In Part IV, we saw that resistance thinking is an essential prescription for what ails the evangelical church in American and Western civilization and is a characteristic of God’s prophetically untimely people who have the courage to give voice to a message that stands against the church’s cultural captivity by the humanistic spirit of the age.

The second prescription for the church is a return to New Testament Christianity by embracing all of its distinguishing elements found in the first century church.

Restoring New Testament Christianity

There are several norms or hallmarks that give shape, definition, and context to New Testament Christianity. All of the distinguishing elements found in the early church (except for the writing of the New Testament Scripture) are available to the twenty-first century church. Space does not allow more that a cursory mention of the more significant observations and findings with regard to some of the missing fundamentals of New Testament Christianity. A more extensive examination of these elements can be found in Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity.[1]

To a lesser or greater degree in many evangelical churches, the hallmarks of New Testament Christianity are no longer found. Before the church can make the necessary course corrections, it must first identify the essential elements that are missing and have allowed it to slide into cultural captivity by the humanistic spirit of the age. Eight of the standards or hallmarks are listed below and include a brief discussion of the modern evangelical church’s departure therefrom. As stated above, the list is not meant to be complete or the discussion comprehensive.

• Irreplaceable power and presence of the Holy Spirit – Many modern churches have dispensed with the irreplaceable power and presence of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of church life which accounts for their powerlessness, spiritual poverty, and shallowness. The Holy Spirit will not allow Himself to be merely an accessory occasionally added to a church’s agenda. He is either the center or He will have no part of the program. Because many in the body of Christ and its leaders are more interested in doing church than being the church, they fail to wait upon the Holy Spirit and His enduement of power. His absence is the missing ingredient that leaves the church’s efforts a dry and tasteless imitation of the real thing. Unless the church moves and operates in the power of the Holy Spirit, its attempts to recapture the missing norms and hallmarks of New Testament Christianity will be in vain.

• The Old Rugged Cross – Many in the church have substituted a new cross for the old cross. The new cross seeks to comfort, please, and entertain. However, they are preaching another gospel and not the message of the cross found in Matthew’s gospel which has reverberated across two thousand years of Christianity and still means today what those words meant when first written. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV] Beginning at Pentecost, a small group of Jesus’ followers believed this message, preached the cross of which Jesus spoke, and turned the world upside down.

• Christ – Our Savior and Lord – New Testament Christianity’s concepts of sin and salvation have been replaced in many modern churches by the discredited doctrine of a divided Christ in which Christ the Savior and Christ the Lord have been separated. According to this doctrine, a sinner may accept Jesus Christ as Savior without surrendering to Him as Lord. But, the sinner who accepts Christ as Savior and walks away without accepting Christ as Lord perseveres in his sin. Yet, many evangelical preachers emphasize the acceptance of Christ as Savior and de-emphasize acceptance of Him as Lord. Some will say that the “Lord” part of one’s commitment to Christ comes later, sometimes even after church membership, because it is a process that takes time. In other words, the “saved” Christian will at some point also decide to make Jesus Christ the Lord of his life. But A. W. Tozer wrote that, “It is altogether doubtful whether any man can be saved who comes to Christ for His help but with no intention to obey Him.”[2]

• Repentance and turning from sin – The world’s definitions of love and tolerance have invaded the church and compromised the gospel message. As a result, the message of many churches is that God’s nonjudgmental love is so vast that he will overlook sin for a season if not altogether ignore it if one will only acknowledge Him. The new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin. Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love. If the church does not make this distinction clear, it is guilty of misleading people as to their eternal destination.

• Doctrinal purity – For the last several decades many in American evangelical churches have tampered with the meaning of scripture. One source of this doctrinal corruption is the pervasive and careless use of unfaithful translations and even less reliable paraphrases. A second source is the demise of serious expository preaching. There is a greater danger of doctrinal mischief when there is an over-reliance on topical messages that tend to cherry-pick verses which are inappropriately divorced form the larger meaning and context of the biblical passages. They do this in order to “prove” a point or prop up man’s opinion. The third reason is that many evangelical churches ignore serious preaching of major themes of the Bible such as prophecy and end time events. These are seen as not being culture-friendly and therefore a hindrance in growing the church. As a result large portions of the Bible are not included in their preaching and teaching—a form of taking away. These practices water the soil in which heresy grows.

• The narrow path – The church has become worldly because it has accommodated the spirit of the world within. There is a dynamic tension in which the individual Christian and the church must live—being in the world but not of it. We cannot avoid this tension for it is an inherent part of every Christian’s walk and every church’s ministry. To attempt to lessen the tension is to fall into the ditch of worldliness or, conversely, to disobey Christ’s command to share His message by separating ourselves from the world. In spite of the best of motives, a large majority in the modern evangelical church appears to have fallen into the ditch of worldliness through an accommodation of the spirit of the world within the church. When the world’s value system invades the church, the church becomes worldly and is the true church no longer.

• Preach the Gospel message – The church has failed to adequately and effectively proclaim the gospel. If the chief function of preaching is to unleash the word, then we should be concerned with how that word is to be unleashed. We have previously mentioned the decline of expository preaching. Topical preaching, polemical or disputational preaching, historical preaching, and other forms of preaching have their rightful places. But these forms have replaced expounding the Word of God to a substantial degree in many of today’s evangelical churches and have greatly contributed to a rapidly growing biblical illiteracy within the church. The message of the Bible has been dumbed down and therefore is made a husk without the life sustaining core from which the Christian finds spiritual nourishment. But such is foolish preaching (as opposed to the foolishness of preaching) and also inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, both the minister and the sinner are utterly powerless to change the sinner’s condition from death to life.

