Biggest threat to the Church today?

[DMcFadden]

I echo the concern about moralistic therapeutic deism. Without inerrancy, our "best minds" in the academy seem intent on "improving" on the plain and simple meaning of the Bible. People like Enns are typical in Reformed circles of what I saw repeatedly in broad evangelicalism for the last half century. Secularly trained academics are all too often embarrassed by the Bible and just can't seem to help themselves in coming up with "helpful" ways of removing those sources of embarrassment.

And, what do you get when you give the Bible a buzz cut? Efforts to find God via moralism, rationalism, or mystiticism and a pulpit dominated by moralistic therapeutic deism.

 

[toddpedlar]

I think, though, that if you look carefully, you'll see that the beginning of a rejection of inerrancy is always a rejection of good Christology and that the beginning of a good doctrine of Scripture is in a proper recognition of who Christ is. You cannot have a proper doctrine of Scripture without a proper doctrine of Jesus Christ (which also entails a proper Trinitarian theology): the Word of God revealed through the infallible and inerrant Words of God in Scripture. We can know God only because of Jesus Christ: the old testament saints knew God by faith in the promises of God which were realized in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they perfectly reveal Christ, who points back to them.

The cart is still before the horse, Philip. The point that I and Pastor Barnes are trying to make is that we have NO Christology without Scripture. One's view of Scripture colors one's Christology, and without Scripture revealing Christ, there would be no such thing as a Christology at all. Where does one get any doctrine of Christ without Scripture?

Rejection of Good Christology can ONLY come if you fail in your doctrine of the revealed Word. That is, if you have an appropriate view of Scripture, you'll have an appropriate Christology... if you do NOT, or if you reject it, you will NOT. Christology cannot be divorced from Scripture, and it is NOT logically prior in any sense.

Todd

ps - I also can't understand your point about Scripture being infallible and inerrant BECAUSE they do something (like reveal Christ perfectly). They are inerrant and infallible as inherent qualities they possess... not because of the particulars of what they reveal.

 

[Philip]

Rejection of Good Christology can ONLY come if you fail in your doctrine of the revealed Word.

And rejection of the doctrine of the revealed word can only come if you fail in your Christology.

One's view of Scripture colors one's Christology, and without Scripture revealing Christ, there would be no such thing as a Christology at all. Where does one get any doctrine of Christ without Scripture?

Where does one get a doctrine of Scripture without a doctrine of Christ? Without Christ, there is no Scripture. Scripture's authority comes from its inspiration which is made possible by the work of Christ. There is no revelation without incarnation.

Christology cannot be divorced from Scripture, and it is NOT logically prior in any sense.

Of course it is: the Father is revealed by the Son through the Spirit. From our perspective, yes we understand the Scriptures as revealing Christ, but then we're talking about the subjective order of knowing.

 

[davenporter]

Evangelicalism.

Interesting... would you mind elaborating?

 

[Beau Michel]

Decisionism in place of conversion,the "carnal Christian" heresy, that is filling "Evangelical" churches with false converts. Also a lack of real solid Bible study.

 

[Supersillymanable]

Consumerism.

 

[Rich Koster]

Oh, I forgot to mention our electronic threat: TBN (and the like). They splatter the globe with hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.

 

[py3ak]

This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.

 

[Apologist4Him]

I think the heart of most threats comes down to human autonomy in all it's forms, from within the Church and from without. In our daily spiritual warfare it is a continual temptation for all of us (some more than others), our flesh desires independence from God and His authority, while the Spirit would have us in humble submission to God....in every area of life. I hope I never forget Dr. Bahnsen's series of lectures on the "myth of neutrality". I remember the first time I listened to the first lecture and what an impact it had on me. It really got me to thinking about what it means for Jesus to be Lord over all of my life, but at the same time I often see areas where I struggle with submitting to God's authority....and I am a Reformed Christian! I've posted at great length on "Christian Forums" and it amazes me how many and how fierce the "Christian" opposition is to Biblical inerrancy...I believe the heart of the issue is of authority (along with methodology) , and the desires of the flesh to resist authority. The Roman Catholic issue is also one of misplaced authority. What it boils down to is autonomous man does not want to submit to God and His Word, it would cramp his style, be politically incorrect, and very likely demand lifestyle changes...which is repentance. Fortunately the solution to man's problems has not changed, the gospel of Jesus Christ is still the power of God to salvation, and the regeneration of souls by the power of God alone is the answer.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hmm... seems cause and effect that you posit are reversed... but certainly an inadequate Christology is common today.

Are you suggesting that Scripture gives Christ His authority? We receive Scripture as Scripture on the authority of Christ through the Spirit.

I have a question here. Can it be both ways? God does place a high priority on His Word. He puts it on a level equal with him If I remember correctly.

