# Evangelicalism's Greatest Sin



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2008)

I have been musing around for several months now, trying to put my finger on what bothers me about the broad evangelicalism in which I was raised and which was both my educational and vocational home for so many decades. Finally, reading a piece in the _Weekly Standard_, it hit me. What do you all think of my thesis?

Evangelicalism, not the classic meaning of the term in church history and theology, but the unique constellation of doctrinal, sociological, and historical characteristics that are part of today’s American religious life is a movement in trouble. For a few years now I have been struggling vainly to find the key to unlock my growing disquiet with a movement so broad as to encompass Bill Hybels and Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham and that Lakeland Revival guy Todd Bentley, Robert Schuller and John MacArthur, Jack Hayford and Michael Horton, Fuller Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary.

Historian David Bebbington describes this movement, shaped by revival and molded by resistance against “liberalism,” in terms of its characteristic beliefs and emphases: *conversionism*, the belief that lives need to be changed; *activism*, the expression of the gospel in effort; *biblicism*, a particular regard for the Bible; and *crucicentrism*, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Some observers have noted that belief has less to do with the movement than technique. Mega church pastors like Rick Warren boast of “training” more than 400,000 pastors and sending out a newsletter weekly to 230,000, many of whom simply copy his sermon notes for their own Sunday messages. As evangelical Christianity has morphed in America, it has proven more ingenious and mutable than a pesky virus in a CDC laboratory.

Quick to embrace new technologies, whether Luther’s use of the printing press to flood Germany with Reformation tracts, Charles Fuller’s early employment of radio in his “Old Fashioned Revival Hour,” or the 24/7 coverage on numerous cable television stations today, conservative Christians have been among the first to adopt and adapt new technologies to the service of proclaiming their brand of Gospel. And, in the process, they have changed not only “how” they do church, but the very content of the Good News (the root meaning of the Greek “euangellion” or “evangel”) itself.

Shamed and scolded by “liberals” for decades for being so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good, evangelicals have begun to address these criticisms. In the past few years we have seen Bill Hybels invite Bill Clinton, ordinarily a pariah among religious conservatives such as James Dobson, and industry titans like Jack Welch to his annual Leadership Summit for church leaders. Warren has stressed AIDS relief, made common cause with U2’s Bono, and developed his own P.E.A.C.E plan to tackle the five “global giants” of spiritual emptiness, self-centered leadership, poverty, pandemic disease, and illiteracy.

The recent Saddleback Civil Forum reveals evangelical Rick Warren doing what socially conscious liberal Christians have long advocated: engaging the culture politically. But, in typical Saddleback fashion, it was done on a big scale, bigger than anything ever attempted by a pastor before now. The two presumptive candidates for our nation’s top office each sat for their genial hour long interview with the purpose driven pastor-in-chief, all before the glare of television lights and cameras.

A report on the event by _Weekly Standard’s _publisher, Terry Eastland, finally got to the heart of my growing discontent. Evangelicals have responded to the complaints of our cultured liberal interlocutors by selling, bartering away, and down-right squandering their birthright. In short, the evangelicals have no Gospel, no Evangel anymore. In place of the liberating good news of the Gospel, they have substituted the same tasteless recipe responsible for the decline in the liberal mainline churches over much of the last half century. Rather than Gospel, evangelicals have settled for Law, or as they practice it today, moralism.

Eastland reported that on the day after the forum, Warren preached to his 22,000 people a message “The Kind of Leadership America Needs.” Using 21 citations from the Bible, including 13 from Proverbs, two from the Psalms, three from the Gospels, one from Philippians, and two from James, he buttressed his case and supported his points.

However, as Eastland observes, something was missing? The Gospel!



> "Notably absent from the message, however, was the distinctive content of the Christian faith, even though this was a worship service. Warren didn't discuss the verses he used in the context of the Bible's overall redemptive message. Had he done that, he would have made it to the Good News of Jesus Christ. Even when citing a text explicitly mentioning Jesus, Warren didn't go into what it was actually about. "When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd" (Matthew 9:36) is fundamentally not about how leaders need to be compassionate, though they do, but about how Jesus the shepherd has come for his lost sheep."