• Avoid being unequally yoked – Under duress from a culture heavily saturated with humanistic concepts of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion, many evangelical leaders and Christian organizations have embraced an ecumenicalism that reaches beyond the boundaries of the Christian faith. [See: culturewar.net for articles on “Ecumenicalism – Evangelicalism’s misguided group hug – Parts I, II, and III”] In their efforts to be ecumenical and culturally relevant, they have attempted to find common ground with apostate churches which are Christian in name only, with anti-Christian organizations, and with false religions that stand in opposition to God’s word. When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ. [See: 2 Corinthians 6:14]

______

In their quest to reinvent and re-energize itself through human efforts, many churches have pushed aside, trampled upon, or forgotten the essential foundational standards of New Testament Christianity including the eight listed above. It appears that many modern accommodating church leaders believe the disciples’ ministry in the first century could never be successful in the twenty-first century because it is too hard, too narrow, and too dull for the modern generation. It is said that it offers little to maintain their congregants’ interest or capture the attention of the post-modern generation. Therefore, the Bible’s old-fashioned, austere message is judged to be out-of-tune with the times and must be modernized to win friends and make converts. To that end the gospel message must be revamped by softening the rhetoric to make it seeker-friendly. The Christian church must also be overhauled and reorganized around sound business principles. It should identify its purposes in light of the culture and be driven by specific goals whose achievement in numbers and dollars can be properly measured and success gauged. It must also hire a first-rate public relations firm to survey the market and construct a ministry theme to best attract and connect with the community and meet its wants and felt needs. Next its leaders must rent or build a high-tech, multi-media, theater-style auditorium; employ a well-educated and socially acceptable ministry team to replace that scruffy band of disciples; and mount a multi-faceted media campaign to enlist members into Christ’s new church—The Church of the What’s Happening Now. In time the spiritual side will take care of itself if we can just get the seekers in the door and help them become better adjusted. Then the Holy Spirit will be free to do His thing as long as He doesn’t lay any guilt trips on the people.

During his visit to America in 1930, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about the condition of the liberal church in America. While attending one New York church, he described the church’s profusion of social and charitable activities to the virtual exclusion of the pursuit of its true calling. “One cannot avoid the impression, however, that in both cases they have forgotten what the real point is.”[3]

But almost ninety years later we can say that the evangelical church has also forgotten what the real point is. The point forgotten is that the church must declare the eternal truth of God and His relation to man. This was done in every generation from the first century church to the present in cultures that were uniformly hostile to the message of the church. But in our modern day, instead of evangelizing the world, the world is evangelizing the church. To a large degree the value systems of the church and the world have become indistinguishable. As a result the church has abandoned its role as “…a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God…[4]

By returning to the doctrines, teachings, and practices that guided the first century Christians, the modern church can once again gain a comprehensive, integrated, and unifying understanding of New Testament Christianity. In light of that understanding, the church will discover its critical departures from the New Testament’s standard and can make the necessary course corrections. Restoring New Testament Christianity is the tonic that will revitalize the church and empower it to escape from the cultural captivity of the humanistic spirit of the world.

In Part VI, this series will conclude with an examination of the final prescription necessary to restore spiritual health to the evangelical church – revival.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016). Chapters 25-32.
[2] A. W. Tozer, The Root of Righteousness, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 1986), pp.96-97.
[3] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 107.
[4] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), p. 22.

The American church is dying and parts of it are already dead. If one needs proof of its condition, a re-reading of Part II will reveal the severity of its illness. This is not to say that Christianity is dying for Jesus said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 16:18. KJV] [emphasis added] The remnant church will always survive, perhaps bloodied and bent for the moment, but it will survive.

There are three prescriptions for what ails the evangelical church in the West: development of the art of resistance thinking to challenge the forces of cultural captivity (conformity, popularity, and a quest for a distorted cultural relevance); return of the church to New Testament Christianity by embracing all of its distinguishing elements; and revival of the body of Christ as it moves and operates in the full power of the Holy Spirit.

Resistance thinking

The church has been captured by the modern humanistic, secularized culture, and this captivity has led to fragmentation of the Christian worldview in the West. This captivity has resulted in a loss of a right understanding of objective truth found in God’s divine revelation recorded in the Bible. This loss has caused many Christians to descend from the glorious heights from which they once could clearly see truth to a forest of facts and minutia that obscure truth and ultimately destroys within men’s minds the concept that truth exists. This is the consequence of the cultural captivity of the church.

How does a Christian regain a vantage point from which to rise above the distortions caused by their cultural captivity? Without such vantage point, one cannot understand and resist the prevailing spirit of the world that has invaded much of the modern church. Os Guinness called resistance thinking an art form, something a Christian “can learn and cultivate until it becomes a habit of the heart.” But apart from God’s help, a Christian’s efforts to develop the traits necessary for resistance thinking are futile, and he falls into the same mindset of the culture from which he intends to escape.

Guinness proposes three practices that will help Christians “cultivate the independent spirit and thinking that are characteristic of God’s untimely people.” These are an awareness of the unfashionable, cultivating an appreciation for the historical, and paying constant attention to the eternal. Their relative importance is shown by their ascending order .[1] Notice that the first deals with the temporal, the second concerns the past, and the third is eternity which is beyond time.

