In Part I, Dr. Charles Crabtree identified three causes of the crisis of discipleship in the Assemblies of God. These causes have affected virtually all denominations. The causes have been profoundly debilitating to the liberal mainline denominations for most of a century, but the causes have also invaded non-mainline evangelical churches in varying degrees since the 1960s.

Dr. Crabtree identified the three causes of the crisis in discipleship as preaching another gospel, the failure to count the cost of discipleship, and a failure to continue in the Word.[1] These are not the only causes of the demise of biblical Christianity but account for much of the humanistic spirit of the world that has invaded the church. This invasion into the modern evangelical churches of America will be examined.

Preaching another gospel

When preaching no longer focuses on the cross of Christ, it becomes another gospel. And it is this other gospel that is preached and practiced by the pervasive Church Growth movement and which has been embraced by many evangelical churches in America over the last quarter century. Crabtree called this other gospel “good news for the ego” which is at the heart of the seeker-sensitive church’s message. This other gospel focuses on adding value to the temporal life of the seeker with no confrontation of seeker’s sin. This focus on the felt needs (often the product of a desperately wicked heart) produces a tendency toward universalism which requires only confessing Jesus with one’s words but does not require a change of heart or a change from a sinful life style (for everyone is going to heaven anyway). As Crabtree put it, the focus is on “making a nice person, not a new person.”[2]

The whole of the seeker-sensitive movement’s dedication to meeting the felt needs of people taps into the humanistic spirit of the world and its devotion to self. In the seeker-sensitive churches, felt needs are assumed to be legitimate but are often merely diversionary measures used by Satan and his forces to defeat the human soul. Not only does the seeker-sensitive church attempt to meet the felt needs of their audience, they also attempt to meet their felt wants. Udo W. Middelmann reveals the heart of the matter in his stinging indictment of many evangelical churches in America.

In the course of a very few decades much of the church has embraced the way of mass culture in its drive to reduce everything to play and attractive entertainment. It has bowed to the demands of a consumer society and offers a message that more often distracts for the moment than comforts for the long run. Adjustments in content and form to match the perceived needs of future possible converts eat away at the content necessary to understand God, the fall of man, and redemption. Marketing priorities preside. The product is matched to the customer’s expectations. There is little room for the doctor to prescribe the medicine or for God to set forth judgment and conditions for redemption.[3]

In seeker-sensitive preaching, there is an inherent conflict between preaching the cross of Christ and their goal of being sensitive to the feelings and needs of the unchurched. We find the correct answer to this conflict revealed in the book of Hebrews.

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

When preaching the cross, it is well to remember that the Word not only accuses and cuts but comforts and dresses wounds as well.

In the seek-sensitive church world, saccharine superficial messages attempt to massage and caress felt needs without the necessity of spiritual surgery. But the Word rightly applied cuts deeply beneath felt needs to the secret sin buried in the heart of man which Jeremiah called desperately wicked and deceitful (see Jeremiah 17:9).[4]

According to Crabtree, moving from preaching another gospel back to preaching the cross of Christ will require a move of the Holy Spirit that “will bring divine revelation concerning the power of the Cross along with the resurrected Jesus, so people will say, ‘The pearl of great price is worth all the junk, all the stuff, all material riches. God is worthy.’”[5]

Failure to count the cost of discipleship

It would appear that there can be little argument that the American evangelical church has grown soft on a diet of soft-soap evangelism that tickles the ears; provides comfort, ease, and entertainment; and demands little in the way of contrition, repentance and turning from sin.

One of the brightest stars in the Church Growth movement is a purveyor of such soft-soap evangelism. He has said, “Sometimes you need to give the unbeliever some slack in order to reel them in.”[6] “Slack” in the seeker-sensitive model of doing church means attempting to entice the sinner through the church’s doors and then focusing on meeting his or her felt needs. It is hoped that over time the importance of being a Christian and its associated benefits will convince the seeker that they should “make a decision for Christ.” Thereafter, sanctification will come through listening and responding to a series of therapeutic messages designed to make them better people and thereby partake of the popularized view of Christianity known as “the good life.” The only problem with this method is that many preachers never get around to presenting the unadulterated powerful message of the cross nor allow time for the Holy Spirit to do His office work of convicting the sinner of his sin without which no man can come to Christ.[7]

This is called grace on the cheap, but it is a counterfeit grace that is leading millions to an eternity in hell. The real cost of serving Jesus is high, and a great multitude in evangelical churches across America haven’t paid the price. The high cost of following Jesus Christ always centers on the cross and is confirmed by the words of Luke and the Apostle Paul.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:27. KJV]

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. [Galatians 2:20. KJV]

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. [Romans 13:14. KJV]

Christ’s call to discipleship is not doing better but embracing the message of the cross, dying to self, and living the resurrection life which will result in true sanctification.