Then, in words as prescient as they are indicting, Eastland concluded that “Plenty of pastors mine the Bible for moral teachings and character lessons. Warren's approach to Scripture on this particular Sunday was hardly unusual. And taken as a civics lesson, his message was fine. But as a sermon for a church, it left something to be desired.”

“Leaving something to be desired” politely states the obvious: Evangelicalism, so full of desire to be relevant to the unchurched and frankly, so anxious to be taken seriously by both the secular and the liberal religious establishment today, has essentially become the liberal religious establishment of yesterday.

Rather than being the party of faith, Scripture, and Gospel, evangelicals have gradually become what they started out to oppose. The fundamentalists of the early 20th century took the Gospel seriously enough to withdraw from the mainline denominations where it had decayed into maudlin moralism. The formation of the neo-evangelical movement in the 1940s, with Fuller Seminary as its flagship, attempted to strip some of the more noxious and socially unacceptable attitudes from ugly fundamentalist extremism in America.

However, the most characteristic expression of theological liberalism has been Law, not Gospel. And, church history teaches us that when it decays, as certainly as a radioactive isotope, Law leads inevitably to legalism and moralism. Evangelical moralism is no better than the fundamentalist flavor, which in turn is no improvement over the sappy moralistic nonsense of the liberals in the last century.

Now that the movement has aged to the point of feeling its power, staging a civic forum where candidates are summoned to make their appearance might make some sense. At least they are engaging culture rather than hiding from it. But, the lessons learned from their critics were learned both too perfectly and too inadequately. Following up on the liberal critique, evangelicals have begun to “care about” HIV, poverty, peace, and the qualifications for the next President of the United States.

But, rather than learning from the liberals’ loss of the Gospel, we seem intent on replicating it. Today, evangelical preaching, even the “Bible based expositional” kind tends toward moralistic, Bible laced versions of old liberal standbys. David becomes an example of five principles for having a good friendship. Elijah's battle with the prophets of Baal turns into a lesson on depression. Ephesians becomes a formula for better marriages. And, as in the case of the Saddleback sermon, Proverbs and even Jesus help us to choose a president.

Citing a lot of verses from the Bible does not a biblical sermon make. Quoting from the secular _Weekly Standard _again, “notably absent from the message, however, was the distinctive content of the Christian faith.” And, unless the verses used are put into the “context of the Bible’s overall redemptive message,” preaching will border on the shallow, the sappy, and the sentimentally self-help oriented. In this sense, slick Joel Osteen rather than smart and effective Rick Warren should be seen as the ultimate exemplar of evangelicalism today. Osteen’s “Become a Better You” more faithfully represents what evangelicalism has become in this post-Christian era than anything written by the affable and sincere purpose-driven pastor of Orange County.

As Eastland concludes,


> The irony of Saddleback is that one of the two candidates--it was not McCain, but Obama, in his remarks about Christ dying for his sins and redeeming him--actually said more about the Christian faith in the civil forum than America's most influential pastor did in his message on Sunday to his congregation. Such are the oddities that attend the present moment, in which our faith-involved politics carries on, triumphant.



What is missing in the midst of all the Law is the redemptive sound of the Gospel. Until preaching recovers the victorious pronouncement *“done” *of the Gospel, the current preoccupation with reducing everything to a seeker sensitive mass of moral lessons and self-improvement “how to” applications will sound like a lot of *“do.” *Sadly, the man behind the Saddleback Civil Forum received his doctorate in ministry from Fuller, the school begun in 1947 as the new “evangelical” alternative to mushy liberalism.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Sep 3, 2008)

Thanks, Pastor McFadden for your analysis. I agree with you and would only add that "moralism" only works in Evangelicalism when it has some kind of "feel-good" or "warm fuzzy" attached. In other words, sacrificial moralism is more or less out of the question. 

That being said, we have arrived here (in modern evangelicalism) because we seek to feel good. Civic moralism today is fashionable, makes us feel good, relevant, etc. Tomorrow it may be something else. This is why doctrine makes no difference to these folks--to uphold and to be loyal to a doctrinal standard doesn't "feel" right, but swayin' to the music does. There is more in common between a "socially aware" Roman Catholic, or Mormon, and an evangelical than one might imagine. Such explains the "success" of venues like Promise Keepers, where unbelievers and heretics sit next to professing evangelicals to become better fathers, etc. 