Awareness of the Unfashionable

Many of the problems of the modern church occur because of its desire to be fashionable which usually sits on the three-legged stool of conformity, popularity, and the quest for a warped cultural relevance. These comprise the links in the chain that binds the church in its cultural captivity. To discern and resist the essence of the fashionable church’s captivity, Christians must have an awareness of the unfashionable by which is meant an awareness of God and His ways which stand in contradiction to much of what passes for modern Christianity.

Following his call for repentance of the northern kingdom of Israel, the prophet Hosea added a postscript, “Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the LORD are right, and the righteous will walk in them, but transgressors will stumble in them.” [Hosea 14:9. RSV] Because the wise Christian has the knowledge of God and His ways, he may also discern the fashionable ways of the world that must be resisted.

The Christian message conformed to the fashionable methods of today’s popular evangelicalism is little more than a consensus of opinion that arises from group thinking which has little connection to God and His ways. Such thinking leads to a fuzzy theology which is one of the reasons that a large majority of Christians cannot make a biblically accurate presentation of the gospel as described in Part II. Like their liberal forerunners, the evangelical church in the latter half of the twentieth century and to the present day has abandoned New Testament Christianity and replaced many of its doctrines with another gospel. Guinness described this sorry state of affairs.

And now, early twenty-first century evangelicalism mimics popular culture as closely and successfully as anyone could ever hope to while still getting away with it. In each case the end result is not only a betrayal of the faith but a hapless impotence before the very audience the church was out to impress…Signs are that, unless some drastic rethinking takes place soon, the corruptions in evangelicalism will worsen and show through in theology, not just in practice. Evangelicals have followed the broader cultural shift from “religion to spirituality” and in the process have become chronically individualistic rather than corporate; they have become “do-it-yourself” in their preference rather than living under authority; they are increasingly syncretistic rather than exclusive and discriminating.[2] [emphasis added]

This was written in 2003, but fourteen years later widespread corruptions in evangelicalism are now present its in theology as well as practice as Guinness predicted. One need only listen to the latest heretical pronouncements from the Pontiff in Rome or tune in to many of the mega-church pastors in America. These false teachers forfeit the unambiguous truth of God in the name of cultural relevance through an accommodation of the spirit of the world within the church. But such accommodation leads to a Christian faith that dispenses “…a license to entitlement, a prescription for an easy-going spirituality, or a how-to manual for self-improvement.”[3] It is a false religion, a weak and unrecognizable shell without the sustaining truth and power of New Testament Christianity.

True Christians must define themselves by the gospel and remain faithful in the day in which they live. But the world doesn’t want to hear their message for it is untimely because it conflicts with the audience-friendly message dispensed by many within the evangelical church. However, the radical call of Jesus to come and die will always be unfashionable in the modern world. To retain their prophetic untimeliness, faithful Christians must always have an awareness of the unfashionable.

Appreciation for the historical

One of the central tenets of the humanism is progressivism which is built on the dictum of the perfectibility of man, a “…belief that critical and autonomous human reason held the power to discover the truth about life and the world, and to progressively liberate humanity from the ignorance and injustices of the past.”[4] We see the outworking of progressivism in humanism’s creation story of evolution, the self-centered striving to climb the ladder of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, the social engineer’s incessant push for equality through leveling society, and the psychologist’s endless efforts to minister to the needs of unfallen but damaged man.

The common theme of progressivism is that the good old days were all bad and have nothing to teach mankind in his march toward perfection except for one thing. History can serve as humanism’s “horrible example” preceding its altar call. Thereafter, man can kneel at the shrine of progressivism and repent for his original sin of dabbling with a supernatural God.

The progressive view of history rests on the belief that the most advanced point in time represents the point of highest development. It assumes that “…that history is an inevitable march upward into the light. In other words, step by step, the world always progresses, and this progress is inevitable.”[5] A consequence of this view of history is that the historical record must be judged only in light of current beliefs, assumptions, and politics. If one holds the progressive opinion of history, the views of the present generation must be superior to timeless truths, tradition, heritage, and the wisdom accumulated through the ages.

However, the historical record is one of the greatest contributions to Western thinking, and by default the Bible stands at the center of that history in shaping and molding the Western mindset. Undoubtedly, the weight of history supports the biblical worldview which is a reflection of truth received not only through biblical revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians but is also a reflection of those unchanging cultural universals built into God’s creation and observed down through the ages. But in their rush to relevance and accommodation, evangelicals have abandoned an appreciation of their own historical roots.

In their haste to cast off the wisdom and experiences of generations of our Christian forefathers, today’s evangelicals have mischaracterized the meaning of sola scriptura which has led to a measure of anti-intellectualism and spiritual shallowness. The church must not reject its rich history and knowledge gained over the centuries which are invaluable to understanding of scripture. The successes and failures of the church through the centuries serve as priceless lessons that both illuminate and elaborate upon the Bible’s teachings. The teachings and writings of the great minds of the Christian past such as Augustine, Luther, and Calvin give much insight into a right understanding of the scriptures.[6] Given the benefit of hindsight, we know they got some things wrong, but without a doubt they were profoundly right on many things.

Guinness believes that an appreciation for the historical gives the best counterperspective to the distorted perspectives of the modern day arising from the humanistic spirit of the world that has captured much of the church.[7] Therefore, an essential for cultivating the art of resistance thinking necessary to become prophetically untimely is an appreciation for the historical.

Constant attention to the eternal

Constant attention to the eternal is the last but most important element necessary for cultivating resistance thinking and is characteristic of the prophetically untimely followers of Jesus Christ.

