom as long as they don’t flaunt it in public!

We must be ever vigilant and ready to crush any efforts to return to those bad old days. Just a couple of years ago, a group of carolers singing at various businesses in a Silver Springs, Maryland, shopping center entered a U.S. Post Office also located in the shopping center. Dressed in period costumes reminiscent of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” they were only a few words into their first carol when the vigilant and brave Post Office manager rushed into the lobby to stop the indiscretion. “You can’t do this on government property,” the angry manager shouted. He ordered them to leave immediately because there was a Post Office policy prohibiting solicitation. They attempted to explain that they were going to all the businesses in the shopping center. But he would have none of it and insisted they leave in spite of boos from the patrons waiting in line.[1] Even though there was no such policy, this Post Office manager should serve as a role model for that small minority of managers who aren’t so enlightened and have allowed caroling in their Post Offices. Fortunately, our government is filled with like-minded militant secularist bureaucrats rigorously defending society from such unauthorized merriment.

But we can never let down our guard. Just the other day the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives announced that its members would be allowed to use previously banned holiday greetings in official mailings to their constituents. Representative Candice Miller said, “I feel it is entirely appropriate for members of Congress to include a simple holiday salutation, whether it is Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and so on.[2] Shameful! How could these legislators abuse their franking privileges by including messages of Merry Christmas to thousands of their constituents? Such episodes tend to be contagious and must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Such blatant relapses can cause others to become weak-kneed when banning Christmas from any public display or expression. One example is the Bordentown, New Jersey, Regional School District administration that had banned religious Christmas music at winter public school concerts effective as of October 18th. Less than two weeks later the superintendent backed down after national attention was focused on the school’s ban. The superintendent announced that the religious Christmas music would be allowed for now “…after reviewing additional legal considerations and advice on this matter and the expressed sentiments of the community at large…” However, she promised that, “…the school board will continue to examine the issue to determine how the policy will be handled in the future.”[3] Of course it is always wise to impose these unpopular restrictions on a low-key basis. The school administration should have imposed the restrictions banning religious Christmas music in, let’s say, March. Once policies are established and in effect for a period of time, opposition to those policies can usually be attributed to a fringe element of religious fanatics bent on imposing their religion on others and which violates our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. It doesn’t matter that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution; we know the Founders really meant freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. You see, that Constitution thing can work both ways.

Wait a minute. I must go to the door. No, it can’t be! There are carolers out there singing religious Christmas songs and indiscriminately shouting Merry Christmas right there on the public sidewalk for everyone to hear. Where’s my cell phone? Hello! 911? Send the police. No, better yet send a SWAT team. We are having a major public insurrection right here in River City in direct violation of the Constitution. Hurry! There are children in the neighborhood being exposed to this brazen criminal activity!

I must go. I think I see one of my neighbors putting a nativity scene on his front lawn. Hmmm. Would that violation fall under the city’s building code or advertising ordinance? Where’s my cell phone?

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] J. P. Duffy, “Post Office Manager Throws Christmas Carolers Out into the Cold,” Family Research Council, December 12, 2011. http://www.frcblog.com/2011/12/post-office-manager-throws-christmas-carolers-out-into-the-cold/ (accessed December 10, 2013).
[2]Chris Deaton, “Victory: House members no longer prohibited from saying “Merry Christmas” in official mail,” Red Alert Politics, December 4, 2013. http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/04/victory-house-members-no-longer-prohibited-from-saying-merry-christmas-in-official-mail/ (accessed December 10, 2013).
[3] Billy Hallowell, “N.J. School District That Banned Christmas Music With ‘Religious Origins’ Backs Down,” The Blaze, November 6, 2013. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/n-j-school-district-that-banned-christmas-music-with-religious-origins-backs-down/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

The post Tis the Season for Secular Silliness first appeared on Culture Warrior.

However, none were so well organized or advanced in their religious practices as the New England colonies, particularly the Puritans of Massachusetts. Not only was New England the most studied portion of early colonial America history, the region was also the foremost center of revivalist activity prior to and at the beginning of The Great Awakening. As early as the 1670s, Puritan leaders recognized the need for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit because churches and towns were spiritually languishing and in need of corporate renewal.[2]

The seeds of the Puritans’ early spiritual decline were found in both the Catholic and Reformed churches’ practice of infant baptism. If one had not been baptized and confirmed or had been excommunicated, they were excluded from the Lord’s Table. In early New England, excommunication meant the loss of certain civil rights (e.g., voting and holding office) and could lead to punishment by the civil government. “Under such laws, the Lord’s table must be open to all who have been baptized, who have learned the creed and catechism, and have not committed any crime which a civil court would judge ‘scandalous’.” Although the bishop could require additional evidence of regeneration, this practice was rarely followed. Subject to the foregoing conditions, all young people and adults baptized as infants were considered to be members of the church in full communion.[3]

Clergymen were reluctant if not loathed to withhold participation in the Lord’s supper for to do so would inflict civil injury. Claims of wrongful denial of church membership or participation in the Lord’s supper made the clergymen liable for prosecution and, if found guilty, subject to punishment.[4] The only safe option for clergymen was to treat every one as a real convert and hope that regeneration had occurred even if no apparent change was present in the life of the professing Christian. Because of such a mindset within the clergy, their preaching was greatly restricted and diminished. As to the unconverted, they could only hope that somehow the heretofore undetected regeneration would mysteriously occur through participation in the Lord’s table.[5]

But the New England Puritans would have none of this. Irrespective of their baptism of infants, they still believed that if a man was “born again,” a change occurred which was observable by both the person and others. There was a difference in the unregenerate and regenerate in which the latter would exhibit good qualities through their thought, feeling, and conduct. All who did not give evidence of Christian piety would be considered unregenerate, and they would admit none to their communion unless considered regenerate. These beliefs were very different from those of their English cousins. So strong were these beliefs and practices that they were set forth in the preface to the Puritans’ Cambridge Platform published in 1648.[6]

Puritan church records of that time contained a list of those considered to be on the road to heaven and therefore full participants in the ordinances of the church. It also contained a list of those names who by common consent were “…to be regarded and addressed as persons in the road to hell.” Consequently, the New England clergy were not hesitant to assail their listeners with argument and entreaty aimed at prompting regeneration of those in the church known to be in a spiritually lost condition.[7]

But erosion of the high standards of the Puritan churches of New England began at the Puritans’ Synod of 1662. It was decided that the children of parents who were avowedly unregenerate and excluded from the Lord’s table could be baptized if the parents were otherwise qualified. Those other qualifications and requirements were that the parents had to have been baptized in infancy, understood the doctrine of faith and publicly confessed their assent thereunto, did not lead a scandalous life, agreed to give themselves and their children to the Lord, and submitted themselves to the government of Christ in the Church. This practice was immediately adopted over vehement protests and became the new standard for many churches.[8] This new practice was called the Halfway Covenant of 1662 and allowed New England churches to be filled with “substantial numbers of pseudo-members waiting for their conversion.”[9] Sherwood Eddy describes the inevitable outcome of this fateful decision.

There was a gradual loss of the sense of sin, and the idea of God’s sovereignty became a means of oppression by the ecclesiastical oligarchy…The children of the hardy pioneers became softer and more worldly. The unregenerate second generation was allowed to remain in the church as members though not in full communion. Thus originated the halfway covenant with a mixed membership of a more all-inclusive church that had lost the purity of a separated regenerate sect. The genteel churches turned from the difficult gospel of election and regeneration to “societies of Christians by mutual agreement” who avoided “scandalous sin.”[10] [emphasis added]

Other compromises followed. Solomon Stoddard, the pastor of the Northampton church, published a sermon in 1707 whose message stated that sanctification (to set apart, make holy) was not a necessary qualification for participation in the Lord’s supper and that “the Lord’s supper is a converting ordinance.” In other words, those desiring the full advantages of church membership, even though they did not have “a Saving Work of God’s spirit on their hearts,” were eligible to partake of the Lord’s supper. This practice at Stoddard’s Northampton Church was vigorously opposed by some, but given the general high esteem held for the prominent pastor and the general desire of many halfway covenanters to enjoy the benefits of church membership, the practice was adopted and spread extensively to churches in other parts of New England.[11]

The outworking of these practices adopted by the New England churches tended to destroy church discipline. Why should the unconverted be concerned with conversion when they are not held accountable by the church for their unregenerate heart and disobedient ways?[12] These beliefs and practices must inevitably lead to confusion as to the true meaning of conversion and thus undermine the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the lost. Writing over 175 years ago, Joseph Tracey described the eventual course that the resulting confusion would take after the loss of a biblical understanding of conversion.

What must it teach the unconverted church member to think of himself, and of his prospects for eternity?…And what must he suppose conversion to be? Not a change by which a man begins to obey God; for he had already begun to obey him, as he supposed, and yet was unconverted. Not a change righteously required of him at every moment; for God had given him something to do before conversion, and he was doing it. He must have thought it some mysterious benefit, which God would, in his own good time, bestow on those for whom it was appointed…Being thus deceived with respect to the very nature of conversion, all his desires and prayers and labors for it would be misdirected.[13]

Stoddard and other New England pastors hoped to counteract the dangers of their beliefs on conversion and sanctification by faithfully and forcefully preaching the Word so as to compel conversion. But as Tracey so ably points out, “…in the end, the doctrines on which a church is seen to act, will prevail over those which are only uttered; and the state of feeling among the members, and ultimately the preaching itself, will conform to the theory on which the church is governed and the ordinances are administered.”[14] Put another way, doctrines which are observed and practiced will inevitably prevail over those that are merely preached.

There were a number of revivals that occurred before the recognized beginning of The Great Awakening in America. One of the first to preach the essence of true revival was Samuel Torrey, pastor of the Weymouth, Massachusetts church. Torrey may be considered the first evangelical in New England for by 1674 he had begun preaching the need for revival among pastors and congregations. Torrey emphasized the “Work of Reformation.” He believed that the churches’ would not be revived through moral efforts but only an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This would occur only when each person experienced a “Heart-reformation, or making of a new heart.” This would occur when God would pour “out [an] abundance of converting grace, and so revive and renew the work of conversion.” Torrey preached his greatest sermon on revival in 1695. In “Mans Extremity, Gods Opportunity,” Torrey preached that the sin of New Englanders had grown to such an extent that an ordinary reformation was not possible. God must unilaterally intercede, but that “We must follow God mourning…Such a mourning is the certain effect of the saving dispensation of the Spirit and converting grace.”[15]

Covenant renewals had begun occurring in the late 1600s. Typically, in covenant renewal ceremonies, pastors reminded all church members of their promises to God and to each other. Full covenant members could consider if their relationship with God was truly right. Halfway members could seek conversion and admission into full membership in the church. These ceremonies were generally followed by preaching on salvation for a period of several weeks. Samuel Willard led a covenant renewal in 1680 at Boston’s Old South Church. Early in the renewal, several children publicly embraced their responsibilities of their baptismal covenant. This sparked the whole church to go through renewal and recognition of their baptismal covenant with many becoming members in full communion.[16]

A covenant ceremony was led by Samuel Danforth Jr. in 1705 at Taunton, Massachusetts. Thomas Kidd in his book The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America gave an account of the events that occurred.

