Rick Warren is a fourth-generation preacher. His great-grandfather came to Christ in Charles Spurgeon’s church in England. Following training in Spurgeon’s college, Spurgeon sent him to America to become a circuit-riding preacher. Warren’s father was a lay-preacher who specialized in planting and (literally) building churches. Born in 1954, Warren spent most of his growing-up years in Redwood Valley, California, where during his teenage years aspired to be a guitar-playing rock star. While working at a Christian summer camp in 1970 just before beginning his junior year in high school, Warren began thinking that perhaps God wanted him to be a preacher. In 1972 he entered California Baptist University in Riverside and held many revivals and crusades throughout California during his college years.[1]

In 1973 Warren traveled to San Francisco to hear W. A. Criswell speak at a conference. Criswell was the pastor at the First Baptist Church of Dallas which at that time was the largest Baptist Church in the world. Warren met Criswell and cherishes the memory of his laying hands on Warren and praying that God would bless him.[2]

Warren married Kay Lewis in 1975, and upon graduation together in 1977, they moved to Fort Worth, Texas, to attend Southwestern Theological Seminary where he earned a doctorate in December 1979. During the summer before his final classes were to be completed in December, they had decided to plant a new church in California. They left Texas and arrived in Orange County’s Saddleback Valley on January 2, 1980.[3]

Robert Schuller and Rick Warren

Before their move, Rick and Kay Warren made one other trip to California in 1979 to attend one of Robert Schuller’s Institute for Church Growth seminars. Before going, Kay Warren was skeptical about Schuller’s non-traditional approach to ministry. But after arriving, she stated that Schuller won them over. “He (Schuller) had a profound influence on Rick. We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back.”[4] In later years Warren claimed the so-called “profound influence” referred only to Schuller’s creative ways in building a nontraditional church and some of Schuller’s statements about the unchurched. Warren repeatedly denies that the “profound influence” included being influenced by Schuller’s doctrinal teachings. Warren admits that he spoke at Schuller’s Institute three times. The first was to give his testimony in 1984/1985. The next two engagements dealt with church growth, but Warren stresses that he did not preach nor speak at any of the Crystal Cathedral’s weekend services. But in 1991 at the invitation of Schuller, the Warrens gave their testimony at a Sunday morning service at the Cathedral.[5]

Schuller and Warren would have other contacts over the years. In 1991, Schuller birthed the idea and helped found a coalition of major Protestant churches to provide food for the Russian people living in near-famine conditions. Schuller’s idea became the Churches United in Global Mission (CUGM) which sent eleven thousand food packages to Moscow which was followed by a second shipment in March 1992.[6] Warren served on the CUGM Council along with many other prominent church leaders.

In 1995, Schuller wrote a laudatory endorsement of The Purpose Driven Church.

I’m praying that every pastor will read this book, believe it, be prepared to stand corrected by it, and change to match its sound, scriptural wisdom. Rick Warren is one all of us should listen to and learn from.[7]

Warren breaks with Schuller

Warren’s biographer claimed that Schuller had always been supportive of Warren and that the mutual respect that each man had for the other was exhibited through numerous friendly conversations and expressions of best wishes. But on Warren’s side of the relationship, something happened to sour the friendship between Schuller’s 1995 endorsement and Warren’s open break with Schuller in 1998. Warren’s biographer described Warren’s professed reason for the break.

But by the late 1990s, Warren had begun to notice that something was amiss at Schuller’s church. As he told me, “I got a bunch of information about him, and then I also started seeing him have all kinds of nonbelievers speaking at this church.” Then, Schuller had bestselling author Stephen Covey—a Mormon—speak at his church. This shocked Warren: “I thought, This isn’t right. How am I supposed to explain to all the ex-Mormons in my congregation why in the world Schuller has a Mormon up there talking?”[8] [emphasis in original]

The 1998 break with Schuller began with Warren’s resignation from the CUGM Council. “I must resign from the CUGM Council, I am afraid that the Crystal Cathedral’s ministry is going in a very different direction than Saddleback Church”[9]

When the break came, it had been nineteen years since Warren first attended Schuller’s church growth conference in 1979. Warren had spoken at three subsequent conferences and at the Crystal Cathedral in 1991. He also served on Schuller’s CUGM Council until 1998. Warren claims that the break with Schuller occurred because he had been noticing something “amiss” at Schuller’s church, had gotten “a bunch of information” about Schuller, started seeing many non-believers speaking at his church, and finally was “shocked” to find a Mormon had spoken at Schuller’s church. Had Schuller’s doctrines, actions, and church really changed that much and had “gone in a different direction than Saddleback Church” in a short span of time between the book endorsement in 1995 and the break 1998? Either Schuller had made a remarkably fast divergence from what Warren viewed as sound doctrine or Rick Warren was exceedingly disingenuous in denying that he had an earlier understanding of Schuller’s suspect theology. In either case, Warren was guilty of being incredibly naïve or lacking in even the smallest degree of spiritual discernment as to Schuller’s doctrinal positions given their long friendship and interaction. This raises the question as to the real reason for the 1998 break.

Schuller’s connections with various New Age spokesmen and promoters were well known before the 1980s and prior to Warren’s 1979 attendance at Schuller’s Church Growth school. One example was Schuller’s widely known and publicized association with prominent psychiatrist Gerald Jampolsky, a well-known teacher and practitioner of the New Age based “A Course in Miracles.” Jampolsky appeared on Schuller’s Hour of Power television broadcast on several occasions where Schuller introduced him as a fellow Christian. Jampolsky claims that his own spiritual awakening came as the result of an encounter with Indian guru Swami Baba Muktananda.[10] It is undeniable that the foundational teachings of “A Course on Miracles” are New Age and pantheistic in origin.

• The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.
• When God Created you He made you part of Him.
• There is no sin; it has no consequence.
• For Christ takes many forms with different names until their oneness can be recognized.
• The journey to the cross should be the last “useless” journey.[11]

In his 1982 book, Self Esteem-The New Reformation, Schuller praised Jampolsky for his “profound theology.”

I am indebted to Dr. Gerald Jampolsky, a guest on our “Hour of Power,” for helping me to see what is not only great psychology, but is profound theology. Obviously, there can be no conflict in truth—when psychology is “right on” and theology is “right on,” there will be harmony and both shall be led to higher levels of enlightenment.[12]

Also obvious is that Schuller had no problems with Jampolsky’s “A Course in Miracles” theology and its New Age-pantheistic teachings. In 1985, “A Course in Miracles” study groups were meeting in Crystal Cathedral classrooms at the same time as evangelical ministers were being taught the principles of Church Growth at Schuller’s Institute for Successful Church Leadership. It also must be remembered that Warren was first invited to speak at the Institute in 1984/1985.[13] Schuller’s involvement with Jampolsky and his New Age beliefs was a long and public association covering a quarter of a century from his first appearance on the Hour of Power before 1982 to after an appearance on October 2004.[14]

A second example of Schuller’s involvement with New Age teachers is his connection with well-known surgeon Bernie Siegel who worked with the terminally ill. In Love, Medicine, and Miracles, Siegel wrote that he had an “inner guide” named George who helped him with his work. George was a bearded, long-haired young man who Siegel claims to have met while in a session of directed meditation. Siegel was on the board of Jampolsky’s Attitudinal Healing Centers and had endorsed “A Course in Miracles.” The opening page of Schuller’s 1995 Prayer: My Soul’s Adventure With God included Siegel’s warm endorsement of the book which Siegel said “…reaches beyond religion and information to what we all need—spirituality, inspiration, and understanding.” Writing in The Purpose Driven Life in 2002, Warren also quoted and praised Siegel as “one who has found the true purpose of life.”[15]

The Ken Blanchard Episode

Rick Warren also had his own entanglements with New Age advocates. One such occurred in 2003 when Warren introduced his 5-step-Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan in which Saddleback Church would focus on “…bringing a blessing to the entire world” through Planting churches, Equipping Leaders, Assisting the poor, Curing the sick, Educating the next generation.[16] To accomplish the “E” or equipping leaders step, Warren solicited help from two well-known authors, one of whom was Ken Blanchard, famous author of The One Minute Manager and founder of Lead Like Jesus. According to Warren, Blanchard would be “helping train us in leadership and how to train others to be leaders all around the world.” Warren called Blanchard a fellow Christian, and Blanchard himself pointed to people like Norman Vincent Peale and Bill Hybels who were instrumental in helping him turn his life over to the Lord in 1987-1988.[17]

But something Warren did not tell his congregation was that Blanchard was undeniably a New Age sympathizer and had endorsed and written the forewards to many New Age books in the years following the claimed turning of his life over to the Lord. As the P.E.A.C.E. Plan was being implemented and publicized over the next two years, Blanchard’s involvement as Warren’s go-to guy for training leaders became more widely known and some in the evangelical community began questioning Warren’s involvement with Blanchard and his New Age leanings.[18] Even after being publicly made aware of Blanchard’s New Age beliefs and endorsements, Warren attempted to separate Blanchard’s past from his current efforts on behalf of Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. Plan.