Failure to continue in the Word

Luke described the necessity of continuing in the Word. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” [Acts2:42. NIV]
Many people truly find Christ as their Savior and Lord, are baptized in the Holy Spirit, and become part of a local fellowship of believers. However, they never truly live productive, fruitful, and victorious lives. Crabtree believes that the third cause of ineffective discipleship is a failure to continue in the Word.[8]

The evangelical church has exhibited a marked decline in biblical literacy in the last decades of the twentieth century which continues to the present day. As used here, biblical literacy means familiarity with the Bible and its central themes and teachings. There are several reasons consistent with the humanistic spirit of the age that account for the decline of biblical literacy.

• Significant abandonment of devotional reading and Bible study among evangelicals of all ages.
• De-emphasis or complete elimination of a weekly Sunday morning Sunday school.
• Discontinuance of children and youth organizations within the church that promote scripture memorization and biblical knowledge.
• Significant decline in expository preaching as preachers began emphasizing the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings. The decline in expository preaching has also led to a drift away from constant and thematic biblical preaching and teaching of the great organizing themes of the Bible such as the nature and character of God; the creation, fall, and redemption; the historical narratives of the Old and New Testaments; the Christian walk in a hostile world, and prophetic and end-time events.
• Decline in number of sermons that Christians hear from the pulpit. Thirty or forty years ago, the average evangelical church member would hear three or more messages preached each week compared to perhaps one each week at present. The church has replaced many regular preaching services with small group meetings and other religious activities that do not provide a consistent exposition of the Bible.
• Decline in regular attendance of church members at services where a message is preached.
• Replacement of hymns with their explicit doctrine-laced biblical themes with more contemporary, personalized themes.[9]

Ten years ago, Crabtree express great hope for the implementation of small groups that would change the direction of the Assemblies in curing the crisis of discipleship. Crabtree’s words from Part I are repeated here.

We will set up model churches around the country that are doing small groups within the guidelines of a Pentecostal church. We will promote our own small-group models…Sunday School will continue to be the fundamental discipleship ministry in the Assemblies of God. I am a fervent believer that Sunday School, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in the American culture. Small groups and Sunday School will feed off each other.[10] [emphasis added]

The imposition of small groups has largely been a failure in accomplishing its intended purposes. It is not because small groups are not biblical by nature. Rather, the nature of the first century small group has been perverted by the seeker-sensitive ministry mindset. Small groups often abandon the guidelines of a Pentecostal church of which Crabtree spoke. Such groups have made fellowship and the breaking of bread their primary focus and failed to devote themselves to the Apostles’ doctrine and prayer. Many small groups have not followed the biblical pattern, but more importantly they have severely damaged other elements of the church which continues to undermine biblical literacy.

Crabtree fervently believes that Sunday school, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in American culture. Yet, many adult Sunday school classes are replaced by small groups meeting at other times. Young couples whose Sunday school classes are eliminated because they are herded into small groups meeting at other times also do not bring their children to Sunday school.

Small groups have been used as a replacement for the irreplaceable Sunday night service which Crabtree states “is time for the church to gird itself…to rise up Monday morning…” But the New Testament pattern for small groups was never designed as a replacement for church services where preaching and teaching of the Apostles’ doctrine and prayer occurred.
______

If the church is to successfully address the causes and provide a cure for the crisis in discipleship, it must have revival. But revival will not come if the church does not forsake all by keeping one foot in the world. Revival must be preceded by the church’s contrition, repentance, and turning from sin and coupled with prayer and petition for revival. When seeking revival, A. W. Tozer’s words of six decades ago give further guidance. He said that we should look to the Bible and the great saints of the past for our directions in this modern age.