Danforth reported in February 1705 that “we are much encouraged by an unusual and amazing Impression, made by GOD’S SPIRIT on all Sorts among us, especially on the young Men and Women.” The young people had become sober as a result of the meetings and some “awful Deaths and amazing Providences.” He hoped that their sobriety was not temporary and asked for “Prayer that these Strivings of the SPIRIT, may have a saving Issue.”…“We gave Liberty to all Men and Women Kind, from sixteen Years old and upwards to act with us,” and three hundred people added their names to a list forsaking sin.” Later that month Danforth reported that he had no time for his regular pastoral duties because of his constant visits from young people seeking salvation.[17] [emphasis in original]

There were many such outpourings of the Holy Spirit in the late 1600s and early 1700s, and the frequency of these revivals grew in New England during the 1710s and 1720s. Out of these early stirrings came a renewal movement called evangelicalism that fundamentally changed many churches and denominations and helped birth the First Great Awakening. Those churches that embraced evangelicalism emphasized a revivalist style of preaching, personal conversion, personal devotion and holiness, and individual access to God which de-emphasized the importance and authority of church government.[18]

Heretofore, our emphasis has been on Puritan revivals that preceded The Great Awakening. However, in addition to the English stream of evangelicalism there were two other streams that fed the rising river of revival fervor: Scots-Irish Presbyterianism and Continental Pietism.[19]

Pietism contributed an intense focus on the heart, often in conflict with the decayed state of formal, established religion. Scots-Irish Presbyterianism supplied legions of pious immigrants, who often came expecting revival to occur…The Pietists and Presbyterians of those colonies had begun striving for awakenings well before the Grand Itinerant George Whitefield came on the scene.[20]

Pietism stressed Bible study and personal religious experience and was a reaction to formalism and intellectualism. Reformed Pietism primarily focused on heart religion and Christian practice whereas Puritanism focused on doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity.[21]
______

We have examined the dire circumstances and conditions that led to the various revivals throughout the American colonies prior to the beginning of The American Great Awakening during the late 1720s. In the next chapter we shall examine the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in various revivals that comprised The Great American Awakening, the course of these revivals, and their long-term consequences for both the nation and the churches therein after the revival fires had subsided.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), pp. 48-49, 74.
[2] Thomas S. Kidd, The Great Awakening – The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), p. xvi.
[3] Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening – A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, Public Domain. Facsimile edition reproduced from original documents, pp. 1-2. Originally published in Boston, Massachusetts by Tappan and Dennet, 1842.
[4] Ibid. p. 2.
[5] Ibid., p. 3.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 4.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. 3.
[10] Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, p. 55.
[11] Tracey, The Great Awakening, pp. 4-5.
[12] Ibid., pp. 5-6.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., p. 6.
[15] Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. 1-3.
[16] Ibid., p. 4.
[17] Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[18] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), pp. 253, 256-257.
[19) Kidd, The Great Awakening, p. xvi.
[20] Ibid., p. 39.
[21] Ibid., p. 25.

The post Revival – 5 – Spiritual Conditions in America 1620-1720 first appeared on Culture Warrior.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Catholic Church and the various branches of the Protestant Church were in great turmoil from the beginning of the Reformation in 1517 until 1648 when the peace agreement at Westphalia substantially ended the Catholic-Protestant wars on the continent of Europe. However, the conflict would not end in Great Britain until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the triumph of Protestantism under William III.

All wars invariably lead to post-war periods in which the Christian faith is neglected which leads to a general decay of national morality. This was the condition in which the British people found themselves at the end of the seventeenth century. Not only had the opposing camps of Christianity fought among themselves, but England had been involved in almost constant civil and international warfare for almost two centuries by the end of the 1600s. As a consequence there existed a significant decline of morality and the general religious impulse within the nation. This decline was deepened by the ascendance of competing Enlightenment philosophies and deism in the late 1600s and all of the 1700s throughout Europe and Great Britain. By the time the British Great Awaking began in 1739, England, Scotland, and Wales were in a deplorable state. Mathew Backholer described the depths to which the moral breakdown of English society had sunk just prior to the awakening.

Across Britain, before the Great Awakening, there was a rise in deism, a decline of Christian observances, a massive rise in gin consumption and other alcoholic beverages which led to poverty and abuses within families. Every sixth house in London was a grogshop (where spirits were sold, gin, rum, etc.) and you could get drunk for a pence and dead drunk for two pence…In 1714, two million gallons of spirits were distilled; by 1742, it was seven million gallons, and by 1750, it was more than eleven million…Only four or five members of Parliament were regular attendants at church.

This was the land and age of highwaymen in the countryside, burglars in the cities, profanity, bear-baiting, bull-baiting, prize-fighting, cock-fighting – the amusements of all classes were calculated to create a cruel disposition. It was the age of mobs and riots and the state of the criminal law was cruel in the extremes. There were no fewer than one hundred and sixty crimes for which a man, woman, or child could be hanged!

In 1736, Archbishop Secker, the Bishop of Oxford, said, “That an open and professed disregard to religion is become…the distinguishing character of the present age; that this evil is grown to a great height of the nation and is daily spreading through every part of it.”

Parliamentary life was rotten through and through…There was a growing neglect of Sunday observance among the ruling elite. Cabinet dinners and even cabinet councils were constantly being held on that day. Sunday concerts and card parties were common. Drunkenness was almost universal, and the drunkards walked unashamed.

In the higher ranks the young “Bloods” (nobility) often banded themselves together and paraded the streets in search of victims for what they were pleased to call their wit. Many a man and many a woman died in their hands, in consequence of their ferocious treatment.[1]

Great moves of God within a nation generally start with small beginnings, and so it was with the British Great Awakening. In 1728, a student at Oxford University started a Holy Club. That student was Charles Wesley who became a preacher but is better known as one of the greatest hymn writers of all time. Because of his methodical habits in study, Charles was called a “Methodist.” Leadership of the Holy Club would soon pass into the hands of John Wesley, Charles’ older brother.[2]

By 1733, Charles was a junior tutor of Christ Church at Oxford University. He and the other members of Holy Club had noticed the thin young man’s attendance at a weekday church service which was most unusual behavior for a lowly and poor freshman. It was through a chain of events that eventually led Charles Wesley to send word to the eighteen-year-old student at Oxford’s Pembroke College to visit him. It was to be a providential meeting that October morning between the twenty-six year old Master of Arts tutor and George Whitefield who came to Wesley’s rooms at Christ Church. Charles fed him coffee and breakfast as he coaxed his life story from him. He had come from Gloucester the year before. Being from a very poor family, Whitfield earned his way at Pembroke by becoming a servitor to the gentlemen students in the upper social strata. Servitors were the lowest rank of undergraduate and at the opposite end of the scale to those noblemen who resided at the top.[3]

But the members of the Holy Club were being observed by Whitefield long before the club members had noticed him. At the start of the term Whitefield had watched and admired the members of the Holy Club as they passed through a crowd of hostile mocking hecklers when attending Holy Communion at the University Church. Being poor and lacking any form of social status, Whitefield stood afar off, fearing public rejection by associating himself with the Holy Club’s members. Whitefield confessed his cowardice to Wesley at that first meeting, but Wesley comforted Whitefield with good advice, kindly encouragement in his spiritual journey, and an invitation to the next meeting of the Holy Club. As he walked back to Pembroke College Whitefield was “happier than he had been since coming to oxford.”[4] This meeting eventually would have an incalculable impact on both England and America.

The British Great Awakening 1739

The British Great Awakening is also known by several other titles: Evangelical Revival, the Methodist Revival, and the Wesleyan Revival. Just over five years after that fateful first meeting between Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, the Methodist Revival was birthed by a powerful move of the Holy Spirit which is the definitive signature of all revivals. The incontrovertible fact of the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by a reading of excerpts from the January 1, 1739 Journal of John Wesley.

Mr. Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefield, Hutchins, and my brother Charles, were present at our love-fest in Fetters Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, in so much that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of His Majesty, we broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”[5]

George Whitefield also wrote of the events of that evening at Fetter’s Lane in London and other meetings to follow that led to the beginning of the British Great Awakening on February 17, 1739.

It was a Pentecostal season indeed, sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer. Often we have been filled as with new wine, and often I have seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence, and cry out, “Will God, indeed, dwell with men on earth? How dreadful is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven!”[6]

On January 14th, Whitefield was ordained a priest in Church of England. Apart from his meeting with fellow Methodists, all was not heavenly for Whitefield before the revival broke forth on February 17th. There began to develop among some of the clergy strong opposition to the message of Whitefield and the two Wesleys. Some clergymen argued against the “despised Methodists’” understanding of the “new birth” which their critics believed was a “pretending to special effusions of the Holy Ghost.” The essence of the arguments was that those opposed to the Methodist message believed only in an outward Christ and denied that Christ must be “inwardly formed in our hearts also.” These clergymen began to influence others to close their pulpits to Whitefield and the Wesleys. False accusations about Whitefield were spread among the clergy.[7]

Having been refused the pulpit in Bath on February 14th, he stayed with his sister and her husband in Bristol. Following two more rejections for permission to preach at Bristol churches, Whitefield knew of one place he would be allowed to preach. The Corporation of Bristol had a jail chapel but not a chaplain. The jailer had become a convert through Whitefield’s preaching two years earlier and wholeheartedly welcomed his request to preach to the prisoners that Saturday morning. Following the chapel service, an aged Dissenter invited Whitefield to lunch at his home in Kingswood, just two miles or less from the closed walls surrounding Bristol and near the forest coal mines. It was here that a people lived in a world far more distant from the respectable people of Bristol than a mere two miles might suggest.[8] Whitefield’s biographer John Pollock described the plight of the coal miners and their families.