Ken is a new believer—a new creature in Christ. He should not be held accountable for statements or endorsements he made before he became a Christian. And he’s just learning now.[19]

Warren’s defense contradicts Blanchard’s own statements that were known to Warren. Two weeks after Warren had introduced his plan to the Saddleback congregation in November 2003, he appeared with Blanchard at a Lead Like Jesus celebration and listened as Blanchard described how he became a Christian fifteen years earlier.[20]

In 1998, Warren had sought to distance himself and the Purpose Driven movement from Schuller and his obvious connections to the New Age. Now, through Warren’s own decisions and efforts to advance his P.E.A.C.E. Plan, he had once again linked the Purpose Driven movement with New Age leaders and their doctrines just as Schuller had done throughout his ministry. Schuller remained unapologetic and true to his beliefs. However, for Warren it was imperative that his claimed evangelical and doctrinal credentials remain spotless and not thought of as compromising the message and mission of the church.

Before The Purpose Driven Church exploded in popularity following its publication in 1995, Rick Warren was just another Church Growth guy who had been successful at building a mega church. But now he ascended to a new level and became the mega-star spokesman for the Church Growth movement. His every word and action would be open to scrutiny. Within three years after his book’s publication, it becomes apparent that Warren’s long association with Schuller and his blatant New Age beliefs and doctrines would damage Warren and the Purpose Driven movement. Thereafter, he sought to distant himself from Schuller.

Five years later Warren’s association with Ken Blanchard was but one of a series of events and issues that called attention to a much larger threat to his Purpose Driven empire. These events were being described in several books published in 2004-2005 which forcefully and accurately described the Purpose Driven movement’s connection with the New Age. Not all of the books were critical of Warren and the Purpose Driven movement.

The Most Inspiring Pastor of Our Time

There are many stories of famous people who have had their portraits painted but wish to destroy the finished canvas because it reveals something beyond the outward likeness. Even if the likeness is astonishingly accurate, the sum total of the painter’s efforts, unconsciously perhaps, may reveal an unflattering characteristic or nature of the subject.

As an author, George Mair had this same experience but in book form. Mair is an author of numerous books, a syndicated newspaper columnist, radio talk show host, and broadcaster. While attending Saddleback Church for over two years, he wrote a highly flattering biography published in 2005 and titled A Life With Purpose – Reverend Rick Warren – The Most Inspiring Pastor of Our Time. Good biographers attempt to give perspective by placing the life of the subject in the flow of events, interaction with his contemporaries, and amidst the history of the times. Mair did this in his biography of Warren by talking about the church in America, the Church Growth movement, the influences of Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller, the New Paradigm Church, and modern religion in America.[21] Upon completion and before the book went to press, Mair claims to have contacted Saddleback’s “chief attorney.” Mair stated that he had wanted the manuscript to be made available to Warren for review. After waiting several months and receiving no response from the attorney, the book was published by Berkeley Books, a subsidiary of the Penguin Group.[22]

Shortly after Mair’s book was released, Lighthouse Trails Press picked up on the association of Warren with Ken Blanchard. On April 19th 2005, Lighthouse Trails issued a press release that raised serious questions about the wisdom of Warren’s association with Ken Blanchard and its New Age implications. On May 31, Warren emailed Lighthouse Trails and expressed his great displeasure with their April 19th email in particular and George Mair and his book in general.[23] Within a few hours, Richard Abanes, Warren’s soon-to-be new biographer and apologist, had posted Warren’s email on the Internet. What followed was a campaign by Warren and his associates to discredit his critics, and George Mair became the target of the massive Purpose Driven forces. Although Mair had attended Saddleback for two years, Warren’s now public email was a surprising and brutal blow to Mair.

George Mair, an unbeliever, evidently wanted to make a quick buck turning out a book on me, at the peak of the popularity of The Purpose Driven Life…Since he is not even born again, he certainly wouldn’t understand theology, what I believe, or even the basics of our ministry.[24]

Warren’s critics answered

Immediately, Warren turned to a former staff member of his church to write a book addressing the claims of his critics. The small 142-page Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him – An Insider Looks at the Phenomenal Bestseller was written by Richard Abanes and published before the end of the year. In reality, the book was not about Warren’s best sellers but a defense of Warren and the Purpose Driven movement as shown by the single endorsement at the front of the book.

Abanes has done a great service by setting the record straight on Rick Warren and Saddleback. Warren has a strong commitment to the core doctrines of the Christian faith and an unmistakable passion for reaching the lost, equipping pastors, and strengthening local churches. “Purpose-driven” is not New Age, it’s New Testament.” James K. Walker, President, Watchman Fellowship, Inc.[25]

In his 1998, Warren supposedly learned a “bunch of information” about his long-time friend and who had been having a number of non-Christians speak at his church. Nothing was said about the New Age influences that had been evident for many years. However, the endorsement on the very first page of Abanes’ book revealed the real reason for Warren’s break with Schuller—fear that the Purpose Driven message would be associated with Schuller’s strong links to the New Age. But by 2005, those New Age influences on the doctrines and methods of the Purpose Driven movement could no longer be hidden as several books were published which documented those New Age associations.

The concerns about the teachings of the Purpose Driven movement extend far beyond infiltration of New Age and Eastern religions’ teachings and practices into evangelical churches. But the greatest threat remains the influence of the Purpose Driven movement’s humanistic worldviews on the leadership of many evangelical churches in America.
______

In Chapter 3, it was noted that the enormous importance of doctrine (dogma, creed, belief, principles, and teachings) can be seen throughout the 2000 year history of the Christian church. Warren also recognizes the importance of doctrine as he keeps reminding us of his reverence for the unchanging doctrines of the Christian faith. However, Warren is highly sensitive and resentful when there is a thoughtful examination, comparison, or criticism of the teachings and methods of The Purpose Driven Church, and he and his defenders are prone to attack the character and Christianity of professed fellow Christians who attempt to do so. This is not a biblical approach because the scripture tells us that we should compare spiritual things with spiritual things [See: 1 Corinthians 2:12-13] This we shall do over the next several chapters with regard to the teachings and methods of The Purpose Driven Church.

This is not about Rick Warren but the biblical soundness of his Purpose Driven movement. It is vastly important that Christians make this examination because of Warren’s tremendous influence upon American evangelicalism and the importance and influence of those same American evangelicals on the rest of the world’s Christian churches.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Richard Abanes, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2005), pp. 36-38, 40, 46.
[2] Ibid., p. 40-41.
[3] Ibid., p. 41, 45-46.
[4] Warren Smith, Deceived On Purpose, Second Edition, (Magalia, California: Mountain Stream Press, 2004), pp. 103-104.
[5] Abanes, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 100-102.
[6] Robert Schuller, My Journey, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), p. 264.
[7] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 3 (unnumbered).
[8] Ibid., p. 102.
[9] Abanes, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 102-103.
[10] Marshall Davis, More than a Purpose, (Enumclaw, Washington: Pleasant Word, 2006), p. 154.
[11] Warren B. Smith, Deceived On Purpose, pp. 88-89.
[12] Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem-The New Reformation, (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p. 123.
[13] Warren B. Smith, A Wonderful Deception, (Magalia, California: Mountain Stream Press, 2004), p. 28.
[14] Smith, Deceived On Purpose, pp. 97-98.
[15] Davis, p. 155.
[16] George Mair, A Life With Purpose, (New York: Berkeley Books, 2005), pp. 186, 190-194.
[17] Smith, A Wonderful Deception, pp. 52-54.
[18] Ibid., p. 55.
[19] Ibid., p. 61.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Mair, p. iii (unnumbered).
[22] Smith, A Wonderful Deception, p. 68.
[23] Ibid., pp. 55, 59.
[24] Ibid., p. 60.
[25] Abanes, p. 1 (unnumbered).