 

[J. Dean]

This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.

But we will never fully have that in a perfect sense, Ruben; not this side of eternity at least. That's not an excuse not to try, but good Christian brothers and sisters will disagree on theological matters (albeit in secondary ones).

As Francis Schaeffer once said, nobody's theology is perfect. That comes with the territory of being fallen creatures.

 

[Afterthought]

This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.

For what it's worth, I was actually thinking something similar. The recent textual threads show that we can't even agree on what text the Word of God has been preserved in. In my (limited) experience, the lack of unanimity is also potentially harmful (at the very least, very discouraging and confusing) to new believers.

 

[py3ak]

This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.

But we will never fully have that in a perfect sense, Ruben; not this side of eternity at least. That's not an excuse not to try, but good Christian brothers and sisters will disagree on theological matters (albeit in secondary ones).

As Francis Schaeffer once said, nobody's theology is perfect. That comes with the territory of being fallen creatures.

Perfect harmony is not to be expected; but agreement on essentials, unanimity in the message we bear to the world, at the least a desire for coherence in doctrine and practice no longer seem to characterize us. Take, for instance, the big fight in the early church over the date for celebrating easter. It was unfortunate in many respects, but think about this: they fought over it because they wanted to be united, they thought that they should be consistent in what they did and when they did it. I suspect that many, perhaps even most of us, lack even the ambition to be unanimous in doctrine and united in practice.

 

[Marrow Man]

Rbcbob's church hosted a luncheon for pastors today. The speaker was from Scotland. During the Q&A, he was asked about the factor or factors which led to the decline of biblical Christianity in Scotland. With little or no hesitation he said it was a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. He said that Scotland has many pastors who say they believe the Scriptures, but chase after the last trends and gimmicks instead of following Scripture. He said that Scotland had become "a nation of pragmatists." He might as well have been talking about the U.S. from the way he described it.

He referenced this quote from J.I. Packer: "The outside observer sees us as staggering from gimmick to gimmick and stunt to stunt like so many drunks in a fog, not knowing at all where we are or which way we should be going. "

 

[Philip]

I think we might all agree, then, that the danger is that we don't preach Christ. That we abandon the preaching of the incarnate Son for moralism, for gimmicks, for tilting at our own pet theological windmills. What we must always do is to come back to the preaching of Christ as He is revealed to us in the Holy Inspired Scriptures.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I can understand your dismay, Ruben, at the apparent theological anarchy reflected in these answers.

I think, however, the kind of analysis and insight needed to answer well precisely what ails us ecclesiastically eludes most people and always has. My point: I think it's a far harder question, requiring a David Wells and those of that sort to help us work through and see more clearly what afflicts us. The web in particular gives us the illusion that all of us are competent to answer a tough question like this when we're not: such a question requires a mastery of all the theological disciplines to begin to address it with accuracy and insight; few have such mastery. I think most of what has been said here has gotten at it in some measure, but no short answers get at the whole diagnosis.

Having said all that, I am rather shocked that no one has clearly stated in a short answer what I think has always, beginning at the Fall, been our problem (though most of what folks have said involves this, without saying the word specifically): UNBELIEF. What afflicts us is unbelief and faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) is the cure.

I believe; help my unbelief.

Peace,
Alan

 

[jwright82]

Evangelicalism.

Interesting... would you mind elaborating?

A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.

So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents.

That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.

 

[py3ak]

I was thinking last night that it was probably fairly simply to identify general problems that always plague the church, but that defining the one that in this time leaves us most particularly vulnerable is a lot more difficult. And I imagine it's possible that there's an irreducible complexity to our vulnerabilities as well, so that at many points (barring, perhaps, sin) no single, simple answer could be given.

I can understand your dismay, Ruben, at the apparent theological anarchy reflected in these answers.

I think, however, the kind of analysis and insight needed to answer well precisely what ails us ecclesiastically eludes most people and always has. My point: I think it's a far harder question, requiring a David Wells and those of that sort to help us work through and see more clearly what afflicts us. The web in particular gives us the illusion that all of us are competent to answer a tough question like this when we're not: such a question requires a mastery of all the theological disciplines to begin to address it with accuracy and insight; few have such mastery. I think most of what has been said here has gotten at it in some measure, but no short answers get at the whole diagnosis.

Having said all that, I am rather shocked that no one has clearly stated in a short answer what I think has always, beginning at the Fall, been our problem (though most of what folks have said involves this, without saying the word specifically): UNBELIEF. What afflicts us is unbelief and faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) is the cure.

I believe; help my unbelief.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Matthew Willard Lankford]

All of the imaginary ideas and images that are purportedly of Christ is a great threat to the church; this idolatry is so prevalent among those who profess to be Christians. It turns people away from the biblical revelation of Christ to idols which God hates (Exodus 20:4).