I did not see the interview with Pastor Warren, but that certainly is a telling comment that Senator Obama had more to say about sin and redemption than Pastor Warren, even if Mr. Obama fills those words with vapid meaning. 

Thanks again,


----------



## py3ak (Sep 3, 2008)

Would Robert Schuller identify as an "evangelical"? I saw an interview with him in a documentary I watched on Monday where I got the impression that he wouldn't. And would Mike Horton identify as an "evangelical"? 

I thought that was a good analysis. It is ironic, but the neo-evangelicals did wind up fulfilling the predictions of the fundamentalists.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 3, 2008)

Excellent analysis, Dennis. Very well done. But for me it begs the question: Now what?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Sep 3, 2008)

Good stuff


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 3, 2008)

Very good, Dennis!


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 3, 2008)

I think you made a good analysis of modern evangelicalism's problem. In speaking of moralism and legalism, I came to wonder what the difference actually is between the two. For one thing, a failure to preach God's Holy Law will lead people away from the gospel as they will fail to see their need for Christ. I guess moralism could be identified as a dumbing down of God's law to a level that we can obey it as humans, this in turn causes people to believe that knowing Christ boils down to following a simple set of rules to live a good and happy life. As for legalism, it would probably best be described as a strict observance of certain particular rules according to which interpretation God's law is being obeyed. I believe that both the Law and Gospel go inseparably hand in hand such that one cannot go without the other. My pastor was also pointing out that is a wrong and unreformed perspective to draw to much emphasis on the difference between law and gospel as if they were opposite to each other. 

I think I like how both the law and gospel is preached at my church and that the emphasis is placed on regularity as opposed to activism. Part of what has brought me to the reformed faith was a need to stand on a solid and unshakable foundation. While Evangelicalism is very irregular and restless, always seeking for a new movement of some sort to bring new excitments, Reformed Orthodoxy is stable and enriching to the soul. I can just sit there and coast along straight to heaven. "Be still and know that I am God" as the passage goes.


----------



## Seb (Sep 3, 2008)

Excellent thesis sir.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 3, 2008)

Dennis, this is great! You worded it so well there is little to nothing that anyone could say to improve on your analysis. I did especially like the words below.



DMcFadden said:


> “Evangelicalism, so full of desire to be relevant to the unchurched and frankly, so anxious to be taken seriously by both the secular and the liberal religious establishment, has essentially become the liberal religious establishment of yesterday.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Would Robert Schuller identify as an "evangelical"? I saw an interview with him in a documentary I watched on Monday where I got the impression that he wouldn't. And would Mike Horton identify as an "evangelical"?



Ruben, you are probably correct on both scores. However, we should also note that Schuller and Horton both speak to "evangelical" audiences, publish with "evangelical" publishers, and would be characterized by evangelical magazines such as _Christianity Today _as "evangelicals" regardless of their possible demurrers.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Excellent analysis, Dennis. Very well done. But for me it begs the question: Now what?



Ivan, have I been with you so long on the PB and you do not know me?  My personal antidote to evangelicalism (aka evanjellyfish) is CONFESSIONAL Chrisitanity. No magic bullets, but that's the best I can do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2008)

Excellent analysis. You come to the same conclusions that the White Horse Inn has been stating for some time. I've been coming to many of the same conclusions as the cancer spreads across Evangelical Christianity. I wish I wasn't so tired right now because I actually met with the Pastor of the Church we're probably going to join and expressed much of my discontent over how some Reformed Churches in this area are actively moving in this direction (or are already there).

I think you can add to moralism the idea of having a "Church that meets all our needs" to the list. I've witnessed, over and over, men and women purposefully turn their back on Churches that teach the Gospel (acknowledging that the Church does that) in favor of "...programs for the kids...." The Church is increasingly seen as a place to give the kids some positive social outlet and, unfortunately, those kids are simply transformed into either future consumers for a Christless Church that provides moralistic therapy or become rank atheists when they attend college.

I attended worship at a local Reformed Church the other evening and heard teen after teen deliver a "testimony" about their recent missions experience. Almost every teen used eisegesis in the verse they utilized (they were supposed to pick a favorite verse). More alarming, almost everyone of them expressed a notion that the poor Peruvians they helped were "closer to God" than they and that they wanted to become more committed to God as a spiritual barometer for their holiness and standing before God. One teen chose Deut 6:4-6 as her verse and expressed her commitment to do just that. I wanted to yell: "That's the Law!" Instead I resolved that I really needed to talk to the Elders about this and suggest they re-double their efforts with the youth of the Church.

