Schuller Planted, Hybels Watered,
By Orrel Steinkamp, The Plumbline, Volume 10, No. 3, November/December 2005
The above
parody of Paul's words: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the
increase." (1 Cor. 3:6) is an attempt to show the linkage and progression
of the Church Growth and Seeker Sensitive model of ministry in America. The Evangelical, some liberal Protestant,
some Roman Catholic churches and even a few Jewish synagogues have come to rely
on these method driven paradigms to attaint numerical success. For some years
now evangelicals have been flexing their muscles and learning how to mix it up
politically, relying on their patrons in Washington to attempt to change the
culture. This obviously is very ego inflating, but all this belies the fact
that pastors and leaders, desperate to increase their numbers and thus validate
their ministries have with the best of intentions altered the focus of the
Gospel.
The facts,
however, suggest to discerning observers like David Wells and others, that like
the church in Laodicea, organized evangelicalism says "I am rich, I
have prospered … etc" but actually they are really "poor,
blind and naked." Presently evangelicalism is rarely attacked from the
outside, for it has curried many friends in the world. But internally it is
laced with widening fissures that will surely produce further fragmentation.
This frenzy to grow in numbers and cultural influence has fostered a reliance
on a pragmatic methodology that the church has never before known. How did we
get here? It's a long trail, but the Schuller, Hybels and Warren nexus is what
is currently driving things in that direction. Church Growth is obviously a
worthy goal, but it must be pursued with absolute reliance on Jesus the Head of
the church and the guidance of His word. Conversely, direct borrowing from
current marketing gurus suggests loud and clear that the church has decided
that reliance on Jesus, the faithful announcing of His word, the working of His
Spirit and prayer just doesn't work anymore in the postmodern competitive environment. Hence, there has developed a perceived need
to shift dependence to methods and techniques that have their source in the
culture, borrowed from sources that have no Christian worldview. Gone are the
days of expository preaching, praying, fasting etc. etc. and a looking to God
to give the increase. It all relates to “reliance". What do we think will
give the increase? Obviously, the church will use the tools of the culture. We
all know that computers, overheads, etc. etc. are neutral. You can use a
hatchet to destroy a tree or pound a tent stake. But in the work of the Gospel
we should not place our reliance on physical tools and principles.
("not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord"). The
problem is not in the physical tools of the culture. Rather it is reliance on
ideologies, marketing schemes. Even though it is vehemently denied, ultimately,
our dependence is placed schemes and paradigms to give us the increase.
Well-intentioned people depend on the well-oiled chariots of Egypt rather than
wait upon the Lord to confirm the truth of His word. Observably, our trust has
shifted to imported marketing and psychological therapies abounding in the
society. But when these models become
what we rely upon, the focus gradually and sometimes imperceptivity shifts to
these imported methods rather than the "Word of the Lord."
Schuller
pioneered the adaptation of Church Growth Principles and societal
contexualization from the foreign mission context of McGavren/C. Peter Wagner as taught at Fuller’s "School
of World Mission." He adapted these growth principles to his own theology
of self-esteem and fashioned a gospel presentation to lure southern
Californians into his church. He then taught this model yearly at the Crystal
Cathedral pastors' conferences. Among his most famous students were first Bill
Hybels and then Rick Warren. Schuller's creation of the Church Growth model for
America was clearly a theological departure from historic evangelical doctrine.
He off-loaded the doctrine of sin in order to make room for a self-esteem
gospel. Hybels and significantly Warren did not publicly and officially
off-load theology. Rather they
marginalized doctrine. They maintained an orthodox position for the record but
it was put on ice in favor of personal fulfillment sermons, (posted on line for
pastors to replicate to their congregations) and designed for a post-modern
audience. For example the doctrine of the cross is accepted, but is then
referred to only in passing and placed on the periphery. In practice their
preaching is very similar to Schuller, but care is given to keep an acceptable
doctrinal statement on reserve like a spare tire lest the seeker friendly
message is challenged.