God said, “For I am the Lord, I change not…” [Malachi 3:6] But in our modern times, the church has lost sight of this truth. Over one hundred years ago, the rejection of God’s unchangeableness was evident in the liberal churches of the era. In 1910, Earle Marion Todd, writing in The Christian Century, captured the spirit of the liberal churches’ abandonment of unchangeable and eternal truths.

Change, unceasing change, is the eternal law…Not only are things changing; they are growing. The world, the universe, is becoming more beautiful, more wonderful, more complex…[T]he church, like every other institution that is to continue to live and discharge a vital function, must adapt herself to the changed conditions. (Jan. 20, 1910).[8] [emphasis added]

So too, in the name of change and relevancy, the modern evangelical church since the 1960s has become increasingly obsessed with the temporal at the expense of the eternal. It seeks to make better men for the day but neglects the destiny of their eternal souls.

But as Guinness points out, “the church’s pursuit of relevance by being constantly timely is a mirage.” [emphasis added] Such relevance becomes self-authenticating, that is, we are relevant because we say we are relevant which is meaningless to the point of being dangerous. To be in constant pursuit of relevance, the church must bow to the “unholy trinity of the powerful, the practical, and the profitable.” Guinness writes that by bowing to the idol of temporal relevance, the church has ridden “slipshod over truth” which is a “means of corralling opinion deceptively. Until, that is, we finally deceive ourselves.”[9]
______

An awareness of the unfashionable, an appreciation of the historical, and constant attention to the eternal are necessary elements in the development of the art of resistance thinking. Resistance thinking is not just a mental exercise but also a matter of the heart that requires a return to the hard and unpopular themes of the gospel. Resistance thinking is an essential prescription for what ails the church. The second of the three prescriptions will be discussed in Part V: a return of the church to New Testament Christianity by embracing all of its distinguishing elements.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), p. 95.
[2] Ibid., p. 98.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 54.
[5] Murray N. Rothbard, “The Progressive Theory of History,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, September 14, 2010. http://mises.org/daily/4708 (accessed October 28, 2014).
[6] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth-Liberating Christianity from its Cultural captivity, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), pp. 280-281.
[7] Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” pp. 100-101.
[8] Earle Marion Todd, Christian Century, January 20, 1910, quoted by Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 279
[9] Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” p. 106.

One eminent European scholar at Oxford University asked the question, “By the end of the 1970s who will be the worldliest Christians in America?” Following the silence of his stunned audience, he answered, “It will be the evangelicals and fundamentalists.” At the time this assessment was made, it seemed almost irrational because evangelicals and fundamentalists were considered to have been at the vanguard of understanding the dangers of the world and worldliness which had been exhibited by their forthright resistance to such for almost three centuries. The form of this legendary resistance was both rational and cultural, that is, their inner thought life and their outer life within the culture had stood as the bulwarks against a rapacious world and worldliness. But in the intervening years since that Oxford seminar, the professor’s prediction proved correct, and the “evangelicals and fundamentalists have embraced the modern world with a passion unrivaled in history.”[1]

The truth of this indictment is revealed by the in-depth examination in Part II of the condition of the American evangelical church as a result of its failure to resist the lure of the humanistic spirit of the modern age. The trends and direction of the evangelical church expose it as being desperately weak to the point of powerlessness. Having examined the condition of the church in Part II, we will examine the causes in Part III.

Nancy Pearcey cut to the heart of the matter when she wrote that Christians are called to resist the spirit of the world but to do so the Christian must first recognize the form it takes in our present day.[2] Failure to make this recognition has been the downfall of evangelicals and fundamentalists of all denominations since the 1960s, some more than others.

In 1999, Richard Cimino wrote an article titled “Choosing My Religion” which was published by Advertising Age. He described the factors Americans consider when seeking a church. Cimino’s observations on the desires of consumer-minded Christians had been discovered and applied decades earlier by the leaders of the Church Growth movement. What Cimino and Church Growth 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.”[3]

The dominant Christian religion in America through the end of the nineteenth century meant having a relationship with and obedience to God. However, by the last half of the 20th century, relationship and obedience had been pushed aside and replaced with the god of self and its quest for happiness. This shift occurred within the church 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.

Instead of presenting the world with the message of hope through Jesus Christ, the world infiltrated the church as it embraced elements of a humanistic worldview. Many in evangelical leadership will strongly deny this assertion and point to their success in reaching out to the lost by being culturally relevant. The church cannot dispute the fact that it must translate unchanging Christian theology into a contemporary language and understanding for each generation. But irrespective of the claims of many in evangelical leadership, there is a difference between evangelism that occurs through accommodation of the spirit of the world in many evangelical churches today and the evangelism of an earlier era which was an uncompromised presentation of the word of God in the face of ridicule and rejection by a hostile culture.

Where such uncompromised presentations are discarded in favor of a more sanguine and relativistic approach to the sinner, such conversions accomplished through accommodating the humanistic spirit of the age ring hollow when large numbers of those converts do not thereafter exhibit commitment to a Christian lifestyle.

Whether occurring through compromise, adding to, taking away, misinterpretation, disregard, neglect, or ignorance, the process of accommodation within the church, however subtle, has diminished the authority of scripture and influence of the church. Writing almost forty years ago, Francis Schaeffer concisely described the importance of fidelity to scriptural authority in both word and deed.