In his flattering 2005 biography of Rick Warren, George Mair identified the principal founders of the Church Growth movement: C. Donald McGavran, Gilbert Bilezikian, and Robert Schuller. The son of two missionaries, McGavran was born in India in 1897. While serving as a missionary to India, McGavran studied 145 churches between 1938 and 1955 to discover why some churches grow very slowly.[1] From these studies he developed the concept of receptivity to measure the positive or negative response to the gospel among certain people groups. McGavran then proposed that areas of high receptivity were to receive priority in the assignment of missionaries and resources.[2]

This was a dramatic change with regard to making disciples, the first part of the church’s mission as outlined in Matthew 28:18-20. Missionaries are called by the Holy Spirit and most are also led by the Holy Spirit with regard to which countries and areas they were to go. Now, the deciding factors for many denominations and missions organizations are dependent on sociological and demographic studies. Receptivity studies not only identify receptivity but also allow modern Church Growth practitioners to better craft their sermons to address the felt needs of the people as opposed seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the message to be preached.

Gilbert Bilezikian was born in Paris, France, and grew up under the Nazis just before World War II. He immigrated to the United States in 1961 and became a minister and teacher at Wheaton College where he developed his thoughts on building mega churches through small groups and a strong emphasis on servant ministries.[3] Both concepts have merit when used and practiced correctly. But the Church Growth movement has misused these natural biblical practices as an integral part in achieving their quest for success in church growth. As a result the Church Growth model’s hyper-organized and structured methods and focus comes at the expense of other aspects of the church and its purpose. Church life tends to become fragmented, misdirected, and regimented to such an extent that it becomes a new version of the liberal social gospel.

Norman Vincent Peale was the inspiration for the modern Church Growth movement, and he developed much of its theology and pioneered many of its practices. Robert Schuller was perhaps Peale’s greatest admirer and practitioner of Peale’s methods. However, it was Schuller that is widely considered to be the father of the Church Growth phenomenon. Schuller was the great popularizer and evangelist for the movement. Although other mega churches predated Schuller’s church, he was the first national voice, evangelist, and teacher for the Church Growth movement.[4]

Robert Schuller was born on September 26, 1926 to poor parents on a remote farm in Sioux County located in Iowa’s northwest corner near the Minnesota and South Dakota borders. Of Dutch ancestry and living in a Dutch colony, the Schullers attended the local Dutch Reformed church. In 1943 Robert attended Hope College in Holland, Michigan. Upon graduation, he enrolled in Western Theological Seminary located across the street from Hope. Hope and Western were both Calvinist in orientation and affiliated with the Reformed Church in America. In 1950 Schuller graduated from seminary with a bachelor of divinity degree, married Arvella DeHaan, a young lady from a farm near his boyhood home, and moved to his first pastorate in Chicago.[5]

In 1955, upon an invitation from church elders, he moved from Chicago to start a new work in Orange County, California. He began by renting a drive-in movie theatre for $10 per Sunday. He preached from the top of the tar-paper covered concession shack to his audience sitting in their cars. Garden Grove Community Church founded in a drive-in soon relocated to nearby land where the famed Crystal Cathedral was eventually built and dedicated twenty-five years later.[6]

Two books profoundly impacted Schuller’s theological views and his preaching style: Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People and Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking. The message of these books transformed his ministry, and he began to “preach positive.” But more than the books, it was Peale himself who would have the greatest impact on Schuller’s life. Perhaps on impulse, Schuller invited Peale to fly to California and preach at his fledgling drive-in church. Schuller and much of the religious community were stunned when the internationally known Peale accepted. On June 30, 1957, standing next to Schuller on the roof of the concession stand shack, Peale delivered his trademark message of positivity. Schuller closely patterned his message and style to that of Peale. Peale’s “positive thinking” became Schuller’s “possibility thinking.”[7]

Schuller’s interest in wrapping the gospel in a positive message began in the late 1940s while at seminary. For his bachelor of divinity thesis, he chose to write the first topical and scriptural index of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin was a powerful force in the Reformation and founded the Reformed Church. Schuller recalled that in writing his thesis he first encountered the conflicting positive and negative interpretations of scripture. Schuller believed that Calvin’s “total depravity” of man had been dangerously misinterpreted by negative extremists who used it to cause “a strong, guilt-generating, humiliating consciousness of ‘sin’.”[8] In the course of his discussions about his belief, one professor counseled Schuller with these words.

There’s much good in many if not all humans. Every human needs help in dealing with life’s negative realities. Sin, evil, selfishness, injustice—these are life’s realities. So man isn’t totally depraved, but he’s totally incapable of saving himself from these realities! Every person needs the divine forgiveness and grace that only God can offer—and that He generously offers to all.[9]

But Schuller eventually developed his own interpretation of Calvin’s theology of sin.

I would come to define sin as primarily a condition rather than an action (though that condition is often revealed in action); an inborn absence of faith more than a turning from faith. As a result of these conclusions, I deduced that if I focused not on generating guilt, but on generating trust and positive hope, I would be preaching against sin via a creative, redemptive approach. Then I would be preaching the “Good News”…Eventually they [Schuller’s conclusions] would lead me to emphasize that we’re “saved” not just to avoid “hell” (whatever that means and wherever that is), but to become positive thinkers inspired to seek God’s will for our lives and dream the divine dreams that God has planned for us. We are “saved” so that we can go on to do good works and thus truly learn to live our lives for the glory of God. This to me was an exciting, proactive approach to the problem of sin—and it became the basis for my possibility thinking message…[10] [emphasis in original]

Here we find the bones of Schuller’s possibility thinking that also mirrored Peale’s practical Christianity. As Schuller fleshed-out those bones of possibility thinking, it embodied what was to beome the philosophy and teachings of the fully-formed Church Growth movement. Inborn sin is a condition to be dealt with therapeutically as opposed to an action requiring repentance and a turning from sin. The act of faith itself absolves sin without the necessity of an ongoing faith walk—a daily dying to self and sin. The purpose for one’s salvation is to do good works rather than having a right relationship with God. Therefore, hell is minimized or ignored altogether. Positivism emphasizes divine dreams in this life as opposed to man’s eternal destination. Through reason, methods, techniques, and pandering to self, man can proactively overcome sin whereas Schuller’s professor saw the need of every person is “divine forgiveness and grace that only God can offer.”

Essentially, the theology of Robert Schuller was centered on the self whereas the great themes of the Bible are about man’s relationship with God. Just how far Schuller’s theology of self had evolved since his seminary years is evident from Schuller’s 1982 book Self Esteem-The New Reformation.

A major world problem since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 is that Christian thinkers have not formulated a well-rounded, full-orbed, honestly integrated systematic theological system. What we need now is an integrated systematic theology that will allow for a naturally evolving, noncontrived, and nonmanipulated spawning of second generation theological positions. The evolving theologies must reveal (not contrive) viable, nonvariable principles relating human problems beyond the salvation of a solitary immortal soul.

I contend that most, if not all, of the social, political, and religious problems facing our world reflect theological defects. The imperfect theology of the Protestant Reformation was really interested primarily in the “salvation of shameful, sinful, wicked, rebellious souls from eternal hellfire.” Salvation was offered, very correctly, by divine grace, not by human works. When our theology started with the salvation of a human commodity called “a soul” from “hellfire,” we found ourselves sincerely unable to relate that doctrine of salvation to other human conditions that demanded theological answers.[11]

Schuller believed the church should understand and be committed to meeting the deepest felt needs of human beings. He was correct in saying that the deepest of all human needs is salvation from sin and hell. However, he defines sin as, “Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity.” He elaborates by saying, “Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.” He further describes “hell” as the “…loss of pride that naturally follows separation from God—the ultimate and unfailing source of our soul’s sense of self-respect.”[12] Schuller has said self-esteem is “pride in being human” and is the “single greatest need facing the human race today…When a human being’s self-esteem is stimulated and sustained…in a redemptive relationship with Christ, we are truly saved from sin and hell.”[13]

What Schuller was saying is that man is saved from sin and hell through self-esteem and pride in being human. But if by a redemptive relationship he means that man was saved through the atoning work of Christ, Schuller cannot at the same time mean that man was saved through stimulating and sustaining his self-esteem and having pride in being human.