Another great danger are unfaithful shepherds and ravenous wolves:

"What is the great danger in the Christian Church today? [...] The danger to the Church today, whatever the denomination, from within, is the person who wears the 'cloth of Christ', the person who wears the white collar, or the cross, and who stands behind the sacred desk and who is unfaithful to the Word of God. That is the ultimate danger to the Church: the corrupt and apostate shepherds, who infest our theological seminaries and our colleges and fill our pulpits across the United States and Canada, who know not God, do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and will stand in the way of anybody that wants to preach it."-Walter Martin, The Cult of Liberal Theology, circa 1987

In 2006 James M. Hamilton Jr. gave a similar answer to the question in his article "The Greatest Danger Facing the Church" (The Greatest Danger Facing the Church | For His Renown)

 

[davenporter]

A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.

So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents.

That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.

Good points, I think you're certainly right about the problems, and I suppose I have to admit that in terms of general evangelicalism, you're right. I just read John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ for seminary, which dealt with the evangelical problem of a rejection of Lordship theology -- trying to "get people through the door" instead of preaching the offensive truth of the gospel: repent and believe on Christ; for you are under God's wrath apart from Christ's atoning sacrifice and righteousness.

Seeking the lowest common denominator can also be found in the lives of individual Christians. How many secularized Christians ask the question, "How far can I go before I'm sinning" as opposed to a mindset pursuing the utmost holiness that God can work in them.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Rangerus]

Had an old black preacher friend tell me that "man runs a church like a business. Once it becomes like a business then it is a "Machine." Every decision is made to support "The Machine." We bring in people to operate "The Machine." Within the walls of the Church there are power struggles over running "The Machine." The Church is no longer Christ centered and Biblically sound, but operates to support it self. There is much truth in what that man had to say.

 

[reaganmarsh]

I second Andrew (Romans922) on the sister issues of inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

Inerrancy is the foundation upon which the house of Scriptural sufficiency is built (humanly speaking).

If Scripture is not sufficient for conversion and ministry, life and godliness, then we have far greater problems to address. How we approach Scriptural sufficiency will in turn address matters of theology such as ecclesiology, complementarian vs. egalitarian issues, hermeneutical concerns voiced above, pragmatism vs. the gospel, and the centrality of Christ in all of life.

 

[kappazei]

"man runs a church like a business. Once it becomes like a business then it is a "Machine." Every decision is made to support "The Machine." We bring in people to operate "The Machine." Within the walls of the Church there are power struggles over running "The Machine." The Church is no longer Christ centered and Biblically sound, but operates to support it self. There is much truth in what that man had to say.

I had a friend say that once a long time ago, that, "Our church is being run like a business..." but he never elabourated what he meant. The last bit here gives it sense now. "but operates to support itself." Our purpose is to fulfill the Great Commision. I think whatever it happens to be the greatest threat is aimed at derailing us from fulfilling the Great Commission. That's the Enemy's endgame against the Church. In the West, I would think the #1 threat would be our focus on seeking after material comfort.

 

[kvanlaan]

Perfect harmony is not to be expected; but agreement on essentials, unanimity in the message we bear to the world, at the least a desire for coherence in doctrine and practice no longer seem to characterize us. Take, for instance, the big fight in the early church over the date for celebrating easter. It was unfortunate in many respects, but think about this: they fought over it because they wanted to be united, they thought that they should be consistent in what they did and when they did it. I suspect that many, perhaps even most of us, lack even the ambition to be unanimous in doctrine and united in practice.

We don't lack the intellectual ambition, but it is the implementation which throws a wrench in the works. Look at the churches that hold to the 3FU - and hold to this set of confessions to foster unity: FRC, CRC, URC, CanRef, HNRC, NRC, etc., etc. (some of these won't even sit down with each other). It is the old man that raises his ugly head (or perhaps it is just a Dutch thing, not sure - it's sin, anyway).

 

[kappazei]

hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.

Gotta love that line!

 

[JohnGill]

I amend my previous reason and change it to autonomy coupled with a lack of the fear of God.

 

[yeutter]

Oh, I forgot to mention our electronic threat: TBN (and the like). They splatter the globe with hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.

Oneness Pentecostalism is a major threat to Chirstianity.

 

[christiana]

apathy and ignorance of scripture! Ye err, not knowing the scripture or the power of God!!

 

[arapahoepark]

Wow! Quite a discussion I have started. Reading everyone's post I do think we all are, to a degree, right about these threats. Honestly, if you follow some discernment ministries on occasion they are riddled with what all has been said now that I think about it.

But definitely, I think the treating of scripture like a mere book of antiquated morals is probably the biggest....

 

[J. Dean]

A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.

So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents.

That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.

I would very much agree with most of this.