But all of this concern is overshadowed by
the apparent reliance and dependence upon imported sociological,
marketing/business
and therapeutical models which then displace a robust reliance on
the teaching and preaching of the Gospel and reliance
upon the work of the Spirit. The method (medium) has become the message. In
actual practice the mission statement replaces the word of God. God is not
relied upon and is relegated to a spectator who is given a box seat to watch
the church apply pragmatic schemes from the culture on His behalf. Martin
Luther used a brilliant illustration that is pertinent to this discussion. He
referred to a tuning fork used to arrive at middle C on a harpsichord from
which all the other notes were based. For Luther, the two vibrating prongs of
the tuning fork were the Word and the Spirit. The Word and the Spirit resonated
together to produce a spiritual middle C from which all other spiritual notes
agreed. Seeker-Sensitive enthusiasts have apparently changed the two prongs to
cultural strategies on the one hand, and the churches ability to process them
into numerical success on the other.
Paul in his
letter to the Romans announced that he is "not ashamed of the Gospel, for IT
is the power of God unto salvation." (Romans 1: 16a)
Paul also
reminds Timothy that the word of God is "profitable for doctrine for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that
the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV).
Bible-Believing
Liberals
by Todd Wilken
"When a
thing grows weak and out of date, it is obviously soon going to disappear. That's also true of churches. If a church
cannot change, it will eventually die." (Rick Warren, Baptist Press, Sept. 22, 2003)
"Clearly
change in both liturgy and structure is inevitable, and this change will
probably be radical, if not total... the forms the Church assumed in the past
inevitably must die." [John Shelby
Spong, Why Christians must Change or Die, Harper, 199g, p.198]
One of these
statements comes from a famous Christian liberal; the other comes from a famous
Christian conservative... which statement belongs to the conservative and which
belongs to the liberal?
You can't tell, can you?
How can this be? One is against abortion, human cloning, embryonic
stemcell research and gay marriage and against removing the words, "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from
the currency. The other is in favor of all these things. One calls himself
"Bible-believing." The other thinks the Bible is a myth. Yet both say
that the church must change or die. Full-blown liberal Christians are easy to
spot. They will tell you up front that they don't believe what the Bible says.
But what about liberals who think that they are conservative? What about the
liberals who claim to be Bible- believing Christians?
Many Christians today think of themselves as conservative. They are
pro-life, pro-family. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They watch
FOX News. They vote traditional values.
For the bible-believing liberal the difference between political parties
is serious, but the differences between denominations are petty. While they
insist on a strict literal interpretation of US constitution, they play fast and
loose with the Bible and its theology.
But can you be political, socially and morally conservative without
being theologically conservative? Oh' yes you can. Meet the Bible-believing
liberals. While they believe that the culture needs to return to its historic
tradition, they think the Church needs to abandon hers. While maintaining that
the flag should be proudly displayed, they fear that a cross in church might
offend seekers...
A Contradiction
in Terms
Now, I know
what you're thinking. "Bible-believing liberal” is an oxymoron, right? You
can't be truly Bible-believing and be liberal at the same time. THAT is the
point. You see, many Christians think of themselves as conservative Christians.
But they have confused cultural conservatism with theological conservatism. Theologically these Bible-believing
Christians have a lot in common with liberals... Yes, they [Bible-believing
liberals] still affirm the divine revelation of the Bible in principle. But …
they have adopted the liberals way of thinking.
The fact that
so many otherwise "conservative" Christians fail to see the
similarity between themselves and liberals is remarkable. The fact that so many
Bible-believing liberals fail to see the disparity between their cultural
beliefs and their theological beliefs is astonishing.
"While
evangelicals and other conservative Protestants hold to a high doctrine of
scripture in principle, the last two decades have especially seen a growing
disregard for making their sermons expositions of Scripture; rather, it's often
the case that the Bible is used as a sourcebook of quotations for what we
really want to say." (Horton,
A Better Way, Baker, 2002 p.218)
You see, you
can affirm Scripture's authority in principle even while denying it in
practice. Bible-believing liberals aren't liberal in what the say about the
Bible, Bible-believing liberals are liberal in how they use the Bible...