In an attempt to distinguish between what Schuller called theological positivism and theological negativism, he contrasted the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. He said that, “Paul railed against sin, but if you read your New Testament as I did, you’ll see that Christ never called anyone a sinner. His ministry was the teaching of peace, love, and joy.”[14] Based on his belief that the style and content of Christ’s preaching and teaching were superior to Paul’s, Schuller has undeniably implied that some portions of the scripture are more inspired, more infallible, more reliable, and more truthful than other portions. But the Paul said, “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” [2 Timothy 3:16. KJV] Perhaps if Christ had said these words instead of Paul, Schuller could have accepted the so-called negative theology of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

How does Schuller reconcile his beliefs that contradict the Bible? Schuller claims that the Eternal Word transcends the written Word, and that, “Christ is the Word made flesh. Christ is the Lord over the Scriptures; the Scriptures are not Lord over Christ.” He states that biblical inerrancy is not the most critical issue facing Christianity but a distraction from a higher, healthier issue: the Lordship of Jesus Christ…So Christ must be accepted as Lord over the Scriptures.”[15] But the Bible, the written Word, tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [John 1:1. KJV] Said another way, the Triune God is the Word, and God cannot be higher than Himself.

Schuller prescribes an evolving, second generation theology that goes beyond salvation to supply answers to “other human conditions.” In spite of his assertion that salvation comes by divine grace and not human works, he immediately prescribes an evolving theology dependent on the works of man.

Schuller’s doctrinal heresies are legion throughout his many books. Schuller’s claims and prescriptions are amazing if not breathtaking for most Christians and especially students of the Bible. The Protestant Reformation was centered on the authority of the scriptures alone and that men are saved by faith in Christ alone. Schuller’s call for a new Reformation sweeps all of that aside as he essentially questions the sufficiency of the Bible to answer the basic questions of life and the power of the atoning blood of Christ for the salvation of man.

Schuller’s call for a New Reformation has been echoed by other leaders in the Church Growth movement. As one reads and researches the teachings and theology of the leaders of the Church Growth movement and their respective churches, it becomes very evident that Robert Schuller’s beliefs have heavily leavened their doctrines, teachings, practices, and techniques. This has occurred not only through his many widely-read books but especially through the Robert Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership.

In 1969, Schuller began teaching other ministers his Church Growth concepts through a series of lectures at the Institute. He taught that big churches were better at winning lost people. Small churches were better at serving the churched members and denominational purposes. His message was that regardless of the denomination, his methods could be applied and church growth would follow. He encouraged churches to drop denominational labels and call themselves community churches. Services, sermons, and activities were to be programmed to appeal to the spiritual needs of the unchurched. “Mission theology doesn’t begin with ‘good’ believers teaching ‘bad’ unbelievers how sinful they are!…What they need to learn from us is that we can and will help them by introducing them to Jesus Christ. He will then lead them in becoming persons of positive-thinking faith, hope, and love!”[16]

Many insist that if Robert Schuller’s methods for building mega churches work, they must be approved by God. Certainly, his methods have worked in many churches. His success and that of his students in building mega churches is not disputed.

*Bill Hybels – Willow Creek Community Church, Illinois
*Rick Warren – Saddleback Community Church, California
*Bishop Charles Blake – West Los Angeles Church of God in Christ, California (one of the largest black churches in the world)
*Frank Harrington – Peachtree Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia (largest Presbyterian Church in America)
*Sundo Kim – First Methodist Church, Seoul, Korea (largest Methodist Church in the world)[17]

By many standards, the Church Growth movement has been wildly successful. But the doctrinal underpinnings and methods of Peale’s practical Christianity, Schuller’s positivity thinking, and the philosophies and teachings of many mega church pastors such Bill Hybels and Rick Warren are heretical in many respects. These deviations from sound biblical doctrines and practices will be examined in some detail in the following chapters.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] George Mair, A Life With Purpose, (New York: Berkeley Books, 2005), pp. 65, 101.
[2] Stephen Parker, Church Growth Crisis – The decline of Christianity in America, (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Forever Family Publications, 2011), p. 27.
[3] Mair, p. 103.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robert H. Schuller, My Journey, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), pp. 3, 6-7, 125-126, 147.
[6] Mair, p. 106-107.
[7] Ibid., pp. 106, 108.
[8] Schuller, My Journey, p. 126-127.
[9] Ibid, p. 127.
[10] Ibid., pp. 127-128.
[11] Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem – The New Reformation, (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), pp. 145-146.
[12] Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[13] Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[14] Schuller, My Journey, p. 126.
[15] Schuller, Self-Esteem – The New Reformation, p. 45.
[16] Schuller, My Journey, pp. 291-292.
[17] Ibid., p. 472.

Norman Vincent Peale and the Church Growth movement

Norman Vincent Peale’s practical Christianity is often credited with being the forerunner of the of the modern Church Growth movement. The popularization of his philosophy and methods was left to a later generation. Peale’s philosophy and methods grew out of his wholehearted belief in the humanistic concept of the perfectibility of man.[1] As seen in the previous two chapters, Peale’s theology was heavily imbued with his belief that through his own efforts man could improve his life and overcome life’s obstacles either through self-realization or through getting in touch with the god within. Although he believed in the perfectibility of man, Peale’s ministry was focused on discipling rather than perfecting members. He believed that people should be brought into membership “in anticipation that education would subsequently reveal to them the fuller implications of a richer, more self-conscious faith.”[2]

The major focus of Peale’s ministry was winning members. This involved door-to-door canvasing, use of various advertising techniques, weekly radio broadcasts of his sermons, rented auditoriums for special services, and adoption of other business techniques to further church development. Sunday services were planned to perfection. His messages were upbeat, theologically liberal, inspirational, and sprinkled with references to Emerson and the social environment. Although altar calls gradually disappeared, the message continued to point to the transforming result of a personal relationship with Jesus and the church.[3] For Peale, it is apparent that his listeners were to find that personal relationship, “a richer, more self-conscious faith,” through education as opposed to repentance and forgiveness of sin at an altar.

Church Growth movement and the mission of the church

Christ said at the time of his ascension forty days after His resurrection, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the close of the age.” [Matthew 28:19-20. RSV] There are three parts: evangelism, baptism, and teaching. Evangelism is making disciples through preaching (and witnessing) the gospel of Christ. Baptism is a public statement that one accepted Christ as his savior and has surrendered his life to Christ. Teaching is follow-up which is accomplished by preaching, teaching, and worship.

Disciples are not made by the effort of evangelism but by the Word of God. Evangelism is the tool or means of delivering the life transforming message (good news) of Jesus Christ. But at some point in the mid-twentieth century there arose a belief that the original biblical concept of evangelism could be improved upon. New methodologies and strategies were developed to sharpen the tool of evangelism in making disciples for Christ. This came to be known as the Church Growth movement. It is not a single group, organization or denomination but a set of ideologies that have been adopted by the majority of evangelical churches in America.[4] This ecumenicalism is possible because the churches and ministers who subscribed to the Church Growth movement are interested in methodologies and strategies for accomplishing the mission of the church as opposed to doctrine. Their message is that a church can adopt Church Growth methods and practices to grow their individual churches while keeping their doctrines. This sounds good, but a closer look reveals the devil is in the details.

Paul told the Corinthians that it was the gospel by which they were saved (See 1 Corinthians 15:1-2). But when the Church Growth movement attempted to sharpen the tool of evangelism, it fundamentally changed its focus from delivering the transforming power of the Word to growing the church through human efforts.[5] This resulted in a major change in definition of the mission of the church from making disciples to growing the church.

Defenders of the Church Growth methods and strategies may claim this distinction is merely a matter of semantics—that the end result of growing the church is the same as making disciples. This is not so. Recall what happened to the early church in the fourth century (See Chapter 3). Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire and became the professed religion of Emperor Constantine. Christianity 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.[6]

A second defense by the advocates of the Church Growth movement is that their methods are effective in attracting people to their churches so that the gospel can be delivered and people can be saved, baptized, and taught. They cite impressive numbers with regard to membership, attendance, and participation in various church activities to prove the effectiveness of their methods and strategies. But in the final accounting of a person’s life, it is not their church attendance, membership, or participation that determines their eternal destiny.

The problem with many churches using Church Growth methods and strategies is that it is often accompanied by preaching that is watered-down, incomplete, or inaccurate. Christ’s call to a death to self and sin at the foot of the cross is often masked by feel-good messages of love and forgiveness with little or no cost and without a call to holiness. As a result, the lives and lifestyles of many Church Growth “converts” bear little evidence of change or conformance to the teachings of Christ. Many seekers falling into the all-inclusive nets of churches following the Church Growth model resemble the unregenerate second generation Puritans of the late 1600s. These Puritans were not in full communion but remained members in a halfway covenant which resulted in a mixed membership that had lost the purity of a separated regenerate church.[7]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with many of the Church Growth methods and activities in themselves. Christian fellowship, breaking of bread, and concern for the needs of one’s fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is normal and biblical. Some of the Church Growth activities and methods have been used by traditional churches for decades and were not intended to be the high-powered generators of church growth in themselves. To be successful, Church Growth practitioners must add a large measure of accommodation of the spirit of the world that injects subtle but fundamental changes to the preaching, teaching, and doctrines of the New Testament.