What seems like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world…in things pertaining to theology, doctrine, and spiritual matters, but it also makes all the difference in things pertaining to the daily Christian life and how we as Christians are to relate to the world around us. In other words, compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.[4]

As we have previously stated, the rebellious, self-seeking nature of modern man is the essence of Original Sin. This is not a new occurrence for see this same pattern of rebellion and self-seeking in the Old Testament when the Israelites prepared to cross the Jordan River and enter the promise land according to God’s plan. However, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh liked what they saw on the east side of the Jordan and wanted to dwell there. The meaning of their Hebrew names revealed their inner natures. Reuben was consumed with sexual sin, was attached to the world, and demanded his own way. Gad was outwardly obedient but placed his self-interests ahead of God and His commands. Manasseh forgot his Godly heritage and neglected the commandments of the Lord.[5]

David Wilkerson described many modern day self-professed Christians as being similar to the two and a half tribes of Israel.

Consider these combined traits of middle-ground Christians: Unstable as water in spiritual convictions; never excelling in the things of God; lukewarm, weak with lust; ruled by selfish needs; neglecting the Word; not taking the Lord’s commandments seriously; making their own choices instead of trusting God; forgetting past blessings and dealings; unwilling to let go of certain idols; justifying their own decisions; not willing to die to all that would seduce them back to middle ground![6] [emphasis added]

They chose the middle ground between their complete captivity by the world and Jesus’ command that His true followers must die to the world. Wilkerson’s middle ground closely parallels Paul’s words to Timothy.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. [II Timothy 3:2-5. KJV] [emphasis added]

The middle ground is the humanistic spirit of the world that has invaded the church, and Christians must recognize the form it takes in our modern age. Without an accurate recognition, how can the evangelical church resist the middle ground’s charms and deceptions?

As was stated in Evangelical Winter, the reason for the decline of many churches in America is not that the rising tide of secularism and humanism are stronger than the transformational power of the gospel. Rather, the church has attempted to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant. This quest for relevancy has gradually (and for some almost unknowingly) compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. These doctrinal compromises and non-biblical activities translate into spiritual weakness and ultimately death.[7]

Os Guinness wrote that in the 1980s and 1990s “The new evangelicals were in the process of becoming the old liberals” and “Church growth was now to be ‘on new grounds’.” But on these new grounds were found an “irrelevance of history, the outdatedness of traditional hymns and music, the uptightness of traditional moralism, the abstractness of theologizing, the impracticality of biblical exposition, the inadequacy of small churches, and the deadly, new unforgivable sin—irrelevance.”[8]

What is needed by the evangelical church in the West is reformation and revival. But to have reformation and revival the church must resist the forces of cultural captivity which Guinness identifies as conformity, popularity, and most damaging, the quest for a distorted relevance. The church’s quest for a distorted relevance is religious triviality in which “…many evangelicals are the most superficial of religious believers—lightweight in thinking, gossamer-thin in theology, and avid proponents of spirituality-lite in terms of preaching and responses to life.” The pursuit of distorted relevance must always end in transience and exhaustion. Finally, seeking a distorted relevance along with the quest for conformity and popularity inevitably leads to moral and intellectual cowardice and compromise which is the antithesis of resistance thinking.[9]

In Parts IV, V, and VI, the prescriptions necessary for the church to escape its cultural captivity and seek reformation and revival will be examined.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), pp. 52-53.
[2] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004, 2005), p. 118.
[3] Richard Cimino, “Choosing My Religion,” Advertising Age, April 1, 1999.
http://adage.com/article/american-demographics/choosing-religion/42364/ (accessed October 23, 2015).
[4] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1984), pp. 44-45.
[5] David Wilkerson, “Middle Grounders,” David Wilkerson Devotions, September 28, 2009.
http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/2009/09/middle-grounders.html (accessed March 31, 2017).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity,” (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 242.
[8] Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” pp. 59-60.
[9] Ibid., pp. 71-79.

Part I ended with Os Guinness’ words which call for individual Christians and the church “…to regain the courage of “prophetic untimeliness” and develop the art of “resistance thinking” and so become followers of Jesus who have the courage to become “untimely people” despite the mesmerizing lure of the present age and its fixation with the future.”[1] But resistance must be preceded by an accurate assessment of the condition of the church, recognition of the nature of the mesmerizing lure of the spirit of the age, and how that spirit has wheedled its way into the church.

The evangelical church in America and much of Western civilization is in a deplorable state and declining. George Barna[2] and the American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI)[3] recently surveyed the religious trends in America, and the results were shocking. The first survey was a nationwide random sample of one thousand adult respondents 18 or older whose demographic profile reflects that of the United States. The second was a national public opinion survey of a sample of five hundred clergy who are part of ACFI’s panel of theologically conservative pastors. Both surveys were conducted in February 2017, and the results revealed the following trends:

• Church attendance is down.
• Professions of faith are at low levels compared to the past.
• As a result the decline of professions of faith, there also is a declining percentage of born-again Christians.
• The number of people who label themselves Christians is falling.
• Participation in small groups has dropped by half in less than a decade.
• There is the same pattern of decline in adult Sunday School involvement.
• Bible reading is less common.
• The number of adults who pray to God has decreased significantly in recent years.[4]

Barna states that the likely reason for the above trends is that Christians, including many Bible-believing pastors, do not share the fundamental elements of their faith with non-believers. This lack of witness has occurred because the level of their faith and relationship with Jesus Christ is not sufficiently exciting to cause them to do so.[5]

The trends in the American church shown above are confirmed by a summary of the raw data from the surveys in the areas of (1) a Christian’s personal responsibility to share the gospel, (2) the Christian’s level of engagement in evangelism, and (3) the message shared with non-Christians.