Respectable citizens were afraid of them; they caused violent affrays and had shocked even the hard-bitten sailors by digging up the corpse of a murderer whose suicide had cheated them of a public execution to hold high festival round it. They were totally illiterate. Their shacks, like the mines lay on the far boundaries of four different parishes so they were ignored by the clergy of all. Gin-devils, wife beaters, sodomites – the Bristol world had not a good word for the colliers (coal miners) of Kingswood, and considered that they illustrated perfectly the dictum of Thomas Hobbes: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”[9]

Over dinner Whitefield talked to his host of how, “My bowels have long yearned towards the poor colliers, who are very numerous and are as sheep having no shepherd.” They could only be reached in the open air for no church would welcome them. To preach in the open air was an idea that he once mentioned to John Wesley but who called it a “mad notion.” To do so was to defy church law and risk being prosecuted or at least shunned by the clergy and gentry for disorderly conduct.[10]

Whitefield, the two friends, and his host went out for a walk about the time the coal miners left the pits. The four men had climbed a little hill about a hundred yards from a group of miners walking toward them. Whitefield called out to them in clear voice, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see the kingdom of heaven!” The miners immediately stopped and stared at the strange spectacle before them – a young “parson in a cassock, gown, and bands holding a book and audible at a hundred yards.” Pollock vividly described the scene.[11]

The crowd grew until perhaps two hundred were clustered around Hannam Mount. George Whitefield spoke of hell, black as a pit, about “Jesus, who was a friend of publicans and sinners and came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He spoke of the cross, and the love of God, and brushed tears from his eyes. On and on he went, in dead silence except for this own voice and the slight stirring of wind through the bare trees behind him.

Suddenly he noticed pale streaks forming on grimy faces, on that of a young man on his right, and on an old bent miner on his left, and two scarred, depraved faces in front: more and more of them. Whitefield, still preaching, saw the “white gutters made by their tears down their black cheeks.”[12]

Sunday morning Whitefield was reluctantly invited to preach at a local church. However, on the following Tuesday Whitefield was summoned to appear before the Chancellor of the diocese who threatened to excommunicate him if he continued to preach false doctrine. The Chancellor further prohibited Whitefield from preaching anywhere in the diocese without a license. But a little over twenty-four hours later a young coal miner called upon Whitefield and asked the young preacher to come and preach to the coal miners at a set time. He did not hesitate, and on a relatively warm February day at Kingswood, Whitefield preached for an hour to a crowd of two thousand coal miners, their families, and a number of townspeople. He would preach in open spaces to the coal miners on three additional occasions. On March 25th Whitefield preached at Hannam Mount to the largest crowd yet. Twenty three thousand reverent and tear-stained faces listen as Whitefield for nearly an hour delivered Jesus’ message that “…except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God!”[13]

Whitefield called on his friend John Wesley to come to Bristol to preach and shepherd the converts with organizing skills Whitefield did not possess. But Wesley would have to abandon his reluctance to preach in places other than Church of England pulpits. On April 1, 1739, Wesley joined Whitefield at Bristol’s Bowling Green, at Rose Green in Kingswood, and at Hannam Mount. As a result Wesley was also banned from many Church of England pulpits. His great offense was not just that he preached outside the sanctioned churches but that his fiery sermons preached “justification by faith.” Wesley continued to preach elsewhere. In June he preached at Blackheath to a crowd estimated to be between twelve and fourteen thousand, Upper Moorefield to six or seven thousand, and to fifteen thousand at Kennington Common.[14]

As he rode around the countryside, revivals broke out. Wesley began traveling four or five thousand miles per year throughout England, sometimes preaching at 5 AM to crowds exceeding twenty thousand. Wesley’s work eventually established one hundred preaching circuits attended by three hundred ministers and thousands of local lay preachers. Both Whitefield and Wesley took Methodism’s message to North America where the ideas of religious independence from the Church of England merged easily with the North American’s growing ideas of political independence from England.[15]

The British Great Awakening began on Hannam Mount in Kingsford on February 17, 1739, not as a revival but an evangelistic meeting. The Holy Spirit’s stirring in the hearts of those lost men would soon stir and revive the hearts of the British Christians and change the course of a nation. The British revivals that sparked the Great Awakening would subside as all revivals eventually do. However, the blessings that flowed from the “awakening” in the church and society in general in England, Scotland, and Wales would continue for decades.

From 1739 to 1791, it is estimated that the British Great Awakening had caused one-fourth of the population, about 1.25 million, to be converted to Christ. Over the course of time many towns, villages, and other places were so completely transformed that the character of the nation was changed. Some historians credit the awakening for preventing a revolution in Britain similar to the bloody French Revolution of 1789.[16]

This remarkable transformation of these nations by the effects of the Great Awakening was attested by many. Isaac Taylor said, “No such harvest of souls is recorded to have been gathered by any body of contemporary men since the first century.”[17] C. Grant Robertson wrote,

Wesley swept the dead air with an irresistible cleansing ozone. To thousands of men and women his preaching and gospel revealed a new heaven and a new earth; it brought religion into soulless lives and reconstituted it as a comforter, an inspiration and a judge…Aloof alike from politics and the speculations of the schools, Wesley wrestled with the evil of his day and proclaimed the infinite power of the Christian faith based on personal conviction, eternally renewed from within, to battle sin, misery and vice in all its forms. The social service that he accomplished was not the least of his triumphs.[18]

In 1922 British Prime Minster David Lloyd George said that the Methodist Movement was “probably the greatest religious movement in the past 250 years at least. Its influence, just like that of the Reformation – its indirect influence was probably greater than even its direct influence. That is the story of all great religious reformations.” In 1887, E. Paxton Hood in Vignettes of the Great Revival wrote, “There was a deeper upheaving of religious life…A change passed over the whole of English society…In the course of fifty years…a sense of religious decorum, and some idea of religious duty, took possession of homes and minds…[19]
______

Both Whitefield and Wesley took Methodism’s message of “justification by faith” to North America colonists, and it is to the story of the spiritual decline and subsequent revival of these transplanted Englishmen to which we turn our attention in the next chapter.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), pp. 29-30.
[2] Ibid., p. 30.
[3] John Pollock, George Whitefield – The Evangelist, (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1973), pp. 11-12.
[4] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[5] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, pp. 30-31.
[6] Ibid., p. 31.
[7] Pollock, George Whitefield – The Evangelist, pp. 82, 85-86.
[8] Ibid., pp. 88-91.
[9] Ibid., p. 91.
[10] Ibid., pp. 91-92.
[11] Ibid.,
[12] Ibid., p. 92.
[13] Ibid., pp. 93-98.
[14] Ibid., p. 99.
[15] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, pp.31-32.
[16] Ibid., pp. 29, 32.
[17] Ibid., p. 37.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., pp. 37-38.

The post Revival – 4 – The British Great Awakening first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Although the reformers readily affirmed their allegiance to “the scriptures alone” as the authority of the church and living the Christian life, it was a far more difficult matter to shed centuries of the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church that conflicted with or undermined faithful adherence to the Scriptures. Therefore, implementation of reforms in the new Protestant churches often carried with it many of the old Roman Catholic ways of doing the business of church.

By 1550, the church in the West had settled into three branches of state religion: papal Catholicism, Lutheranism (Christianity allied with the state), and Calvinism (theocracy).[2] The Protestant branches were similar in that each was a compulsory religion, had strong ties with the state in one way or another, retained certain unbiblical elements of Catholic orthodoxy, and attempted to use the state to impose a religious monopoly. The false teachings and practices carried over from the Catholic Church would not be effectively challenged on a broad scale within the Protestant churches until the birth of the evangelical arm of the church in the great revivals that arose in England and the American colonies in the early eighteenth century.

Protestant Reformation – 1517

The Church of Jesus Christ had traveled a tortuous path through 1500 years of persecution, victories, corruption, triumphs, and tragedies. Along the way the universal church had accumulated an inordinate amount of wealth, excess doctrinal baggage, and a large measure of worldliness. But in spite of the faults and corruptions within the church, the sustaining inerrant truth of the New Testament and its doctrines were the church’s life preserver to which a faithful remnant clung, however tenuously, for a millennium and a half. The Reformation was a time of casting off of much of the church’s excesses, failures, and worldliness, but it would be a painful and imperfect parting for both Catholic and Protestant churches.

When Luther nailed the ninety-five theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517, he called into question certain practices of the church and sought to change them. Initially his actions were not meant to divide the church but to rid it of the practices that many in the church felt were doctrinally contrary to the tenets of the New Testament. What many define as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 may be more correctly viewed as a step (although the last major one) in a centuries-long process that eventually led to the irrevocable separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church.[3]

Following the break from the Catholic Church, the years between 1520 and 1562 were a time of bloody martyrdom for the Protestants. But the worst was to come between 1562 and 1648 when Protestants fought for their very survival.[4] In a belated and half-hearted effort to reunite the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants, Pope Paul III called for a council to consider reforms within the Catholic Church in the little town of Trent in the mountains of northern Italy. With two interruptions of several years each, the Council of Trent lasted from 1545 until 1563. The council developed a creed and a new catechism (religious instruction) for the church. The religious abuses that had caused much of the trouble for the church were corrected, and provision was made to better educate the clergy. Although significant reform had been accomplished within the Catholic Church, the essential character of the church remained unchanged which was considered a triumph for the preservation of the papacy.[5]

The efforts of the Catholics at Trent revitalized the church following the shock of the Reformation and spurred its efforts to stamp out Protestantism. Between 1562 and 1618, the Calvinistic Protestants suffered the greatest martyrdom. In 1618, the Lutherans were also dragged into the conflict with the Catholics. The Catholic-Protestant wars throughout the European continent eventually ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia which substantially fixed the boundaries of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism in Europe to the present day.[6]

England – 1517 -1688

The progress of the Reformation and rejection of papal authority generally was a grass roots affair in every country as most rulers were aligned with the Catholic hierarchy. But the Reformation in England was unique in that it became the first nation-state to reject papal authority but not the church’s doctrines or forms of worship.