Take nothing for granted…Go back to the grass roots. Open your hearts and search the Scriptures. Bear your cross, follow your Lord and pay no heed to the passing religious vogue. The masses are always wrong. In every generation the number of the righteous is small. Be sure you are among them.[11]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure,” Supplement to the Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007, p. 2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Udo W. Middelmann, The Market Driven Church, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 124.
[4] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 193.
[5] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God,” p. 2.
[6] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 216.
[7] Johnson, Evangelical Winter, p. 216.
[8] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God,” p. 3.
[9] Johnson, Evangelical Winter, p. 189.
[10] Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God, p. 4.
[11] A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 1986), p. 5.

Dr. Charles Crabtree served as the Assistant General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God for fourteen years. Following his tenure at the Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, he became the president of Zion Bible College in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and served until 2013. Dr. Crabtree published an article in the Enrichment Journal, Winter Quarter, 2007, titled “The Crisis of Discipleship in the American Church.”[1] This article was condensed and published as a supplement titled “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure.”[2] This was an abridgement of a message delivered the previous August at a weekly chapel service for the headquarters employees of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

In 2007, Dr. Crabtree wrote of the crisis he saw in the Assemblies of God with regard to the three-fold purpose laid down by the fellowship’s founders.

Evangelism – 2007

Crabtree said that the state of evangelism in the Assemblies was “unremarkable.” In support of his conclusion he stated that for the period 1995-2005, the Assemblies had 5.3 million stated decisions for Christ but the growth from those conversions was just under 222,000 over ten years (4.2% conversion growth rate). Crabtree responded to those who would minimize the importance of Sunday morning attendance because it is not proof of salvation. He said, “I tell you that if a baby is not in the care of the home, that baby is either dead, lost, or in deep trouble.”[3]

Discipleship – 2007

Crabtree also saw a crisis in discipleship in the Assemblies which he called “ineffective.” He stated that within the fellowship in 2005, only one in four who decided for Christ followed up with water baptism and only one in five received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “If we continue this trend, I project that in ten years (2017) we will have a small minority of Pentecostals in the Assemblies of God.”[4] [emphasis added]

Worship – 2007

“I believe the state of worship in the Assemblies of God has become incidental rather than pervasive.” Crabtree explained that worship is a life style. It is not a Sunday morning “incident” but “a constant, humble obedience to the Lord in all areas of life” that must occur in the life of a disciple seven days a week.[5]

Like a skilled surgeon, Dr. Crabtree cut to the heart of the crisis within the Assemblies of God in accomplishing its three-fold purpose. Next, he identified the causes.

Preaching another gospel

The reason for ineffective evangelism and discipleship in the American Protestant church including the Assemblies of God “…is the preaching of another gospel—good news for the ego. The Cross is not the central focus in a great deal of preaching.”[6]

It seems the American church says to those who pass through the doors, “You’re a good person, and the church can give you added value to the temporal life.” And it will. But this is not the primary reason the church exists. The church exists to get people ready for eternity, not for tomorrow. It is not a temporal gospel; it is an eternal gospel, and at the heart of that gospel is the Cross and true repentance.

What we have is a culture that says, “If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, that is all we are going to ask. We are not asking for a behavioral change; we want a doctrinal change. We want you to believe the way we believe, but how you act is up to you. And when you come to this church, we promise we will not confront you with sin. We will not make you feel the least bit convicted.”

I see this more and more. It is the philosophy of universalism: Confess Jesus, God will take care of the rest. Everybody is eventually going to heaven anyway. So, do not get excited. All you need to do is to be a nice person, not a new person.[7]

Failure to count the cost of discipleship

Christ said, “And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:27. NIV] Crabtree described what carrying one’s cross was and was not. He wrote, “Your cross is living in a hostile world and standing up to the filth, rottenness, and sin in homes, families, and workplaces, and say, ‘No sir, I am a Christian; I am a follower of Christ.’” He states that if the church soft-soaps the gospel and attempts to get by with lackadaisical discipleship, young people are not going to be drawn to something that is not challenging and worthwhile. Crabtree argues that if the church’s message presents the high cost of serving Christ, millions will respond because they are looking for something far more important that their own temporal lives.[8]

Crabtree attributes the anemic condition of the church to its work is being done by professionals and “not spirit-filled portable temples” between Sundays. “It is time for the church to gird itself on Sunday night to rise up Monday morning, and say, ‘We are going to be a strong, healthy church, and we are going to change this world through our faithfulness to God and our obedience to the Lord.’” Crabtree believes the answer to the church’s dilemma is revival which means “bringing the church back to healthy productivity” and not just being blessed.[9] [emphasis added]

Failure to continue in the word

Even though people may be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, they never become productive Christians by which is meant they never reproduce themselves in the kingdom. According to Crabtree, this is result of a failure to continue in the word, the third cause of the crisis in discipleship within the church.