Do Christians have a personal responsibility to share their faith in Christ with others who believe differently?

Only two of every ten adults surveyed (20%) believe they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently. This result is for all adults surveyed, not just Christians. But what was surprising, only 25% of those surveyed who call themselves Christian believe they have that responsibility. Within this sub-group of people who identify themselves as Christians, 31% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics believe they have the personal responsibility to share their faith.[6]

In a parallel survey among a national sample of theologically conservative Protestant pastors, 73% believe they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently.” The results of the survey of these pastors revealed some variations based on denomination: Baptist church pastors (90%), Pentecostal (69%), and Holiness (76%).[7]

Engagement in evangelism

The low percentage of Christians that believe they have a responsibility to share their faith with others who believe differently is consistent with the low percentage of those who actually engage in evangelism. Only 23% shared their personal faith on a monthly basis. However, many of those sharing their faith were not Christians or professed to be Christians but shared a distorted gospel message not consistent with the Bible. The survey found that 71% of theologically conservative Protestant pastors shared the gospel at least once a month with others who believed differently.[8]

What message is given by those who share the gospel?

Based on the results of the survey, ACFI found that less than 10% of those who actually shared a message about their faith with other people at least once a month during the previous year actually presented a biblically accurate proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, only one in ten American adults has a biblical worldview.

Those who presented a faulty presentation of the gospel do not have a basic understanding of Christianity including the purpose and implications of Christ’s death and resurrection. The survey lists several divergent ideas about Christianity that were shared with unbelievers.

• People are basically good.
• Having faith is more important than the substance of that faith.
• God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient but that humankind has evolved from other life forms.
• God is aware of what happens in the universe and is involved with our lives.
• There is absolute moral truth but it is located in various places.
• Eternal security can be assured either through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ or by doing enough good deeds to earn God’s favor.
• A person’s life can be considered “successful” based upon the personal goals accomplished.
• The Bible is the reliable Word of God.
• Jesus understands our struggle because He sinned while on earth.
• Sin is real but Satan and the Holy Spirit are not.[9]

While 23% of those who shared their faith at least once a month, less than 10% presented a biblically accurate version of the gospel.[10]

Barna summarized the impact of the revelations of these surveys.

A large majority of non-Christians in the US do not hear the gospel during a typical year. Worse, when they do have the Christian faith verbally presented to them, shockingly few hear a biblical form of the gospel. Because of this, it is inevitable that the most common metrics of church life and personal spiritual maturity reflect rapid declines. When the fundamental message of Christianity is rarely communicated, and then it is distorted in those infrequent situations when it is communicated, the outcome is not likely to be positive…You cannot give away what you do not possess, and clearly most Americans do not possess even a basic understanding of the Christian narrative as well as the purpose and implications of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.[11]

Barna’s “You cannot give away what you do not possess” is a stinging indictment of a pervasive biblical illiteracy that is typical within most evangelical churches in America, and here once again we are reminded of the importance of a solid biblical worldview necessary to defend the faith from the infiltration of humanism into the church.

Worldview is important because it is the mental framework one uses to cope with and make sense of the world and identify truth or reality. These perceptions of truth or reality determines how they will decide what is right or wrong, good or evil, and distinguish the truth and the false.[12]

To determine worldview, the ACFI survey evaluated the respondent’s worldview by asking forty questions that dealt with their core spiritual beliefs and behavior. The questions did not deal with theological theories but centered on the respondents’ attitudes and behaviors regarding basic biblical concepts such as lying, cheating, stealing, pornography, nature of God, and the consequences of unresolved sin.[13]

The results of the survey revealed that although seven out of ten Americans claim to be Christian, only 46% of Americans claimed to have a biblical worldview. But, the results of the survey indicate that only about 10% of the general public were “integrated disciples” by which is meant that they had “a biblical worldview based on integrating their beliefs and behavior into a lifestyle that reflects foundational biblical principles.” Other results of the survey found that only 4% of the Millennials (18-29 years old) were “integrated disciples.” Almost one-third (32%) of all American adults claimed to be theologically conservative, but only one-fourth of that group qualified as “integrated disciples.”[14]

Barna states that if someone claims to be a Christian but their behavior does not reflect those beliefs, “it is doubtful that they believe what they really claim to believe.”[15] It would appear there are many reasons for this disconnection between beliefs and actions. One reason is that some people are “hereditary” Christians, e.g., “My mother was a Christian, so I identify myself as a Christian” or as many in other parts of the world assume, “You are an American. Therefore, you are a Christian.” A second group claims to be Christian because they are nominally members of a recognized church that for various reasons may not lead their adherents into becoming “integrated disciples.” Whatever the reasons for the disconnection between beliefs and actions, the American evangelical church as a whole has been woefully negligent in producing “integrated disciples” since the 1960s and which accounts for the declining trends in the health of the church including lack of biblical literacy among the congregants and the scarcity of “integrated disciples.”