Henry VIII was eighteen when he became king of England in 1509 and ruled for thirty-eight years until his death in 1547. Henry became embroiled in a controversy with the papacy because of his desire to divorce his long-time first wife and marry Ann Boleyn (second of six marriages) with the hope of producing a male heir to inherit the throne. Failing to receive a timely reply from the Pope that Henry be allowed to divorce his wife, the powerful monarch took matters into his own hands and pushed the Parliament to rubber-stamp the necessary legislation which decreed that Henry was the supreme head of the Church of England. His actions were not meant as a rejection of Catholicism for he had previously rejected Luther’s concept of the church. But Henry’s proclamation of royal supremacy over the church effectively separated the English church from Rome and led to the dissolution of monasteries and the confiscation of church property which Henry sold to the aristocracy and gentry. Henry’s view of the Church of England (also called the Anglican or Episcopal Church) was that it was still Catholic in doctrine but now rested on the supremacy of the king and his descendants.[7] Although Henry thought Luther a heretic, many Protestants believed Henry’s rejection of papal authority was a step, however feeble, in reformation of the church.[8]

From Henry’s death in 1547 until 1688, the quest for domination of the religious order in England was a free-for-all among the Henry’s heirs, competing challengers for the throne, and Parliament, all of whom chose sides in championing the cause of Catholicism or the Church of England. Others dissenting Protestant groups felt the wrath of both as they defied the Roman church and the Church of England, depending on who was in power at the moment. These religious wars came to an end when William III and Mary came from Holland in 1688 and drove James II from the throne in what was known as the Glorious Revolution. Church historian B. K. Kuiper states that, “William had saved England, Holland, and America for Protestantism and liberty against the Catholicism and despotism of Louis XIV of France and James II of England.” Although the Episcopal Church of England remained the established and endowed church of the land, in 1689 religious toleration was granted to religious dissenters including Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers. The only exceptions were Roman Catholics and those denying the Trinity.[9]

As we have seen, the English Reformation was the result of royal intrigues and politics of kings, queens, and Parliament. Therefore, reformation is perhaps too strong a word for what had occurred in England. The Church of England considered itself neither Protestant nor fully Catholic for the changes were more political and organizational than religious and doctrinal. As a result, unrest and desire for freedom from the strictures of the Church of England continued for a long time after the Reformation had run its course and become settled in other countries. Those members of the Church of England who pushed for a more thoroughly purified church were called Puritans. They objected to the rites, ceremonies, and episcopal form of government of the Church of England, but they wanted to remain in the church and work for reform from within. Separatists were those who believed the process of reforming the Church of England was hopeless and chose to separate from the church altogether. The Separatists were called Congregationalists or Independents. These were the Pilgrims who eventually founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620. Nine years later the Puritans followed and establish a reform-minded outpost of the Church of England in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.[10]

America – 1620-1640

It all began as a tiny ship approached the shores of a primitive continent called America. Historian Paul Johnson in his massive A History of the American People called the Pilgrim’s arrival on an old wine ship at New Plymouth on December 11, 1620, “…the single most important formative event in early American history.” The Mayflower contained a mixture of thirty-five English Calvinist Christians including some who had lived in exile in Holland to escape religious persecution in England. All were going to America for religious freedom. They were Separatist Puritans who had despaired of reforming the Church of England, its episcopal form of government, and the heavy influence of Catholic teaching. They were accompanied by sixty-six non-Puritans. The two groups contained forty-one families.[11]

The men and women that came to the American colonies at the beginning still considered themselves Englishmen and were in agreement with much of English law, politics, and social customs. Yet, the major motivating force that caused them to leave England was their differences concerning the nature of the Christian. The notion of consulting the Scriptures as opposed to the practices of the English clergy was expounded by a small group of separatists in the north of England. This small group who joined together in voluntary fashion believed in the authority of the congregation in the choice of ministers, i.e., self-government.[12]

The Separatists disdained the papacy, the Church of England, and also the Puritans of southern England (whom they believed had compromised their faith). In attempting to separate themselves from the world, they defied the efforts of King James I to make all worshipers conform to the practices of the Church of England. The Pilgrim Separatists were a humble people and often viewed as radicals because of their desire to separate from the Church of England as opposed to most Puritans who wanted to stay in the church and reform it from within.[13]

While crossing the Atlantic on the tiny Mayflower and fearing anarchy because of the larger number of non-separatists, they formed themselves into a political body similar. The Mayflower Compact established a government by consent, similar to their church covenant, with governing authority lying in the entire adult male body with no distinctions as to class, wealth, or church membership. Thus, the compact representing one-third separatists and two-thirds of the voyagers from London with other motives was signed by all adult male members including four servants. The separatists landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in November, far north of their Virginia destination, and became known as the Pilgrims. Years of harsh existence lay before them, but they were free to “establish once more on earth the Church of Christ in its pristine purity.”[14]

We must distinguish between the separatist band of outlawed Pilgrims that fled across the Atlantic on the Mayflower and the influential Puritans who would soon follow. The English Puritans had arisen about 1560 within the Anglican Church and sought reforms to bring about “a pure and stainless religion.”[15] But almost seventy years had passed since their origins, and the Church of England had rejected their efforts to reform the church. If the Puritans could not reform the church in England, they would bring the church to America and change it to their liking. This was not intended to be a separation from the Church of England but a separation from its corruption. This second group formed the great migration of English Puritans that began in 1628 upon the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Many were able men with wealth and social position. An astounding twenty thousand had made the harrowing voyage across the Atlantic and settled in the Salem area by 1640.[16]

Sherwood Eddy called those early years when colonial Puritanism was at its highest “…the finest expression of spiritual life that Britain or America or Continental Europe had at that time.”[17]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016).
[2] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997) p. 288.
[3] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950, 1964, p. 157.
[4] Ibid., p. 244-245.
[5] Ibid., pp. 233-234.
[6] Ibid., pp. 244-245.
[7] J. M. Roberts,The New History of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 579-580; “Henry VIII,” Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-VIII-king-of-England (accessed August 10, 2015).
[8] Kuiper, The Church in History, pp. 223, 229.
[9] Ibid., pp. 253-257.
[10] Ibid., pp. 249-251.
[11] Johnson, A History of the American People, pp. 28-29.
[12] Evans, pp. 186-188.
[13] Kuiper, The Church in History, pp. 327-328.
[14] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), pp. 40-41.
[15 Ibid., pp. 48, 56.
[16] Kuiper, The Church in History, p. 328.
[17] Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, p. 56.

The post Revival – 3 – Purifying the Reformation – England and America first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Ask twenty Christian lay men and women under the age of fifty and you will likely get twenty different answers, and most of them will be incorrect. The same may said of many in the clergy. Very simply put, revival means to bring the church back to life. Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 lists four definitions that are helpful when applied to revival in the biblical sense.

1. Return, recall or recovery to life from death or apparent death; as the revival of a drowned person.
2. Return or recall to activity from a state of languor; as the revival of spirits.
3. Return, recall or recovery from a state of neglect, oblivion, obscurity or depression; as the revival of the letters or learning.
4. Renewed and more active attention to religion; an awakening of men to their spiritual concerns.[1]

Here we see that revival is actually being defined as the opposites of death or apparent spiritual death, languor, neglect, oblivion, obscurity, and depression. Put another way in a spiritual or religious context, revival is spiritual life instead of death, vigor instead of languor, attention instead of neglect, awareness instead of oblivion, prominence instead of obscurity, and joy instead of depression. But, a return to spiritual life in these areas is the result or outcome of true revival, but the terms do not define the true meaning or essence of revival.

The difficulty in defining true revival is that much of the modern evangelical church has never experienced or has forgotten what true revival is and how it occurs. As a consequence, many in the church attempt to artificially stimulate the opposites of spiritual decline which results in a form of godliness that does not rely on the true source of revival—the Holy Spirit. In other words, the church is using the world’s methods to achieve an imitation of revival while remaining oblivious to the true source, nature, and purpose of revival. Jim Cymbala called this “icing, but no cake.”

The exaltation of church growth formulas or denominational names over the power of the Holy Spirit is deeply distressing, and we are no better than the Babylonians making sacrifices to the tools of our trade.

Here is the critical question: What if the things sold to us as solutions over the past two decades—“we’ve got the answer” conferences, leadership books, high-profile pastors with big personalities, and new models of doing church—are really the problem and not the answer?

First, many of the techniques are not found in Scripture. We don’t need more technicians; we simply need more of God.

It is likely that we are seeing a fulfillment of those perilous times that Paul told Timothy about when men would have a form of godliness, but deny the power.

That’s why our churches are so often powerless and Christianity is in decline. God’s answers for us have been replaced by human intelligence, leaving us as dim lights in an increasingly dark world.

The only answer to a lukewarm church or struggling Christian is the same as ever—the fire of the Holy Spirit![2] [emphasis in original]

What happens when the Holy Spirit brings revival?

The Holy Spirit is the source of true revival. But how does true revival occur? Dr. J. Edwin Orr said, “The key factor in revival is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit results in the revival of the church.”[3] Revival is an amazing, unusual, and extraordinary visitation of the Spirit within the church, and these special visitations of God have been provided by His divine providence over the course of the history of His church. But it is also important to understand that individual Christians, apart from a group or church setting, may experience the blessings of revival from an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.[4]

What happens when the there is a visitation of the Spirit in the church or an individual’s life? For an answer we look to the words of Dr. Martyn-Lloyd Jones from his book Revival. Lloyd-Jones was describing the extraordinary happenings that occurred in a revival held by the great eighteenth century evangelist George Whitefield.

God came down. Oh yes, they had been enjoying the presence and blessing of God before, but not like this, something wonderful had happened. God was in the very midst, God came down. That is exactly what happens during revival.

What does this mean? Well, we can describe it like this. It is a consciousness of the presence of God the Holy Spirit literally in the midst of the people. Probably most of us who are here have never known that, but that is exactly what is meant by a visitation of God’s Spirit. It is all above and beyond the highest experiences in the normal life and working of the Church. Suddenly those present in the meeting become aware that someone has come amongst them, they are aware of a glory, they are aware of a presence. They can not define it, they can not describe it, they can not put it into words, they just know that they have never known anything like this before. Sometimes they describe it as ‘days of heaven on earth.’ They really feel that they are in heaven – they have forgotten time, they are beyond that, time has no longer any meaning for them, nor any real existence, they are in a spiritual realm. God has come down amongst them and has filled the place and the people with a sense of his glorious presence.