The culture-driven church

The Church Growth movement continually attempts to find better ways to accomplish the redefined mission of the church—church growth rather than making disciples. Church Growth advocates say churches must use the right bait to attract and capture members. As the tastes and interests of a culture change over time, the church must change the bait to match the new tastes and interests of both its current members (consumers) and target audience outside the church. Hence, the focus and message of the church is dictated by the prevailing culture as opposed to the timeless prescriptions of the Bible. As culture changes, the membership-oriented church must change in order to accommodate and stay relevant to the culture. Over time the parade of changes accumulate to such an extent that the church loses its Christian identity and becomes a powerless, syncretic form of Christian paganism.[8] In his letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote of the coming apostasy in the last days in which men and women who once knew Christ would reject or abandon their faith. Paul described these Christians-in-name-only of the last days as “holding the form of religion but denying the power of it…” [2 Timothy 3:5. RSV]

The therapeutic gospel

In the last chapter we examined the beginnings of the therapeutic gospel through Norman Vincent Peale’s blending of psychology and New Age practices into a religious mix aimed at healing the soul through self-help and the works of men. Here we look deeper into the meaning and workings of the therapeutic gospel as it has grown within the evangelical church over the last seven decades.

The American psyche has been branded with the humanistic concept of the perfectibility of man and anything less than personal perfection is thought unacceptable. As a result, billions of dollars are spent annually on psychological techniques and therapies of self-help and counseling. Once thought of as help for physical problems, therapy is now applied to a host issues that are now considered psychological problems which range from personal relationships and self-esteem to the ultimate purpose and meaning of life. This concern for psychological problems has inevitably become a large part of religious thinking and concern within the contemporary church as a result of the philosophy and growing influence of the Church Growth movement.[9]

Craig Gay writing in The way of the (modern) world called this preoccupation with psychological problems very disturbing because the focus of therapy is upon “immediate relief and rehabilitation,” and the only acceptable measure of relief is “the subjective experience of well-being.” [emphasis in original] However, the therapeutic approach “provides no serious discipline for the soul.” Therapy as a means of dealing with the stresses of life often stands at odds with the formation of character and one’s duty to God and his fellow man. The therapeutic use of religion and religious faith are not the same. In the therapeutic use of religion, the individual is essentially in charge of his or her journey to a sense of well-being within. But the Christian faith focuses the believer on obedience to God and the Bible as opposed to pleasing the self. Gay summarizes the difference by quoting Philip Rieff, “Religious man was born to be saved. Psychological man is born to be pleased.”[10]

Christians may vehemently deny the humanists’ belief that this life is all there is so one ought to be happy, grab all the pleasure that one can, and live as if there is no tomorrow. However, many Christians’ affirmation of the afterlife often do not match their actions as they reach for a therapeutic fix to ease the pain of the moment when what they may really need is obedience to God and His higher purposes. Many modern Christians have acceded to the cultural wave of humanism and are preoccupied with the present experience and a quest for comfort instead of accepting the pain of self-denial and obedience to God which is linked to their eternal destiny.

It is a deception when Christian concepts and terms are employed to justify therapeutic “feel good” measures as a substitute for obedience to the Christian faith in matters of healing and rehabilitation. Gay wrote, “Faith in God through Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit is not a means, but is, along with hope and love, the end purpose of human existence.” [emphasis added] However, Gay cautions that the problem does not lie in therapy as such. Specific therapies are often of real benefit, but the difficulty arises when therapy is viewed as a means of dealing with the problems caused by the human condition.[11] Put another way, man is a fallen creature, and although religious therapy may make him feel better about himself for the moment, it will not change his eternal destination.

New Paradigm churches v. traditional churches

We’ve talked about the origins of the Church Growth movement and its philosophies, methods, and techniques. We’ve also described the culture-driven therapeutic gospel. But how does all of this look when it comes together in a Church Growth-oriented evangelical church in the twenty-first century?

New paradigm churches are growth-oriented, culture-driven, and therapeutic in outlook. These churches have a philosophy of ministry intentionally focused on numerical growth through the use of demographic studies from which well-defined market strategies are crafted and then implemented by modern business techniques.[12] Being market-driven, their first step is to study the demographics of the market to determine what the consumer wants as opposed to the traditional evangelical church that is soul-oriented, biblically driven, and eternal in outlook.

In “Choosing My Religion” published in 1999 by Advertising Age, Richard Cimino described the factors Americans consider when seeking a church. Cimino’s observations on the desires of consumer-minded Christians had been discovered decades earlier by Church Growth leaders. What Cimino and earlier church leaders found was that mainstream Americans had begun shopping for a God to fit their humanistic beliefs and lifestyles. As a result, their preferences had shifted from “religion” to “spirituality.”[13]

Behind this shift is the search for an experiential faith, a religion of the heart, not of the head. It’s a religious expression that downplays doctrine and dogma, and revels in direct experience of the divine—whether it’s called the “holy spirit” or “cosmic consciousness” or the “true self.” It is practical and personal, more about stress reduction than salvation, more therapeutic than theological. It’s about feeling good, not being good. It’s as much about the body as the soul…This being the United States, where consumerism is the closest thing we have to state religion, it’s very much about marketing, packaging, and promotion.

Today…religion and spirituality have become just another product in the broader marketplace of goods and services; congregants care as much about a church’s childcare as its doctrinal purity, pay more attention to the style of music than the pastor’s theological training.

Church leaders across the nation are using computerized demographic studies and other sophisticated marketing techniques to fill their pews. “Mainline churches don’t have to die,” says church marketing consultant Richard Southern. “Baby boomers think of churches like they think of supermarkets…They want options, choices, and convenience. You don’t have to change your theology or your political stance.”[14]

This shift from religion to spirituality has occurred because of the rise and eventual dominance of the humanistic worldview in all facets of American culture during the last half of the twentieth century. Whereas the dominant Christian religion in America through the end of the nineteenth century meant relationship with and obedience to a loving God, the humanistic worldview denies God’s existence and replaces Him with the god of self and its quest for happiness. However, humanism is a false philosophy and its prescriptions fail to answer the haunting questions of life. It is man’s natural inclination to seek God to find order, meaning, and purpose to life, and it is through religion he seeks to find Him. But through the seductions of secular humanism, Americans have become saturated with the consumer mentality and the belief that customer is always right. In vain, they seek a do-it-yourself, designer religion that will supply a sense of temporal well-being instead of eternal truth that only comes from the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible demands that men die to self in order to live the life eternal. This is not a message that can be scientifically packaged and promoted by new paradigm churches focused on attracting members instead of winning the lost.

Decades ago, A. W. Tozer foresaw the eventual outcome of popular evangelism we now call a new paradigm.

If I see aright, the cross of popular evangelicalism is not the cross of the New Testament. It is, rather, a new bright ornament upon the bosom of a self-assured and carnal Christianity. The old cross slew men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it.[15]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Arthur Gordon, One Man’s Way, (Pawling, New York: Foundation for Christian Living, (1972, 1958), p. 143.
[2] Carol V. R. George, God’s Salesman – Norman Vincent Peale and The Power of Positive Thinking, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 56.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Stephen Parker, Church Growth Crisis – The Decline of Christianity in America, (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Forever Family Publications, 2011), p. 13.
[5] Ibid., p. 32.
[6] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1964), p. 27.
[7] Eddy, p. 55.
[8] Parker, p. 39.
[9] Craig M. Gay, The way of the (modern) world, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), p. 185.
[10] Ibid., p. 186.
[11] Ibid., pp. 187-189.
[12] Gary E. Gilley, This Little Church Went to Market, (www.xulonpress.com: Xulon Press, 2002), p. 20.
[13] Richard Cimino, “Choosing My Religion,” Advertising Age, April 1, 1999.
http://adage.com/article/american-demographics/choosing-religion/42364/ (accessed October 23, 2015).
[14] Gilley, This Little Church Went to Market, p. 59.

Satan was a rebel against God’s crown and glory and a fallen creature before God created man. Matthew Henry wrote that Satan “…knew he could not destroy man but by debauching him. The game therefore which Satan had to play was to draw our first parents to sin, and so to separate them and their God. The whole race of mankind had here, as it were, but one neck, and at that Satan struck.”[1] The strike would be through man’s freewill. One of the deceptions Satan crafted through the ages was spiritual humanism to which man’s freewill was particularly susceptible. As Satan had once diverted Eve’s gaze from God to self, so Satan continues to divert man from God and His plan of redemption to self by substituting spiritual humanism’s counterfeit solutions drawn from pantheistic religions, ancient traditions, pagan cultures, and modern-day psychology (see Chapter 16).