Crabtree outlined what the church must do to cure the crisis of discipleship. He states that the cure must rest on being prepared for discipleship. This is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all for individual churches will prepare for and conduct discipleship in many different ways and will be effective when the church “takes babes in Christ and disciple them into productive spiritual adults.”[10] Crabtree states that small groups should be one element of the cure.

We will set up model churches around the country that are doing small groups within the guidelines of a Pentecostal church. We will promote our own small-group models…Sunday School will continue to be the fundamental discipleship ministry in the Assemblies of God. I am a fervent believer that Sunday School, when used properly, is the most effective discipleship tool in the American culture. Small groups and Sunday School will feed off each other.[11] [emphasis added]

Crabtree concludes by stating that the heart of the cure for the crisis in discipleship must always be love…“every convert loved by somebody, not just everybody.”[12]
______

To properly assess the direction of the Assemblies of God in the United States since Charles Crabtree’s article in 2007, statistics for the period 1996-2005 has been compared with the period 2006-2015.[13}

Growth from Conversions declined from an annual average of 495,509 to 454,208 or a 41,301 decline compared to the previous ten years, a decline of 8.34%.

Sunday Morning Attendance increased from an annual average of 1,664,079 to 1,860,691 or a 196,613 increase compared to the previous ten years, an increase of 11.82%.

Water Baptisms increased from an annual average of 122,84l to125,325, an increase of 2,484 compared to the previous ten years. This represents an increase of 2.02%.

Holy Spirit Baptisms declined from an annual average of 93,097 to 84,747, a decline of 8,921 compared to the previous ten years, a decline of 8.9%.

A brief examination reveals that the Assemblies of God has not resolved their crisis of discipleship. Growth from conversions and Holy Spirit Baptisms have declined between 8% and 9% for the 2006-2015 period compared with the 1996-2005 period. And the Water Baptisms category is just barely in the black. Ten years have passed since Dr. Crabtree’s prediction that Pentecostals will be a small minority in the Assemblies of God in ten years. That decline has continued, and in 2017 it appears that in many Assemblies of God churches the Pentecostals have become the small minority.

Even though there are concerns about the direction of the Assemblies of God in recent years as identified by Charles Crabtree, its record is far superior to the great majority of evangelical denominations in the United States. A report published in March 2015 compared long-term growth of various denominations from the mid-1960s to 2012 and 2013. Of the eight primary mainline denominations, all had declining memberships, and the loss of membership in seven of the eight denominations ranged from 27% to 67%. Six of the seven primary non-mainline denominations had increases in membership ranging from the Southern Baptist Convention at 46% growth to the Church of God in Christ with 1,194%. The Assemblies of God grew from 572,000 adherents in 1965 to 3,031,000 in 2013, an increase of 430%. The report stated that although the growth of the more conservative non-mainline churches was slowing, the liberal mainline denominations were on a path to inevitable demise because of their progressive departure from biblical Christianity.[14] This observation should be a wake-up call for the non-mainline denominations with slowing growth.

In Part II, Dr. Crabtree’s causes for the crisis in discipleship in the Assemblies of God will be examined in light of the disturbing trends in all evangelical churches in the United States.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “The Crisis of Discipleship in the American Church,” Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200801/200801_022_Discipleship.cfm (accessed February 22, 2017).
[2] Dr. Charles Crabtree, “Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, The Cause, and The Cure,” Supplement to the Enrichment Journal, Winter 2007.
[3] Ibid., pp. 1-2.
[4] Ibid., p. 2.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., p. 3.
[9] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13]The data presented was derived from statistical reports published by the Assemblies of God on its website. See: “Statistics of the Assemblies of God (USA) 2015 Reports,” General Council of the Assemblies of God.
Table: AG USA Conversions 1978-2015
Table: AG USA Major Worship Service Attendance 1978-2015
Table: AG USA Baptisms 1979-2015
http://ag.org/top/About/statistics/index.cfm (accessed February 22, 2017).
[14] Joe Carter, “Fact Checker: Are all Christian Denominations in Decline?” The Gospel Coalition, March 17, 2015. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline (accessed February 22, 2017).