And, always, of course,…it is also a manifestation of the power of God, not only the glory and the radiance of God’s presence, but especially his power…[5]

We can now define true revival as a sovereign act of God which brings life back to the body of Christ through an extraordinary visitation of the Spirit of God among His people. Simply put, it is God in the midst of His people. More specifically, revival can be said to produce an awakening of the evangelical religion. Sometimes the word “revival” is also “…used to explain the amazing results of an outpouring of the Spirit of God, a visitation of the Holy Spirit, when Christians are revived, sinners are saved, and communities are changed and become God-fearing.”[6]

But revivals invariably bring controversy. Opposition comes from both inside the church and the enemies of Christ outside the church. Satan and his minions will always attempt to infiltrate revivals and hinder the moving of the Holy Spirit. Physical phenomena inevitably occur during revivals when the Holy Spirit touches someone with His convicting power or they experience some other supernatural manifestation of the power of God. Opportunists and exhibitionists (some may be foolish Christians) will be used by Satan in an attempt to imitate the genuine through excesses and deceptions that bring unbelief or reproach to the work of the Holy Spirit. This occurs in all revivals, but the Christian must focus on the glory of God and not the counterfeit excesses and unbiblical practices.[7]

The purposes of God’s special visitations

Lloyd-Jones listed four reasons why God sends revival. First, God sends revival and blessings upon the church for the glory of God. He does this so that all people of the earth may know the hand of the Lord is mighty. His miraculous blessings attract the attention of the saint and sinner alike. We see this in the Old Testament when Joshua and the Israelites crossed the Jordan on dry ground. The Israelites alone represented God, and all other nations were pagan. He did this miracle in order that those unbelievers on the outside who scoff and deride God’s kingdom and His people may be astonished, apprehended, and chastened.[8]

A second reason for revival is that His people will fear the Lord their God forever. When the season of revival has run its course, people have been wonderfully reminded that the living God in all of His power and glory dwells among them. But over time these special visitations of God tend to be forgotten by many in the body of Christ. They begin to see the church as nothing more than an institution or organization. Such a view leads Christians toward an attitude of casualness in their relationship with Him and with casualness comes loss of the fear of the Lord and with loss of fear comes disobedience. This disobedience stems from less reliance on God and greater self-reliance through scholarship and learning, organizing skills, and activities and busy-ness.[9] The loss of fear of the Lord is a particularly distinguishing trait of the modern American church. In other words, they have lost their consciousness of God who dwells among them. When God is no longer feared, the church also loses its reverence for His majesty, power, and holiness. With loss of fear of the Lord, His nature becomes merely utilitarian tool, a part of the furniture of the church that is summoned into service as needed.

The third reason for revival is that when Christians dwell in the full power and presence of God, they are no longer fearful of men. Revival takes the fear of men away from God’s children. They no longer fear the giants in the land when they realize that the living God resides amongst them. Lloyd-Jones described the church’s fear of man in a 1959 sermon, also recorded in his book Revival.

The church is so afraid. She is afraid of organized sin, and her argument is, “We must be doing something because look at the world. It is attracting the young people, it gives them a happy pleasant Saturday night, entertains them, teaches them how to sing and do this and that. Well now we must do the same thing…” The church is so afraid they are going to lose their young people they feel they must do the same. Oh, what a tragedy, what a departure from God’s way…So we trim and modify our gospel, because we are afraid of learning and of knowledge and of science…

There is no need to be afraid of any of these powers…There is nothing new about all of this. The Christian Church has always had to fight the world and the flesh and the devil. And the church has often quaked and feared, but never when there has been revival, because then they know that the living God is among them…[10]

Fifty-eight years after Lloyd-Jones preached this message, we still see the same fear of man gripping the church, but we have substituted today’s seeker for yesterday’s youth of six decades ago. The church now says, “We must be doing something because look at the world. It is attracting the seekers, it gives them a happy pleasant Saturday night, entertains them, teaches them how to sing and do this and that. Well now we must do the same thing…” To avoid offense, the seeker-friendly church offers an ever changing array of attractions and activities for seekers to sample until they find something they like. This is done in lieu of a forthright presentation of the uncompromised Word of the living God and reliance on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit in reaching the lost and dying seeker-sinners in the church’s midst.

The fourth reason for revival is that it delivers us from our enemies. And in every revival that has ever been, deliverance always means praise, adoration, worship, and thanksgiving to God, and an enjoyment of God’s riches by His people.[11]

Revivals in the Old and New Testaments

As described in Chapter 1, the pattern of sin and falling away from God followed by repentance, revival, and restoration of His people is a recurrent theme in the history of God’s dealings with the Israelites in the Old Testament. This pattern is illustrated in Psalm 80 as the author pleads with God to once again revive and restore His chosen people.

Return to us, O God Almighty! Look down from heaven and see! Watch over this vine, the root your right hand has planted, the son you have raised up for yourself. Your vine is cut down, it is burned with fire; at your rebuke your people perish. Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself. Then we will not turn away from you; revive us, and we will call on your name. Restore us, O Lord God Almighty; make your face shine upon us, that we may be saved. [Psalm 80:14-19. NIV] [emphasis added]

Revival historian Mathew Backholer points out in his book Revival Fires and Awakenings that both the Old and New Testament do not use the term “revival” to describe a spiritual renewal. However, a special visitation of the Holy Spirit that leads to a spiritual renewal can clearly be defined as a revival through “inspired inference” in the light of numerous instances of rebellion, decline, and renewal clearly presented by the events and lives of many individuals and groups in the Bible.”[12]

In the Old Testament, the occurrence of revival was shown by God’s glory coming down such as when King Solomon dedicated the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11 and 2 Chronicles 5:13-14). Old Testament revivals were characterized by mass repentance under God’s conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Backholer listed eight examples of revivals in the Old Testament, all recorded in the books of Genesis, Kings I and 2, and 2 Chronicles. These revivals were generally led by various leaders, prophets, or kings under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit fell en masse on His people beginning at the Day of Pentecost. Backholer recorded twenty examples of New Testament revivals.[13]

Awakening and Revivals in Church History

One of the great failings of the church during the last one hundred years is its tendency to view the swelling tides of moral and cultural decline in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as something quite new and unique in the history of the church. But as mentioned above, this view occurs because of the church’s fear of organized sin which has led the church to believe that it must develop new techniques and methods, soften the gospel’s message, make certain accommodations for the sinner, and employ modern business practices to meet the world’s challenge on its own terms. But in the words of Martyn Lloyd Jones, “…the man who experiments in the midst of crisis is a fool.”[14]

As a result of this misguided thinking, these modern churchmen ignore the rich history of the church’s past which they believe has nothing to teach them in the modern age. Worse yet, they even ignore the basic teachings of the Bible in their quest to redefine the church and employ the latest and greatest solutions to win the lost. This is self-reliance spoken of above and is the mother of disobedience.

As previously noted, the church is in desperate need of revival, and the nation is in desperate need of a general spiritual awakening which can only come through a revived church. Given the importance of the church’s history of revivals and awakenings during the last three hundred years, that history will be surveyed in the next several chapters.

In American history we can count four revivals that rise to the level of awakenings that spread over many parts of the nation and to other parts of the World. Here we must briefly clarify the difference between a revival and an awakening. Revivals tend to be localized events (church, village, town, or city). An awakening affects a much larger area (district, county, or country), can last for years or decades, and significantly affects the moral standards of a society. Some awakenings continued to be known as revivals such as the Businessmen’s Revival of 1857-58 and the Welsh Revival of 1904-1905, but they still are considered to be broad awakenings.[15]

Although the focus will be on the history of recorded revivals and awakenings, there are many thousands of other revivals and lesser awakenings that have come, run their course, and wonderfully infused life into the affected churches and their congregations for years afterward. The vast majority of these revivals may have been forgotten and have never been recorded in the history books of men, but their eternal consequences have been faithfully written in the annals of heaven.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Noah Webster, “revival,” 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).
[2] Jim Cymbala, Storm-Hearing Jesus for the Times We Live In, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014), pp. 26-28, 79.
[3] Mathew Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings-Thirty Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit, (ByFaith Media, 2009, 2012), p. 15.
[4] Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Revival, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1987), p. 213.
[5] Ibid., p. 306.
[6] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p 11.
[7] Ibid., pp. 9, 13.
[8] Lloyd-Jones, Revival, p. 119.
[9] Ibid., p. 122.
[10] Ibid., pp. 126-127.
[11] Ibid., p. 128.
[12] Backholer, Revival Fires and Awakenings, p. 19.
[13] Ibid., pp. 20-24.
[14] Lloyd-Jones, Revival, p. 24.
[15] Backholer, Revival First and Awakenings, p. 7.

The post Revival – 2 – What is true revival? first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Dr. Jones saw a profound and perilous difference between the conditions of the church in 1959 England and America than that which existed one hundred years earlier. The kinds of problems facing the church in 1959 were far deeper and more desperate. The problems in 1859 were not ones of general denial of the Christian truth but of apathy toward Christ and the church. Correction was a matter of awakening and arousing the church from their lethargy. But in 1959, the moral and spiritual landscape had dramatically changed. Dr. Lloyd-Jones saw the modern-day problems as not just apathy but a “complete unawareness, even a denial of the spiritual altogether…the whole notion of the spiritual has gone. The very belief in God has virtually gone.”[2]

It has been fifty-eight years since Lloyd-Jones preached those sermons at a time when the Christian nations and individual Christians were far more sensitive, agreeable, and desirous of a divine move of the Holy Spirit in their midst, that is, a quickening divine visitation. Now, the church is in far more serious condition than that of Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ day. Many church leaders and their congregants are oblivious to their great spiritual sickness and disastrous departures from biblical truth, doctrines, and holy lifestyles. The church has become acclimatized to the rising tide of secularism and humanism that has inundated the Western world.

As the spirit of the world invaded the church over the last six decades, there has been a corresponding displacement of the irreplaceable power and presence of the Holy Spirit within the church. Without the centrality of the Holy Spirit, the efforts, actions, and programs of the church are merely be a form of godliness but which denies the power thereof. Rev. Pierre Bynum has stated that because of the rebellion of the church, America is ripe for destruction.

The Evangelical Movement in this country is characterized by an arrogance that is almost beyond belief. The neglect of prayer, the involvement in Philistine methodology, the moral evils, the doctrinal corruptions that characterize the Movement are sufficient to cause the people of Sodom to wonder at God’s justice in destroying their city while sparing the United States.[3]

Conditions that demand revival of the church

Revival is the only event that can avert spiritual disaster for the church and turn a nation back to God. But God always sends men and women to warn of these approaching disasters. These modern-day watchmen on the wall are godly leaders and faithful intercessors who recognize the signs of the times and are calling attention to the woeful condition of both the church and the nation. They have sounded the alarm since the end of World War II to the present day. Here we quote just a few of these watchmen and their warnings that span the last seven decades.

…without revival in the church there is really no hope for the Western world at all.[4] [J. I. Packer summarizing the thrust of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his series of sermons in 1959 marking the 100th anniversary of the Welsh revival.]