Having recognized the damage caused by the mesmerizing lure of the present age that has significantly weakened the church, Part III will examine the causes that have led to the church’s powerlessness.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), p. 20.
[2] George Barna, “National Surveys Describe the State of Christian Evangelism,” American Culture Review, American Culture and Faith Institute, March 22, 2017.
https://www.culturefaith.com/national-surveys-describe-the-state-christian-evangelism/ (accessed March 23, 2017).
[3] Ibid., The American Culture and Faith Institute is a division of United in Purpose, a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The mission of United in Purpose is to educate, motivate and activate conservative Christians to engage in cultural transformation in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The organization does not support or promote individual political candidates or parties.
[4] Barna, “National Surveys Describe the State of Christian Evangelism,” March 22, 2017.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] George Barna, “Groundbreaking ACFI Survey Reveals How Many Adults Have a Biblical Worldview,” American Culture and Faith Institute, February 27, 2017.
https://www.culturefaith.com/groundbreaking-survey-by-acfi-reveals-how-many-american-adults-have-a-biblical-worldview/ (accessed March 28, 2017).
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

Satan hates God. Satan was cast out of heaven because of his pride in his position and his beauty rose to the point of placing himself on the level of God. As a result of his rebellion, Satan was not only demoted and stripped of every precious stone that was his covering, he was cast out of heaven. So Satan really hates God. It is a vicious, snarling, consuming hatred—something almost beyond our human ability to comprehend. But Satan had no power to strike back at God directly. His only alternative was to strike at God by robbing the Creator of His relationship with man—His special creation.

Humanism’s opposition to God’s plan for mankind encompasses all of human history. The humanistic spirit of the world is of satanic origin and has been present within human society since Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden. All through history, this humanistic spirit of the world is the spirit of rebellion of man against God. It is the essence of Original Sin that infects all of humanity.

In the eleventh century BC, King David wrote, “The fool hath said in his heart: there is no god.” [Psalm 14:1. KJV] But it was the Greeks of the fourth through sixth centuries BC that gave form and body to the man-made philosophy of humanism that would impact the world second only to Jesus Christ. Carried to its conclusion, humanism denies the existence of God for Nature is all there is. And all of life on earth including man is the product of Nature’s long evolutionary process that occurred by chance and was devoid of a supernatural Creator. Man is not fallen and in no need of a redeemer for man is master of his own destiny as he strives for happiness, freedom, and progress in this life for there is no life after death. Truth is whatever man wants it to be to address the needs of the moment. Truth is relative and is not some infallible standard beyond time by which man must be guided. As a result, moral values and concepts of right and wrong must be based on human experience and therefore are autonomous and situational.

The civilization of ancient Greece has fascinated mankind for 2,500 years. Philosophy, politics, much of arithmetic and geometry, and several categories of Western art were invented in an amazingly short four centuries by the Hellenes, the ancient Greeks.[1] In the early sciences, rhetoric, warfare, and grace of manners, the Greeks far excelled all civilized peoples who came before. The incalculable influence of those four centuries of Greek life and thought throughout the world has lasted to the present day where it spreads its tentacles throughout the modern Western world. Greek culture was divided into two periods: the Classical period which ended with Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC was preoccupied with the ideal. However, the succeeding Hellenistic period (323 BC – 146 BC) was concerned with reality, that is, “relating the exploits of gods, heroes, and common mortals to everyday life and familiar emotions.”[2]

The culture wars are not of recent origin but extend far back into man’s history. It is a battle of worldviews between Christianity and humanism expressed through the humanistic spirit of the world. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called humanism or the Greek spirit the greatest danger to Christianity since its beginning.[3]

The spread of the ideas, culture, customs, and philosophy of humanism of the ancient Greeks is called Hellenization. Much of the ancient Greeks’ early efforts to Hellenize the world were done at the point of a sword, and the Jewish people were not exempted. One of the most famous stories of resistance to Greek Hellenization was the Maccabean Revolt recorded in the writings of Eusebius and Clement and in the Septuagint within a few decades of the actual events. [The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha which is not a part of the Jewish Old Testament or Protestant New Testament. However, the Apocrypha is included in the Catholic Bible.]

The events of the Maccabean Revolt are recorded in the first book of the Maccabees. The story begins with Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid king whose empire was based in northern Syria and whose culture was primarily of Greek origin. He was one of the successors of Alexander the Great. Antiochus’ empire stretched southward into Judea which had been incorporated Judea as part of his empire when his father (Antiochus III) defeated the Egyptians in 198 BC.[4] Judea was important because it was the southern border of Antiochus’ kingdom and the front line with his Egyptian enemies that lay to the west.

Antiochus III attempted to Hellenize the Jews but eventually backed down. But his son reinstated his father’s program of Hellenization and outlawed the central tenets of Judaism including observance of the Sabbath and circumcision. Antiochus also defiled the Temple by opening it to non-Jews, erecting an altar to the god Zeus, and sacrificing swine.[5] Many Jews succumbed to the cultural imperatives of Greek Hellenism, but some chose to resist unto death.

