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.