Jesus Christ has today almost no authority at all among the groups that call themselves by His name. By these I mean not the Roman Catholics nor the liberals, nor the various quasi-Christian cults. I do mean Protestant churches generally, and I include those that protest the loudest that they are in spiritual descent from our Lord and His apostles, namely the evangelicals.[5] [A. W. Tozer, The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches, 1963.]

However much opinions of the realities involved may differ, no one can deny that there is widespread discussion of the decline of Western culture.[6] [Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, 1964.]

Imperceptibly, through decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the “pursuit of happiness… the West’s own historical evolution has been such that today it too is experiencing a drying up of religious consciousness…Here again we witness the single outcome of a worldwide process, with East and West yielding the same results, and once again for the same reason: Men have forgotten God.[7] [Nobel laureate, Orthodox Christian author, and Russian dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn in his address, given when he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in May of 1983, in which he explained the process of alienation of the people of God and traditional Christian morality and beliefs through secularism and humanism.]

Truth demands confrontation. It must be loving confrontation, but there must be confrontation nevertheless…Here is the great evangelical disaster—the failure of the evangelical world to stand for truth as truth. There is only one word for this—namely accommodation: the evangelical church has accommodated to the world spirit of the age.[8] [Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984.] [emphasis in original]

Conformity to the spirit of the times appears to characterize the clergy as well as the laity…religion is declining because those identified with it do not actually believe in it…It is difficult to say that religion even exists if it keeps giving up its tenets to appease its members and critics…The first question, then, is why belief evaporated, why the West has become so rapidly secularized.[9] [Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, 1996.]

After two hundred years of earnest dedication to reinventing the faith and the church and to being more relevant in the world, we are confronted by an embarrassing fact: Never have Christians pursued relevance more strenuously; never have Christians been more irrelevant.[10] [Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness, 2003.]

Western civilization is over. Everybody knows it…Following centuries of pride, schism, compromise, synthesis with humanism, and general hard-heartedness, God may be withdrawing His grace from the Western nations—at least for the time being. Nevertheless, there is always mercy for those who seek and those who are humbled before the almighty God. (Romans 11:20).[11] [Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West, 2013.]

Rebellion, decline, and renewal of God’s people in the Bible

The pattern of sin and falling away from God followed by repentance, revival, and restoration of His people is a recurrent theme in the history of God’s dealings with the Israelites. In the Old Testament there were at least twelve instances of revival,[12] and seven of these cycles are found in the first sixteen chapters of Judges. Preceding each of these revivals there were at least four common elements present:

• A spiritual decline among God’s people.
• A righteous judgement from God – While varying from revival to revival, God’s judgement led to prayer, brokenness, repentance, and a desperate seeking of God’s face. Sometimes God’s judgement led to the deaths of the wicked.
• The raising up of an immensely burdened leader or leaders who had a heavy burden of the moral and spiritual needs of God’s people and the nation.
• Extraordinary actions were taken, the most common of which was a call for a Solemn Assembly of the people who humbled themselves, sought the Lord, wept, fasted, mourned, prayed, confessed and repented of their individual and national sins, and who committed themselves to leading a Godly life and separation from all unrighteousness of the nations.[13]

Revival – The only hope for the church and America

Revivals have been the sustaining lifeblood of the Protestant evangelical churches since they emerged just prior to and during America’s First Great Awakening in the early 1700s. The quest for revival was discarded by the liberal churches more than one hundred years ago, and revival most certainly was never sought after or tolerated in the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, revivals remained the central source of renewal and power of evangelical churches through the early 1960s and for some churches into the 1980s.

Beginning in the 1960s, the leadership in evangelical churches, seminaries, and other Christian organizations increasingly appear to have ignored the lessons of the Israelites’ rebellion, decline, and renewal in the Old Testament and have relegated revival to the dusty and forgotten shelves of church history. America’s pulpits became noticeably silent on matters of revival, and revivals virtually disappeared from the evangelical landscape along with the itinerant evangelists that held one and two-week revival meetings (longer if the Holy Spirit was moving upon the hearts and lives of those attending). As a result most of the laity under the age of fifty have little remembrance of revival meetings or have never experienced an extraordinary powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a local church.

Revival – Two opinions

One of the reasons for the absence of revivals is that they are controversial. Revivals are a supernatural work of the Spirit of God, and this supernatural aspect instills fear in the hearts of many Christians. Some claim revivals are “of the devil” or a form of mass hysteria. Others fear the supernatural manifestations of revival. Still others are opposed to revivals because they fear loss of control over the church life. That occurs because revivals are a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit and cannot be controlled or directed by men. Revivals always challenge the status quo, upset the comfortable forms of godliness, and shine the light of God’s Word into the dark corners of the church where the spirit of the world often resides.

Others dismiss talk of revival and revival meetings as not being relevant to the needs of the church or compatible with the popular methods and techniques of doing church in these modern times. For most American evangelical pastors, revival is passé, out-of-date, archaic, unfashionable, obsolete, and an inconvenience in our fast-paced modern lives. It would be safe to say that the vast majority of evangelical churches haven’t sought revival or held a revival meeting in a quarter of a century. Revivals have been replaced by new ways of doing church. We are told that the modern Christian does not have the patience, time, or inclination to attend revival meetings. As previously stated, the subject of revival is missing from the preaching of most evangelical pastors in America. The focus has switched from revival to building the church through Church Growth methods and techniques that are seeker-friendly.

But there is another group. They are the contrite and lowly in spirit. It is to them that God said, “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” [Isaiah 57:15. NIV] [emphasis added] These Christians are in great sorrow as a result of the vapid fare that now passes for Christianity in many churches. They are distraught by the casualness and carelessness with which many Christians approach church life and the things of God. They are crushed by the reality of a spiritually bankrupted nation that is being sucked into the vortex of a moral cesspool that threatens to engulf their children, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. They are the spiritually hungry and know that God has more for them than what they are receiving from the great majority of evangelical churches today. They want more than just programs, entertainment, activities, and playing church. They hunger for more of God—a life-changing, soul-drenching deluge of the manifest presence of God. What they seek is God’s promise of revival!
______

The purpose of this book is to call the leadership of America’s evangelical churches to teach, preach, and seek revival in their churches. Lay men and women are called to pray unceasingly for a divine manifestation of God’s presence in their midst. Given the significant ignorance of revivals and matters pertaining thereto among both pastors and the laity, many aspects of revival will be examined and considered in this book. These include:

• Need for revival
• History of revivals and awakenings since the early 1700s
• Meaning of revival
• Purposes of revival
• Hindrances to revival
• Characteristics and happenings in revival
• Prerequisites for revival
• Seeking revival

______

It has been over one hundred years since the last significant revival of the American evangelical church followed by a general moral and spiritual awakening in America. The condition of the Western church is vastly more spiritually barren and destitute than any time since immediately before the Reformation. As a consequence, a large part of the American evangelical church is sick, and without a course correction very soon it may be a sickness unto death. The symptoms are many—powerlessness, apathy, worldliness, biblical ignorance, false teachers, false doctrine, rebellion, and apostasy to name just a few. Yet, the majority of its pastors and congregations are oblivious to their spiritual condition and imminent peril.

America’s only hope is the church, and the only hope for the church is revival. But before revival will come, the church must recognize its spiritual barrenness, its great need of revival, and the necessary prerequisites that make revival possible.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Revival, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1987), pp. iv-v.
[2] Ibid., p. 13.
[3] Rev. Pierre Bynum, Family Research Council Prayer Team, April 19, 2017.
http://www.frc.org/prayerteam/prayer-targets-rev-ro-roberts-the-solemn-assembly-national-day-of-prayer-may-4-2017 (accessed April 20, 2017).
[4] Lloyd-Jones, Revival, p. vi.
[5] A. W. Tozer. The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches, (Nyack, New York: Christian and Missionary Alliance, 1963), pp. 4-5.
[6] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), p. 3.
[7] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Men have forgotten God” – The Templeton Address, May 1983, The Voice Crying in the Wilderness, July 5, 2011. http://orthodoxnet.com/blog/2011/07/men-have-forgotten-god-alexander-solzhenitsyn/ (accessed October 13, 2017).
[8] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, (Arcadia, California: Focus on the Family, 1984), p. 27.
[9] Robert H. Bork,Slouching Towards Gomorrah, (New York: Regan Books, 1996), pp. 280-281.
[10] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), p. 12.
[11] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), pp. 13, 19.
[12] Bynum, Family Research Council Prayer Team, April 19, 2017.
[13] Ibid.

The post Revival – 1 – The only hope for the Church and America. first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. [2 Corinthians 6:17-18. KJV]

In the Old Testament, God’s requirement for the Israelites was separation from the people of other nations whose lifestyles and practices would influence and corrupt His chosen people. In the New Testament, God still requires His people to separate themselves from the world as we see above in 2 Corinthians 6:17-18. But New Testament commands are not for separation from nations but separation (1) from world systems (by which is meant the “beliefs, lifestyles, and God-defying ways of doing things”), (2) from those in the church who are disobedient and defiant toward God and refuse to turn from their own ways, and (3) “from false teachers, churches, or religious systems that promote ungodly beliefs and deny the truth of God’s Word as revealed in the Bible.” [1]

The books of the New Testament were written in the first century following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Soon thereafter began the Christian diaspora throughout the world. There could no longer be a physical separation of God’s people from the nations of the world. Rather, they would reside within the nations of the world. Christ addressed this new paradigm of separation in John’s gospel.

I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. [John 17:14-16. KJV]

In the New Testament model of separation, there is a dynamic tension in which the individual Christian and the church must live—being in the world but not of it. We cannot avoid this tension for it is an inherent part of every Christian’s walk and every church’s ministry. To attempt to lessen the tension is to fall into one of two ditches that parallel the narrow path. The first ditch is that of worldliness, and the second is isolation similar to the separation demanded in the Old Testament. These Christians attempt to established isolated, self-contained islands of Christianity in the midst of a hostile culture. But to do so is to disobey Christ’s command to model and share His message in our daily walk. The Christian life is a balancing act of being separate and at the same time being salt and light to the world. [See: Matthew 5:13-16.]

The Benedict Option – Neither “in” the world or “of” the world

Yet, Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option substantially follows this second path of neither being “in” the world or “of” the world. Dreher has chosen the option of building islands of Christian life (faith, family, church, work, etc.) amidst an increasingly hostile and anti-Christian culture. This is somewhat akin to the Old Testament separation model of being an island among nations. Dreher’s book makes this obvious.