The story begins when a local Greek official attempted to force Mattathias to make a sacrifice to a Pagan god. Following the murder of the Greek official, Antiochus directed many reprisals against the Jews, but many resisted. From their village of Modi‘in located a few miles northwest of Jerusalem, Mattathias and his five sons became leaders of the resistance against Antiochus and fought for the liberation of the Jews. Mattathias soon died, but the revolt continued under his son Judah called Maccabeus which means “the Hammer” in Hebrew. Antiochus responded by sending a powerful army to put down the insurrection. But after three years of this David versus Goliath battle, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Maccabees and the Temple purified in 164 BC.[6]

Some believe that early Christianity was essentially “Hellenized” at its birth, a product of the significant influence of the Hellenistic thought and culture on the newly arrived Christian faith.[7] Russell Kirk (writing from a Catholic perspective) stated that, “…Hellenic thought had been woven inextricably into the fabric of Christian teaching, so that it was next to impossible to distinguish Judaic threads from Greek…”[8] More correctly stated, it was elements of Platonic thought rightly understood that intersected and were consistent with Christian teaching and doctrine. This leads only to an appearance of integration between the two. Although one may accept the importance of Greek cultural influences on early Christianity (the New Testament was written in Greek), Christians vigorously defend the source for Christian tradition and doctrine as the inspired word of God revealed to the Hebrews and later to the Apostles. Christian faith and teaching is not an offshoot of Greek Hellenization whose philosophy of humanism is diametrically opposed to the revelation of God to the Hebrews and New Testament doctrines of the Christian church. This contrast is evident in Paul’s sermon to the Greeks at Mars’ Hill.

Although humanism was a constant enemy of Christianity from the first century, it became rooted within church doctrine during the thirteenth century. Just as he did with Eve, Satan began whispering in the ears of the Churchmen. His scheme was to redefine the condition of fallen man, and Satan used the philosophy of the ancient Greeks to do it. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) revered the 4th century B.C. Greek philosopher Aristotle. Through study of Aristotle’s writings, Aquinas believed that man revolted against God and was fallen but not completely. He believed man’s will was fallen but not the intellect. Therefore, in addition to the Bible, men could rely on human wisdom as well as the teachings of non-Christian philosophers.[9]

Through Aquinas’ efforts, elements of Aristotle’s non-Christian philosophy and other church traditions were accepted by the church as a source of authority alongside the Bible. Because Aquinas’s unfallen human reason was now autonomous and equal to scripture, more and more of the pronouncements of the church were based on pagan Greek and Roman philosophies. Eventually those pronouncements became more important than many teachings of the Bible. Human reason was now autonomous, but unhooking human reason from biblical revelation created a fundamental problem. If one starts with man’s ideas and reason as opposed to the absolutes found in the Bible, fixed standards for determining values, morals, law, and truth no longer have meaning and truth descends into relativism. This is pure, undiluted humanism.[10]
______

All through man’s time on planet earth, his story is awash with Satan’s attempts to destroy him by subverting the truth of the God’s Word through the humanistic spirit of the world as described above. But in every age there have been men of God who spoke truth and stood firm in the face of overwhelming opposition from apostate churches and pagan cultures of their age.

Os Guinness described these men as possessing a “prophetic untimeliness”—independent thinkers out of step with the conventional wisdom of their generation. These were men of great discernment, vision, having a different perspective and commitment, and not at home in the age in which they lived. Not all such men who possess independent thinking are guided by eternal truths as revealed by God. Where such occurs, the independence of their thinking will be misguided, flawed, and ultimately lead to failure or corruption. But for the man who follows God, the foundation for their independent thinking is anchored in the truth of the His eternal Word and not his or her “genius or social stubbornness.”[11]

Having succumbed to the siren song of the humanistic spirit of the age, the modern church has largely been overwhelmed with the quest for relevance and reinvention to accomplish Christ’s mission but at the cost of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. This has occurred because the church has failed to balance the twin commands of Christ—“go ye into all the world” and “be ye separate.” In most of today’s churches the “going” into the world has far surpassed “separation” from the world. For many, this “going” has come to mean being culturally relevant through accommodation of the spirit of the world within the church. In other words, the world has evangelized the church instead of the other way around.

But where are those prophetically untimely men and women in our present age? There are a few such men and women in Western civilization who are ringing the bell of truth, but not many are heard. Their messages are being muffled under the din emanating from an inward-turned modern world consumed with the moment while ignoring the eternal. Thus, these messengers of truth have been reduced to being a voice “crying in the wilderness” because Christian pacifists and false teachers in the culture wars hold the microphone and dominate the platform. Guinness believes there should be more Christians who develop the trait of prophetic untimeliness.

The answer…is to regain the courage of “prophetic untimeliness” and develop the art of “resistance thinking” and so become followers of Jesus who have the courage to become “untimely people” despite the mesmerizing lure of the present age and its fixation with the future.[12]

The church needs many more faithful Christians with the art of “resistance thinking.” Such thinking correctly balances the “go ye” with the “be ye separate” and requires a stubborn awareness of the elements of the contemporary age that don’t fit with the Christian message. Where the gospel is easy, comfortable, and a natural fit with the prevailing self-centered humanistic spirit of the age, then its demands for self-denial and sacrifice are not present and neither is the true gospel of Jesus Christ.[13]

In the remainder of this series on resistance thinking, we will examine the current dismal state of evangelicalism, the causes, and the cure through development of the art of resistance thinking.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 85.
[2] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 211.
[3] Marcus Cowper, History Book-An Interactive Journey, (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2010), pp. 20-21.
[4] Steven H. Werlin, “The Maccabean Revolt: Between Tradition and History,” Society of Biblical Literature, https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/TB5_Maccabees_SW.pdf (accessed March 27, 2017).
[5] “The Maccabees/Hasmoneans: History and Overview (166-129 BCE),” Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-maccabees (accessed March 27, 2017).
[6] Ibid.
[7] John Herman Randall, Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927, 1940), p. 46.
[8] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 74.
[9] Francis A Schaffer, How Then Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1976), pp. 51-52.
[10] Ibid., pp. 52, 55.
[11] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness-A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), pp. 19-20.
[12] Ibid., p. 20.
[13] Ibid.