In Part I we traced the beginnings of the ecumenical movement between the various branches of Christianity and within those churches embroiled in the liberal-fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century. In Part II we examined the conflicts and controversies in the 1950s and 1960s surrounding ecumenicalism’s push into evangelicalism in an effort to achieve reconciliation and unity among evangelical, non-evangelical, and liberal churches in America and England. As was stated in the conclusion of Part II, the 1950s and 1960s were a major turning point for evangelical churches as they embraced ecumenicalism which determined their course for decades to follow.

The evangelical church’s pursuit of ecumenicalism over the last half century has blurred the once sharp line that distinguished the Christian from the non-Christian. When that line was sharp and clear, the church the church was holy, powerful, and effective in its mission of impacting culture and winning the lost to Christ. When the line between what is Christian and non-Christian became blurred, the meaning of Christianity and evangelicalism also became blurred. Iain Murray described what form this blurring took.

“…liberalism was ‘Christianity’ harmonized with the moral aspirations of all men. It was truth modified to give offence to none…it assumed the goodness of human nature and portrayed Christianity in terms of doing rather than of believing. In so far as it spoke of hope after death, it was with a promise of universal comfort—heaven not as the exclusive home of the redeemed but as the ultimate destination for all who pass through this world. It denied (along with the false prophets) that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it.”[1] [Matthew 7:13, 15] [emphasis added]

Remember the words of Michael Ramsey in Part II when he spoke to the evangelicals in England who wanted acceptance within the larger body. He warned them that they must accept those confessing Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” as Christians in good standing. Therefore, evangelicals had to “turn their back on their old exclusiveness.” That is what has happened in America. A large part of Evangelicalism has turned its back on its old exclusiveness.

Following the 1950s and 1960s, the ecumenical movement was effectively advanced by incorporation into the church’s message the themes of the humanistic spirit of the world: relativism, tolerance, and inclusion. This compromise and accommodation led to ignoring, changing, abandoning, or adding doctrines, beliefs, and activities in ways that conflicted with two hundred and fifty years of evangelical thought, belief, and practice that mirrored first-century New Testament Christianity.

The great fault of fundamentalism’s past was its periodic failure to consider the weak and inconsistent Christian. This occurred because they left the straight and narrow path resting on a fervent adherence to the uncompromised truth found in the Bible and fell into the ditch of legalism. But in the modern age which has encompassed the church for most of a century, the great danger has been compromise and accommodation rather than legalism. Ecumenicalism’s compromise and accommodation has brought multitudes into the church membership and leadership who have not repented of their sin and bowed in submission to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Iain Murray called it a “popularized definition of Christian with no biblical authority at all.”[2]

But Satan is not content with a just a popularized definition of Christian and a Christianity that only demands a hollow confession of Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” devoid of the meat of doctrine. The outworking of Satan’s Trojan Horse of ecumenicalism requires that the church recognize the priority of unity without limit. The acceptance of this further apostasy within the church has become the norm rather than the exception, and this limitless ecumenicalism is promoted at the highest levels of leadership in the both evangelical and non-evangelical churches. If one doubts this last statement, five examples will confirm the truth that ecumenicalism now reaches far beyond the borders of the church however one may define Christianity.

• On July 4, 2009, Rick Warren spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capital during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America. His message was that Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising their respective convictions.[3]

• Reverend Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., permitted the Episcopal Church to host a Muslim prayer service at the Cathedral on November 14, 2014.[4]

• On August 11-12, 2016, Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church broadcast his annual Global Leadership Summit by live telecast to over three hundred thousand participants worldwide. He recruited Melinda Gates as one of the main speakers for the event.[5] Gates is co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood of America and other organizations around the world that have aborted millions of babies.[6]

• In 2007, Leith Anderson signed the infamous Yale Covenant. Anderson was President of the National Association of Evangelicals which represented more than 45,000 local churches from nearly forty denominations with a constituency of millions.[7] The Yale Covenant was the signors’ agreement in response Muslim religious leaders’ call for unity and understanding between Christianity and Islam that would serve as a basis for dialogue and reconciliation. The Yale Covenant was signed by over three hundred prominent Christian ministers, professors, and leaders from various organizations including Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, David Yonggi Cho, and NAE’s Anderson.[8]