I was happy to see many friends I hadn't seen in years but left very saddened that catechism hadn't improved in years since I left and the default Pelagianism that we're born with had never been replaced by the Gospel of Grace.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist. I'm always confident in the Word but it yet breaks my heart to see so many people to be completely missing the Gospel that is right under their nose every week and to realize that God will one day call them to account for tasting the heavenly gift and never believing the Gospel but believing in themselves. I shudder even more to think of the Pastors that will be terrified to learn of the judgment that awaits their spiritual malpractice.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 3, 2008)

This same documentary made me think that Ted Haggard, at least, but presumably also those he represented, made "being born again" (in effect, claiming that this is true of oneself), the most fundamental point of all, the only criterion of fellowship. So I guess evangelicalism will include not only all Christians, nominal or otherwise, but also will extend to everyone who's had a near-death experience!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2008)

py3ak said:


> This same documentary made me think that Ted Haggard, at least, but presumably also those he represented, made "being born again" (in effect, claiming that this is true of oneself), the most fundamental point of all, the only criterion of fellowship. So I guess evangelicalism will include not only all Christians, nominal or otherwise, but also will extend to everyone who's had a near-death experience!



Unfortunately, though, most Evangelicals characterize this as a vague excitement for Jesus or "personal relationship" with Him. What the nature of that relationship is cannot be described in any dogmatic way but depends upon the whims of the individual. It is readily identifiable by the mass of "that made me cry" e-mails that circulate around the Internet.

Since most Christians have no dogmatic understanding of their salvation and base their zeal on their positive love feelings for God then they really have no basis to reject/evaluate another's expression of the same. I've seen Catholics, Baptists, and Pentecostals share the work for the Franklin Graham Crusade with little or no recognition that there was any difference between them. After all, they all "loved Jesus" and that's all that matters.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 3, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Would Robert Schuller identify as an "evangelical"? I saw an interview with him in a documentary I watched on Monday where I got the impression that he wouldn't. And would Mike Horton identify as an "evangelical"?
> ...




The term "Evangelical" has become so ambiguous that many probably do think of these two as evangelical. I know that I'm one of the few Gordon Clark fans here on the board (Whew! Let's not go there again!) but to quote him, "You must define your terms to know what you are talking about!" What IS an Evangelical?


----------



## kalawine (Sep 3, 2008)

kalawine said:


> What IS an Evangelical?



PS I know what an Evangelical is. I'm trying to make a point. Are we talking about an Evangelical from 1968 or 2008?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 3, 2008)

What is an evangelical and can we paint them with such a broad brush?


After all, I like these guys at the Alliance of Confessiong Evangelicals: http://www.alliancenet.org/

The Fellowship of Reformed Evangelicals also is also a good group: FIRE: Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals


I am not sure why the word "evangelical" needs to become a bad word. I know that some try to distinguish between the reformed who are "evangelical" and those who call themselves "evangelicals" - any thoughts on this distinction?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2008)

Perg,

The actual word "Evangelical" is not a fight I'm willing to die on a hill for. I think the main issue is the abandonment of the Gospel and the flattening out of any distinctions in many minds because the only distinction that matters is moral values and excitement for God. I should have added _Touched by an Angel_ as an example of what it means to be "spiritual" in society today. I can't tell you the number of people that thought that was God honoring simply because it talked about _a_ God.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 3, 2008)

I think in general people confuse _religious_ experience with _Christian_ experience. It is perfectly possible to have religious feelings without having pure and undefiled religion. Indeed, I think it's rather improbable that any given person would not have religious feelings at one time or another. 

The interesting thing to me is that the internal logic of new-evangelicalism led inexorably to this point. You can't shore up a house built on sinking sand; you can't defend the city when you've let the enemy in at the gate.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> What is an evangelical and can we paint them with such a broad brush?
> 
> 
> After all, I like these guys at the Alliance of Confessiong Evangelicals: http://www.alliancenet.org/
> ...



