Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part II

Charles Clayton Morrison acquired Christian Century in 1908 and over the span of a half century “…he wrote for and edited what became the most influential American Protestant journal of his era.”[1] It was the liberal voice of Christianity in which Morrison and his staff of writers promoted a new brand of Christianity in which

…a “progressive” bent was necessary because science required Christianity to renew, revive, and even rewrite itself to be intelligible to contemporary Christians. They asserted, “The religious discussions of the last century are meaningless today…Church rites, rituals, ordinances and orders are given a truer value as incidentals, not essentials of the religious life…What is the duty of the church in a changing world? Manifestly to accept the law of change as fundamental and inevitable; to adapt itself to the changes.”[2] [emphasis added]

The Christian Century’s editors and writers’ beliefs closely resembled many of the principles of humanism and its emphasis on change and progressivism. The essence of those beliefs championed in the pages of Christian Century is mirrored in the words of Earle Marion Todd.

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).[3] [emphasis added]

These words describe the sentiments of liberal theology that captured mainline Protestantism in the early twentieth century. Todd’s admonition to the church of one hundred years ago continues to accurately reflect the modern church’s quest for cultural relevance from the mid-twentieth century to the present day through the introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen.

The Catholic Church has been a stalwart ally of evangelical Protestants in defense of biblical principles such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and opposition to homosexuality. Pope John Paul II and Pope Gregory XVI were staunch defenders of the faith and champions of biblical truth. However, it quickly became apparent after his election that Pope Francis was not of the same mindset as his predecessors. Strongly influenced by leftist liberation theology that invaded many countries in South America during the 1960s, Pope Francis has aggressively courted modern culture throughout the world in an effort to revitalize the Catholic Church. Many of his statements, proclamations, and actions are undeniably in conflict with and undermine biblical authority and scriptural commandments, but one of his statements stands out as it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ — all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. “Father, the atheists?” Even the atheists. Everyone. We must meet one another doing good. “But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.” But do good: We will meet one another there.[4]

Similarly, Pope Francis has given a pass to heaven for Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else who does not accept Christ as their savior but who “do good.” However, Pope Francis’s efforts at gaining cultural relevancy through promotion of a broad road-big tent religion are in direct conflict with the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel. “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.” [Matthew 7:13. RSV] In John’s gospel we find that Jesus’s words are also different from those of Pope Francis. “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” [John 14:6. RSV]

Liberal Protestant churches in America (and now the Catholic Church under Pope Francis) continue to vigorously pursue efforts at cultural relevancy in their march to conform to a dominant humanistic culture, and now many evangelical churches are beginning to march to the beat of the same drummer. The American church’s quest for cultural relevance expresses itself in three forms.

Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word

We have noted in Matthew 7:13 that the way of the Christian on this earth is narrow and that the broad way leads to destruction. The narrow way is bordered by two ditches. On the one side is the ditch of legalism in which the legalist tries to live by the law and disregards the heart of Christ’s message. On the other side is the ditch of worldliness. In the modern world the church has a far greater chance of getting stuck in the ditch of worldliness that that of legalism.

Oz Guinness identified four steps in the process of the world’s infiltration into the church which leads to compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He describes it as a collapse into worldliness.

• Assumption – Some aspect of modern life or thought is assumed either to be significant, and therefore worth acknowledging, or superior to what Christians know or do, and therefore worth adopting. Soon the assumption in question becomes an integral part of Christian thought and practice.
• Abandonment – Truths or customs that do not fit in with the modern assumption are put up in the creedal attic to collect dust. They are of no more use. The modern assumptions are authoritative. Is the traditional idea unfashionable, superfluous, or just plain wrong? No matter. It doesn’t fit in, so it has to go.
• Adaptation – Something new is assumed, something old is abandoned; and everything else is adapted. In other words, what remains of traditional beliefs and practices is altered to fit with the new assumption.
• Assimilation – The outcome is that what remains is not only adapted but absorbed by the modern assumptions. It is assimilated without any decisive remainder. The result is worldliness, or Christian capitulation to some aspect of the culture of its day.[5]

Notice the progressive steps that lead to compromise: thought, action, change, and integration. Isn’t this the same scenario that Eve followed in her encounter with the serpent in the garden?

The biblical message of the church must always remain unchanged, but the church’s methods must adapt to the times. Unfortunately, many churches in adapting their methods have also gradually and subtly changed and softened its message as well in their scramble to survive in a rapidly changing culture. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the teachings of the Bible, and without a foundation of biblical truth, they have become powerless.

In 2001, Jim Cymbala wrote that as the church confronts an antagonistic culture we need to take a look at what the church is doing. One of the things he observed was that the church is, “Letting the world ‘evangelize’ us without our realizing it.”[6]

Instead of being a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God (in the New Testament sense of the words), the world’s value system has invaded the church so that there’s almost no distinction between the two.

Wouldn’t it be wise to ask ourselves what kind of teaching has brought about this sad state of affairs? What are we doing, or not doing, that causes such a breakdown in the spiritual fiber of professing Christians? We had better start asking some hard questions and be prepared to throw overboard whatever has made the church so weak and carnal.

Instead of that, a massive cover-up is going on. Rather than face the obvious facts around us, certain church leaders proclaim that everything is fine because they have a “new vision for the church.”[7]

The Bible is very explicit about what constitutes worldliness, and the Apostle Paul gives a very clear presentation of what it means to not be worldly. “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.” [Titus 2:11-12. RSV] Do not misunderstand, the church should reach out to the lost by being charitable, helpful, friendly, encouraging, and welcoming through our activities in the community. Churches can and should be involved in certain secular activities, but it is wrong to adopt methods that are by their very nature worldly to the point of impiety which brings reproach upon Christ’s church and the gospel message. The church must guard against a compromised message and methods that incorporate corrupting elements of worldliness that lead to impiety whose synonyms are sin, sinfulness, irreverence, transgression, immorality, and ungodliness.

Nadab and Abihu’s efforts to accomplish God’s work in direct disobedience to God’s commandments were described in Part I. Their efforts were called strange fire – “strange fire” because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation. May we not also describe the modern church’s efforts to influence the culture by compromising His standards, adulterating His message, and substituting impious worldly methods to attract sinners as “strange fire”?

In Part III, we shall examine a second expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – mixing light with darkness.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 269.
[2] Ibid., p. 279.
[3] Earle Marion Todd quoted by Meador, p. 279
[4] Cheryl K. Chumley, “Pope Francis suggests that atheists’ good deeds gets them to heaven,” Washington Times, May 24, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/24/pope-francis-suggests-atheists-good-deeds-gets-the/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[5] Shane Lems, “The church’s collapse into worldliness,” The Aquila Report, July 5, 2013.
http://theaquilareport.com/the-churchs-collapse-into-worldliness/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[6] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), p. 22.
[7] Ibid., pp. 22-23.