Doctrinal
Minimalism and Meiderlin's Maxim
"In all
things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity."
This is a truism for many Christians today. It is often attributed to Saint
Augustine. But Augustine never said it. In truth this saying's origins are more
recent in early German liberalism. The real author of this sentiment was a 17th century Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin. Meiderlin was disturbed by the
doctrinal debates taking place and thought that insistence on doctrinal purity
was satanic. Meiderlin counseled a
minimalist approach to doctrine: "In a word, were we to observe unity in
essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs
would be certainly in a most happy situation." Liberal Christians have
taken Meiderlin's maxim to heart. But so have many Bible-believing Christians.
When it comes to doctrine, they don't sweat the details. And, just like
liberals, when Bible-believing Christians talk about "unity in
essentials" it isn't altogether clear what those "essentials"
are. Bishop T.D. Jakes was the keynote speaker for the Willow Creek's August
2004 Leadership Summit. Jakes is a best selling author, a megachurch pastor and
a popular televangelist. The only problem is, Jakes denies the biblical
doctrine of the trinity. Is the Trinity "essential" or
"incidental" at Willow Creek? To be sure, Willow Creek affirms the Trinity
in its public statement. But remember, what Bible- believing liberals affirm in
principle, they often deny in practice. (Rick)Warren downplays "supposed
theological conflicts" between
Christians. He sees them as a product of our limited knowledge of God. He
dismisses such differences by appealing to how "awesome" God is:
"On
earth we "see through a glass darkly"- so we all need a large dose of
humility in dealing with our differences. God's ways are awesome and far beyond
human capabilities. He has no problem reconciling the supposed theological
conflicts that we debate when ideas don fit neatly into our logical rational
Systems." (Rick Warren, Purpose-Driven
Preaching, Preaching, Sept. 2001)
This sounds
broadminded but it is really [inadequate]. Can God reconcile a theology that
says man is totally depraved with one that says he isn't? [i.e. Schuller]. Can
God reconcile a theology that teaches faith alone with one that teaches faith
and works? [Roman Catholicism]...
Don Matzat
summed up the doctrinal minimalism of Bible-believing liberals well:
"Successful
evangelical pastors like Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller are really no
different than the successful modern liberal clergy, like Sloan Coffin and
Harry Emerson Fosdick. While Coffin and Fosdick built their congregations by
appealing to human reason, Hybels and Schuller "grow a church" by
appealing to the feelings [felt needs] and experiences of people. While the
classic liberal pastor questioned on the basis of reason the truth of
traditional Christian doctrine, the postmodern pastor ignores doctrine and
focuses on methods which produce success." (Matzat, The New Liberals, Issues and Etc. Vol.3 #2, 1998)
The Mission
Justifies the Means
In 2004 Pastor
James Perry made an impassioned plea to his church:
"What
would it be like if we had a moratorium on issues that divide us, and spent all our time and energy focusing on reaching
out to those in our world who feel like outcasts, and share God's love with
them? It is my hope that we will be more concerned about extending God's grace
than getting it right." (Proceedings
of the General Council, UMC, Dailing Editions, Vol. 4, #6)
Was Perry
arguing for more evangelism? Was Perry pleading for greater mission efforts?