The New Age in Christian clothing

To make spiritual humanism culturally relevant in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Satan painted a modern face on it, dressed it new clothes to fit the modern spirit of the age, and called it the New Age. But spiritual humanism’s beliefs, objectives, deceptions, traits, and characteristics remain the same, and its ancestry traces directly back to Eastern and other pagan religions.

An examination of African traditional religions presents a summary of those traits and characteristics shared by substantially all pagan religions, elements of which have seeped into some modern evangelical churches.

• Very pragmatic and oriented to providing for the temporal needs and wishes of their followers.
• Not based on consistently applied and understandable doctrines, rules and regulations.
These religions depend largely on existence, experience and feelings.
• Polytheistic, impersonal mystical powers, hierarchy of spiritual beings and powers.
• Religion based on power.
• May incorporate elements of Christianity as part of their religions.
• God is manipulated (as opposed to being praised in Christianity).
• Words have innate power in themselves (curses, chants, incantations, etc.).
• Use magic to manipulate the spirits and world around them.[2]

In pantheistic Eastern religions, there is no personal and loving God (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism). The impersonal, uncaring god of the pantheists does not love mankind or care about their sufferings so man is left to his own devices to find answers to life’s questions and find peace on this earth. For pantheists, these answers and peace can only be found by being reunited with the impersonal universal spiritual essence/force from which they believe man is an insoluble part.[3] Notice that most characteristics of pagan religions from the above list focus on the efforts of man: first, internally through mental exercises, and second, externally through power and manipulation. Since these religions seek and serve a non-loving God, it is only natural that the marks of their faith are centered on the self as opposed to Christianity’s focus on other-directed loving relationships with humans and a personal, loving God.

In the absence of help from a non-caring, impersonal God, New Age teachers and practitioners offer a plethora of solutions and assistance in becoming reunited with the impersonal universal spiritual essence/force to which man is an insoluble part. One of those solutions is purported to be found in New Thought.

The New Thought movement

The New Thought movement began in the late 1860s and is essentially pantheistic. It teaches that man is divine and has unlimited potential. The movement developed from the teachings of Phineas Quimby.[4] He believed that the thoughts of the human mind determined whether the body was healthy or sick.

Physical diseases are caused by wrong thinking or false beliefs. Disease is merely an “error” created “not by God, but by man.” Eliminate false beliefs, Quimby taught, and the chief culprit for disease is thereby removed, yielding a healthy body.[5]

The New Thought movement expanded Quimby’s teachings to include a belief that humans can use their thoughts to determine the conditions of their lives and thereby experience not only good health but success and a full life. This occurs because of the “law of attraction” which is the concept that one’s thoughts attract the things a person wants and expects. From this movement several “mind” science religions were founded including Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science.[6]

According to the law of attraction, a person’s life and circumstances are a physical expression or indicator of his thought life. In other words, whatever a person thinks he attracts. But the question arises as to how a person can control and direct his thought life. People have many thousands of thoughts every day that supposedly determine what they attract. One cannot corral, examine, and mold each of those thoughts to assure that he attracts only the good. According to the law of attraction a person’s feelings are a filter by which one can know what he is thinking and attracting to his life. Therefore, a person must get in touch with their feelings because good feelings create a good future, and bad feelings create a bad future. By practicing the law of attraction, a person can receive their desired future by simply seeing themselves in that future and believing it will happen. The law of attraction assures that it will come about.[7] The law of attraction is deeply rooted in humanism’s exaltation of self and accounts for the great emphasis placed on having a good self-esteem (feeling good about one’s self).

Peale and New Thought

By the end of the 1950s, Billy Graham and Norman Vincent Peale each headed one of the two distinct branches of evangelical Christianity. Graham remained true to the five fundamental doctrines held by the populist evangelical churches since the early 1700s which were expressed in a series of books published in 1910 titled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (see Chapter 14). Unlike the fundamental and unchanging doctrines of Christianity preached by Graham, Peale’s practical Christian living was designed to be a “new Christian emphasis…attuned to the inner life…[and] was a better solution to the needs of modern Americans.”[8] As has been the case throughout the history of Christianity and the church, the contest for the soul of American evangelicalism once again centered on the age-old quest for truth and doctrinal purity.

But Peale’s claims of a “new Christian emphasis” were not new but based on spiritual humanism’s false and failed answers to the basic questions of life. Peale’s answers were uncomplicated and based individual initiative. If people’s troubles lay within themselves, then the answers were there too. They merely had to tap the divine energy stored within the unconscious. The essence of Peale’s work is based on “the belief that through the mind and subconscious, utilizing techniques of positive thinking and affirmative prayer, one can achieve spiritual harmony and personal power.”[9]

Peale began reading literature about New Thought and mental sciences about 1928, but these philosophies did not became the most important and recognizable part of his public message until the late 1940s.[10] With the publication of The Power of Positive Thinking in 1952, Peale fully incorporated New Thought concepts into his message and ministry.

The Power of Positive Thinking was Peale’s master work and described the essence of practical Christian living. In reality, Peale’s practical Christianity was a modernized and Christianized version of New Thought in which the human mind has extraordinary potential through mental and spiritual realities to shape material or physical events. In other words, physical realities experienced by man originate in the mental and metaphysical (beyond what is perceptible to the senses). Through prayer and positive thinking, one can see the spark of divinity in one’s self and bring it into alignment with God (the divine spirit of the universe) which makes possible healing and worldly wealth.[11]

The origins and teachings of New Thought are indisputably New Age. Although there has been some controversy regarding the sources Peale used in his New Thought writings, it is also indisputable that Peale introduced, championed, and popularized these New Age practices throughout the American evangelical church.

Florence Scovel Shinn (1871-1940) was a New Thought teacher and writer.[12] The first of four books she published was The Game of Life and How to Play It (1925) and the second was Your Word is Your Wand (1928). Her third book, The Secret Door to Success, was published in 1940, the year of her death. The Power of the Spoken Word was her fourth book published posthumously in 1945.[13] Shinn’s The Game of Life and How to Play It was reissued in 1986, and Peale wrote a glowing endorsement printed on the front and back covers of the book.

The Game of Life is filled with wisdom and creative insights. That its teachings will work I know to be fact, for I’ve long used them myself.

By studying and practicing the principles laid down in this book one may find prosperity, solve problems, have better health, achieve good personal relations-in a word, win the game of life.[14]

In 1995, nine years after his endorsement of the book, Peale was accused of plagiarizing some of Shinn’s work in his famous book The Power of Positive Thinking. An article in one publication spoke of startling similarities with the writings of Shinn, “an obscure teacher of Occult science.” Shinn drew upon material of earlier occult writers and religions dating as far back as the ancient Egyptian philosopher Hermes Trismegistus.[15] In most of these New Age writings of whatever era, there tends to be certain words, phrases, and terms that are commonly if not universally used. Peale certainly admits to having read Shinn’s work, and he may have done so as far back as 1928. But it is doubtful that Peale had consciously plagiarized Shinn’s work or would have needed to, given his extensive reading and research on the subject. If Peale had concerns about plagiarism, it is also unlikely that he would have endorsed the book only nine years earlier. Both Peale’s and Shinn’s books had been available for decades.

The New Age heresy that men must evolve mentally and spiritually by awakening the god who sleeps deep within each human is a false philosophy which the Bible explicitly condemns. “…Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, whose heart turns away from the Lord…The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” [Jeremiah 17:5, 9. RSV] In Acts we find that Jesus is the only source of our salvation, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [Acts 4:12. RSV]

Psychologized religion

Beginning about 1900, mainline liberal pastors and churches began to experiment with the use of psychotherapeutic theories and techniques in pastoral care and counseling. From the very beginning of his ministry at Marble Church, Peale devoted eight to ten hours each week to counseling individuals. Eventually, the burden became too great, and the church hired Dr. Stanley Blanton, a Freudian-trained psychiatrist, to assist Peale. In 1937, Marble Collegiate Church Clinic was established in the basement of the church. By 1940, Peale withdrew from day-to-day operations and work in the clinic because of an increase in speaking engagements. Blanton became director of the clinic and other church staff worked in the clinic along with part-time psychologists and psychiatrists.[16]

After Peale’s departure from active involvement, Marble Church sustained the clinic while its identity attained more of a “religio-psychiatric” orientation. The new professionals embraced psychological theories from the works of neo-Freudians (Jung, Alfred Adler, and Erich Fromm) and later post-Freudians (Harry Stack Sullivan, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, and Carl Rogers). In 1951, the clinic became the American Foundation for Religion and Psychiatry, an independent and fully licensed clinic in its own right with a new location and organization.[17]

Christian Smith credits the acceptance of psychology within mainline, liberal Protestant churches during the 1920s as one of the six major contributors of the secular revolution that transformed American culture.