• In May 2013, Pope Francis stated that all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven. The pope stated that the Lord has redeemed all of us with the Blood of Christ. Not just Catholics but everyone including atheists. The Pope said that all have a duty to do good, and if we “…do good, we will meet one another there.”[9] Pope Francis is preaching universalism which is a hyper-ecumenicalism in which all roads lead to God whether it is humanism’s Nature, a host of pantheistic Gods, Allah of the Koran, or the Christian God of the Bible.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16a, the Apostle Paul cautions that Christians should not be mismatched with unbelievers.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? [2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. NIV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps explained Paul’s use of being unequally yoked as a word picture for describing human relationships. In God’s accounting, there are only two types of people—Christians and non-Christian.

…those that know Christ must not be in voluntary close partnership or association with unbelievers because such relationships can compromise and corrupt their relationship with Christ. Paul was likely attempting to discourage the Corinthians from cooperating with the false teachers who had infiltrated the church and gained influence with their persuasive words. But this principle certainly applies to dating, marriage, business partnerships, secret orders (lodges) and close friendships. A Christian’s relationships with unbelievers should center on what is necessary and appropriate for the social and economic purpose of daily life and to show people the way to spiritual salvation, and a personal relationship with Christ. But a Christian’s closest relationships should be with other followers of Christ with whom they can relate on a spiritual level.[10]

Given the plain words of Paul to the Corinthians, should the rise of ecumenicalism and the subsequent decay of evangelicalism in Western civilization come as a surprise to Christians? It should not for the Apostle Paul also told us that this must come. In his letter to Timothy he 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]
______

Without a doubt there is occurring a rapid cultural decline in America caused by the abandonment of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built, the ascendance of humanistic and secularized influence over the institutions of American life, and the general decline of morality within Western cultures. At the same time the church has entered the time of the Great Apostasy which is engulfing many of the once faithful.

The inevitability of the trials facing the true church and the culture within which it resides does not release the church from Christ’s mandate to speak the truth in spite of cultural opposition and to share the gospel until the end of the age when He shall return. Those that remain true to the faith should not be shaken in mind, distraught, or troubled in heart. The consolation for the suffering of the faithful is found in the words of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 295.
[2] Ibid., p. 297.
[3] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[4] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[5] “Faculty,” The Global Leadership Summit, https://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/#about (accessed September 16, 2016).
[6] Susan Berry, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations says it will no longer fund abortion,” Brietbart, June 12, 2014. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/12/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-says-it-will-no-longer-fund-abortion/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[7] “About NAE,” National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/about-nae/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[8]“‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture,
http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).
[9] “Pope at Mass: Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace,” Vatican Radio, May 22, 2013. http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_ encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 (accessed September 14, 2016).
[10]Donald Stamps, Commentary, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, Gen. Ed. Donald Stamps, (Published by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, Peabody, Massachusetts; Copyright 2009 by Life Publishers International, Springfield, Missouri), p. 2207.

In Part I we traced the beginnings of the ecumenical movement among the various branches of Christianity and within those churches embroiled in the liberal-fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century. It was noted that the great difficulty in achieving ecumenicalism was the result of differences between the fundamental beliefs between Roman Catholicism and Protestant churches and also the doctrinal differences between the evangelical and liberal wings of the Protestant churches themselves. Part II will primarily address the efforts to achieve reconciliation and unity between the liberal churches and neo-evangelical churches which were mostly from denominations oriented toward the fundamentals of the Christian faith as found in the Bible.

By the mid-1930s, the intra-church doctrinal differences that roiled over the previous three decades had subsided as churches had taken on the character and beliefs of the victorious wing in the liberal-fundamentalist conflict. Generally, the losing parties were the conservatives who usually left to form new denominations. By the mid-1940s there was a clear line of demarcation that separated liberal churches from the more conservative evangelical churches, both in matters of doctrine and cultural engagement.