Not really. Perry was speaking at the 2004 General Conference of the United
Methodist Church in Pittsburgh, arguing for the full inclusion of active
homosexuals in the church... Mike Horton describes this mindset well:
"Increasingly
we hear that what unites us is mission, not theology. Doctrinal diversity is
encouraged, as long as we can all agree on the mission and its methods… (Horton, A Better Way, p.215)
George Barna
likewise urges the Church:
"It is
critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principal of communication: the
audience, not the message, is soveregn .... our message has to be
adapted to the needs of the audience"... (G. Barna, Marketing the Church, NavPress, 1998, p.145)
C. Peter
Wagner agrees:
"...We
ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else possible
could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am
aiming at it is for that reason a good method..." (Wagner, Your Church Con Grow, Regal
Books, 1976, p.137)
"God Loves
You" - A Gospel without Sin
John Shelby
Spong, perhaps the most liberal Christian alive today, writes:
"The
language of sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for so long
that it has achieved the status of sacred mantra... Yet upon close inspection,
these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is no longer
operative." (Spong, Why Churches Must
Change, p.44)
John Osteen, a
"Bible-believing Christian and pastor of the largest mega-church in
America says [nearly] the same thing in simpler language:
"We've
heard a lot about the judgment of God and what we can't do and what's going to
keep us out of heaven. But it is time people start hearing about the
goodness of God, about a God that loves them. A God that believes in them. A
God that wants to help them."
(Joel Osteen, Your Best Life
Now, 2004, p.57)
And why does
the perfect and holy God love us with all our faults and weaknesses? Is it
because Jesus lived a perfect life and died a perfect death in our place?
… No! [apparently not).
Apparently for
Joel Osteen, sin is simply not a problem to God, or for us. Bill Hybels, on the
other hand, certainly believes that sin is a problem. But what Bible-believing
liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice. When an internal
survey of Willow Creek members revealed that "large percentages of singles"
(25% of singles, 38% of single parents, and 41% of divorced individuals)
admitted having illicit sexual relations in the last six months, Hybels failed
to focus on the seriousness of sin:
"Hybels
did not call the congregation to repent for their rebellion against a holy God.
Instead he emphasized God's compassionate love: 'We are a love-starved people,
with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only he can give
long-term..." (Prichard,
Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996)
Yes, the members
in the survey certainly have been "love-starved people, with broken
hearts... All this is true, of course, but it's not the whole truth. What's
missing? Is this gospel? We are
presented as unsatisfied, unable, needy restless, longing, wounded and fearful
but not sinful. This is a gospel without sin. A gospel without sin satisfies
sinners, but doesn't save them. A gospel without sin requires a Jesus who is
merely sympathetic, not our substitute at the Cross. A gospel without sin is a
gospel wherein Christ crucified is unnecessary. John Spong realizes this; he
has done away with the cross.
"God loves you"
isn't the Gospel. The world is full of unbelievers who firmly believe God loves
them. Prichard writes in his study of Willow Creek,
"all
the seekers or weekend attenders I interviewed were convinced that God loves
them. They held this belief before coming to Willow Creek."(Prichard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker, 1996, 2002, p.264)
"God
loves you" will not do. What unbelievers need to know is how God
loves them:
"This
is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and ouly Son into the
world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we love God, but
that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for
our sins. (1 John 4:9-l0)
We have heard
liberals say it for years: "The Church must change or die. The culture
calls the shots. We must re-read the Bible to fit the culture. When it comes to
doctrine, don’t sweat the details. Our
differences don't matter anyway. After all, doctrine divides; it is the mission
[statement] that really unites us. And when it comes to that mission, we are
justified in using means we deem necessary. Remember, people just need to know
that God loves them. Now we're hearing Bible-believing Christians saying the
very same things.
The old-line
liberals consider the Gospel irrational:
Bible-believing liberals consider it irrelevant. The old-line liberals
criticized the Gospel. Bible-believing liberals are trying to give it a makeover.
The old-line liberals tried to deconstruct the Gospel; Bible-believing liberals
are trying to re-invent it...
Do
Bible-believing liberals realize how liberal they really are? No. Are they well
intentioned? Certainly! But some of the old- line liberals were well
intentioned too...
When the
Church follows the advice of liberals - Bible-believing or otherwise - the
Gospel message suffers. When liberals -
bible-believing or otherwise - have their way, the cross ends up obscured.
When the cross is obscured sinners go unsaved.
---
The Plumbline
74425 Co. Rd. 21
Renville, MN. 56284
Telephone: 320 329
3874
Email: orrelsteinkamp@hotmail.com