The secular revolution transformed the basic cultural understanding of the human self and its care, displacing the established spirituality and morality framed Protestant conception of the “care of souls” (over which the church and its agencies held jurisdiction), and establishing instead a naturalistic, psychologized model of human personhood (over which therapists and psychologists are the authorities.)[18]

In the 1920s, a psychological concept known as “self-realization” began to be taught in mainline Protestant churches and seminaries. Self-realization occurs when the entity of self achieves fulfillment and full potentiation. Because of the importance placed on self-realization, the supreme goal of the spiritual life is to be fulfilled and reach one’s full potential. George Albert Coe was a professor at Union Theological Seminary and pioneered the self-realization movement by introducing psychology into pastoral care and counseling, seminaries, and Sunday school classes. As a result pastoral care and counseling sought to help people adjust and adapt in service of the self by focusing on a person’s interests, preferences, and yearnings for self-realization.[19]

Proponents of traditional American Protestantism and the early psychologists were competing for cultural authority in the early twentieth century. Feeling incapable of defending the faith of their ancestors in the age of Darwinian scientific progress, the mainline Protestant establishment chose to accept psychology as a means of explaining God, man, and the religious experience.[20] Out of this abandonment of traditional Christian theology, the therapeutic gospel was born.
______

Norman Vincent Peale’s practical Christianity was unique in that it blended humanistic psychology with the occult beliefs and practices of the New Age. Both were intended to heal the soul of man—one through self-realization and the other through getting in touch with the god within. To these ministrations, Peale added a third ingredient to his practical Christianity—the introduction of church growth methodologies and practices focused on “…‘discipling’ rather than ‘perfecting’ members—that is, bringing them in in the anticipation that education would subsequently reveal to them the fuller implications of a richer, more self-conscious faith.”[21] All of the ingredients in Peale’s practical Christianity served the god of “self” and have been adopted by many American evangelical churches in the twenty-first century.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), P. 8.
[2] Gary E. Gilley with Jay Wegter, This little church had none, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: EP Books, 2009), p. 71-72.
[3] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), p. 148.
[4] Gilley and Wegter, p. 73.
[5] Ibid., quoting Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 104-105.
[6] Ibid., pp. 73-74.
[7] Ibid., pp. 65-66.
[8] Carol V. R. George, God’s Salesman – Norman Vincent Peale and The Power of Positive Thinking, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 85.
[9] Ibid., pp. viii, 6.
[10] Ibid., p.134.
[11] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion – How We Became a Nation of Heretics, (New York: Free Press, 2012), P. 184.
[12] “Works of Florence Scovel Shinn,” Internet Sacred Text Archive. http://www.sacred-
texts.com/nth/shinn/index.htm (accessed October 13, 2015).
[13] Florence Scovel Shinn, The Complete Works – Florence Scovel Shinn, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2010).
[14] Warren B. Smith, A Wonderful Deception, (Magalia, California: Mountain Stream Press, 2012), p. 41.
[15] Ibid., pp. 40-41.
[16] George, pp. 89-91.
[17] Ibid., pp. 91-92.
[18] Christian Smith, “Introduction: Rethinking the Secularization of American Public Life,” The Secular Revolution, ed. Christian Smith, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 3, 27.
[19] Keith G. Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, ed. Christian Smith, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 295-296.
[20] Ibid., p. 272.
[21] George, pp. 56-57.

There were three major voices that stoked the fires that led to the reemergence of American evangelicalism in the late 1940s and 1950s. Two were of the preaching-revivalist tradition and principally concerned with the eternal destination of their listeners: Baptist evangelist Billy Graham and Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen. The third was Norman Vincent Peale. Although he called himself an evangelist that adhered to evangelism’s implicit call for conversion, Peale’s educational and theological development eventually led him to embrace a “new Christian emphasis.” In later years he called it practical Christian living which was “…attuned to the inner life…[and] was presumed to be a better solution to the needs of modern Americans.”[1] Out of Peale’s theology centered on practical Christian living arose the therapeutic gospel that was adopted by many evangelical ministers and churches over the last half of the twentieth century and dominates American evangelicalism in the first decades of the twenty-first century.

Peale occupied a unique position on America’s religious landscape during the two decades following World War II. Peale was politically conservative and therefore perpetually at odds with the liberal establishment, both political and theological. Yet, by his own admission he was theologically liberal. Peale was not enamored by the liberal social gospel as well as their neglect of the practical work of the ministry. Even though personally a theological liberal, in 1924 he critiqued his seminary education and said the school had failed to adequately link the scripture with “the knowledge of the present…to enable me to go out and preach—to strengthen and amplify the message which I feel I have.” Although he claimed to champion the “old-fashioned gospel story,” he significantly altered its message with humanistic principles and practices, both secular and spiritual. When issues or conflicts arose within the church, his theological perspective was consistently revealed as he sided with the liberals rather than fundamentalists.[2]

Norman Vincent Peale was born in 1898 to a minister father and his wife in Bowersville, Ohio. Clifford Peale had been a successful physician and at one time was the health minister for Milwaukee. Having once felt the call to the ministry, he ignored it for a while, but his health broke and required an operation that left him near death. Peale survived and believed the Lord had spared him. Encouraged by his mother, Peale left the practice of medicine and became a Methodist minister. He served in a number of pastorates in small Ohio towns and moved to Cincinnati in 1902 when Norman was four. In 1913, the Peale his family moved from the Cincinnati suburb of Greenville to the small town of Bellefontaine, Ohio, where Norman graduated from High school in 1916. In the fall his parents took him to Ohio Wesleyan University, a Methodist college in the small town of Delaware.[3] Norman Peale received his B.A. degree in June 1920. Following fifteen months working as a reporter for the Detroit Journal, Peale enrolled at Boston University, and upon feeling an affirmation of his call to the ministry, he soon switched his enrollment to the university’s seminary.[4]

As a child Norman was very sensitive and painfully shy. To help their son overcome his extreme bashfulness, Norman was often asked to recite poems for family gatherings or groups of friends. But his extreme shyness caused Norman to frequently hide in the attic when he saw visitors arriving at the Peale home.[5]

Peale’s shyness continued to plague him in high school and followed him to Ohio Wesleyan. One professor approached Peale about his shyness and told him to ask Jesus to help him overcome his shyness and to also read the works of well-known psychologist William James. Another professor suggested that he read the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. One biographer wrote that Peale’s discovery of James and Emerson “…eventually became part of his mental equipment and then a lifetime fascination…[They] remained lasting intellectual companions because they counted for something in Peale’s own life,” and he often sought validation for his own ministry in their views.[6]

Emerson’s Transcendentalism and its spiritual humanism was a comfortable fit with Peale’s practical Christianity. Emerson outlined Transcendentalism in Nature, published in 1836 and was credited as being America’s first native-born philosophy. Historian Paul Johnson described Transcendentalism as “a Yankee form of neo-platonism, mystical, a bit irrational, very vague, and cloudy.”[7] The philosophical message of Transcendentalism links the source of all knowledge to the inner self of intuition and imagination.

People, men and women equally, have knowledge about themselves and the world around them that “transcends” or goes beyond what they can see, hear, taste, touch or feel. This knowledge comes through intuition and imagination, not through logic or the senses. People can trust themselves to be their own authority on what is right.[8]

Peale linked Emerson’s belief that knowledge about man and his world comes from the mystical intuition and imagination found within man to James’s secular humanism which promoted the practical and experiential science of psychology. James is known as the father of American Psychology and wrote its seminal text in 1890, The Principles of Psychology. Eventually, James, his colleagues, and his students at Harvard developed American psychology as a science which emphasized the self as opposed to the soul. It was a pragmatic and experiential science of the mind that could be channeled along therapeutic lines to benefit mankind. The Christian concept of habits is the particular ways of living that define man in relation God. However, through psychology James redefined habits “as a process of personal and social growth toward an ever-better, ill-defined, integrated personality.”[9]

Through the work of James and his fellow psychologists, psychology infiltrated and eventually overwhelmed mainline Protestantism. Keith Meador described this development as a baptism of Protestantism in psychological rationalism and practicality.