Following the end of World War II in 1945, evangelical Protestantism emerged from the shadow of their fundamentalist forebears, and these neo-evangelicals became a substantial force in American life. As a result of this new cultural engagement, the period from 1945 to the early to mid-1960s was an era of great promise for the evangelical churches. Even Catholic writer Ross Douthat, a severe critic of much of Protestantism, called evangelical Protestantism a “…postwar revival of American Christianity, which ushered in a kind of Indian summer for orthodox belief.”[1] Nancy Pearcey in her book Total Truth stated that these neo-evangelicals still held to fundamentalist views of the Bible but sought to escape form their separatism and engage the culture with a “redemptive vision that would not only embrace individuals but also social structures and institutions.”[2]

Rise of ecumenicalism in Protestant America

There were several key players that led the revival of American Christianity during this period, but the most important of all was Billy Graham. Launched by an eight-week tent meeting revival in Los Angeles in 1949 that attracted 350,000, Graham’s meteoric rise in the nation’s consciousness had begun. By the time he conducted his now famous 1957 New York City crusade that reached millions, Graham had become the most celebrated evangelist in America, a title he would retain through most of the remainder of the 20th century.[3] Douthat described the magnitude of Graham’s accomplishment.

…by the early 1940s revivalism itself seemed to be on the verge of dying out…But Graham almost singlehandedly revitalized the form, using it to carry an Evangelical message from the backwoods tent meetings to the nation’s biggest cities and arenas—and then overseas as well, to Europe and the Third World and even behind the Iron Curtain…Billy Graham had done the near-impossible; he had carried Evangelical Christianity from the margins to the mainstream, making Evangelical faith seem respectable as well as fervent, not only relevant but modern.[4]

By 1957 there had been a marked change in Graham’s fundamentalist thinking. Graham accepted an invitation to hold a Manhattan crusade, but the invitation was from the Protestant Council of New York City which meant “cooperation with a group that was predominantly non-evangelical and even included out-and-out modernists. It also meant sending them back to their local churches, no matter how liberal these churches might be.”[5]

On the surface, Graham’s decision to accept the invitation appears to have followed the example of C. S. Lewis who also engaged the culture of the unchurched world through his World War II radio broadcasts later published as Mere Christianity.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian ‘denominations’…I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted (in writing Mere Christianity). But it is in the room, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in…

You must keep on praying for light; and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?’[6]

As I wrote in Evangelical Winter, “Like Lewis, Graham was engaging the culture and bringing them into the hall…His mission was to win the hearts of his audience to Christ and deliver them to the door of a local church.”[7] But upon further reflection, this conclusion appears to be at odds with one point of C. S. Lewis’ stated purpose which was to get them into the hall but not to the door of a particular church. It is understood that Graham’s methods of mass evangelism were different than Lewis’ model because Graham’s crusades had been working with fellow evangelical laborers in the vineyard. However, in the New York City crusade and thereafter Graham wrongly departed from Lewis’ model at one key point—the agreement with his hosts required Graham to deliver respondents to Graham’s truthful presentation of the gospel back to the doors of their local churches which included many whose fidelity to biblical truth did not exist.

The answer to the seeming paradox of “be ye separate” and “go unto all the world” is often not easy to decipher. As we consider the seeming conflict in Graham’s actions and fidelity to biblical truth, we see the larger conflict between the demands of ecumenicalism and evangelicalism’s faithfulness and loyalty to biblical truth. The answers are not always clear and simple. But there are answers, and on occasion Christians must use an exceedingly fine scalpel to rightly divide the Word while their hands are guided by the steadying influence of the Holy Spirit. Given the advantage of hindsight over six decades since the 1957 Manhattan crusade, Graham’s inclusion of non-evangelicals and liberals in the Manhattan crusade promoted ecumenicalism in America and lessened the resistance of evangelicals to its corrupting influence.

The rise of ecumenicalism in the Church of England

The larger conflict between ecumenicalism and evangelicalism was also occurring in England in the Anglican Church and other mainline churches. Although Graham had not had crusade alliances with non-evangelical and liberal churches in North America until 1957, he had done so in 1954 when he held the hugely successful London crusade. The division among evangelicals over ecumenicalism that developed after the 1957 Manhattan crusade had already developed in the United Kingdom following the 1954 London crusade.[8]

Graham’s greater London crusade received large support from the Church of England. Many in the small evangelical faction within the Church of England were shocked that evangelical Graham could join with the leadership of the liberal Anglican Church in conducting the crusade. The evangelicals’ smallness of influence and comparative isolation within the church caused them to re-examine their opposition to ecumenical influences. These men had long felt it necessary to remain apart from the larger denominational influences and fellowship only with like-mined evangelicals within and without the Anglican Church.[9] Thirteen years after the 1954 London crusade, the Anglican evangelicals were ready to abandon their aloofness at the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress which met at Keele in April 1967. Prior to the Congress, this change of tactics was expressed by John Stott, chairman of the Congress.