Could it be that the best way to fight the flood is to…stop fighting the flood? That is, to quit piling up sandbags and to build an ark in which to shelter until the water recedes and we can put our feet on dry land again? Rather than wasting energy and resources fighting unwinnable political battles, we should instead work on building communities, institutions and networks of resistance that can outwit, outlast, and eventually overcome the occupation…In the first centuries of Christianity, the early church survived and grew under Roman persecution and later after the collapse of the empire in the West. We latter day Christians must learn from their example—and particularly from the example of Saint Benedict. [2] [emphasis added]

Dreher is not suggesting surrender to the culture but rather a strategic retreat. But the New Testament establishes different marching orders for Christ’s soldiers of the faith.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. [Ephesians 6:10-12. KJV]

“Strength, power of his might, armour, and wrestle” are words that point to the Christian’s mandate from Christ. These words are not descriptive of those Christians who choose isolation from the world in the secure confines of an ark.

Dreher is correct that Christians should “work on building communities, institutions, and networks of resistance that can outwit, outlast, and eventually overcome the occupation.” This was the example of the early church before its corruption by the dying Roman Empire. But these communities, institutions, and networks cannot be built on the foundation of Catholic monasticism and the Rule of Benedict. As we saw in Part II, monasticism was a reaction to the corruption of the early church which had been infiltrated by the Roman world system. Monasticism’s quest for renewed spirituality in the church during the Middle led to asceticism and not a return to the pure teachings of the Bible. [3] The varying degrees of corruption in the Catholic Church for over a thousand years led to the Protestant Reformation in 1517. Monasticism, asceticism, and adherence to the Rule of Benedict were not and cannot be a life preserver for a corrupt church or a substitute for the pure teachings of the Bible.

The merit of Dreher’s book is that it offers, with some modifications, several specific ways for Christians to live separated and insulated lives amid an increasingly hostile culture. The biblically literate and astute reader is left to separate those bits of wheat from the remaining tares in Dreher’s book.

Separation through isolation

A major flaw in Dreher’s book is the isolation of the Christian, his family, and close community from the surrounding worldly culture. The American fundamentalists of the early twentieth century retreated from the culture and circled their wagons after their defeat by the liberal/modernist churches to become the recognized although vapid voice of Christianity in the various spheres of American life. Just as the modernist had lost their saltiness, the fundamentalists hid their light as they abandoned the culture and its institutions. Aided by the liberal church, the forces of secularizing humanism were no longer challenged in their efforts to wreak havoc in American culture.

Dreher is recommending the same type of disengagement from the culture which is confirmed by his rhetorical question, “Could it be that the best way to fight the flood is to…stop fighting the flood? That is, to quit piling up sandbags and to build an ark in which to shelter until the water recedes and we can put our feet on dry land again?”

But this is not the message of the Bible. Near the beginning of His Sermon on the Mount, Christ instructed His disciples about their mission in a dark and desolate world.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. [Matthew 5:13-16. KJV]

When considering Christ’s instruction that the church should be salt and light to the world, His words appear to conflict with His instruction at the end of His Sermon on the Mount in which the church is commanded to walk a separate path from that of the world. [Matthew 7:13-14] Throughout its history, the church often has had difficulty with balancing these seemingly contradictory commands. The early church was no exception.

In reality, it is not a choice between the church’s separateness from a wicked world or spreading salt and light to a lost and dying world. Sin is sin in whichever camp it resides—failure to be separate or failure to be salt and light. The absence of one shall surely sound the death knell of the other. The point is that the church must declare the eternal truth of God and His relationship with man. This was done in every generation from the first century church to the present in cultures that were uniformly hostile to the message of the church. As the church becomes salt and light to the world, it must do so without mixing with world systems through accommodation and compromise.

To be clear, Christian communities, institutions, and networks must be built on separation and insulation from world systems but not isolation from the lost souls therein. The reality for Christians that choose to follow Christ’s example is that they may eventually find themselves isolated and marginalized by the world to the point of persecution and possibly death. Christians who board Benedict’s ark of isolation will not be spared by a rapacious, satanically inspired culture.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald Stamps, Commentary – Spiritual Separation for Believers, The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 2210.
[2] Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option – A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, (New York: Penguin Books, 2017), p. 12.
[3] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 92.

The post The Bible and The Benedict Option – Part III first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Monasticism

The heart of Dreher’s effort at separating the Christian life from the world rests on Catholic monasticism. Monasticism began with Antony, an Egyptian peasant, who went alone into the desert and after thirty-five years emerged as a spiritual master. Saint Athanasius immortalized Antony by writing his biography which helped spread the “monastic” or “ascetic” movement near the end of the fourth century about the time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. At this time certain ones of the church became hermits or monks and were known as the Desert Fathers.[2] These men and women sold all of their possessions and began a life of penance and prayer. Eventually, many of these monks came together in monasteries, in which each monk had his own cell, to withdraw from the world and live alone. The goal of these early monks was to “flee from a world that was wicked in order to lead a holy life.”[3]

Dreher admits that the Rule is for monasteries, but he states that its teachings can be adapted by lay Christians for use in ordering their daily lives in a way that “orders us interiorly, bringing together what is scattered within our own hearts and orienting it to prayer.” Dreher calls it “a manual of practices through which believers can structure their lives around prayer, the Word of God, and the ever-deepening awareness …” of God’s universal presence.[4] But Christians do not need the Rule of Benedict to achieve these worthy goals when they have the Word of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them in their Christian growth.

Monasticism was a reaction to the decline of the early church as it was infiltrated by the Roman world system when Christianity was legalized and eventually became the Empire’s official religion in 381. In other words, monasticism fosters a religion of works, that is, doing works for God as opposed to having a personal relationship with Him. According to church historian B. K. Kuiper,

…monasticism was based upon the recognition by the Church of a higher and a lower morality. If one wished to be a Christian in a higher sense one should become a monk or nun…This differentiation between a higher and lower morality is a false distinction…The underlying error of monasticism as a method of attaining holiness is thinking that the sinful heart is cleansed by fleeing from the world.[5]

The quest for renewed spirituality by the monastics during the Middle Ages seemed to lead to revival of religion, but it was an unhealthy revival. Monasticism’s revival led to asceticism and not a return to the pure teachings of the Bible.[6]

Asceticism

The form of monasticism which led men to separate themselves from society and become hermits living in forests and caves during the fourth century became a widely accepted practice in the Eastern Orthodox churches. In the monasticism of the Western Roman church, monks and nuns generally grouped themselves into monasteries and convents. These monks and nuns observed a variety of ascetic practices including rejection of earthly goods, frequent fasting, limiting their food and drink, and some eating nothing but bread and water. All rejected marriage. Some beat themselves with whips or scourges as a means of chastising themselves. Apart from their assigned work, they spent their time in prayer, reading religious books, and meditation. In time various monasteries formed themselves in monastic orders which several cloisters were under the rule of a common government.

According to Dreher, the vision of Benedict’s Rule is to help the Christian achieve “an ordered life centered on Christ and the practices it prescribes to deepen our conversion…”[7] [emphasis added] One of those Catholic practices to achieve the ordered life is asceticism by which is meant “taking on physical rigors for the sake of a spiritual goal…” According to Dreher, “…the life prescribed by the Rule is thoroughly ascetic…”[8] [emphasis added]

This is not a matter of earning spiritual merit. Rather, the monk knows the human heart and how its passions must be reined in through disciplined living…ascetical practices train body and soul to put God above self…A Christian who practices asceticism trains himself to say no to his desires and yes to God…

To rediscover Christian asceticism is urgent for believers who want to train their hearts, and the hearts and the hearts of their children, to resist the hedonism and consumerism at the core of contemporary culture. In the teaching of the Desert Fathers, every Christian struggles to root out all desires within their hearts that do not harmonize with God’s will.[9]

Luke’s gospel says, “And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and follow me.” [Luke 9:23. KJV] Is this biblical confirmation of the Catholic practice of asceticism? Absolutely not! Those who promote Catholic asceticism misinterpret the denial of oneself as commanded by Christ. The self-denial required by Christ is belief in the truth of His message and a commitment to follow him regardless of the cost. But asceticism’s mandate is that the Christian should purposely seek out discomfort or pain to train the body and soul to put God above self. The Apostle Paul said, “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.” [1Timothy 6:17. KJV] Often, those following the ascetic practices of self-denial do so in order to purge himself from sin or earn God’s favor, but no amount of austerity can earn salvation or obtain God’s love which He freely gives. The Christian does not live by a set of rules devised by man, be they saint or sinner, but must live by the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Asceticism is often linked with the Catholic sacrament of penance which is different from the Protestant understanding of repentance for sin. The central core of penance was the priest’s act of pardoning of sin and release from eternal punishment (absolution). There are three parts of absolution: contrition, confession to a priest, and satisfaction. Satisfaction was a penalty for sins committed, and the priest would decide the type of satisfaction required of the penitent. There were many types of satisfaction that could be imposed including the saying a prescribed number of prayers, fasting, giving alms, going on a pilgrimage to a shrine, or by participating in a crusade. Many times it involved pain.[10] Recall that the Catholic Church’s abuse of penance was the spark that led to the Protestant Reformation.

Prayer

Dreher states that to pray is to engage in contemplation. The Benedictine method of contemplative prayer is called lectio divina.

For monks, prayer is not simply words they speak. Each monk spends several hours daily doing lectio divina, a method of Scripture study that involves reading a Scripture passage, meditating on it, praying about it, and finally contemplating its meaning for the soul. The idea is not to study the Bible as a scholar would but rather to encounter it as God speaking directly to the individual…It is not just some kind of intellectual meditation.[11]

There are four stages to enter into lectio divina which “enables the Bible, as the Word of God, to become a means of union with God.”[12]

1. Reading/Listening

Lectio reading – In the Prologue to Benedict’s Rule, he states, …we must learn to be silent…to first quiet down in order to hear God’s word to us. As they read, practitioners of the art of lectio divina are encouraged to cultivate “the ability to listen deeply, to hear ‘with the ear of our hearts’…” Lectio is also reverential listening “…both in a spirit of silence and of awe…” listening for the still, small voice of God that will speak personally, quietly, and intimately to the practitioner as they “read slowly, attentively, gently listening to hear a word or phrase that is God’s word for us this day.” [emphasis added]

2. Meditation

Once the practitioner has found a word or a passage in the Scriptures which speaks to him in a personal way, he must take it in and “ruminate” on it similar to that of a cow quietly chewing its cud. Then, the practitioner must memorize it, and while gently repeating it to himself, allow it to interact with the practitioner’s thoughts, hopes, memories, and desires. Through such meditation, the practitioner supposedly allows God’s word to become His word that touches and affects the practitioner at his deepest levels. [emphasis added]

3. Prayer

The third step in lectio divina is to offer prayer which is to be both a loving conversation with God and a prayer of consecration. In this consecration-prayer, the participant allows the word that they have received and pondered to touch and change their deepest selves. At this point God invites the practitioner of lectio divina to hold up their most difficult and pain-filled experiences to Him, and to gently recite over them the healing word or phrase He has given them in their reading, listening, and meditation.