Pergy,

I'm so poor an artist that painting with a broad brush already strains the limits of my skills. Yes, there are certainly evangelicals who do not fall into the confines of the lamentable situation I painted. However, the Alliance and FIRE are not characteristic of evangelicalism in the U.S.

My point was simply that "we" (better "own" my kinfolk!) began as a rejection of error, first of liberalism in the 1910s and then of fundamentalism in the 1940s. But, without some kind of confessional boundaries and with an emphasis upon "experience," we have seen where that leads. Praise God for the Alliance of *Confessing* Evangelicals. When more evangelicals become confessing, then I will withdraw my kindergarden broad brush paintings in favor of the incredible art that they will create.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I think in general people confuse _religious_ experience with _Christian_ experience. It is perfectly possible to have religious feelings without having pure and undefiled religion. Indeed, I think it's rather improbable that any given person would not have religious feelings at one time or another.
> 
> The interesting thing to me is that the internal logic of new-evangelicalism led inexorably to this point. You can't shore up a house built on sinking sand; you can't defend the city when you've let the enemy in at the gate.



Agreed. I think religious affection flows out of our knowledge of who Christ is. The problem with most experience these days is that they can't describe Who Christ is or what He is done or why they have affection for Him.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 3, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I should have added _Touched by an Angel_ as an example of what it means to be "spiritual" in society today. *I can't tell you the number of people that thought that was God honoring simply because it talked about a God*.



 Yes, many "spiritual" people I know thought I was terrible because I didn't believe along with them that God was begining to have a place in network TV.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 3, 2008)

Christ is precious to believers: denying that, of course, gets you into a whole different set of problems. But it is to those who believe, whose faith is definitely placed on Christ Himself, that He is precious.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 3, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent analysis, Dennis. Very well done. But for me it begs the question: Now what?
> ...



It's the best and I believe the only thing we can do. Even recently I've had to deal with someone in our Bible study who asked, "Well, doctrine really isn't important, is it?" I wanted to say *WHAT!!!* I restrained myself and explained the importance of doctrine, only to realize they didn't even know what _word_ "doctrine" meant. I told her that when we teach that Christ is God that is a doctrine, etc. 

Now this is coming from someone who is not yet a member of our church and is coming from a United Methodist background but I dare say that there are some of my membership that need more instruction. 

They will receive it.


----------



## KMK (Sep 4, 2008)

> Isa 28:9-13 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.



Is God blinding America?

I am greatly encouraged and edified by your thesis. Are you going to post it on your blog?

BTW, I think an answer to Ivan's question is that the elders need to nurture the young men. Young preachers are looking for guidance but, for whatever reason, there seems to be little time for discipleship. Seminary training is one thing, but discipleship is another. If confessional elders do not reach the younger preachers, then 'Pastors.com' will and before you know it these young preachers will be buying canned sermons about '40 Days of fill in the blank'.

Once again, thank you.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 4, 2008)

KMK said:


> BTW, I think an answer to Ivan's question is that the elders need to nurture the young men. Young preachers are looking for guidance but, for whatever reason, there seems to be little time for discipleship. Seminary training is one thing, but discipleship is another. *If confessional elders do not reach the younger preachers, then 'Pastors.com' will and before you know it these young preachers will be buying canned sermons about '40 Days of fill in the blank'.*



Ken, excellent point. It grosses me out to think of young pastors copying Warren. His sermons consist largely in topical messages with texts used as pretexts for the point he is making. I was stunned to hear a secular magazine (_Weekly Standard_) catch him at it and note that it has little to do with the message of the Bible!


----------



## KMK (Sep 4, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I think an answer to Ivan's question is that the elders need to nurture the young men. Young preachers are looking for guidance but, for whatever reason, there seems to be little time for discipleship. Seminary training is one thing, but discipleship is another. *If confessional elders do not reach the younger preachers, then 'Pastors.com' will and before you know it these young preachers will be buying canned sermons about '40 Days of fill in the blank'.*
> ...



I might add that those 'Pastors.com' sermons are not cheap either! I knew a Pastor once who was buying sermons complete with PowerPoint and billing the church! All the while he was collecting a salary from the church.