It is a tragic thing, however, that Evangelicals have a very poor image in the Church as a whole. We have acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism. We have to acknowledge this, and for the most part we have no one but ourselves to blame. We need to repent and change.[10]

Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey was invited to give the opening address to the Congress. Murray wrote that in Ramsey’s address, he “…reminded his hearers that ‘experience’ goes before ‘theology’, and he made it clear to the congress that if evangelicals were really prepared to play a full part in the life of the Church of England they must turn their back on their old exclusiveness…” Effectively, the head of the Church of England was laying down the marching orders for evangelicals, and the essence of those orders was that unity must come before truth. The evangelicals at the Keele Congress went on to affirm Ramsey’s ground rules for ecumenical dialogue which in essence was that those confessing Jesus Christ as “God and Saviour” must be accepted as Christians in good standing. In other words, all who were engaged in ecumenism “have a right to be treated as Christians.”[11]

Looking back on what he considered was the main cause of the change of mind among the English evangelicals, ecumenism advocate John Lawrence wrote that, “…the Conservative Evangelical movement in Britain crossed the ecumenical watershed at Dr. Billy Graham’s Crusade at Harringay in 1954” [the London Crusade].[12] Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was an opponent of ecumenism but agreed with Lawrence that Graham’s London Crusade was the pivotal moment when England’s evangelicals succumbed to ecumenism.[13]

Dr. Lloyd-Jones was the only senior evangelical voice that sounded the alarm with regard to the dangers of ecumenism. Speaking at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966 (only months before the Keele Congress), Lloyd Jones warned of the consequences of ecumenism on evangelicalism. Iain Murray summarized the heart of Lloyd-Jones arguments.

…for evangelicals to gain ecumenical and denominational acceptance they would have to pay a price which would imperil the very legitimacy of their distinctive beliefs. If evangelical belief is, in essence, gospel belief, how can Christian fellowship exist independently of any common commitment to such belief? How can a right belief on fundamentals retain the primary importance which Scripture gives to it if, after all, it is not necessary to salvation? How can evangelicalism be said to represent biblical essentials if one regards as Christians and works alongside those who actually deny these essentials?…for evangelicals to be consistent with their doctrine, they should give higher priority to the unity which that doctrine entailed than to denominational relationships which required no such allegiance to Scripture.[14] [emphasis in original]

Also in 1966, Francis Schaeffer was a main speaker at the World Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin. Like Lloyd-Jones was to do in October of that year, Schaeffer warned of the dangers of ecumenism.

Let us never forget that we who stand in the historic stream of Christianity really believe that false doctrine, at those crucial points where false doctrine is heresy, is not a small thing. If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth as truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel. And twenty years from now, men will point their finger back at us and say of us, this is the result of the flow of history…[15]

The 1950s and 1960s were crucial points in history in which much of the evangelical church embraced a false doctrine that gave priority to ecumenicalism over the truth of the Scriptures. As a result, efforts to achieve reconciliation through ecumenicalism continued unabated in the great majority of evangelical denominations and organizations through the remainder of the twentieth century and to the present day. Schaffer’s prophetic warning has come to pass. A wall has been built between succeeding generations and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The evidence is all around us and will be examined in Part III.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion – How We Became a Nation of Heretics, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 21.
[2] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth – Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004, 2005), p. 18.
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997), p. 839.
[4] Douthat, Bad Religion, pp. 35, 37.
[5] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), pp. 28-29.
[6] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity from The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 1952, 2002), pp. 5, 11.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 107.
[8] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 40.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., p. 42.
[11] Ibid., pp. 42-43.
[12] Ibid., p. 43.
[13] Ibid., footnote 4, p. 43.
[14] Ibid., p. 45.
[15] Ibid., pp. 79-79.