4. Contemplation

In the last stage the practitioner contemplates in wordless silence the presence of God who has used His word as a means of inviting the practitioner to accept His transforming embrace.[13]

There are various modern versions of lectio divina which have invaded many evangelical churches beginning in the 1980s. All methods of contemplative prayer including lectio divina contain various occult practices used in Eastern religions such as quietness, stillness (emptying one’s mind of thought and emotions), and repetition of sounds, words, or phrases. Proponents of such contemplative prayer describe the practice as follows:

Contemplative prayer, in its simplest form, is a prayer in which you still your thoughts and emotions and focus on God Himself. This puts you in a better state to be aware of God’s presence, and it makes you better able to hear God’s voice, correcting, guiding, and directing you.

The repetition [of a word or phrase] can in fact be soothing and very freeing, helping us…to empty out our crowded interior life and create the quiet space where we can dwell with God.[14]

Those practicing contemplative prayer are encouraged to achieve inner stillness through meditative, mantra-style practices such as taking a word or syllable and repeating it over and over. However, these contemplative prayer practices closely mimic New Age and Eastern meditation techniques and can quickly lead to putting the mind into a neutral, altered state of consciousness. Such states are an open door to all manner of evil, mystical satanic spirits.

Dreher encourages parents to teach their children scripture through the practice of lectio divina. But Christians do not need occult contemplative prayer practices in order to come into union with God. Rather, all Christians, whether young or old, can find the peace, joy, and fellowship that arise from a close personal and growing relationship with God. This occurs through an adherence to biblical practices of prayer, the reading of God’s Word with all of one’s heart and mind, and the work of the in-dwelling Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life.
______

In Part II we have discussed the errant Catholic doctrine and practices of monasticism, asceticism, and lectio divina promoted by Dreher. These are significant departures from biblical doctrines and Protestant theology. As pointed out in Part I, this is one of the great dangers of a casual reading of The Benedict Option by a vast body of biblically illiterate Christians in evangelical churches across America during the present end-times great apostasy spoken of by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 24.

In Part III, we shall conclude this series by examining some of the recommendations of Dreher that, with modification, are worthy of consideration by Christians living in a progressively hostile and anti-Christian culture.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option – A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, (New York: Penguin Books, 2017), p. 2.
[2] Alan Schreck, Ph.D., The Compact History of the Catholic Church, Revised Edition, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2009), pp. 27-28.
[3] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 45.
[4] Dreher, The Benedict Option, p. 53.
[5] Kuiper, The Church in History, pp. 93-94.
[6] Ibid., p. 92.
[7] Dreher, The Benedict Option, p.54.
[8] Ibid., p. 63.
[9] Ibid., pp. 63-64.
[10] Kuiper, The Church in History, p. 158.
[11] Dreher, The Benedict Option, pp. 58-59
[12] “Lectio Divina: Pray-Read Scripture,” http://www.prayerfoundation.org/lectio_divina.htm (accessed August 11, 2017).
[13] Ibid.
[14] LT Editors, “What your church needs to know before doing a Priscilla Shirer Study,” Lighthouse Trails Research Journal, Vol. 5-No. 4, (July-August 2017), 8-9.

The post The Bible and The Benedict Option – Part II first appeared on Culture Warrior.

Reverend Moore may be correct in his assessment that there are nuggets of wisdom that may be gleaned from Dreher’s book. But Moore’s encouragement for Christians to read Dreher’s book ignores two significant dangers for the typical modern evangelical Christian. The first is the pandemic biblical illiteracy of the evangelical church in America and the remainder of Western civilization. Some have said that the knowledge of the Bible across the Christian world is the lowest since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation five hundred years ago. The second danger is apostasy. The liberal church had become fully apostate by the 1930s, and much of the leadership of many of the once conservative evangelical churches had traveled far down the road to apostasy by the end of the twentieth century. Considering what has happened over the last two hundred years in Europe and America, Kevin Swanson called this period “the most significant Christian apostasy of all time. As measured by sheer numbers, there is no other apostasy so extensive in recorded history.”[3]

Because of these twin dangers, the average Christian is ill prepared to be able to separate the warnings and habits the evangelical Christian ought to heed and practice from the deceptive and seductive charms of false doctrines of the Catholic Church. Here we are reminded of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares found in Matthew 13:24-30. Dreher’s book does contain wheat but also many tares. It is the purpose of this article to examine the propositions and recommendations of Dreher and make that separation, that is, to separate the wheat from the tares.

Dreher makes powerful and discerning arguments that unmask the great secularization of culture and the weakened condition of the church in our time. He also laments that the churches—Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox—are largely ineffective in stemming the forces of cultural decline and have become “content to be the chaplaincy to a consumerist culture that was fast losing a sense of what it meant to be Christian.”[4] There can be little argument with these statements.

In the first part of his book, Dreher defines the challenges facing post-modern Christian America. Many of his observations are devastatingly clear presentations of the signs of the times.

The storm clouds have been gathering for decades, but most of us believers have operated under the illusion that they would blow over…Today we see that we’ve lost on every front and that the swift and relentless currents of secularism have overwhelmed our flimsy barriers…We tell ourselves that these developments have been imposed by a liberal elite, because we find the truth intolerable: The American people, either actively or passively, approve.[5]

If demographic trends continue, our churches will soon be empty. Even more troubling, many of the churches that do stay open will have been hollowed out by a sneaky kind of secularism to the point where “Christianity” taught there is devoid of power and life.[6]

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD)…is colonizing existing Christian Churches, destroying biblical Christianity from within, and replacing it with a pseudo-Christianity that is “only tenuously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition.”…it’s most about improving one’s self-esteem and subjective happiness and getting along well with others. It has little to do with the Christianity of scripture and tradition, which teaches repentance, self-sacrificial love, and purity of heart, and commends suffering—the Way of the Cross—as the pathway to God. Thought superficially Christian, MTD is the natural religion of a culture that worships the Self and material comfort.[7]

We cannot give the world what we do not have. If the ancient Hebrews had been assimilated by the culture of Babylon, it would have ceased being a light to the world. So it is with the church.

Just as God used chastisement in the Old Testament to call His people back to Himself, so He may be delivering a like judgement onto a church and a people grown cold from selfishness, hedonism, and materialism. The coming storm may be the means through which God delivers us.[8]

Dreher correctly identifies much of what ails the Christian world in the West. But his solutions involve an undeniably Catholic prescription centered on Catholic doctrine and practices which are to be applied to all of Christianity. This prescription recommends and incorporates the Christian virtues found in a sixth century monastic guidebook, Rule of Saint Benedict, which he claims played a significant role in preserving Christian culture during the Dark Ages.

In the second part of his book, Dreher presents this guidebook as having answers that can be adapted and applied to the lives of modern Christian conservatives of all churches and confessions with regard to politics, faith, family, community, education, and work. In the last two chapters before his conclusion, Dreher addresses the calamitous impact of modernity’s powerful tsunami of sex and technology that has devastated the modern Western church.[9]

The Benedict Option

In a previous book written by Dreher, he quotes philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre who believed that Western civilization had lost its moorings and eventually would require that continued Christian participation in a hostile secular culture would not be possible and would require that they find new ways to live in community. Dreher labeled MacIntyre’s strategic withdrawal from such a hostile culture “the Benedict Option.”[10]

The idea is that serious Christian conservatives could no longer live business-as-usual lives in America, that we have to develop creative, communal solutions to help us hold on to our faith and our values in a world growing ever more hostile to them. We have to choose to make a decisive leap into a truly countercultural way of living Christianity, or we would doom our children and our children’s children to assimilation.[11]

Benedict was the son of the governor of Nursia, a rugged village in central Italy’s Sibylline Mountains. At the beginning of the sixth century, Benedict was a young man and left his village to complete his education in Rome. Ninety years earlier, the Visigoths sacked Rome and only 24 years earlier the barbarians had deposed the last Roman emperor in the West. The barbarian-ruled Rome had become a city of decadence, vice, and corruption which shocked the young Benedict. As a result, he turned his back on his life of privilege and retreated to a cave forty miles east of Rome. There he lived life as a hermit devoting himself to prayer and contemplation. After three years he was invited to become the abbot of a monastic community. He would later found twelve monasteries of his own in the region.[12]

Benedict wrote a small guidebook for laymen, later known as Rule of Saint Benedict, a practical guide for monks and nuns to lead an orderly and simple life consecrated to Christ.[13] Benedict’s little book provided a detailed set of instructions for organizing and governing a monastic community that lives in poverty and chastity which is common to all monastic orders. However, Benedict’s Rule added three distinct vows: “obedience, stability (fidelity to the same monastic community until death), and conversion of life, which meant dedicating oneself to the lifelong work of deepening repentance.” The Rule provides for division of the day into periods devoted to “prayer, work, and reading of scripture and other sacred texts.”[14]

Dreher says that although Benedict’s Rule is for monastics, its teachings are plain and therefore understandable by lay Christians. “It provides a guide to serious and sustained Christian living in a fashion that reorders us interiorly, bringing together what is scattered within our hears and orienting it to prayer.” Dreher believes that such actions Christians can build lives that stand “as an island of sanctity and stability amid the high tide of liquid modernity…a way to be strong in faith through a time of great testing.”[15]

There is a measure of beneficial wheat in Dreher’s book, but for the Protestant, the indiscriminate implementation of The Benedict Option brings with it many Catholic tares, both in doctrines and practices. We shall examine both the wheat and tares of The Benedict Option in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson
The Bible and The Benedict Option – Part I
Sources:

[1] Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option – A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, (New York: Penguin Books, 2017).
[2] Ibid., dust jacket.
[3] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 19.
[4] Dreher, The Benedict Option, pp. 1-2.
[5] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[6] Ibid., p. 10.
[7] Ibid., pp. 10-11.
[8] Ibid., p. 19.
[9] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Ibid., p. 2.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., pp. 12-14.
[13] Ibid., p. 15.
[14] Ibid., pp. 50-51.
[15] Ibid., pp. 53-54.

The post The Bible and The Benedict Option – Part I first appeared on Culture Warrior.