One problem is that the only groups that have the resources for discipling young preachers are the broadly evangelical denoms and associations.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 4, 2008)

Ken,

Another problem is that we are such suckers for fads. Rather than stepping back and seeing the big picture within its historical sweep, we ping pong from one fad to another. During my ministry, I can unfortunately count the eras by my faddish emphases. Being out of the pastorate for 11 years now has given me a little distance to observe the slavish copycat traits of most mainstream evangelicals I knew during my time in ministry. Watching the broad evangelical culture over several decades has seen pastors jump through the following hoops (at least some of them): Charismatic and non-charismatic renewal (60s-70s), small groups (early 70s onward), spiritual gifts (late 70s) theonomy or Lordship salvation (80s), seeker sensitive (90s), purpose driven (00s), emergent (00s) . . . 

Can't we ever focus and keep the main thing the MAIN THING?

Confessionally reformed churches are not panaceas. Look at theonomy, the FV, and micro-Presbyterianism. However, I am increasingly convinced that a confessional boundary marker, while an imperfect fence, is better than no fence at all. Otherwise our egos will run amuck and our sinfully depraved minds will travel where they ought not to go.


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 4, 2008)

Johnny-come-lately. That was an excellent article Mr. McFadden. Well done. My pastor friend knew of a pastor here that used John Piper's sermons in the pulpit without giving credit. 

I would like to think that there is an easy way out of the fads of "Christendom" but it is so pervasive in culture. What books are in the Inspiration section at Target - Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen and Purpose Driven This. Same for airports, Wal-Mart (save Wal-Mart carries T.D. Jakes) and these medium sized book sellers. Such scriptural origami they play. "I made a swan...I made a frog...I made a gnostic heresy!" 

As far as Osteen, the only confession they hold to is "This is my bible. I am what is says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do." Where is the resurrection, the propitiation, the sovereignty in that!? No apostle's creed or catechesis. And what comes from the pulpit - no one is trained to have in-depth biblical knowledge because as said earlier, it is all experiential. 

As you said, keep the main things things the main things, [and the plain things the plain things]. Again, excellent analysis.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 5, 2008)

FrielWatcher said:


> Johnny-come-lately. That was an excellent article Mr. McFadden. Well done. My pastor friend knew of a pastor here that used John Piper's sermons in the pulpit without giving credit.



At least a John Piper sermon would have some content to it. My beef is with sermons where the "meaning" of the text is ignored and a mushy moralism is substituted in its place. In the end, this is pure Law, not Gospel.


----------



## KMK (Sep 5, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Ken,
> 
> Another problem is that we are such suckers for fads. Rather than stepping back and seeing the big picture within its historical sweep, we ping pong from one fad to another. During my ministry, I can unfortunately count the eras by my faddish emphases. Being out of the pastorate for 11 years now has given me a little distance to observe the slavish copycat traits of most mainstream evangelicals I knew during my time in ministry. Watching the broad evangelical culture over several decades has seen pastors jump through the following hoops (at least some of them): Charismatic and non-charismatic renewal (60s-70s), small groups (early 70s onward), spiritual gifts (late 70s) theonomy or Lordship salvation (80s), seeker sensitive (90s), purpose driven (00s), emergent (00s) . . .
> 
> ...



So true!

I even know of one association that has promoted a speaker who claims to be a theologically conservative emergent church pastor. "He patterns his church after the "vintage" values of the original Christian church and teachings of Jesus - at the same time moving forward to what it means to be Church in a very different culture today." Perhaps this man will spearhead the neo-emergent church movement!


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> ...Perhaps this man will spearhead the neo-emergent church movement!


 

Then the Revised American Neo-Emerging Congregations of American. Eventually they will all truly wonder why on earth they are gathering on Sundays in lieu of just sitting at home and learning the same thing.


----------



## caddy (Sep 5, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Would Robert Schuller identify as an "evangelical"? I saw an interview with him in a documentary I watched on Monday where I got the impression that he wouldn't. *And would Mike Horton identify as an "evangelical"? *
> 
> I thought that was a good analysis. It is ironic, but the neo-evangelicals did wind up fulfilling the predictions of the fundamentalists.


 
I agree. I don't think Horton would like the label...


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 5, 2008)

Todd Freil of "The Way of the Master Radio" has high objections to being called evangelical because of what Dr. McFadden has illustrated. He will not take the title even though he is a street witnessing, street preaching, tract-distributing evangelizing dude.
He routinely has the evangelicals on quoting them to show the errors of this "modern" thinking. Usually, 98% of the time I agree with him. 