In the 1920s, mainline Protestant seminaries began teaching the concept of “self-realization,” which conceived of the self as an entity whose fulfillment and full potentiation were paramount within the spiritual life. As a result, helping people “adjust” and “adapt” in service of the self became the goal of pastoral counseling. Through continual adjustment and adaptation, people would grow in their perceptions and come closer to the ultimate goal of self-realization.[10]

Although Peale did not wholly embrace James’s or Emerson’s views, those views became important reference points for Peale’s practical Christianity and its therapeutic gospel message expressed through his ministry of preaching, teaching, lectures, speeches, magazines, and books.[11]

While at seminary, Peale’s shyness, fear of speaking before classmates, and feelings of inferiority continued to haunt him. Yet, away from seminary, Peal expressed great joy on weekends when preaching as a student to “a church full of dedicated people.” But when he returned to seminary on Sunday nights, he wrote that, “My conflicts returned, my inferiority reasserted itself and I froze up until the next Friday I went happily off to my church again.”[12]

While still at Boston University’s seminary, Peale became a student pastor at a church in Berkeley, Rhode Island in 1922. Upon graduation from seminary in the spring of 1924, Peale was called to St. Mark’s Church in Brooklyn which was later relocated and renamed King’s Highway Methodist Church. In April 1927 Peale was invited to University Avenue Methodist Church in Syracuse, New York. There he met and married Ruth Stafford who would be his wife for sixty years. In March 1932, Norman and Ruth made their final move to the Marble Collegiate Church, a Reformed Church in America congregation with a history dating back to 1628. Located on New York City’s prestigious Fifth Avenue, the imposing and elegant 1500-seat church surrounded by skyscrapers had declined to only 200 regular attendees but had a huge endowment. The move to Marble Church necessitated that Peale make a theological shift from Methodist Arminianism to the hard determinism of Calvin within the Reformed Church. In her biography of Peale, Carol George wrote that Peale never truly left his Methodist roots but created and perfected a unique ministry and syncretic message that cut across many denominational lines.[13]

With a handsome salary, lifetime tenure, three-month annual vacation, and duties that required only preaching three times each week and service as the senior administrator, Peale saw Marble Church as an opportunity to create a personalized ministry. This included two small books written by Peale in 1937 and 1938 (The Art of Living and You Can Win) which were products of his immersion in the literature and beliefs of metaphysical spirituality (religious science).[14]

Beginning in 1942, while still serving as senior pastor of Marble Church, the pace of Peale’s life increased dramatically as he was continually called to speak before various religious, political, business, and industry gatherings around the nation. Peale founded Guideposts magazine in 1944 which became the most influential transmitter of Peale’s message, an “organ for a great, positive Christian movement” which summarized his ideals of “Americanism, free enterprise, and practical Christianity.” In 1950, the Foundation of Christian Living became the center of the Norman and Ruth Peale’s religious empire.[15]

By the 1950s, the painfully shy little boy born in 1898 in the small Ohio town of Bowersville had become a nationally celebrated churchman, social commentator, self-help guru, author, and spokesman for a vast constituency of Americans. It was Peale’s 1952 book The Power of Positive Thinking that propelled him to the pinnacle of his already amazing career. The book was perfectly timed to capture the uplifting wave of Christianity in America during the late 1940s and 1950s. The book emphasized self-empowerment and peace of mind which was especially appealing to generations attempting to “catch up” with life following almost two decades of turmoil caused by the Great Depression and World War II.[16]

The Power of Positive Thinking resonated with a vast and diverse audience of businessmen, middle-aged women, and the unchurched. Carol George summarized one reviewer’s favorable opinion of the book, “It was friendly, unpretentious, and concerned about the misery cause by spiritual poverty. In its ebullient, upbeat tone, it belonged more to the success genre of New Thought literature than the inspirational variety…” The book provided a remedy for many people who believed they were sick and in need of care. Believing they could not be fully productive contributors to society, they willingly embraced Peale’s practical Christianity and its therapeutic message of positive thinking.[17] Peale’s book landed on the New York Times bestseller list in 1952, the year of its publication, and stayed there for 180 weeks.[18]

By 1957, Peale was reaching an estimated thirty million people through his preaching, syndicated newspaper column, weekly radio program, Guideposts magazine, three published sermons monthly, and his book sales.[19] Peale’s thirty million was the same number as the weekly television audience reached by Bishop Fulton Sheen’s at the show’s height during the late 1950s.[20]

While Sheen was reaching the millions through the medium of television, Peale and Billy Graham were using an array of media to reach their millions. Graham, the neo-fundamentalist, had little in common with Peale, the neo-modernist. The one thing they had in common was that both were preaching to a much wider audience than just their professed denominational adherents. Although having a wide and somewhat overlapping audience, their respective platforms were seemingly at opposite ends of the field. Graham was an unrepentant premillennialist, political conservative, and fundamentalist who believed in the authority of the scriptures, Christ’s virgin birth, the atoning death of Christ, His bodily resurrection, His second coming, and salvation by faith through grace. Peale’s theology was far closer to modernism. Peale was initially suspicious of the younger evangelist but had a change of attitude following their first meeting in Switzerland in 1955. Peale became a supporter of Graham’s Manhattan crusade planned for 1957 and served on the blue-ribbon committee with other clergy and prominent citizens that helped organize the crusade which lasted sixteen weeks (see Chapter 15). Peale was delighted with the results of the crusade as were most of the participating clergy.[21]

A fascinating incident happened during one of the nights of the crusade. At the end of the service, Peale joined hundreds of others as they moved toward the platform in response to Graham’s invitation to make another “commitment” to Christ. Peale later called his renewed commitment that night as a “second blessing” in which he “went deeper” into the faith.[22] This was reminiscent of a similar commitment made twenty-four years earlier when Peale and his wife were vacationing in England. Peale had completed two years at Marble Church and was exceptionally discouraged. While sitting in a lovely hotel garden in Keswick, Norman felt himself a failure and expressed to Ruth his doubts about continuing his ministry at Marble Church. He felt his message was not “getting through” to the congregation and despaired at his lack of results in the church’s growth. Ruth Peale waited a few moments before she spoke. When she began talking to her husband, she did not coddle or sympathize with him but spoke words of encouragement that he so often had spoken to thousands of others. Peale listened to his wife, was encouraged, and agreed that he should stay at Marble Church. He called his renewed commitment at Keswick a “rededication” and often fondly remembered that moment as one of the most profound and rewarding experiences of his life.[23]

Peale retired from Marble Church in 1984 after fifty-two years of service and fifty years after he almost quit while at that small hotel garden in Keswick.[24] He died on Christmas Eve in 1993 at the age of 95.

Norman Vincent Peale appears to have been a good and decent man. He cared deeply for his fellowman and accomplished much that was good. However, his theological perspectives and prescriptions were flawed because they were fundamentally opposed to the doctrines and teachings of the Bible. As will be seen in the next two chapters, Peale’s practical Christianity left a dual legacy to the evangelical church of New Age spiritual humanism and the therapeutic gospel of the Church Growth movement.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Carol V. R. George, God’s Salesman – Norman Vincent Peale and The Power of Positive Thinking, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 85.
[2] Ibid., viii, ix., 46, 49, 50-51.
[3] Arthur Gordon, One Man’s Way, (Pawling, New York: Foundation for Christian Living, 1958, 1972), pp. 4, 9-10, 19, 33, 39, 45.
[4] George, pp. 39, 40-41.
[5] Gordon, p. 21.
[6] George, pp. 33, 36-37.
[7] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p. 405.
[8] “Transcendentalism, an American Philosophy,” U.S. History. http://www.ushistory.org/us/26f.asp (accessed October 9, 2015).
[9] Keith G. Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, ed., (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 271, 283, 294.
[10] Ibid., p. 295.
[11] George, p. 37.
[12] Ibid., p. 52.
[13] Ibid., pp. 54-56, 58, 66, 68-69, 76.
[14] Ibid., pp. 75, 86.
[15] Ibid., pp. 103-104.
[16] Ibid., pp. 128-129.
[17] Ibid., p. 137.
[18] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion – How We Became a Nation of Heretics, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 52.
[19] George, p. 131.
[20] Douthat, p. 41.
[21] George, pp. 147-148.
[22] Ibid., p. 148.
[23] Gordon, pp. 172-176.
[24] George, p. 238.