I agree with Mr. Steve and py3ak that Mr. Horton should not have evangelical tied to him.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 5, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Confessionally reformed churches are not panaceas. Look at theonomy, the FV, and micro-Presbyterianism. However, I am increasingly convinced that a confessional boundary marker, while an imperfect fence, is better than no fence at all. Otherwise our egos will run amuck and our sinfully depraved minds will travel where they ought not to go.



Great quote.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 5, 2008)

I don't know how I've missed this thread. But, Mr. McFadden, you have done a good job. Someone asked the question is God blinding this nation. I would say, 'Yes'. And, he is beginning at the household of God. I've been saying this has been happening for years. It breaks my heart when I see how shallow and immature even 'leaders' are in the church. We have become a church that is easily blown about by every wind and wave of doctrine, fad, whatever. I say, 'We', because many of these folks are our brothers and sisters. Certainly not all, but some. 

Do we weep over this or do we gloat? Too often I've seen Reformed/Confessional folks gloat over their 'superior' position of understanding. I think the Lord would find this nauseating. Jesus mourned over the sheep having no shepherds. I pray that we will do the same.


----------



## KMK (Sep 5, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Do we weep over this or do we gloat? Too often I've seen Reformed/Confessional folks gloat over their 'superior' position of understanding. I think the Lord would find this nauseating. Jesus mourned over the sheep having no shepherds. I pray that we will do the same.



I have been trying to listen to some sermons by a notable preacher for the last two days but am struggling with his constant belittling of those who are 'less knowledgeable' or 'less accurate'. I can only imagine how arrogant his congregation is becoming.


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> I have been trying to listen to some sermons by a notable preacher for the last two days but am struggling with his constant belittling of those who are 'less knowledgeable' or 'less accurate'. I can only imagine how arrogant his congregation is becoming.



Who is it...Who is it!!!!? Tell me, tell me!? I will stick with the Paul Washer sermons I am listening to right now. 

Mr. McFadden, what was the trigger to write this article, for you, I mean because I think most people on this board could write one of these a day with what we are seeing in Christendom.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 5, 2008)

Quite simply, the _Weekly Standard _review of the Warren Civil Panel. When a secular magazine objects that a preacher has lost the Gospel, WOW!!!

Plus, it triggered an ephiphany for me as to a number of issues that have been bouncing around in my head for some time. Somehow, the article's observations about Warren were the key to open it up for me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm half inclined to call myself a Fundamentalist lately, but I don't because it will invariably be misunderstood by people on all sides. I'm not fundy enough for many of the fundies, but I'm a lot more fundy than most evangelicals. (FYI, everyone on this board is considered a fundy by liberals and so called "moderates".) Actually, the separatism of the OPC is one thing that drew me to it. I knew they wouldn't get involved in something like ECT or other neo-evangelical sins.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 7, 2008)

KMK said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Do we weep over this or do we gloat? Too often I've seen Reformed/Confessional folks gloat over their 'superior' position of understanding. I think the Lord would find this nauseating. Jesus mourned over the sheep having no shepherds. I pray that we will do the same.
> ...



I have noticed the same thing and would love to start a new thread on it, but I'll probably get flack for dissing the Reformed, when actually the sins of those you love the most are the most odious.

I just stopped listening to another pastor's sermons because of this very thing too. The dripping sarcasm and negativity is grating on me... when I listen to him I know what the Gospel IS NOT but sometimes I cannot tell what his Gospel IS.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't mind sarcasm and polemics in themselves. I mind them when they are the only thing a person has to offer, or when the preaching is always about sins that other people are committing. It requires no courage to preach against other people's sins.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I don't mind sarcasm and polemics in themselves. I mind them when they are the only thing a person has to offer, or when the preaching is always about sins that other people are committing. It requires no courage to preach against other people's sins.



Our pastor recently related a story from a previous pastorate of his. Someone in the church (it may have been a deacon) told him "Pastor, you preach too much on sin in the church when you should be preaching about sin in the world."


----------



## py3ak (Sep 10, 2008)

Wow. Did he reply, "judgment must begin at the house of God?"


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Wow. Did he reply, "judgment must begin at the house of God?"



I don't know, but that's what I would have thought of immediately as a reply.


----------

